Legal Workforce Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Calvert, Ken [R-CA-41]
- Committees
- Education and Workforce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jan 9, 2025
Bottom line
The bill mandates and expands the E-Verify system nationwide, aiming to ensure a legal workforce by requiring employers to electronically verify the employment eligibility of their employees, while also increasing enforcement and fraud prevention measures.
What it actually does
This bill, the "Legal Workforce Act," significantly amends the Immigration and Nationality Act by making the E-Verify electronic employment eligibility verification system mandatory and permanent for all U.S. employers for new hires, recruitment, and referral, with phased implementation based on employer size. It also requires reverification for employees with limited work authorization and mandates verification for certain existing federal, state, and local government employees and federal contractors. The bill increases penalties for violations, preempts state and local employment verification laws while allowing state enforcement under federal rules, and establishes new programs to combat identity fraud related to Social Security numbers.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that making E-Verify mandatory is crucial for securing the nation's workforce, deterring illegal immigration, and protecting jobs for legal workers. They contend it creates a level playing field for businesses by ensuring all employers comply with immigration laws, reduces the incentive for unauthorized employment, and provides a reliable, efficient system for verifying employment eligibility.
Opponents contend
Opponents express concerns that mandatory E-Verify could lead to increased administrative burdens and costs for businesses, particularly small businesses, and may result in discrimination against legal workers due to system errors or misuse. They also raise privacy concerns regarding the expansion of government databases and the potential for identity theft, arguing that the system is not foolproof and could lead to wrongful denials of employment.
The bill is moderately long and contains significant technical and legal details, requiring careful reading to understand its full implications, which may exceed the time typically allotted for reviewing such legislation.
Section 2(a), amending INA Section 274A(b)(1)
Mandatory Electronic Employment Eligibility Verification
This provision makes the E-Verify system mandatory for all employers when hiring new individuals, or recruiting or referring individuals for employment in the United States. It outlines a phased implementation schedule based on employer size, starting 6 months after enactment for large employers and extending up to 24 months for small employers. Agricultural employers have a 30-month delay.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this ensures a legal workforce, deters illegal immigration, and creates a fair labor market by preventing employers from hiring unauthorized workers.
Critics contend
Critics contend this imposes significant administrative and financial burdens on businesses, especially small ones, and could lead to employment discrimination or delays for legal workers due to system errors.
Tradeoffs
Balances the goal of immigration enforcement with concerns about business burden and potential for errors affecting legal workers.
Section 2(a), amending INA Section 274A(b)(2)
Mandatory Reverification of Employment Eligibility
This provision requires employers to reverify the employment eligibility of individuals whose work authorization is temporary or limited. This reverification must occur within three business days after the employee's work authorization expires, following a similar phased implementation schedule as new hires, with a delay for agricultural workers.
Section 2(a), amending INA Section 274A(b)(3)(A)
Mandatory Verification for Existing Employees in Certain Sectors
This provision mandates that employers use E-Verify to check the employment eligibility of certain existing employees whose eligibility has not already been verified under E-Verify. This applies to employees of federal, state, or local governments, employees requiring a federal security clearance (e.g., at military bases, nuclear sites, airports), and employees working under federal contracts (with some exceptions). This must occur within 6 months of enactment.
Section 3, amending INA Section 274A(d)
E-Verify System Enhancements and Safeguards
This section details the design and operation of the mandatory E-Verify system. It requires the system to provide initial confirmation or tentative nonconfirmation within 3 working days and a final decision within 10 working days (with a possible 10-day extension). It mandates safeguards against unauthorized disclosure, discriminatory practices, and identity theft, and clarifies the responsibilities of the Commissioner of Social Security and the Secretary of Homeland Security in maintaining and updating information.
Section 6, amending INA Section 274A(h)(2)
Federal Preemption of State/Local Employment Verification Laws
This provision establishes that federal law preempts any state or local laws, ordinances, policies, or rules related to the hiring, continued employment, or status verification of unauthorized aliens. However, it explicitly allows states to enforce the federal E-Verify requirements at their own cost, provided they follow federal regulations, apply federal penalties, and comply with federal guidance. States can also use business licensing laws as a penalty for non-compliance.
Section 8, amending INA Section 274A(e) and (f)
Enhanced Penalties for Employment Violations
This section significantly increases civil monetary penalties for employers who knowingly hire or continue to employ unauthorized aliens, or who fail to comply with E-Verify requirements. For example, first-time violations for hiring unauthorized aliens increase from $250-$2,000 to $2,500-$5,000 per alien. It also introduces the authority to debar repeat violators or those convicted of crimes under this section from receiving federal contracts, grants, or cooperative agreements.
Section 11
Protecting Social Security Numbers from Misuse
This section mandates the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Commissioner of Social Security, to establish programs to prevent identity fraud related to Social Security numbers (SSNs) in the E-Verify system. These programs include blocking SSNs subject to unusual multiple use or suspected fraud, allowing victims of identity fraud to suspend or limit the use of their SSN, and enabling parents/guardians to suspend or limit the use of a minor's SSN for employment verification.
The mandatory E-Verify requirements for new hires and reverification for employees performing "agricultural labor or services" are delayed until 30 months after the date of enactment, significantly later than other employers. The definition of "agricultural labor or services" is broadly defined by referencing existing federal statutes.
Section 2(a), amending INA Section 274A(b)(1)(D)(iii) and (b)(2)(B)
Why it matters:This is a specific carve-out for a politically sensitive industry, likely negotiated to ease the transition for agricultural employers who often rely on seasonal and migrant labor.
Case for: Supporters argue this delay provides critical time for the agricultural sector to adapt to the new requirements, given its unique workforce dynamics and potential challenges in immediate compliance.
Case against: Critics might argue this creates an unfair advantage for one sector and delays the full implementation of a secure workforce, potentially allowing unauthorized employment to continue longer in agriculture.
Estimated impact: Delays mandatory E-Verify for a significant portion of the agricultural workforce for 6-24 months compared to other industries.
The mandatory E-Verify requirement for employees working under federal contracts explicitly exempts individuals with Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12 (HSPD 12) clearance, administrative or overhead personnel, and those working solely on contracts for Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) goods or services, unless they are already subject to verification due to working in critical infrastructure.
Section 2(a), amending INA Section 274A(b)(3)(A)(iii)(aa)
Why it matters:These are technical exemptions designed to reduce the administrative burden on federal contractors for certain categories of employees where other security checks might already be in place or where the risk of unauthorized employment is deemed lower.
Case for: Proponents argue these exemptions streamline compliance for federal contractors by avoiding redundant checks or unnecessary burdens on employees not directly involved in sensitive work.
Case against: Opponents might argue that these exemptions create potential loopholes, allowing some unauthorized workers to remain employed on federal contracts, undermining the bill's overall intent.
Estimated impact: Reduces the scope of mandatory E-Verify for federal contractors, affecting potentially thousands of employees.
The Secretary of Homeland Security may authorize or direct any person or entity responsible for granting access to, protecting, securing, operating, administering, or regulating part of the critical infrastructure to use the E-Verify system if it assists in critical infrastructure protection.
Section 3, amending INA Section 274A(d)(8)(B)
Why it matters:While presented as a "limitation" section, this clause grants significant new authority for mandatory E-Verify use in a broad sector, potentially expanding its reach beyond typical employment verification.
Case for: Supporters argue this is a vital national security measure, allowing the government to ensure that individuals with access to critical infrastructure are legally authorized to work and pose no security risk.
Case against: Critics might raise concerns about the broad discretion granted to the Secretary and the potential for overreach or privacy implications if E-Verify is used for purposes beyond basic employment eligibility.
Estimated impact: Potentially expands the mandatory use of E-Verify to a vast array of entities and employees involved in critical infrastructure, impacting national security and privacy.
If an individual alleges they were not hired or were dismissed from a job due to an E-Verify system error, their only recourse for compensation is through the Federal Tort Claims Act, and they can seek injunctive relief to correct the error. Crucially, no class action lawsuits may be brought under this paragraph.
Section 3, amending INA Section 274A(d)(9)
Why it matters:This provision significantly limits the legal avenues available to individuals harmed by system errors, making it harder to seek redress and preventing large-scale litigation.
Case for: Proponents argue this protects the government and employers from potentially crippling class-action lawsuits, ensuring the E-Verify system can operate without excessive legal risk, and that the Federal Tort Claims Act provides an adequate remedy.
Case against: Opponents contend that limiting remedies to individual Federal Tort Claims Act cases, and explicitly banning class actions, makes it extremely difficult for individuals, particularly those with limited resources, to seek justice for systemic errors or widespread harm caused by the E-Verify system.
Estimated impact: Significantly restricts legal recourse for individuals affected by E-Verify errors, potentially reducing accountability for system failures.
Failure by a person or entity to utilize the employment eligibility verification system as required by law, or providing information to the system that the person or entity knows or reasonably believes to be false, shall be treated as a violation of subsection (a)(1)(A) (which deals with knowingly hiring or continuing to employ an unauthorized alien).
Section 8(3)(E), amending INA Section 274A(e)(5)
Why it matters:This reclassification significantly elevates the severity of non-compliance with E-Verify procedures, linking it directly to the more serious offense of knowingly hiring unauthorized workers, which carries higher penalties.
Case for: Supporters argue this provision strengthens enforcement by ensuring that procedural failures or attempts to game the system are treated with the seriousness they deserve, deterring deliberate non-compliance.
Case against: Critics might argue that equating procedural failures with knowingly hiring unauthorized aliens is an overreach, potentially subjecting employers to disproportionately harsh penalties for administrative mistakes rather than intentional wrongdoing.
Estimated impact: Increases the legal risk and potential penalties for employers who fail to use E-Verify correctly or provide false information.