For quite a long time now, immigrant workers have long supported the economy of America. Although the inflow of employees who are unauthorized and the determinants of this inflow is hard to come by and efficiently tabulate, estimates suggest an influx of close to 170,000 between 1996 and 2014 (Orrenius & Zavodny, 2017). Before the economic slump of 2007, these numbers were much higher indicating immigrants’ preference of the U. S. when it came to employment. Augmenting this influx further is the labor market conditions of countries such as Mexico and America (Orrenius & Zavodny, 2017). Various models and estimations have come up indicating a further rise in the inflow of immigrants while the present economic conditions persist. In addition, economists suggest this number is bound to rise with the growth of the economy in the U. S., or the weakening of economies in countries where immigrants originate from such as Mexico. While there are skilled immigrants who come into the country legally and contribute to the national economy, the popular image of workers who are undocumented is often that of a population with less than average educational attainment, who are employed in sectors that require low-skills. While this stereotype is true, its reinforcement through frequent imagery in the press still results in mixed reactions. This paper analyses a case whereby the discovery of undocumented aliens leads to a federal indictment. Furthermore, it discusses the laws applied in situations such as this, carefully comparing arguments for being guilty or not guilty.
The hiring of unauthorized personnel in the United States of America is illegal and is prohibited by the U. S. code title 8, chapter 12, subchapter II, part VIII; better known as the 8 U. S. Code 1324a ("8 U.S. Code § 1324a - Unlawful employment of aliens", 2017). In an unfortunate circumstance, Nicole Tipton and Sadik Seferi opened and started operating a restaurant in the city of Iowa employing foreign nationals who were in the country illegally. Acting on a tip from the local police department, Immigration and Custom Enforcement agents obtained and executed search warrants in an apartment where some workers lived and in the restaurant. Following the search, the agents found out the existence of six aliens with no documentation verifying their presence in the country. Although Tipton and Seferi were required by law to fill I-9 forms, they did not do so for the six aliens discovered. This neglect in the observance of the law led to the arrest of both restaurant owners, and a subsequent charge of hiring and harboring illegal aliens. In the U. S., there is a high regard for, and the observance of the rule of law is. Most citizens consider the hiring of illegal workers extremely detrimental to the economy of the country. As such, since large majorities of undocumented workers in the U. S remain largely undetected, harboring such activities brings about hefty penalties according to the law. Most accounts of illegal immigrants usually come from journalists, specific case studies carried out by social scientists or rare occurrences such as the one mentioned above.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In the judicial systems of America, the laws that guard against the hiring and harboring of illegal aliens are quite clear and precise. In summary, a person – including groups of people, organizations, businesses or even the local government – commits a federal crime through performing certain actions as stipulated in the structure of this law ("The Law Against Hiring or Harboring Illegal Aliens," 2017). One such action is the assistance of a foreigner who is in the U. S. illegally, or who does not have the proper authorizations for employment, through sheltering, transporting or assisting the alien in obtaining jobs in ways deemed dubious by law. Another action is through the encouragement of an alien to remain in the U. S. by verbally referring them or otherwise to an employer, by acting as the employer or by being the agent of an employer who acts in ways that persuade aliens to stay in the country. The last action is through the deliberate assistance of illegal aliens through convictions that are innately personal. This last action may involve the harboring of relatives, friends and other individuals in close relation with the transgressor of the law. Upon conviction, the trespass of such laws results in penalties that include, the payment of criminal fees, forfeiture of properties and vehicles used in committing the crime. By law, all who contract and employ illegal aliens prior to the verification of their work status are deemed guilty of a misdemeanor; subsequently, validating the arrest of employers and aliens violating stipulated immigration laws.
According to section A of the law on unlawful employment, it is illegal to hire an alien, to refer an alien for any particular fee, or to recruit an alien, having full knowledge that the alien is not authorized to work in the United States (Title 8—Aliens and Nationality, 2011). Equally unlawful is the continuous and deliberate employment of an alien with the knowledge that he or she does not have a work permit and therefore, does not have authorization. In a mode of affirmative action, the law also stipulates that employers have a right to give preference to U. S. citizens over aliens who have work authorizations in the event of recruitment and hiring, as long as the U. S. citizen displays equal or better prerequisites. Furthermore, the law states that it is unlawful to employ individuals in the United States prior to their compliance with the verification requirements of employment eligibility (Title 8—Aliens and Nationality, 2011). Such requirements include the proper examination and verification of documents indicating identity and the comprehensive completion of Form I-9 for all hired employees. Moreover, employers need to retain all the I-9 forms, and with an advanced notice that is usually a maximum of three days, they are supposed to produce the forms for inspection by relevant bodies, such as the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents mentioned above.
The law further defines employment as any labor or service performed for any form of remunerations within America while at the same time complying with all stipulated requirements for verification ("The Law Against Hiring or Harboring Illegal Aliens," 2017). Therefore, day workers, wage earners, or other casual workers engaged in activities that are compensatory in nature have the consideration of being employees due to the rationale of the laws on immigration. Employers include agents; defined as individuals who act directly or indirectly in the interest of the employers. Thus, for the purpose of work authorization verification employers also indicate contractors who work autonomously, or contractors other than individuals employing the alien labor. As such, individuals who premise that the use of short-term or temporary contracts warrants the circumvention of the law are highly mistaken as the law upholds the verification requirements of employment authorization. In a bid to close more loops, the law states that while employment lasts for less than the three days, the time required to complete Form I-9 exhaustingly has to be immediate, preferably, on the date of hire. Therefore, a constructive knowledge that constitutes gross violations of federal law is found in cases whereby Form I-9 has not been completed properly as per its requirements including the provision of supporting documents. The second violation is whereby the employer has foreknowledge that the alien has no authorization to work. Last is when the employer acts in blatant disregard to the legal consequences of allowing an alien into the nation’s workforce.
In light of these stipulations, the accused Nicole Tipton, and Sadik Seferi faces mounting charges, which places them in a quagmire of sorts and at loggerheads with the rule of law. First, they face the reality of the first stipulated law that it is unlawful to recruit or to hire aliens. In this instance, a guilty verdict is inevitable since they hired not one, but six undocumented immigrant workers. Another argument for their guilt is on the second stipulation, which states that it is similarly out of the law to continue to employ an alien knowing that they are not authorized to perform work under the law of the land. While one may argue, they did not know if the workers were unauthorized to work, consider the fact that they had all the I-9 documents for the rest of the employees except the six undocumented and unauthorized persons. In addition, they paid the aliens via cash while offering checks for the rest of the workers. This difference of payment indicates that they had full knowledge of their worker’s situations and knew that paying unauthorized personnel with a banker’s check would be difficult for them to make withdrawals. The other stipulation they failed to uphold was that it is against the law to hire persons without fully complying with verification requirements that authorize eligibility. There was ignorance of pertinent requirements such as the verification of identity documents that ascertain the existence of aliens in a foreign country and the completion of form I-9. As such, the guilty nature of both Nicole Tipton and Sadik Seferi exuded plainly
To assert that both the accused did not have the knowledge that all the workers were unauthorized aliens is difficult. However, although the law does its best to close all the loopholes, one stipulation categorically states that having the right knowledge does not infer exclusively based on individual foreign appearance or accent and that actual specific knowledge is required for the proper justification of information (Title 8—Aliens And Nationality, 2011). Per se, the accused may plead that inasmuch as the undocumented aliens lacked proper documentation and I-9 records, it was the prerogative of the employees to present these documents and not the employer. In addition, the law stipulates clearly that prior to inspection, the federal courts have to issue a three-day notice before requesting I-9 forms. In the case of the accused, they may argue that the government did not issue them notices as stipulated by the law and as such, their arrest was a gross violation of the law. On the crime of sheltering and harboring aliens, the accused may defend themselves by simply stating the fact that they did not have full custody of the workers and that they only came to work and left to their own accommodations not partisan to the restaurant or its management.
Ultimately, the case of Nicole Tipton and Sadik Seferi remains to be a tough one considering the fact that they allowed six undocumented immigrants to work in their business premises without following the officially stipulated procedures of employment. While there may be hope for the acquittal of their case, the stipulations of the law stand highly against a not-guilty verdict. While numerous federal statutes, state provisions, and local ordinances control the practices of fair labor and worker compensation, both Nicole Tipton and Sadik Seferi have a colossal legal defense to mount. However, with the right lawyers and legal counsel, they also face the possibility of being free. Overall, this case shows the seriousness of immigration laws, particularly those against the hiring and harboring of illegal aliens.
References
8 U.S. Code § 1324a - Unlawful employment of aliens . (2017). LII / Legal Information Institute . Retrieved 7 September 2017, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324a
Orrenius, P., & Zavodny, M. (2017). Unauthorized Mexican Workers in the United States: Recent Inflows and Possible Future Scenarios . Dallas, TX: DallasFED.
The Law Against Hiring or Harboring Illegal Aliens . (2017). Fairus.org . Retrieved 7 September 2017, from http://www.fairus.org/issue/the-law-against-hiring-or-harboring-illegal-aliens
TITLE 8—ALIENS AND NATIONALITY (2011).
