Subject to Inquiry: White Collar, Congressional, SEC, Energy Enforcement & Other Government Inquiries

After months of anticipation, the Senate “Gang of Eight” introduced their immigration bill – the "Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act" (S. 744) – in the U.S. Senate on April 17, thereby sending the debate on comprehensive immigration reform into full swing.  Set aside for a moment a discussion of the pros and cons of expanding our nonimmigrant visa programs, providing a path to citizenship for the 11 million illegal immigrants currently living in our country, and building massive fences and using unmanned drones to secure our borders.  More to come on those topics later.  For now, one thing is certain – E-Verify will be mandatory for all employers in the near future.

S. 744 mandates that all employers use E-Verify and includes a phase-in period that ranges from 90 days to 4 years based on the type of employer and the number of employees.  Failure to verify work authorization through E-Verify after the mandatory enrollment date raises a presumption that the employer knowingly hired an unauthorized worker. 

                Not only is mandatory E-Verify a part of the Senate comprehensive immigration reform bill, but it is also the subject of numerous other bills recently introduced in Congress.  For example, H.R. 478, introduced in February, makes E-Verify permanent and mandatory and requires every person who hires one or more employees to use E-Verify.  S. 202, introduced in January, expands the use of E-Verify and, among other things, requires employers to check the status of current employees within 3 years and allows employers to run a candidate through E-Verify as part of the application process.  Currently, employers (except certain federal contractors) are prevented from using E-Verify for their current workforce and may not use E-Verify until after they have offered, and the candidate has accepted, a job. 

In addition to the introduced bills mandating E-Verify, the program already has funding.  In March, Congress granted USCIS an additional $111 million dollars to fund the E-Verify Program which indicates the importance Congress places on the E-Verify Program and signals that E-Verify is here to stay regardless of if and when comprehensive immigration reform occurs.

As of February 2013, more than 430,000 employers had enrolled in E-Verify.  If you are already using E-Verify as part of your immigration compliance program, consider yourself ahead of the curve.   If you are not yet using E-Verify, it is only a matter of time.

USCIS published a notice in the Federal Register this morning announcing the long-awaited new Form I-9.  Employers can begin using the I-9 immediately (or as soon as USCIS posts it to their website), but must implement the new Form I-9 by May 7, 2013 at the latest.  During the 60-day grace period, employers may continue to use the current versions of the Form I-9 (2/2/09 and 8/7/09 versions).

As discussed in our previous blog, the new Form I-9 is expected to have a much different format including two pages, with a more organized, intuitive layout separating the information employees must provide from the information employers must complete.  The new Form I-9 also incorporates additional data fields, including the employee’s foreign passport information (if applicable), telephone numbers and email addresses.  In addition, the new Form I-9 carries with it six full pages of instructions.

Although the documents acceptable for Form I-9 purposes remain the same, the new Form I-9 is expected to revise the format of the Lists of Acceptable Documents (page 9 of the proposed Form) to clarify the requirements for certain documents.  For example, under List C, the new Form will specify the restrictions that may appear on a social security card that would render it unacceptable for List C purposes. 

Rather than immediately circulate the new Form I-9 to its HR team and require its use, we recommend that employers use the issuance of the new Form I-9 as an opportunity to conduct comprehensive Form I-9 training (if it has not already been done within the last year), or to provide refresher training (if comprehensive training has been done within the last year), to those responsible for completing the Form I-9.  It is critical that employers understand the nuances that go along with the Form I-9 process and the changes to that process that the new Form I-9 requires.  I welcome the opportunity to discuss them with you and get your thoughts on the issue.

The federal government spent more on immigration enforcement in 2012 than on all other federal criminal law enforcement combined.  A recent nonpartisan report from the Migration Policy Institute notes that the federal government spent $18 billion on immigration-related enforcement programs, an amount far greater than the combined budgets of the FBI, ATF, DEA and Secret Service (in fact, nearly $4 billion more).  According to the report, “[j]udging by resource levels, case volumes, and enforcement actions, . . . immigration enforcement can thus be seen to rank as the federal government’s highest criminal law enforcement priority.”  Further, according to the report, immigration-related referrals for prosecution from CBP and ICE outnumber referrals by the DOJ.

Some have questioned the report’s main findings noting that CBP and ICE also spend significant resources conducting non-immigration related enforcement such as screening cargo at the nation’s ports and detecting counterfeit goods.  However, even after accounting for resources spent on cargo and goods, the statistics are no doubt staggering.  In addition, resources spent by other agencies involved in immigration-related enforcement are not included in the $18 billion figure (for example, USCIS, DOL, and DOJ OSC, not to mention state resources directed to immigration-related enforcement).  There is no question that there has been a significant increase in immigration enforcement in recent years.  Between 2005 and 2012, ICE’s funding alone increased from $3 billion to nearly $6 billion.  There is also no question that the level of  immigration enforcement seen in recent years will only continue.

Continued Enforcement Aimed at Employers (more Form I-9 Inspections).  As the country patiently waits for comprehensive immigration reform, there is no doubt that the significant enforcement aimed at employers we have seen over the last few years will only increase in 2013.  All employers across the country, regardless of whether they employ foreign workers, should be on alert for immigration-related inspections and enforcement actions — especially employers associated with “critical infrastructure” or “key resources” sectors, which include the food industry.

E-Verify.   Be on the lookout for more states to mandate E-Verify for private employers in 2013, and E-Verify participation is expected to be a part of any comprehensive immigration reform.  In the meantime, employers in Georgia, North Carolina and Tennessee should pay particular attention to the upcoming 2013 E-Verify participation deadlines in those states:

• Georgia
  • Employers with more than 99 employees: deadline has passed
  • Employers with 11-99 employees: July 1, 2013
• North Carolina
  • Employers with more than 500 employees: deadline has passed
  • Employers with 100-499 employees: January 1, 2013
  • Employers with 25-99 employees: July 1, 2013
• Tennessee
  • Employers with more than 199 employees: deadline has passed
  • Employers with 6-199 employees: January 1, 2013

All employers who have not yet implemented E-Verify or who have only implemented E-Verify in certain states should review the relevant states’ requirements to determine whether they need to revise their E-Verify participation. 

New Form I-9.  Last, but not least, in addition to the increased enforcement, USCIS is expected to issue a new Form I-9 within the next few months after two rounds of comment period in 2012.  Overall, the proposed Form I-9 de-clutters the Form I-9’s content and leaves less room for error in completing the Form I-9.  However, implementation of the new I-9 will require additional training and tweaks to existing electronic systems (if implemented). As a reminder, the proposal is still in draft form and employers should continue to use the current Form I-9 until any changes are made permanent.

In 2012, E-Verify requirements became effective in Georgia, Louisiana, South Carolina, Tennessee and Alabama.  Without a doubt, 2013 will bring more state E-Verify mandates for private employers, and E-Verify participation is expected to be a part of any comprehensive immigration reform.  In the meantime, employers in Georgia, North Carolina and Tennessee should pay particular attention to the upcoming 2013 E-Verify participation deadlines in those states:

• Georgia
  • Employers with at least 100 employees: deadline has passed
  • Employers with 11-99 employees: July 1, 2013
• North Carolina
  • Employers with at least 500 employees: deadline has passed
  • Employers with 100-499 employees: January 1, 2013
  • Employers with 25-99 employees: July 1, 2013
• Tennessee
  • Employers with at least 200 employees: deadline has passed
  • Employers with 6-199 employees: January 1, 2013

All employers who have not yet implemented E-Verify or who have only implemented E-Verify in certain states should review the relevant states’ requirements to determine whether they need to revise their E-Verify participation. 

With the beginning of 2013 right around the corner, many employers likely have immigration compliance on their radar screen.  The Obama Administration’s continued focus on enforcing the nation’s immigration laws by imposing stiff penalties on employers makes the likelihood that you will face an immigration-related inspection in 2013 great.  Will your Form I-9s and immigration compliance practices hold up under scrutiny? 

With the recent increase in immigration enforcement, significant penalties, and the potential for bad press, employers are well advised to create an immigration compliance program or give an existing program a facelift.

What better way to roll up your sleeves and get started than to focus on the Top 10 Must Haves for Immigration Compliance:

1. Form I-9 Audit – All employers should conduct a Form I-9 audit annually.  Be careful here—we highly recommend hiring outside immigration counsel with expertise in this area as the risk of incorrectly conducting an I-9 audit is great.  The Form I-9 is one of the most misunderstood federal government forms.  To ICE and the DOJ, the procedure and manner by which the Form I-9 is completed and audited is just as important as the information provided on the form.
2. Form I-9 Training – All employers should conduct annual Form I-9 training to ensure that those completing new I-9s and reverifying I-9s understand all the nuances involved with accurately completing a Form I-9.  Responding to an inspection by explaining that you were unaware of the Form I-9 requirements will not be favorable.
3. Immigration Compliance Training – In addition to Form I-9 training for employees responsible for the Form I-9, employers should conduct annual immigration compliance training for all relevant employees on the policies and procedures enacted or updated by the employer throughout the year.  Employers should also train all hiring managers and supervisors regarding their respective roles in immigration compliance and ensure that all managers understand the nuances of constructive knowledge and to whom they should report information that indicates an employee is not authorized to work in the United States.  Human Resources personnel should receive annual training regarding how to respond to such reports to ensure not only that the company avoids discriminatory conduct, but also that it appropriately investigates any information that might be considered constructive knowledge of the hiring or continued employment of an unauthorized worker. 
4. Form I-9 Document Retention and Storage – Employers should have a written document retention policy for Form I-9s and ensure that it is being followed.  Employers should also ensure that the Form I-9s are stored appropriately (i.e., separate from personnel folders and separated by current and former employees).
5. Electronic Storage and/or Electronic Completion of Form I-9s – If an employer has not already implemented electronic storage and/or electronic completion of the Form I-9, it might want to consider whether an electronic I-9 system might be appropriate.  If an employer has already implemented an electronic I-9 system, it should conduct an audit annually to ensure that the electronic system complies with all federal regulations.  Penalties imposed for violations caused by a faulty electronic I-9 system can be stiff.
6. Social Security No-Match Letters – Yes, these are still an issue.  Employers should ensure that they have a written Social Security No-Match Policy and that they have appropriately responded to any lingering Social Security No-Match letters.
7. E-Verify – All employers should review annually their relevant E-Verify requirements.  Federal contractors should review their contracts to ensure compliance with E-Verify requirements.  Private employers who have not yet implemented E-Verify or who have only implemented E-Verify in certain states should review the relevant states’ requirements to determine whether they need to revise their E-Verify participation.  Employers who have already implemented E-Verify or who have implemented E-Verify in certain states should conduct annual audits to ensure appropriate use of E-Verify and include E-Verify in their annual Form I-9 training.
8. Employer Sponsored Work Visas – If an employer sponsors employees for work visas, the employer should conduct an annual audit of its use of those visas.  Employers can run afoul of the stringent visa-related requirements by taking actions that many employers may not understand are wrong—for example, sending H-1B employees to unauthorized work sites or assigning responsibilities to H-1B employees that fall outside the visa’s approved scope.
9. M&A – Employers should ensure that their business team understands that corporate deals often have immigration consequences and that immigration must be part of their due diligence checklist.  Waiting for a deal to close before focusing on immigration compliance can put the surviving entity at risk for substantial penalties.
10. Contractors and Contracts – Employers should review their contracts with any contractor who supplies labor to the employer’s workforce to ensure that the contractor has appropriate responsibility for its own immigration-related obligations.  Employers should also review their vendor contracts to ensure that they are complying with their own immigration-related compliance requirements imposed by the contracts.  Some companies are beginning to impose immigration compliance requirements through their business contracts.

There is no doubt that immigration-related enforcement against employers has dramatically increased in recent years. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its principal investigative arm, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), consider employers the “immigration magnet,” and to combat illegal immigration, they are focusing on the magnet.

Given the flood of recent enforcement actions, all employers across the country, regardless of whether they employ foreign workers, should be on alert for immigration-related inspections and enforcement actions, — especially employers associated with “critical infrastructure” or “key resources” sectors, which include the food industry.

ICE has stated that investigations involving “national security, public safety or those associated with our critical infrastructure and key resources sectors” will receive top enforcement priority. ICE has also said that it gives higher priority to investigations into unauthorized workers employed at “sensitive sites and critical infrastructure facilities” — such as airports, chemical plants and defense facilities — as they “could pose serious homeland security threats.”

What are the critical infrastructure and key resources sectors?

The Patriot Act defines “critical infrastructure” as the systems and assets “so vital to the United States that the incapacity or destruction of such systems and assets would have a debilitating impact on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination of those matters.” 42 USC § 5195c(e). Not surprisingly, DHS has identified the food, water and agriculture industries as being among 18 industries that compose critical infrastructure and key resources sectors.

What are the potential penalties?

The penalties for immigration-related violations can be painful and can include fines, debarment, asset forfeiture, prison time, corporate monitoring and indirect damage from lost productivity, attorneys’ fees and negative publicity. The loss of workers and other indirect damage can be great enough to cause the company’s demise. For example, after its 2008 immigration raid and the arrest of nearly 400 workers, Agriprocessors was forced to shut down and eventually filed for bankruptcy. Other charges and additional penalties can be tacked on to immigration violations for crimes like tax evasion, money laundering, bank fraud and false statements that stem from what began as an immigration-related investigation.

Recent penalties for immigration violations confirm that DHS is targeting employers in the food industry. In fact, some of the highest immigration penalties imposed to date, as noted below, are for companies in the food industry.

Recent Penalties for Immigration Violations in the Food Industry

Employers in the Food Industry who have not yet received a Form I-9 inspection should take the time now to prepare by consulting experienced immigration counsel to conduct a Form I-9 audit, review and revise their immigration compliance policies and procedures, analyze participation in E-Verify, and train those with immigration compliance responsibilities. 

The federal government’s increased scrutiny of employers for immigration-related violations does not stop at the employment verification process.  DHS, DOS and DOL have also ramped up efforts to investigate visa fraud.  

Visa Fraud by Improper Use of the H1-B Visa

Because the number of petitions filed with USCIS each year for H-1B visas far exceeds the limited number of those available, the H-1B visa has become quite valuable both to the alien worker and to many employers.  With increased value comes increased fraud, followed closely by increased enforcement. 

An H-1B visa permits a qualified alien worker to work temporarily in the U.S. in a specialty occupation.  However, the H-1B visa also carries with it stringent requirements, including certain educational and professional requirements for the worker and certain obligations regarding the type of work and wage offered by the employer.  Employers can run afoul of these stringent requirements by taking actions that many employers may not understand are wrong – for example, sending H-1B employees to unauthorized work sites or assigning responsibilities to the H-1B worker that fall outside the visa’s approved scope.

DHS and DOL have increased unannounced site inspections of employers of H-1B workers, seeking to verify the working conditions and specifications stated in the visa petitions.  Inspectors usually speak to company officials and the H-1B visa worker, as well as review relevant documents.  Employers must ensure that their statements in a visa petition accurately reflect the details of the position and the qualifications of the foreign worker who fills that position.

Penalties for improper visa use can include criminal ramifications, payment of back wages, loss of the ability to sponsor future workers and significant civil monetary penalties.  For example, the DOL Wage and Hour Division may assess civil money penalties with maximums ranging from $1,000 to $35,000 per violation, depending on the type and severity of the violation.   

Visa Fraud by Improper Circumvention of the H-1B Visa

Recent enforcement efforts have also focused on attempts to circumvent the stringent H-1B visa requirements and cap by improperly substituting other less expensive and more readily available visa options.  In particular, some employers have attempted to use the B-1 visa, which is only available for business-related travel to the U.S. – not for working here. 

India’s three largest IT firms (Infosys Technologies Limited, Larsen & Toubro InfoTech, and Tata Consultancy Services) have recently come under scrutiny for alleged visa fraud.  At least one of these companies (Infosys) is facing criminal investigations by the DHS and DOS, and a DHS Form I-9 audit for which it has acknowledged that “DHS has found errors in a significant percentage of [their] Forms I-9.” 

In light of the increased enforcement directed at H-1B employers and because of the unique and often extensive requirements of each visa category, employers should consult with experienced immigration counsel when petitioning for business-related immigration visas.  In addition, employers should review their immigration compliance program for visa compliance safeguards. Some important questions to ask include:

• How does the company determine when and how it will sponsor employees for work authorization?
• Who is responsible for determining the appropriate visa to use for those employees?
• Is the company using the right visa for the employees it has chosen to sponsor?
• Once a visa is obtained, who monitors the sponsored employees’ work to ensure it complies with the visa petition?
• Have the responsibilities, pay or work location for any sponsored employees changed over time?

Given the increased enforcement aimed at employers' immigration-related responsibilities, companies involved in various corporate changes should ensure that they include immigration compliance on their due diligence checklist.  Waiting until the deal has closed to focus on immigration compliance can put the surviving entity at risk for substantial penalties.  Not only can inherited immigration violations put the company at risk for enforcement actions at the federal level, they can also cost the company its business licenses at the state level, jeopardize the company’s ability to do business with other companies who look to immigration compliance when choosing their vendors, and leave the company facing lawsuits from its new employees for negligence in handling their immigration matters.

There are several immigration issues that can arise during a corporate change.  The risks will vary depending on the type of deal, the companies involved, and the employees at issue.  Corporate changes that may have immigration consequences can include stock or asset acquisitions, mergers, consolidations, spin-offs, corporate name changes, changes in payroll source, and the relocation of an employer or its employees.

While it is best to seek assistance from experienced counsel, the following general guidelines provide a helpful roadmap to get you started.

What is the state of the existing Form I-9s?

Employers who acquire or merge with another company and retain some or all of the acquired company’s employees have the choice of two options for fulfilling their Form I-9 obligations for the new employees:

1. Treat all newly acquired employees as new hires and complete a new Form I-9 (even if the individual’s original hire date was on or prior to November 6, 1986); or
2. Adopt the Form I-9 created by the prior employer (so long as the employee will be continuing his or her employment).

Each option carries its own pros and cons and the best option depends on a number of factors including the employer’s size, industry, prior ICE enforcement activity, type of deal and, most importantly, the state of the existing Form I-9s. 

Regardless of which option the employer elects, it is a good idea to conduct a Form I-9 audit during the due diligence period of the deal.  Taking time to evaluate the predecessor’s Form I-9s will not only reduce the risk of assuming immigration compliance liabilities, but will also provide valuable insight on the potential costs and time that post-merger compliance will require. 

If the employer elects Option 1, the employer must complete a new Form I-9 for all employees.  Obviously, this process may take considerable time and effort and the employer will want to ensure that personnel completing the Form I-9s have received recent Form I-9 training.  The employer will also want to ensure that it gives the new employees plenty of notice to bring in the requisite documents for the Form I-9 process.

If the employer elects Option 2, it needs to make itself comfortable with the state of the existing Form I-9s as the employer will be liable for any errors or omissions on the inherited Form I-9s. 

Does the predecessor entity have any employees with employer-sponsored work authorization?

Employers who sponsor employees for work authorization have obligations to report various employment changes that may result from a corporate change.  Further, because most work visas are employer specific, a corporate change could risk a foreign employee’s visa eligibility if not handled correctly. Whether and how the corporate change impacts an employee’s visa status depends on the type of corporate change and the type of visa the employee holds.  While the requisite process is fact sensitive, a few examples highlight the various issues that can arise during a corporate change:

• If the predecessor entity employs an H-1B visa holder, a merger or relocation may require the employer to file an amended H-1B petition and complete a new Labor Certification Application with USCIS. 
• If any of the entities involved are H-1B dependent, they are subject to additional USCIS requirements and scrutiny, and will require additional analysis during any corporate change. 
• If any of the entities have cap-exempt status, that status may be affected by a corporate change.  For example, if an employee’s original sponsor was a non-profit entity, the employee may have been exempt from the H-1B annual cap.  A merger that results in a for-profit entity could risk this exemption and the employee’s H-1B eligibility. 

Reducing the Risk

All companies considering a corporate change should add immigration compliance to their due diligence checklist.  Taking the time to investigate the predecessor’s immigration compliance prior to closing the deal will greatly reduce the risks and ensure a smooth transition for all employees involved.

I’d like to thank Emilie McNally, Summer Associate, for her contribution to this blog entry.

At long last, on Monday, the United States Supreme Court, in a 5-3 vote, issued its opinion regarding Arizona’s controversial immigration enforcement law.  The Court struck down several key sections of Arizona’s tough immigration enforcement statute, “S.B. 1070” (although H.B. 2162 amended S.B. 1070 and was the version enacted, the law is still referred to as S.B. 1070).  However, the Court upheld Section 2(B) which requires state police to check the immigration status of individuals they stop, detain, or arrest if “reasonable suspicion exists” that the person is unlawfully present in the United States.

Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion and was joined by Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor.  Justices Thomas, Alito, and Scalia each filed separate opinions, concurring in part and dissenting in part.  Justice Kagan, who served as Solicitor General during earlier stages of the litigation, was recused from the case.  The Wall Street Journal and CNN had excellent coverage of the Court’s decision.  

The Back Story

Arizona has one of the fastest growing illegal immigrant populations in the United States.  Media coverage of Arizona’s growing illegal population was relentless, the public response was heated, and the debate over immigration reform continued to grow more and more contentious.  In 2010, at the forefront of one of the nation’s most controversial issues, Arizona enacted S.B. 1070 in an effort to deter illegal immigrants from entering and working in the state.  As CNN reported, supporters of the statute were “fed up with illegal immigrants crossing from Mexico— and what they say is the federal government’s inability to stop it.”  The federal government, on the other hand, argued that the statute exceeded Arizona’s authority and claimed the law was preempted by federal immigration policy.

Two of the challenged sections, Sections 3 and 5(C), make an individual’s failure to comply with certain federal immigration laws a state misdemeanor.  The other two challenged sections, Sections 2(B) and 6, increased state and local police officers’ authority to arrest individuals suspected of being in the U.S. illegally.  The District Court granted, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed, a preliminary injunction of all four sections, which prevented S.B.1070 from being enforced while the Supreme Court’s decision was pending.  

The Supreme Court’s Decision

According to the Supreme Court, the federal government’s broad authority to set immigration policy means that three sections of the Statute (Sections 3, 5(C), and 6) could not be enforced:

• Section 3 – makes failure to carry federal alien-registration documents a state misdemeanor
• Section 5(C) – makes seeking or engaging in work in the State without work authorization a state misdemeanor
• Section 6 – authorizing police to arrest without warrant a person that the officer has probable cause to believe has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States

However, the Court unanimously upheld the law’s focal piece – Section 2(B).  Section 2(B), the provision dubbed by its critics as the “show me your papers provision,” requires state and local officers to determine the immigration status of anyone they stop or detain when they have reasonable suspicion that the individual is in the U.S. illegally.  In upholding 2(B), the Court noted the limitations, built into Section 2(B), that effectively narrow police officer discretion.  The Court also mentioned that federal law already encourages the states to share information about potential immigration violations with ICE, and that “Congress has done nothing to suggest it is inappropriate to communicate with ICE.”

Political Response

The response from politicians has been incredibly varied.  President Obama issued a statement on Monday in response to the opinion.  While the President said he was “pleased that the Supreme Court has struck down key provisions” of the law, he expressed concerns about the “practical implications” and civil rights issues of enforcing Section 2(B).  Attorney General Eric Holder echoed President Obama’s concerns, pledging that the “Department of Justice will continue to vigorously enforce federal prohibitions against racial and ethnic discrimination.”  

GOP Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney claimed the decision “underscores the need for a President who will lead on this critical issue and work in a bipartisan fashion to pursue a national immigration strategy.” Jan Brewer, Arizona’s Governor who signed S.B. 1070 into law, said the decision was a “victory for the rule of law,” and the ability of “states to defend their citizens,” but noted the probability of more lawsuits once the law is implemented. 

Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security, also weighed in on the Court’s opinion.  In her statement, Napolitano supported the Court’s decision “that state laws cannot dictate the federal government’s immigration enforcement policies or priorities,” but also noted that Section 2(B) will “make DHS’ work more challenging.”  Importantly, she noted that the Court’s opinion will have no effect on DHS’ existing priorities and her June 15^th Memoranda on prosecutorial discretion. 

The Future

The implications of Monday’s decision are unclear.  While all sides of the debate seem to believe enforcement of the remaining provision is likely to create more challenges and more litigation, how and when enforcement will begin has not been decided.  Also, several sources are suggesting, and hoping, that the decision will push Congress to enact comprehensive immigration reform to replace the patchwork of state enforcement laws. One thing, however, remains certain: immigration enforcement will continue to be a hotly debated political issue and the focus of media attention well into the foreseeable future. 

I’d like to thank Emilie McNally, Summer Associate, for her contribution to this blog entry.