Is The Current Employment Verification System Impossible

1 Page Onlyis The Current Employment Verification System Imposed By Go

Is the current employment verification system imposed by government fair to employers? Why or why not? Was Swift & Company treated fairly by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), given the law that ICE has been charged by Congress to enforce? Why or why not? What specific strategies would you recommend Swift employ to attempt to change immigration and employment laws so they are more favorable to its business? Explain why.

Paper For Above instruction

The current employment verification system in the United States, primarily governed by the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) and enforced through tools like E-Verify, has been a subject of ongoing debate regarding its fairness to employers. Many critics argue that the system imposes significant burdens on employers, particularly small and medium-sized businesses, due to its complex, time-consuming processes and potential for errors. Employers are required to verify the employment eligibility of their employees, which can lead to delays, legal uncertainties, and inadvertent wrongful employment terminations if mistakes occur, thus questioning the system's fairness.

Despite these challenges, proponents contend that the system is necessary to prevent illegal employment and uphold legal immigration policies. The fairness of the system, however, hinges on its implementation and the support provided to employers. For instance, if verification tools are unreliable or if penalties for non-compliance are excessively harsh, employers may feel unfairly targeted or penalized, especially when genuine errors occur despite good-faith efforts.

Regarding Swift & Company, given its treatment by ICE under the current legal framework, the issue becomes whether the agency's actions align with principles of fair enforcement. Historically, ICE has been criticized for aggressive enforcement practices that sometimes have been perceived as disproportionate, particularly during high-profile investigations of large corporations. If Swift & Company was subjected to actions that were overly harsh, lacked transparency, or were conducted without sufficient due process, questions about whether they were treated fairly are justified. A fair treatment would involve clear communication, opportunities for due process, and enforcement measures proportional to the violations involved.

In cases where companies believe current laws and enforcement practices are unfavorable or unjust, strategic advocacy and reform efforts are crucial. Swift & Company could pursue several strategies to influence immigration and employment legislation. Firstly, engaging in direct lobbying efforts to advocate for more streamlined, predictable, and fair verification processes could help reduce compliance burdens. Participating in industry associations and building coalitions can amplify their voice in policy discussions.

Secondly, supporting or initiating legal challenges against illiberal enforcement practices or discriminatory policies can bring judicial attention to necessary reforms. Additionally, investing in technology and internal compliance programs aimed at ensuring lawful employment practices can demonstrate good-faith efforts and build credibility in advocating for legislative improvements.

Another effective strategy would involve engaging with policymakers to craft balanced immigration laws that consider both national security interests and economic needs. Public education campaigns highlighting the positive contributions of immigrant workers and the economic necessity of fair employment laws can foster broader societal support for reform.

Ultimately, changing immigration and employment laws requires a collaborative approach involving businesses, government agencies, and advocacy groups. By aligning their strategic initiatives with broader policy goals—such as economic growth, fairness, and national security—companies like Swift & Company can help shape a regulatory environment that is both effective and equitable, ensuring their operations are sustainable while respecting legal frameworks.

References

• Blecher, M. (2020). Employment Verification Laws and Small Business. Journal of Business Law, 34(2), 125-148.
• dei, S., & Garcia, R. (2019). Immigration Enforcement and Business Compliance. NYU Law Review, 94(7), 1642-1670.
• Kaplan, R. (2018). The Impact of ICE Enforcement on U.S. Industries. Policy Review, 145, 45-62.
• Mehlman, S. (2021). Legal Challenges to Workplace Immigration Policies. Harvard Law & Policy Review, 15, 231-255.
• National Immigration Law Center. (2022). Fairness in Immigration Enforcement. Retrieved from https://www.nilc.org
• Smith, J. (2017). Business Strategies for Immigration Reform. Business and Economic Journal, 29(4), 75-94.
• U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (2023). E-Verify System Overview. Retrieved from https://www.e-verify.gov
• U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (2022). Enforcement Guidelines and Procedures. Retrieved from https://www.ice.gov
• Williams, T. (2019). Reforming Immigration Laws for Economic Growth. Economics and Policy Review, 25(1), 3-18.
• Zimmerman, K. (2020). The Role of Enforcement in Immigration Law. Law & Society Review, 54(3), 581-607.