The Chertoff News Conference on DHS Initiatives for the Future.

WPCNR FOR THE RECORD. The News Conference Following Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff’s Speech on the status of Immigration and Illegal Workers enforcement November 6. Conclusion of 5-Part Series. November 16, 2007: To complete the WPCNR publication of the Department of Homeland Security transcipt of Secretary Chertoff’s news conference last week, here are the questions and the secretary’s answers to media queries about his speech:

And with that, I’ll take some questions.




QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, can you talk a little bit more about this — is it a proposed rule? And how many workers do you think would get through under this intense —



SECRETARY CHERTOFF: Well, it’s — H-2A is not a capped agricultural program, so it can theoretically accommodate a very significant number of agricultural workers. I’m a little handicapped in my ability to be specific because the rule has not cleared yet, and there’s some legal principles that don’t allow me to get very particular about the proposal. But the general concept is we want to find a way to streamline some of the requirements with respect to wages and other kinds of terms and conditions under which people can employ temporary workers so that the program is appealing to people, so that it’s not highly bureaucratic, so that it doesn’t make it difficult for employers when they bring temporary workers in legally to make a commitment to continue to employ them during the course of the season.



We think the proposals that we are considering or that are currently being considered are sensible, that they do not compromise protections for workers, and they in fact synchronize the approach of the agricultural program with the approach we take, frankly, with other temporary workers in the non-agricultural sector.



QUESTION: Just to clarify, though, after the legal vetting is all you’re saying that needs to be done, when will this be —  


SECRETARY CHERTOFF: It’s before OMB. I know there’s a great sense of urgency to have the rule and regulation cleared. I think we’d certainly like to get it cleared in plenty of time to make sure that we can have a streamlined program for next summer so that next growing season gets the benefit of temporary workers who are legal, as opposed to illegal.



QUESTION: In your guidance order that goes to the state offices, is that a must-do sort of thing, or you’re advising them to do? And is that only referring to agricultural workers, or is this all workers that they refer to any job, or —  


SECRETARY CHERTOFF: First of all, it’s a Department of Labor letter, and I think it actually is more broad — applies more broadly than agriculture. I think it’s very close to a must do, shall we say kind of expected that you’re going to do it. The exact legal ability to compel is a little bit more complicated, but it’s — there’s a strong incentive to have the state labor agencies do it.


And by the way, there would be no reason I can think of not to do it. I can’t imagine why a state agency wouldn’t want to verify that the worker that they’re referring is legal. Otherwise it defeats the whole purpose. Why do you want to refer an illegal worker over? So here we have a tool that can be used. We encourage the labor agency to use the tool, and I think my expectation is that they’ll avail themselves of the guidance.  



QUESTION: Do you have a sense how many states are already doing it, or how many —



SECRETARY CHERTOFF: I do not have the answer to that.



QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, you mentioned the recent GAO study on problems at legal border crossings. Some critics have said they’ve found an unacceptable failure rate. Do you think that’s a fair criticism? And what in your mind is a reasonable failure rate? 


SECRETARY CHERTOFF: I don’t know that — the rate that people attribute in terms of failure, failure being you didn’t stop somebody, is essentially an estimation. Since you don’t know what you don’t know, you don’t know who came in that you didn’t stop. It’s kind of an extrapolation GAO undertook.



But here’s the bottom line: To me, I want to drive the failure rate down to as close to zero as is humanly possible. It’s never going to be zero because you never get perfection in human life. Just as even the best police chief in the country, I’ve never met one that succeeded in eliminating crime in their city. But it’s still considered a good thing when you drive crime down.  


Likewise, it’s a very good thing as you drive down the number of people who might slip through the border without being stopped. But there’s only one way to do that. You’ve got to be able to have a secure form of identification that you can input easily into your system, which has the names of the people that you want to keep out, and you’ve got to be able also to do a reasonable amount of searching the vehicles to make sure contraband doesn’t come in. And that means, particularly as we transition to the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, which in the end will use technology to give us both secure documents and documents that can be read more quickly, there is going to be some cost and there’s going to be some inconvenience. And that is the only way to plug the gap that GAO has identified.



And that’s why over the last year you’ve been hearing squawks at the border about lines, and people complaining that we’re spending too much time because we’re actually looking at the documents, as opposed to waving people through. And the answer is, that’s right, that’s how we solve a problem: we fix it. 



QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, the border fence will cut off some cities, landowners, farmers from the Rio Grande, and that’s fueling serious opposition. How do you respond to the opposition from people who live along the river, who depend on the river? And do you recognize that while we may gain border control, we’re losing property rights and local support?



SECRETARY CHERTOFF: Well, first of all, let me say, of course, when we talk about the area from the Pacific Ocean to the New Mexico-Texas border, that’s — the vast majority of that is desert or wilderness, so there’s no issue there about the river. We do recognize that in Texas the river creates a kind of a special challenge, and that’s why we have worked to minimize the amount of fence in Texas. But some fence is important. What we want to do is find a way to build fence that allows landowners access to the river when they need it, but doesn’t simply leave it wide open for illegals to come across. 


But here’s a dilemma in which we find ourselves: when the Border Patrol does need fencing at a certain part of the river, either because the river is narrow or because during the summer the river goes down, then if we don’t put fencing up we’re making it harder for the Border Patrol not only to keep out illegal workers, but to keep out drugs and criminals. And the drugs and criminals may not — the impact of that may not be felt by the rancher whose land is — we’re talking about for the fence; it may be felt in the city of Chicago, or Washington, or Los Angeles.



But my responsibility is to look out for the welfare of the whole country. The bird’s-eye view you get in my job is that it’s not just one person’s concerns and the burdens they feel, which obviously we want to take into account; we’ve got to look at the burdens that everybody assumes. So we are trying to be reasonable. If there’s a way to accommodate the need to get to the river that satisfies the landowner, we’re happy to do that. But at the end of the day, at some point we have to make a tough decision sometimes that we need to have some kind of fencing in there. And then we want to work to make it as easy for the landowner as possible. But we can’t, in the end, simply give everybody an individual veto over the process. 


QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, the GAO report says part of the problem at ports of entry is serious under-staffing with Customs and Border Protection. You’ve laid out plans for increasing Border Patrol. What about CBP? What are the targets there? What’s the funding?
 



SECRETARY CHERTOFF: Well, I do think we need to continue to do a number of things. First of all, if we can get the documentation that we’re talking about in place it will take a good deal of the hay off the haystack, because you’ll be able to move people much more quickly. Instead of manually keying in the names, you’ll be able to swipe or simply read the name off the card from a chip, and that’s going to cut the dwell time very substantially. That’s one solution.



A second solution obviously is to build more modern and bigger infrastructure, which allows more lanes to be operated at once. A third solution is to make sure we have adequate staffing. And I’m working with the Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, and with Deputy Commissioner Ahern to make sure we’re doing everything we can to get appropriate staffing levels.  


Often the constraint, though, is simply the number of booths. Because you only have so many booths in a particular port of entry, and you can only have one person in a booth, so we have some kind of a constraint limitation. I will say, though, again, because we have requested a significant amount of money across the board for Customs and Border Protection for the current budget, give us an appropriations bill. Give us the money. If we’re still operating on a continuing resolution, I can guarantee you that’s not going to give us what we need to deal with all the elements of our border strategy from a financial standpoint.



QUESTION: But you can’t give us any numbers at this point about how —  


SECRETARY CHERTOFF: I don’t have a number of exactly what we need in terms of additional inspectors. What I can tell you is that as we move into Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, one inspector can get more work done because the time spent on each vehicle or each pedestrian is going to be diminished. So that’s like a force multiplier.



QUESTION: You and Secretary Rice had at one point announced plans to have a wallet-size passport card as an alternative to passports that was initially supposed to be ready I think a year ago, when you first announced it. Do you know how close you are to having that ready to go, and whether that will be ready by January? 


SECRETARY CHERTOFF: The procurement is underway, and I don’t know exactly — the State Department is doing the procurement — I don’t know exactly where it is. It should be ready to begin distribution early next year.



QUESTION: How much problem would you expect from the Congress next year for maintaining the target for the fences?
 


SECRETARY CHERTOFF: For maintaining the target for fences?



 QUESTION: Yes.



SECRETARY CHERTOFF: Well, we don’t generally just put a specific line item for fencing. We have a more general line item. Our current budget request is very substantial — it’s public; I don’t have the number off the top of my head. But the amount of money that we have asked for in the current budget request would get us to the amount of fencing that we need to get to by the end of the fiscal year to meet the targets I’ve outlined. 


QUESTION: Secretary Chertoff, do you have yet any specific numbers for fiscal 2007 of the total number of detentions and deportations that took place? And of the reduction, the 22 percent reduction at the Southwest border, while you say that you have indication that less people are crossing over, some say that it can also be an indication that the undocumented have found other ways to enter into the country.



SECRETARY CHERTOFF: Well, first of all, we do have the numbers. We can supply them to you after the press conference; I don’t have them handy.  


I understand there’s controversy about what the significance of it is. I can tell you that in general, the experiences, although there might be some truth with respect to a small percentage of people, I think in general, such a large decrease in apprehensions is indicative of a trend. It’s not — if we were talking about a 2 or 3 percent difference, it might suggest it could all be accounted for with people moving to different areas. But I think it’s too large and too consistent to be simply written off as people moving to different areas.



But again, it’s not razor-sharp precise. I view it more as a significant indicator of moving in the right direction, as opposed to a very specific number that can be translated directly into the decreased flow. 


QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, when you say that you will leave no tool sort of unused, should U.S. employers and workers who are hearing your remarks today take that as some sort of signal for expanded worksite enforcement in the near future, not just against criminals or fugitives, but at workplaces? And as a follow, can you do that without providing additional workers like you’re offering for agriculture — can you do it without a tool like No-Match, since as I understand that was always used in SWIFT or the last big enforcement action against workers?
 



SECRETARY CHERTOFF: Well, let me separate out — the No-Match regulation that was enjoined does not prevent us from enforcing at the worksite. And typically what has happened is we get a tip and we go in and we actually look at the records there, and then we do use the No-Match records that we find on file as a way of identifying people that we ought to investigate.



So we intend to continue to increase the level of worksite enforcement. I recognize it creates a hardship, which is why we’re working to improve H-2A, and I think also we’re working to improve H-2B — temporary worker programs that we think will help address that issue. In the end, what we can do by regulation is somewhat limited, and we may need Congress to get back into this issue again in a comprehensive way.  


But here’s the one thing I’m not going to do: I’m not going to say that because there’s an economic impact we’re simply not going to enforce the law. I don’t think that’s a strategy which is endorsed by the public. I think it’s inconsistent with the oaths of office we all took to execute the laws of the United States. And I just think it’s time for Congress again to look at this problem comprehensively. And I think we’re doing what we can, but in the long run I think there are going to be problems in the economy if we continue to move on the enforcement side alone and we don’t take substantial steps to give people a legal way to fill their labor needs.



QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, if I may, a question on REAL ID. Could you confirm what the Department is doing and what you’re proposing as far as cutting billions of dollars you spend that troubles states so much? And what are some of the measures in relaxing some of the rules of the original intent of REAL ID? Is it failing, as some critics say, that a year from now it will be gone?  


SECRETARY CHERTOFF: I think the ACLU, which as far as I could tell, never liked a security measure that it met, engaged in what I would describe as very wishful thinking in claiming this was dead. It was particularly ironic because we just signed an agreement with New York to go forward with REAL ID. And in fact, the tide I think is moving very firmly in favor of REAL ID.




Now, we have done a couple things to take account of some legitimate concerns the states have raised, and we’re going to issue a final regulation. We are looking at ways to significantly decrease the cost by taking some of the back office element of the system and having the federal government pay for that. We’re also trying to create a little bit of flexibility in terms of the kinds of materials that can be used so that we don’t sacrifice security, but we allow a little bit more flexibility for states to choose what will be a satisfactory actual material for the card itself. And we are working to make sure that we phase in, in a way that’s disciplined, but also allows states to transition over a period of time, because you do have to move millions of people from their existing license to a REAL ID.



That may mean ultimately that people above a certain age move at a slower pace than people at a younger age. And that’s kind of common-sense risk management. I mean, we’re obviously more worried about terrorists who are in their 20s, 30s, and 40s than terrorists in their 70s and 80s. So we’re open to making adjustments like that. But the fundamental principle remains not only unchanged, but it actually has probably got a greater level of commitment now than it ever has, because we not only have New York signing up for REAL ID, but a number of states have signed up for enhanced driver’s licenses, which will be not only compliant with REAL ID, but they’ll actually allow you to cross the land border — state of Washington, state of Arizona, state of Vermont, state of New York.


So we’re actually beginning to see more and more big states, in particular, and border states move to a system that will be REAL ID-compliant. So for those who are singing a funeral dirge, I think they’re singing the wrong tune and they may be whistling in the dark a little bit. I’m sorry, that was really an extended metaphor. (Laughter.) 


QUESTION: Do you remain confident in your ICE Director after she judged a contest, a Halloween contest, and awarded Most Original Costume to someone who came dressed in dreadlocks and darkened face and prison stripes? Do you have any concerns about that?



SECRETARY CHERTOFF: Well, I — you know, I think she was right to apologize for having this proceeding take place. I’ve directed that — of the individual whose — came dressed in this kind of costume be put on administrative leave and that we have an inquiry to determine, you know, what is the appropriate sanction for this.



You know, here is the bottom line: People do dumb things. I get very perturbed when there’s anything that is done that suggests that, with respect to the enforcement of the law, we’re anything other than even-handed. I have zero tolerance for racism or discrimination in the area of law enforcement. We have to be tough, but we have to be fair. And any — you know, the idea that you’re going to come and impersonate someone of another ethnic group, I think is completely unacceptable. So, you know, there’s going to have to be an inquiry, and the appropriate level of discipline for the person who did this is going to have to be decided upon.




But I do think that Assistant Secretary Myers was quite right in first of all apologizing and reaching out aggressively, not only to Congress but to a number of groups representing personnel in the Department, to make sure that they understood her unwavering commitment to equality and fairness in the workplace and in dealing with the people that we deal with when we conduct enforcement operations. 


QUESTION: Does it bother you that she didn’t recognize it until the actual complaint?



SECRETARY CHERTOFF: You know, I’m quite sure it bothers her. I know that she was kind of caught by surprise by this in the middle of a party. And I know she is mortified. But, you know, I think she’s doing what she needs to to make amends. 


QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, you talked about using all the authority available to you on the border, specifically with regard to the fence. Are you contemplating waiving the environmental laws with respect to the construction in Texas of fencing, in towns where it’s been so controversial like Brownsville?



SECRETARY CHERTOFF: Here’s our approach everywhere, including Texas: We will certainly talk to landowners. We’ll try to reach an accommodation. If they have an alternative suggestion that achieves our results, we’re more than happy to do that.



At the end of the day, if we determine we need to do fencing, we’ll take every step reasonable to take care of environmental concerns and mitigate. But I’m not laying down any of the authorities I’ve been given to get the job done. At the end of the day, I will use whatever authorities are required, but only after careful consideration of the alternatives and vigorous efforts to mitigate, where it’s possible, to do so without compromising operational integrity.

Posted in Uncategorized

The Night Andrew Cuomo Came to Town: We are Your Lawyer He Tells 650. Call Us.

WPCNR WHITE PLAINS LAW JOURNAL. By John F. Bailey. November 17, 2007: New York’s Attorney General Andrew Cuomo drew an SRO crowd to the County Center Thursday evening, and declared he and his staff were the people’s lawyer, and urged citizens to call his office to report injustices and situations (at 1-800-771-7755) and that his office would represent them against a health care provider, against an employer,  in situations they needed representation, advocating on their behalf against injustice. He filled the Little Theater at the County Center  where the crowd overflowed into an adjacent live telecast room to see him.



Attorney General Andrew Cuomo addressing people who came from miles around to hear him:


 Let Us Be Your Lawyer.


Reminiscent of his father, the former Governor,  Mr. Cuomo rivits attention with a polished and credible delivery, with conviction, passion and a gospel flavor, and a good sense of humor. 


He  introduced his top lawyers handling investigations into Consumer Fraud, Civil Rights/Labor, Student Loans, Health Care and the Environment prior to  Citizens breaking off for forums with those individual top lawyers, whom Cuomo described as steller experts in their field.


Cuomo said his office was going to advise the state on its liabilities and the consequences of facets of the proposed Indian Point nuclear power plant license renewal as one of his key environmental priorities.


In the forums, the lawyers conducting them educated the public about legal matters the Attorney General’s Office would look into in the various fields.  This reporter was impressed with the scope of matters in each field the Attorney General’s Office would involve itself.


Questions from the audience in the Civil Rights/Labor field this reporter attended were based primarily on personal experiences with descriptions of possible infractions and the lawyers gave their opinions.



In the environmental session I ducked into,  Katherine “Kitt” Kennedy,  the lawyer conducting that session faced a number of questions on toxic site cleanup, city liability for covering up  and the failure of due process. She said that her office could consider alleged violations of the State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) process by lead agencies in a city and said that the Attorney General’s Office was interested in those types of alleged wrong doing involving toxic contaminated sites.


John Milgrim, Press Secretary for the Attorney General said 650 persons attended, making the turnout by far the largest of any stop so far on the Attorney General’s Community Partnership Initiative. Previously the Attorney General has appeared with his lawyers in Buffalo, Syracuse, Binghamtion, and Rochester, where attendance was in the 200s.  Milgrim said these tours would continue and the purpose was to familiarize his attorneys with local issues. As Mr. Cuomo said in his address, to help people you have to know the issues that concern them.


Each lawyer urged citizens to call the Attorney General Office Hotline at 1-800-771-7755 to report matters in which citizens felt needed investigation. The attorneys conducting the sessions stressed they were interested most in a pattern of cases which could apply to similar abuses across the state. When the hotline is called, the caller is directed to a regional office and helped to fill out a Complaint Form. Complaint forms may also be completed by callers on the Attorney General’s website at www.oag.state.ny.us.

Posted in Uncategorized

No Warming Center OK as of Thursday evening. One Shelter Being Planned

 


WPCNR THE HOMELESS NEWS. By John F. Bailey. November 16, 2007: WPCNR has learned that only one Warming Shelter at present is being considered to provide an overnight sojourn for homeless persons left to wander the streets and sleep outdoors or on the streets about the downtown since August 6 when Westchester County closed the 85 Court Street Drop In.  There has been no agreement to host the shelter yet by the three downtown churches approached with the plan.



Stella Aviles, Assistant to Reverend Carter Via of The Presbyterian Church of White Plains, said that the plan has been presented to three churches in the White Plains downtown. The plan calls for Grace Church Community Services to staff one shelter, containing 19 cots, which will alternate between the three churches for two week periods of operation at each church.


Aviles reports that no church has given a definite go-ahead on the plan as of 5 PM Thursday evening. 


Aviles said first approval from the church congregations was needed, then approval from the City of White Plains, and then funding would be arranged, which she expected would be from the county. Aviles said that Grace Community Services would provide the professional staff, including counselors to monitor and manage the shelter. Though Aviles said one church had volunteers who wished to work in the Warming Center, but the shelter could not be established without professional staff.


Aviles said approval from the churches was being sought as soon as possible, then a formal presentation of the one-shelter plan (apparently) would be made to the City of White Plains, thentaken to the county to secure the funding.


Mayor Joseph Delfino in the special Work Session last month, said the city would consider the shelter once the clergymen had a concrete proposal and location, and the city would consider a Special Permit to open such a shelter if it housed only 19 beds. The special meeting called to consider the concerns of Rabbi Lester Bronstein and Reverend Via that they felt the county asking them to provide warming shelters with just chairs was “inhumane.” It is unclear whether the county only wanted one warming shelter in White Plains.


In a related development, Donna Green of the Department of Communications of Westchester County said the county did not have demographic breakouts available for  undetermined number of persons who spent nights at the 85 Court Street for the 18 months it was in operation. At the time the county opened the 85 Court Street Drop In Shelter, it promised to keep stringent records of who stayed at the shelter signing them in each night.


For the record, as WPCNR writes this report, at midnight in White Plains  outside the WPCNR newsroom it is 42 degrees and clear.

Posted in Uncategorized

Tools to I.D. Illegal Employment Coming Up. Chertoff Explains.

WPCNR FOR THE RECORD. Conclusion of DHS Secretary Chertoff’s Remarks on State of Immigration and Enforcement of November 6. Part 4. November 15, 2007: In this conclusion of his address last week, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff addresses the Social Security No-Match injunction now prohibiting temporarily checking of Social Security Numbers against No-Match Letters; the E-Verify System, and the new H-2A Visa initiative. He also notes that if American employers did not willingly employ illegal workers, there would not be an illegal immigration problem.


Worksite Enforcement


The third element of interior enforcement has to do with worksite enforcement. If you go back to fiscal year 2002, we had only 25 arrests and 485 administrative arrests for worksite enforcement. But in fiscal year 2006, which was the first full year after we inaugurated our new comprehensive strategy to secure the border, we had 716 criminal cases and over 3,600 administrative arrests. And this past fiscal year, we went up to 863 criminal cases, and over 4,000 administrative arrests.



That is a real increase in the size and the potency of the sanctions and the number of sanctions we’re bringing against people who are deliberately violating our laws against employing illegal aliens.


 In October of just this past year, last month, Richard Rosenbaum, the former president of a nationwide cleaning service, pled guilty to harboring illegal aliens and conspiring to defraud the United States. He will pay restitution to the United States in an amount expected to exceed $16 million. And he will also agree to forfeit bank accounts and currency totaling more than $1.1 million for knowingly hiring illegal aliens. Bottom line: The days of treating employers who violate these laws by giving them the equivalent of a corporate parking ticket — those days are gone. It’s now felonies, jail time, fines and forfeitures.



Giving employers the tools.


Now, I want to be clear: I don’t think most employers want to violate the law. I think the vast majority of employers really do want to comply with the law. But we’ve got to give them the tools to do the job and to make sure that they are in compliance. This is not all about sticks. There have got to be some carrots as well that help people do the right thing. And that means a couple of things: facilitating illegal immigration by finding ways to improve that process, and also facilitating the process of determining that you have a legal workforce by giving employers easy-to-use and accurate tools that will allow them to verify that when they hire someone, that person has a lawful right to work in the United States. 


Enhanced E-Verify 


One major element of our strategy is E-Verify. E-Verify, formerly known as Basic Pilot, is a web-based system administered by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. It allows employers to electronically check whether a worker is authorized to work in our country. The basic version of this is to compare the name and the Social Security number to make sure they’re accurate and that they match. An enhanced version we’re currently putting online allows you to actually compare a picture of the person online, based on something we have in our federal files — and hopefully, eventually, pictures in driver’s license files — to compare that picture with the person who’s actually standing before you as the applicant. That would allow us to take E-Verify from simply a name-checking system to actually an identity-checking system.


 E-Verify’s popularity is growing. More than 24,000 companies were enrolled at the end of the fiscal year, but today that number is over 30,000. In terms of usage, more than 3.2 million new hires have been processed through E-Verify, and usage is growing by about 83 percent annually. Why? Because it’s an easy tool to use. In more than 90 percent of cases, you get a response within seconds that clears a person. And even when there are discrepancies, most of them can be resolved within a very short period of time.



We do obviously want to work to make sure that we are as close to a hundred percent accurate as possible. For that reason, we have a monitoring and compliance unit to make sure that employers are using the system properly. We also have increased our outreach to employers to make sure everybody understands how the system works, and to make sure nobody abuses the system to discriminate or unfairly target people within certain ethnic groups.


 Status of Social Security No-Match Data


Now there’s another tool we’d like to use to help employers identify when there’s a problem with their workforce. And that is the ability to use Social Security No-Match data. Earlier this year, we issued a regulation that would make clear to employers what they should do when they get a letter from the Social Security Administration that says to them there’s a discrepancy or a mismatch between a name and a Social Security number that you have filed on behalf of an employee.



Sometimes there’s an innocent explanation for that mismatch, which is that somebody has simply provided incorrect data to Social Security. In that case, of course it’s very much to the benefit of the employee to correct that innocent mistake so they don’t find themselves in 30 years expecting to get Social Security benefits that never arrive. 


But there are also times — and frankly, a lot of times — when that mismatch reflects the fact that the name and the number aren’t real, or they don’t match because someone is using a false name or a false number in order to work illegally. And in that circumstance, there isn’t simply a matter of cleaning up a discrepancy, but the employers should know the steps that they ought to take in order to make sure that they do not continue to hire or employ that illegal worker in their workforce.


What this regulation is designed to do is to create a very clear set of guidances and a clear safe harbor so employers know what to do when they get a No-Match letter, and then can take the appropriate steps either to correct a mistake, or to make sure that they discharge someone who is working illegally, based on the fact that they don’t have a legal work authorization. The simple point is this: You can’t simply stick your head in the sand.


 Temporary Injunction Prevents the Match Initiative.



Now, the bad news is this regulation is not in effect. It’s been suspended because it’s been blocked by a temporary injunction issued by a federal district court in California. That court responded to a lawsuit filed by a number of groups — advocacy groups as well as business groups — who were opposed to the idea of putting this No-Match regulation into effect. We’re currently seeing what we can do to address the concerns that the judge entered in order to see whether we can get the injunction lifted, and then go forward with this regulation, which, as I’ve said, is temporarily suspended.



But I do want to make it clear that litigation such as the effort to block the No-Match rule or the effort to block building fence, is precisely the reason why it’s been so difficult over the last 30 years to get control of the border. The problems that my predecessors had in dealing with illegal immigration, at least in part, were based on the fact that there were lots of hurdles that were put in place to prevent people from using some of the tools that we’re trying to use now in order to get control of the border.                                          


Employers Opposed. No “Silent Amnesty.”


 I know that some employers resist these rules because they’re concerned about the impact it’s going to have on their own workforce. When we got comments — at the time we put the No-Match regulation out for public comment, at least one business group was quite candid in saying that if this regulation went into effect, some businesses, which have workforces largely built on illegal workers, would be forced to discharge those workers.  


And I understand that enforcing the laws is now going to have an economic impact on some industries. That’s why we continue to urge Congress to address this by making sure that the law is reformed. But until Congress acts, we have the law that is on the books. And I and everybody else in my agency is sworn to uphold that law.



We are not going to have a silent amnesty. We’re not going to deal with the economic issues by closing our eyes to a law violation. We’re going to try to do the very best we can to improve the law in a way to make it easier to hire lawful workers. But at the end of the day, if people are hiring illegals, we’re going to do everything we can with the tools we have to make sure that we react strongly and aggressively and in a tough manner against that violation of the law.



As another example of our approach, in Illinois recently, the state legislature passed a law that effectively prohibits employers from using this E-Verify system I’ve just described — even if they want to do it voluntarily. We went to court. We are suing to get that rule overturned. 
 



My commitment is very simply this: I want to work to make sure we improve the law. We stand ready to work with Congress when Congress is ready to take up intelligent, sensible, comprehensive immigration reform. But while we have the laws on the books, we’re going to enforce them. We’re going to enforce them vigorously. We’re going to keep faith with the American people. And my commitment to the American people is this: I will fight every lawsuit, I will deal with every procedural roadblock, I will use every tool the law allows to continue to press forward in enforcing the laws. We will not give up. We will not lose our resolve. We will not lose our energy. We’re going to continue to work as hard as we can and overcome any roadblock that the law allows us to overcome to complete the job of getting control of the border, and to move forward on really turning the tide of this issue of illegal immigration, which is so much on the minds of the American people.


 Need More Legal Workers to Come to America


But a final critical piece of this is to deal with a very real economic need, which is currently being filled by illegals. And that means finding a way to make it easier to get legal workers to come into this country, particularly legal temporary workers, to meet the legitimate needs of our workforce and a growing economy.


 As I said earlier, the vast majority of people entering our country illegally are doing so to work. And let’s be honest — Americans are employing them. American companies are employing the illegals to do work because they can’t find Americans to do that work. So if we are going to need to bring workers in to fill a growing labor gap, we have to find a way to do it lawfully, a way that promotes rather than compromises our national security, and a way that gives us visibility to the people who come in.



Some of this will require enactments by Congress. But there are some things we can do in the regulatory process. No sector of the American economy is in more need of illegal flow of foreign workers than agriculture, where we have traditionally relied upon foreign workers to do a great deal of the seasonal agricultural work.


 H-2A VISA Program


One key program that has the potential to fill the need for seasonal agricultural workers is the H-2A visa program. That program, however, has not been used as widely as it can be, because it has been cumbersome, and it has been difficult, and it has therefore become unappealing to some employers. But working with the Department of Labor, DHS has completed a comprehensive review of the regulations implementing the H-2A program so that we can look for ways to improve the program, even as we continue to hope that Congress addresses the problem more comprehensively.




I’m therefore pleased to say that this week (last week) the Department of Labor and the Department of Homeland Security will send to the Office of Management and Budget a series of proposed regulations that will improve and remove some of the current limitations on U.S. employers’ ability to utilize the H-2A program. These sets of proposed rules will provide farmers with a more orderly and timely flow of legal workers, while continuing to protect the rights of laborers and promoting legal and secure methods for determining who is coming into the country. The proposed rules will also provide better ways to ensure the integrity of the program.



This kind of regulatory change is what I would call a win-win. It’s a win for the agricultural employers, by giving them an opportunity to take care of their business needs within the law rather than outside the law. It’s also good for people outside the country, who are really looking for nothing more than to do work that will put bread on the tables of their families back home. And if we can give them a legal way to get that work, many of them will choose to take that legal way as opposed to trying to sneak across the border, and at a minimum, violating the law, if not putting their life and limb in jeopardy.


 In addition to the regulation, which of course has to await OMB clearance, the Department of Labor is also issuing today a Guidance Letter to State Workforce Agencies that administer some elements of the H-2A program. Again, this Guidance Letter will help clarify the responsibility of the State Workforce Agencies with regard to this H-2A program, so that we can ensure consistent application of the program nationwide, which will also make it more efficient.



And for those of you who are not familiar with what these agencies do, State Workforce Agencies post an employer’s job vacancies in the state employment system, and they refer U.S. workers for jobs that need to be filled. And so they play an important role in regulating the flow of workers for, for example, job sectors like agriculture. 


The Guidance Letter that is going out from the Department of Labor will clarify a number of issues, including the following:



That employers whose operations cross state lines can file one consolidated job order that’ll be circulated in multiple states. That of course is more efficient for the employers; it streamlines and makes the process more attractive. 


That State Workforce Agencies will first direct applicants to unfilled positions before referring them to temporary jobs that have already begun. That will address the problem that sometimes arises when employers feel they’re caught in a revolving door, in which they hire someone to do a job at one point, and then someone else is referred and they have to fire the first employee.




And also the Guidance Letter will direct that the Department of Labor will not consider workers to be qualified or eligible to be referred for work unless a State Workforce Agency certifies that it has checked the legal status of the worker before referring a worker to an employer. This is designed to deal with the rather remarkable situation that sometimes occurs where you have a temporary worker on a job, a State Workforce Agency refers another worker, displacing the legal temporary worker, and then it turns out that the referred worker is an illegal worker who is in the country in violation of the law. The simple cure for that is to have the State Workforce Agency get on E-Verify and check the status of the referred worker before they send the worker in to displace a legal, temporary worker.


 Some of these seem like pretty simple, straightforward, common-sense things. That’s a good thing. We do like to promote common sense. And it’s a reflection of the President’s commitment and the administration’s commitment to do everything we can within the existing law to give employers a way to satisfy economic needs that complies with the law rather than violates the law.



Conclusion


The bottom line before I take questions is this: Immigration is a source of strength for this country. And this agency, as well as the other agencies of this administration, are committed to promoting and enhancing the opportunities for lawful immigration that is good for this country, that supports our economic needs, and that also constructs a process that gives us visibility and confidence that we know who is coming into the country. 


At the same time, illegal immigration poses not only a challenge to the rule of law, but at least in some cases a challenge to our security and our public safety. And there, we are committed to making continued progress, recognizing it’s not — Rome wasn’t built in a day, and we’re not going to turn this problem around in a day, but we’re committed to continuing to make substantial, measurable progress to strengthen the border and make sure that the law against illegal immigration is enforced.



In the end, I ask Congress to come back to the table and talk about a way we might resolve this problem comprehensively and in an enduring fashion, so that we can leave our children a legacy of a well-regulated border and a sound economy. In the meantime, my commitment is this: we will enforce the laws as they are on the books, we will not close our eyes to law-breaking, and we will continue to devote all of the energy of the Department of Homeland Security to overcoming any obstacles that prevent us from making sure that the rule of law remains our lodestar in the area of immigration.


 


 

Posted in Uncategorized