Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy, The University of Arizona
JUDITH GANS
ARIZONA’S ECONOMY
and
THE LEGAL ARIZONA
WORKERS ACT
Immigration Policy Reports
December 2008
Arizona’s Economy and
the Legal Arizona Workers Act
a status report by
Judith Gans, M.B.A., M.P.A.
Manager, Immigration Policy Program
Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy
The University of Arizona
Part of the Economics and Public Policy Project sponsored by
Presented at “Immigration and the Economy,” a forum co‐sponsored by
Arizona State University ‐ W.P. Carey School of Business
The University of Arizona ‐ Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy
Thomas R. Brown Foundations
The Communications Institute
in association with
County Supervisors Association of Arizona
League of Arizona Cities and Towns
Arizona Republic ▪ Arizona Daily Star ▪ Arizona Capitol Times
December 11, 2008
Phoenix, Arizona
For more information, see: www.communicationsinstitute.org
i
SECTION PAGE
Introduction 1
Background 1
Key Demographics 2
Recent Economic Trends in Arizona 4
ELL Enrollment Trends 9
Business Climate Impacts 11
Enforcement Mechanisms 12
Impacts on the Underground Economy 17
Summary 18
Appendix A 20
Arizona Attorney General Frequently Asked Questions 20
Prescribed Complaint Form 25
CONTENTS
ii
The growth in the number of illegal immigrants in the United States has been an important issue on
national, state, and local levels for the past decade. Reports and studies have been conducted by
government organizations at all levels and by private sector and academic institutions. The U.S.
Congress and the White House have engaged with the issue but have failed to take definitive action
to confront it and have failed as well to develop an acceptable guest workers program.
Meanwhile, border states have experienced both benefits and costs associated with the increased
number of illegal immigrants. On the one hand, immigrant workers have contributed to growth in
both U.S. and state economies. For example, the state of Texas reported in 2006 that the presence
and work of illegal immigrants had added $17 billion to the state economy.
On the other hand, the Border Counties Coalition reported that law enforcement costs for border
counties in the U.S. have grown significantly and that local governments and taxpayers have had to
bear most of these increased costs. Overall, illegal immigration appears to have resulted in net fiscal
benefits at the federal level and disproportionate fiscal costs at state and local levels. While it is
clear that immigrants have played a critically important historical role in the economic and social
development of the U.S., it is less clear what their impact is today.
This report examines the role of immigrant workers in the Arizona economy. Federal failure to
enforce or reform immigration laws has led public officials in states such as Arizona to take matters
into their own hands and enact measures designed to reduce illegal immigration and drive illegal
immigrants from their states. In 2007, Arizona adopted the Legal Arizona Workers Act (LAWA).
This law requires employers to shoulder some of the responsibility for eliminating illegal
immigrants in the state. As we approach the end of 2008, it is appropriate to inquire about LAWA’s
impact. Has the law accomplished its goals? What effect has it had on the Arizona economy?
Over the last six months, the Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy at The University of Arizona
has been trying to answer these questions. This report, written by Judith Gans, Manager of the Udall
Center’s Immigration Policy Program, considers LAWA and its effects in a broad, economic context.
The purpose of the report is not to support a position—either pro or con—regarding the law itself
but instead to provide some preliminary analysis of the impact the law has had on Arizona’s
economy.
The Udall Center began its research on this topic prior to the dramatic downturn in the U.S.
economy that began late in the third quarter of this year. That downturn is already raising difficult
issues for Arizona legislators and public officials as revenues decline and budgets tighten, and it is
likely to add further heat to the discussion of illegal immigration. All the more reason, then, for
leaders in both public and private sectors throughout the state to understand the full dimensions of
the immigration phenomenon and its economic effects. Only through careful and systematic inquiry
and open discussion can we hope to find effective policy solutions to the challenges facing Arizona
and the nation as a whole.
John E. Cox, Jr. Stephen Cornell
President Director
The Communications Institute Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy
communicationsinstitute.org The University of Arizona
udallcenter.arizona.edu
PREFACE
1
Immigration of workers and settlers into the United States has played an important role in the
building of our nation. Migration played a decisive role in the development of the west, including
railroads built by Asian workers and other immigrants that helped build agriculture and other
industries.
The United States and, particularly, the Southwest has experience nearly unprecedented
immigration from countries south of the U.S. border in recent decades. This immigration has had a
both positive and negative impact on the country and its institutions. In 2007, the State of Arizona
enacted new law designed to return many undocumented workers to their native countries.
This report provides a preliminary overview of the impacts of the Legal Arizona Workers Act
(LAWA), in effect as of January 1, 2008. Controversial when enacted, the Legal Arizona Workers Act
has withstood various legal challenges; it was amended by the Arizona state legislature to apply
only to workers hired after December 31, 2007; and it withstood a ballot initiative to substitute
alternative, narrower worksite enforcement provisions. While it is not yet possible to definitively
measure LAWA’s economic impacts, almost a full year’s experience with the statute does provide
some experience with the law.
The Legal Arizona Workers Act prohibits a person or entity from knowingly hiring, recruiting, or
referring for a fee, an unauthorized immigrant. LAWA classifies as a Class 3 felony the taking of
another person’s identity for the purposes of employment, regardless of whether the person whose
identity was stolen is real or fictitious. It also requires the suspension (for a first offense) or
revocation (for a second offense) of the license of an Arizona business found to have knowingly
hired an unauthorized immigrant after December 31, 2007. Under the statute, an unauthorized
immigrant is either a foreign born person who is not legally admitted to the United States as a
lawful permanent resident or a legally‐admitted foreign born person who is not authorized to work
in the U.S.
This law was enacted in the face of failure by the Federal government to control illegal immigration
and is based on the premise that such control requires “worksite enforcement”. Enforcement at the
worksite attempts to eliminate the “jobs magnet” inducing migrants to enter the country illegally by
making it very difficult for illegal immigrants to work once inside the United States. While there is
wide consensus that federally‐enacted worksite enforcement is an important aspect of controlling
illegal immigration, the ramifications of an individual state such as Arizona enacting worksite
enforcement legislation are unclear and widely debated.
Statistical analysis of LAWA’s economic impacts requires sufficient time to pass for “before and
after” data to develop. Such data will be available in late 2009 and beyond. We want to use this
report as primarily a data‐collection enterprise in preparation for further research after the law has
had sufficient time to be in force. To this end, information has been collected to provide some initial
insights to a number of questions relating to LAWA.
1. To what extent does LAWA succeed in reducing the number of illegal immigrants in
Arizona?
BACKGROUND
INTRODUCTION
2
2. If LAWA and other forces significantly eliminate illegal immigrant workers in Arizona, what
are the economic impacts of this elimination? What are the consequences for output,
employment, and profits across industries and for wages of different categories (skill levels)
of workers? What are the fiscal consequences of these changes?
3. Does LAWA affect the business climate in Arizona? Does it affect Arizona’s ability to
compete with other states in attracting new business investment? Does it impact other
(non‐wage) costs of doing business in Arizona relative to other states?
4. How does the law impact costs of providing social services such as educating English
Language Learner students, health care, etc. to non‐citizen foreign‐born?
5. How cost‐effective is employer sanctions at the state level? What are the costs per
enforcement action? Is E‐Verify an effective verification mechanism? Is a credible threat of
enforcement sufficient to eliminate undocumented workers? Do any savings in social
service costs offset enforcement costs?
What follows is summary of specific information relevant to addressing these questions. A
cautionary note is of critical importance in examining these data. No conclusions can be drawn about
whether LAWA is having a causal impact on the observed trends. It is too soon to measure economic
impacts of this law.
Because LAWA was enacted during an economic downturn affecting immigrant‐employing
industries, it is particularly important to avoid making premature conclusions as to the underlying
causes of observed trends. If, for example, illegal immigrants are leaving the state, it is too soon to
determine whether this is a result of the Legal Arizona Workers Act or the result of the decline in
construction activity in Arizona. Thus the information included in this report should be understood
as preliminary trends in data that will subsequently be used for statistical analysis once sufficient
data are available to examine the economic impacts of the Legal Arizona Workers Act.
Evaluating LAWA’s effectiveness requires, first and foremost, determining whether Arizona’s illegal
immigrant population is declining. While, by definition, accurate data on illegal immigrants in
Arizona is unavailable, reasonable statistical estimates can be derived from data available through
the US Census Bureau and other sources. The following table describes trends in Arizona’s foreign‐born
population and estimates the number of illegal immigrants in Arizona as of 2006. (The first
round of American Community Survey data for 2007 will not be released until early December of
2008.)
In the short run, the task of estimating whether Arizona’s (illegal) immigrant population declined
after LAWA went into effect on January 1, 2008 must be accomplished indirectly by looking at
indicators such as the number of children enrolled in English Language Learner programs in
Arizona’s public schools, sales tax receipts, and housing vacancies in communities with large
immigrant populations. And, in looking at these indicators, one must keep in mind that the cause of
any population changes—whether declines in economic activity, LAWA, or some other factor—
cannot yet be definitively determined.
KEY DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS
3
Table 1. Arizona Population Trends (thousands)
2000 2004 2006
Percent Change
200006
Total Population 5,134 5,744 6,166 20.1
Native Born 4,472 4,913 5,240 17.2
All Foreign Born 662 831 926 39.9
Naturalized Citizens 195 211 270 38.5
Non‐Citizens 457 620 657 43.8
Unauthorized immigrants, based on 2005 x
estimate of 6.9 to 7.7% of total population1 450 to 475
Immigrants in Arizona’s Workforce
Arizona relies significantly on immigrants for its low‐skilled work force and specific sectors of the
economy are particularly reliant on these workers. Fifty five percent of Arizonans without a high
school education in 2004 were non‐citizen immigrants. The following table lists those industries
where at least 10% of workers in 2004 were low‐skilled non‐citizen workers along with each
industry’s share of Arizona’s 2004 GDP.2
Table 2. Immigrant Percentage of Workforce in Arizona
Industry Sector
NonCitizen
Workforce
percent
Industry Share of GDP
percent
Manufacturing 13.3
13
Services to Business/Professions 12.4 11
Wholesale Trade 18.6 6
Construction 11.4 6
Leisure & Hospitality 14.9 4
Other Services 13.0 2
Agriculture 35.2 1
Share of GDP Generated by Selected Industries 43
We see in Table 2 that forty three percent of Arizona’s GDP in 2004 was generated by industries
that rely significantly on low‐skilled immigrant workers, many of whom are undocumented. Pew
Hispanic Center estimates that approximately 65% of unauthorized migrants participate in the
labor force.3 This suggests that there were between 260,000 and 292,500 unauthorized workers in
Arizona in 2005 and that unauthorized immigrants represent between 7% and 8% of Arizona's
population and approximately 10% of its labor force.4
1 Pew Hispanic Center calculations, published in Arizona: Population and Labor Force Characteristics, 20002006,
January
2008 using University of Minnesota’s Integrated Public Use Micro data Series (IPUMS) for the American Community
Survey and the 2000 Census. Available at: http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/37.pdf
2 Gans, Judith, Immigrants in Arizona: Economic and Fiscal Impacts, Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy, University of
Arizona, October 2007.
3 Passel, Jeffrey S. “The Size and Characteristics of the Unauthorized Migrant Population in the U.S.,” Pew Hispanic Center
(March 7, 2006).
4 Pew Hispanic Center calculations, published in Arizona: Population and Labor Force Characteristics, 20002006,
January
2008 using University of Minnesota’s Integrated Public Use Micro data Series (IPUMS) for the American Community
Survey and the 2000 Census. Available at: http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/37.pdf
4
Employment Trends in Arizona
A central challenge in understanding LAWA’s impacts on Arizona’s economy is that if disentangling
overall trends in the economy from the impacts of any reductions in the workforce that may be
caused by enactment and enforcement of this statute. As stated earlier in this report, there are
statistical techniques for accomplishing this once sufficient time has passed for “before and after”
data to develop. For now, we can report on employment trends in Arizona and in sectors that
employ large numbers of immigrants. Arizona, like the rest of the country, is experiencing a
significant economic downturn and some sectors reliant on immigrant labor have been particularly
Figure 1: YearOverYear
Change in Arizona Employment
-15.00%
-10.00%
-5.00%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
JAN
JAN
JAN
JAN
JAN
JAN
JAN
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Unemployment Rate
Goods Producing
Private Service-Providing
affected. Trends in the overall economy are evident in the monthly year over year change in
Arizona’s private employment, shown here for 2002 to 2008 along with the seasonally adjusted
unemployment rate for the same time period. These data indicate that overall employment growth
in Arizona began to weaken in early 2006. Year‐over‐year employment declines in goods producing
sectors began in early 2007 and these declines continue to the present. Declines in service‐providing
employment began in early 2008. Arizona’s unemployment rate grew from 3.9 percent in
January 2007 to 5.9 percent in September 2008.
September 2008: Goods producing sectors experienced large year-over-year declines
in employment with September 2008 figures 10% below those of September of 2007.
A year-over-year decline of 2% in service sector employment resulted in
unemployment rising to a seasonally adjusted rate of 5.9%.
RECENT ECONOMIC TRENDS IN ARIZONA
5
Table 3 on the following pages confirms widespread weakness in Arizona’s employment picture.
Overall job growth slowed through August of 2007 and turned negative in September. Goods
producing sectors (manufacturing and construction) had negative job growth throughout all of
2007 and 2008. The one bright spot within manufacturing was aerospace, which continued to
experience employment growth throughout the period. Overall service sector employment growth
began to weaken in the latter part of 2007, with year‐over‐year job losses beginning in May of 2008.
Hardest hit in the service sector were administrative and waste services with employment declines
in some sub‐sectors beginning as early as February of 2007. The brightest spot in the service sector
has been health services with sustained year‐over‐year employment growth of between 3 and
almost 6 percent. Education services and leisure and hospitality have also shown positive year over
year growth throughout most of this period.
Trends in Industries with Large Immigrant Workforces
Figure 2 depicts employment trends in sectors, mentioned earlier in this report, that rely
significantly on immigrant labor. Construction has been is the hardest‐hit sector of the economy.
Figure 2: YearOverYear
Employment Changes – Immigrant Hiring Sectors
-30.00%
-20.00%
-10.00%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
JAN
JAN
JAN
JAN
JAN
JAN
JAN
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Construction of Buildings
Manufacturing
Services to Businesses/Professions
Leisure and Hospitality
Other Services
Wholesale Trade
This is also the sector (other than agriculture) with the largest reliance on low‐skilled immigrant
labor. Year‐over‐year declines in construction employment began in early 2007, but weakness in
the sector was evident in early 2006 when employment growth began to slow sharply. Other
sectors with large immigrant workforces have experienced more moderate employment declines
since early 2008.
September 2008: Construction employment in September 2008 is almost
23% below September 2007. Other sectors also experienced declines in
2008.
6
According to the Pew Hispanic Center, approximately 28% of Arizona’s foreign‐born Hispanics
work in the construction industry and comprise 35% of the construction industry’s workforce.
Foreign‐born non‐citizen Hispanics are 20% of the workforce in non‐durable manufacturing, 19%
of the workforce in arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodations, and food services, and 18% of
the workforce in other services. 5
5 Pew Hispanic Center, op cit, pages 8‐9.
In Brief
Employment trends in Arizona mirror the economic downturn throughout the U.S. economy.
Sectors that with significant non‐citizen foreign born workforces have been hard hit. This is likely
to have reduced employment among foreign‐born non‐citizens and undocumented immigrants.
These reductions coincide with any reductions which LAWA may have caused.
7
Table 3: Recent Trends in Arizona Employment, Unemployment (employment numbers in thousands)
Arizona Employment Trends by Major Economic Sector
percentages are yearoveryear
changes in employment levels
2007
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Unemployment Rate(1) 3.9% 3.8% 3.7% 3.7% 3.6% 3.6% 3.7% 3.7% 3.8% 3.9% 4.1% 4.2%
Total Private Sector 2,220.9 2,242.9 2,259.4 2,249.5 2,254.7 2,255.5 2,225.0 2,235.8 2,234.3 2,239.0 2,249.6 2,252.1
Year‐Over‐Year Change 2.74% 2.41% 2.11% 1.40% 1.30% 0.99% 0.39% 0.26% ‐0.2% ‐0.2% ‐0.5% ‐1.1%
Goods Producing 418.8 421.9 422.7 419.1 420.2 424.7 419.9 420.9 416.8 412.9 407.2 404.4
Year‐Over‐Year Change ‐1.2% ‐2.0% ‐2.8% ‐4.3% ‐4.6% ‐4.6% ‐5.3% ‐4.9% ‐5.2% ‐5.0% ‐5.3% ‐5.6%
Construction change ‐1.3% ‐2.9% ‐4.3% ‐6.1% ‐6.8% ‐6.6% ‐7.8% ‐7.5% ‐8.0% ‐8.1% ‐9.5% ‐10.1%
Manufacturing change ‐1.8% ‐1.7% ‐1.9% ‐2.8% ‐2.5% ‐2.7% ‐3.0% ‐2.6% ‐2.7% ‐2.1% ‐1.0% ‐1.1%
Aerospace change ‐1.9% 3.3% 2.6% 2.6% 1.9% 2.2% 1.8% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 7.0% 6.2%
Services 1,802.1 1,821.0 1,836.7 1,830.4 1,834.5 1,830.8 1,805.1 1,814.9 1,817.5 1,826.1 1,842.4 1,847.7
Year‐Over‐Year Change 3.7% 3.5% 3.3% 2.8% 2.8% 2.4% 1.8% 1.5% 1.0% 0.9% 0.6% ‐0.1%
Wholesale Trade 4.1% 3.8% 3.9% 3.4% 3.4% 3.6% 2.3% 1.5% 0.9% 0.9% 0.6% ‐0.2%
Retail Trade 4.0% 3.7% 3.2% 3.4% 3.4% 3.2% 2.6% 2.6% 2.8% 1.8% 1.0% ‐0.1%
Admin. & Waste Svc. 3.9% 2.4% 2.6% 1.3% 0.9% 0.4% 0.1% ‐0.4% ‐1.4% ‐1.9% ‐1.9% ‐2.3%
Employment Service 0.2% ‐2.1% ‐1.6% ‐3.2% ‐4.1% ‐5.0% ‐4.6% ‐4.6% ‐5.5% ‐5.2% ‐4.2% ‐3.9%
Business Services 3.6% 0.3% 0.0% ‐2.7% ‐2.4% ‐1.7% ‐2.4% ‐3.7% ‐4.7% ‐4.7% ‐7.0% ‐8.3%
Services to Buildings 10.6% 10.1% 9.7% 8.4% 7.9% 6.7% 6.9% 6.4% 3.7% 2.4% 2.8% 2.0%
Educational Services 1.7% 1.4% 1.4% ‐0.5% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% ‐0.2% 0.5% 0.5% 0.2% 0.0%
Health Services 5.6% 5.8% 5.5% 5.1% 5.0% 5.1% 4.9% 4.7% 4.4% 4.2% 4.0% 3.4%
Leisure & Hospitality 3.4% 3.3% 3.5% 2.4% 2.8% 1.9% 1.0% 2.0% 1.2% 2.1% 1.6% 1.6%
Other Services ‐0.9% ‐1.0% ‐1.6% ‐1.3% ‐2.2% ‐3.1% ‐0.1% ‐1.3% ‐1.3% 0.3% ‐0.5% ‐1.4%
(1) Unemployment rate is seasonally adjusted rate for period shown, not year‐over‐year change
8
Table 3 (cont.): Recent Trends in Arizona Employment, Unemployment (employment numbers in thousands)
Arizona Employment Trends by Major Economic Sector
percentages are yearoveryear
changes in employment levels
2008
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Unemployment Rate(1) 4.3% 4.0% 4.0% 3.9% 4.4% 4.8% 5.1% 5.6% 5.9%
Total Private Sector 2,215.1 2,225.3 2,232.5 2,226.3 2,221.3 2,207.2 2,181.4 2,177.4 2,168.7
Year‐Over‐Year Change ‐0.3% ‐0.8% ‐1.2% ‐1.0% ‐1.5% ‐2.1% ‐2.0% ‐2.6% ‐2.9%
Goods Producing 397.7 396.6 395.2 391.8 389.4 386.2 383.0 380.1 376.0
Year‐Over‐Year Change ‐5.0% ‐6.0% ‐6.5% ‐6.5% ‐7.3% ‐9.1% ‐8.8% ‐9.7% ‐9.8%
Construction change ‐9.2% ‐10.1% ‐11.0% ��11.4% ‐12.6% ‐15.4% ‐15.3% ‐16.5% ‐17.2%
Manufacturing change ‐1.1% ‐2.2% ‐2.2% ‐1.8% ‐2.1% ‐2.4% ‐1.9% ‐2.3% ‐1.7%
Aerospace change 6.2% ‐1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 0.7% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4%
Services 1,817.4 1,828.7 1,837.3 1,834.5 1,831.9 1,821.0 1,798.4 1,797.3 1,792.7
Year‐Over‐Year Change 0.8% 0.4% 0.0% 0.2% ‐0.1% ‐0.5% ‐0.4% ‐1.0% ‐1.4%
Wholesale Trade 0.74% ‐0.28% ‐0.55% ‐0.28% ‐1.11% ‐2.66% ‐1.57% ‐1.49% ‐0.93%
Retail Trade 1.6% 1.2% 0.7% 0.4% ‐0.4% ‐0.4% ‐1.1% ‐2.3% ‐3.8%
Admin. & Waste Svc. ‐1.1% ‐1.4% ‐2.4% ‐2.4% ‐2.7% ‐3.7% ‐3.3% ‐5.0% ‐5.4%
Employment Service ‐1.9% ‐2.0% ‐3.1% ‐3.4% ‐3.8% ‐5.0% ‐5.1% ‐7.9% ‐8.4%
Business Services ‐8.2% ‐6.8% ‐6.9% ‐4.2% ‐4.5% ‐6.5% ‐3.2% ‐4.2% ‐4.3%
Services to Buildings 2.5% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 0.4% 0.2% 0.2% ‐1.2% ‐1.5%
Educational Services ‐0.7% ‐0.2% ‐0.2% 0.5% ‐0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.9% 0.2%
Health Services 5.0% 4.2% 4.4% 4.7% 4.6% 3.9% 4.2% 4.0% 3.9%
Leisure & Hospitality 1.2% 0.9% 0.3% 1.1% 0.9% 0.8% 1.0% ‐0.1% ‐1.1%
Other Services ‐1.1% ‐1.1% ‐1.6% 0.2% 0.0% 0.6% ‐0.4% ‐0.7% ‐1.7%
(1) Unemployment rate is seasonally adjusted rate for period shown, not year‐over‐year change
9
Another indicator of the size of Arizona’s foreign‐born population is enrollment in English
Language Learner (ELL) programs. Enrollment in these programs declined between FY2004 and
FY2008 as seen in Table 4 below, however this decline reflects, in part, policies enacted by the
Arizona Department of Education (ADE) requiring increased documentation of eligibility for
students enrolled in ELL programs. These ELL enrollment numbers, therefore, reflect both the
number of students learning to speak English and changes in how school districts apply for and
receive funding to teach these students. Conversations with Department of Education staff indicate
that these policies, first enacted for FY2004, are now largely fully implemented so that any changes
in ELL enrollment between FY2008 and FY2009 are more likely driven by changes in the actual
number of students requiring language services rather than ADE policy changes.
Table 4. ELL Enrollment: School Year Average6
County FY 2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008
Apache 5,949 4,158 2,649 2,710 2,460
Cochise 3,754 2,927 2,627 2,465 2,694
Coconino 4,049 2,743 2,556 2,419 2,578
Gila 729 353 160 161 330
Graham 25 46 20 19 21
Greenlee 1 0 5 0 10
La Paz 386 303 268 242 248
Maricopa 96,058 96,572 85,243 90,870 98,734
Mohave 1,274 1,285 1,403 1,429 1,493
Navajo 5,608 4,292 3,022 3,004 3,210
Pima 20,266 18,133 16,945 16,700 17,294
Pinal 2,607 2,868 3,017 3,608 4,045
Santa Cruz 5,892 5,252 4,021 3,845 3,755
Yavapai 1,712 1,917 1,860 1,893 1,951
Yuma 13,368 13,223 10,824 10,929 11,155
ELL Enrollment 161,677 154,601 135,319 141,262 150,700
Total Enrollment 1,011,959 1,055,338 1,066,861 1,099,591 1,145,982
ELL % of Enrollment 15.9% 14.6% 12.7% 12.8% 13.2%
Some counties, specifically Maricopa, Mohave, Greenlee, Pinal, and Yavapai have seen ELL
enrollments increase over the period while all other counties have experienced declines in these
enrollments between FY2004 and FY2008.
6 Source: Arizona Department of Education
ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNER ENROLLMENT TRENDS
10
PostLAWA
English Language Learner Enrollments
School districts report ELL enrollments as of three dates: October 1, December 15, and February 1
of each academic year. These numbers are averaged by the Department of Education to get ELL
enrollments for the fiscal year, reported in Table 2 above. Enrollments for fiscal years 2004 through
2007, and the October and December figures for fiscal year 2008 represent enrollment before
enactment of the Legal Arizona Workers Act. The figures reported by school districts in February of
2008 reflect enrollments after LAWA was enacted. The data for these three reporting dates in
FY2008 were examined to see if significant declines in ELL enrollments occurred after LAWA went
into effect. Results of this analysis are shown here in Table 5.
Table 5
County
FY2008
Average Oct 1 Dec 15 Feb 1
OctDec
DecFeb
DecFeb
%
Change
Apache 2,460 2,285 2,614 2,545 329 69 ‐2.6%
Cochise 2,694 2,685 2,709 2,672 24 37 ‐1.4%
Coconino 2,578 2,598 2,611 2,526 13 85 ‐3.3%
Gila 330 223 395 376 172 19 ‐4.8%
Graham 21 21 20 20 1 0 0.0%
Greenlee 10 10 10 10 0 0 0.0%
La Paz 248 244 245 249 1 4 1.6%
Maricopa 98,734 98,849 99,789 97,660 940 2,129 ‐2.1%
Mohave 1,493 1,523 1,492 1,466 31 26 ‐1.7%
Navajo 3,210 3,347 3,299 3,025 48 274 ‐8.3%
Pima 17,294 17,208 17,622 17,064 414 558 ‐3.2%
Pinal 4,045 3,991 4,068 4,092 77 24 0.6%
Santa Cruz 3,755 3,789 3,814 3,685 25 129 ‐3.4%
Yavapai 1,951 1,993 1,944 1,916 49 28 ‐1.4%
Yuma 11,155 10,886 11,356 11,228 470 128 ‐1.1%
Totals 150,700 149,662 152,013 148,560 2,351 3,453 ‐2.3%
While the declines were small, both in absolute numbers and as a percent of enrollments, most
counties experienced declines in ELL enrollment between December 2007 and February 2008 after
LAWA went into effect. Total ELL enrollment in Arizona declined by 2.3 percent of December
enrollments and the largest percent decline was in Gila County at 4.8%.
In Brief
English Language Learner ELL enrollments appear to have declined slightly between the
December 15, 2007 and February 1, 2008 reporting dates, although it is difficult to determine
whether these declines reflect normal fluctuations in ELL enrollment or a decline in
undocumented immigrant populations. Further, if the declines are the result of immigrants leaving
Arizona, it is not clear whether this is the result of LAWA or of the downturn in the economy.
11
When initially passed, concerns were raised about whether the Legal Arizona Workers Act would
have a negative impact on Arizona’s business climate and put it at a competitive disadvantage
relative to other states. O’Neil Associates, a public opinion research firm in Tempe Arizona, has
surveyed the membership of Arizona’s Small Business Association on the impacts of the Legal
Arizona Workers Act. These surveys were conducted in each quarter of 2008 since the law went
into effect.7 Small businesses were asked what kind of impact the law was having on their
businesses. The results for each quarter are shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3: Survey Results: LAWA Impacts on Small Businesses
5% 8%
14%
8%
4%5% 7%8% 8% 6%
14%
8%
65%
76%
65%
Very
Positive
Positive No Impact Negative Very
Negative
Q1 Q2 Q3
During the first three quarters of 2008, the majority of Arizona’s small businesses report that the
Legal Arizona Workers Act had no impact on their businesses. In each quarter, more businesses
reported either a “negative” or “very negative” impact than reported either a “positive” or “very
positive” impact. Discussions with an Arizona Small Business Association representative further
illuminate these results. Specifically:
• The downturn in Arizona’s economy has softened LAWA’s impact in that employment has
declined across the economy;
• If Arizona’s economy had been expanding at rates similar to the early 2000s, many small
businesses, especially in construction and agriculture, would be experiencing labor
shortages
• Once the economy begins to grow, the percent reporting “no impact” is likely to decline.
7 Available at http://www.oneilresearch.com/publicdomain/
BUSINESS CLIMATE IMPACTS
12
We turn now to an examination of the specific enforcement mechanisms of the Legal Arizona
Workers Act. Responsibility for enforcement of LAWA rests with Arizona’s fifteen County
Attorneys. Investigation of a possible violation of the Act depends on a complaint being filed by a
member of the public suspecting that an employer “knowingly hired” an undocumented immigrant.
The Arizona Attorney General and County Attorneys can receive and investigate complaints but
authority to prosecute complaints in Superior Court rests with county attorneys.
Once a complaint has been filed, the civil division in the county attorney’s office determines
whether the complaint is frivolous or merits further investigation. Examples of a frivolous
complaint include a presumption by the complainant of illegal status based on race, ethnicity, or
Spanish language use. Non‐frivolous cases are investigated to determine whether there is sufficient
evidence to file an action in Superior Court to suspend (for a first offense) or revoke (for a second
offense) a business’s license. Filing an action in Superior Court under LAWA requires a
determination of facts in two areas. First, investigators must develop evidence that an employer
“knowingly hired” an unauthorized immigrant. Second, investigators must establish that the
employee in question is, in fact” unauthorized.
The statute does not give County Attorneys the power to subpoena business records in determining
whether the employer knew that a person hired after December 31, 2007 was an unauthorized
immigrant. Investigators must rely on evidence provided by the individual filing the complaint and
other any corroborating evidence that can be obtained independent of company records.
Development of sufficient evidence to file an action in Superior Court must be done absent the
access to company records that subpoena power would create. A number of County Attorneys
interviewed mentioned this as an important constraint in the law.
Determination of the employee’s immigration status must be made by the Federal government. In
any action against an employer in Superior Court, the statue requires that the court only consider
the federal government’s determination as to whether a person is an unauthorized alien. County
Attorneys must rely on the Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration Control and
Enforcement (ICE) division for such a determination.
LAWA requires Arizona employers to use the E‐Verify program (discussed more fully later in this
report) to verify the employment eligibility of every employee hired after December 31, 2007 and
that use of E‐Verify creates a rebuttable presumption that the employer did not knowingly employ
an authorized immigrant. A determination of someone’s immigration status and authorization to
work must be made by the Federal government through the Department of Homeland Security.
The Attorney General issued guidelines for enforcing LAWA along with a prescribed complaint
form. These are included in Appendix A. These guidelines state that complaints should be in writing
using either the form available on the Attorney General’s web site or a form provided by one of the
County Attorneys. The law allows anonymous complaints but County Attorneys have the discretion
to define protocols that make it unlikely an anonymous complaint will be investigated.
A survey of the fifteen web sites of Arizona’s county attorneys reveals that:
• Four of the fifteen contain on‐line information and about the Act and guidelines for filing
complaints, either in brochure or Q&A form, along with a link to the county’s own complaint
form;
LEGAL ARIZONA WORKERS ACT ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS
13
• One contains a link to the county’s own form but no on‐line general information about the
Act. The form itself contains instructions and guidelines for filing a complaint;
• One county’s web site contains on‐line information, an on‐line complaint form, and a link to
the Attorney General’s complaint form;
• Two web sites have an on‐line brochure and link to the Attorney General complaint form
• Seven of these fifteen web sites make no mention of the Legal Arizona Workers Act;
• Of the eight counties whose web sites containing information about the Act, three require
that complaints be signed and notarized and five require a signature but no notarization.
Funding For LAWA Enforcement
An initial appropriation to fund enforcement of the Legal Arizona Workers Act was provided for in
the statute. The sum of $100,000 was appropriated for the attorney general in fiscal year 2007‐
2008 for “enforcement of any immigration related matters.” The sum of $2,430,000 in fiscal year
2007‐2008 was appropriated for County Attorneys and allocated as follows:
• $1,430,000 to counties with a population of more than 1,500,000 people (Maricopa);
• $500,000 to counties with a population between 800,000 and 1,500,000 (Pima); and
• The remaining $500,000 divided among Arizona’s remaining thirteen counties.
Allocations were as small as $1,200 for La Paz, $2,665 for Greenlee, and as high as
$71,000 for Yavapai County.
These funds are exclusively for enforcing the Legal Arizona Workers Act. Any funds not used in
fiscal year 2007‐2008 were to be carried forward and used for future enforcement of the statute.8
The law’s fiscal impact on counties will depend directly on the number of complaints filed. The cost
of investigating and pursuing a large number of complaints would quickly exhaust the funds
allocated, particularly for smaller counties. Small counties with limited budgets facing large
employers with large legal budgets are at a financial disadvantage. The determination of which
cases to pursue in Superior Court will, in all cases, depend on the strength of the evidence collected
by initial investigations, but pursuit of valid cases in counties whose LAWA allocations are small or
already exhausted could result in a financial burden to those counties.
LAWA Enforcement Actions
Interviews with Arizona’s County Attorneys revealed a range of experience with the Legal Arizona
Workers Act. Table 6 lists the number and status of enforcement actions under the act as of the time
of this report.
8 Text of statute, found at http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/48leg/1r/bills/hb2779c.pdf
14
Table 6. Enforcement Actions Under the Legal Arizona Workers Act
County
Number of
Complaints
Superior Court
Actions
Comments:
Apache 0 ‐ No anonymous complaints accepted
Gila 2 or 3 ‐ None worth taking to Superior Court
Cochise 0 ‐
Coconino 1 0 1 case under investigation; made by a business’
competitor
Graham
Greenlee 0 ‐ Only calls from journalists and researchers
La Paz 0 ‐ No calls about filling a complaint;
Only calls are from journalists
Maricopa ?9 0
Work closely with sheriff’s office to receive and
investigate complaints; “at least 5 businesses are
currently under investigation.”
Mohave 15 0
8 of 15 initial complaints moot because the employees
were hired prior to 1/1/08;
7 cases being investigated, 1 or 2 may be viable. As of
10/08 dept. costs of about $20,000 attributable to
LAWA
Navajo 0 ‐
Pima 4, 1 0 4 related to employees hired prior to 1/1/2008
1 currently under investigation
Pinal 1 0 Received 2 phone calls; 1 being investigated, still
pending
Santa Cruz 1 0 The complainant did not submit a written complaint.
Yavapai 13 0
13 complaints received since January. 4 currently
being investigated, 9 closed without further action ;
$71,000 initial funding received. Approximately
$20,000 spent.
Yuma 1 0 Complaint mailed in turned out to be a naturalized
citizen
9 The Maricopa County Attorney’s office informs me that complaints are investigated by the Maricopa County Sherriff’s
office and that they “don’t know how many complaints have been received.” Calls to the Sherriff’s office have not yet been
returned.
15
EVerify
as an Enforcement Tool
Originally known as the Web‐Based Pilot Program, E‐Verify is an internet‐based system that allows
employers to check the employment eligibility of new hires by comparing information on the
employee’s I‐9 form with records in the Social Security Administration database and Department of
Homeland Security immigration data bases. It is operated by the Department of Homeland
Security’s US Citizenship and Immigration Services Bureau in cooperation with the Social Security
Administration. An evaluation of the Web‐Based Pilot Program, now E‐Verify, for the Department of
Homeland Security was completed in September 2007.10 Findings about E‐Verify included:
• “The databases used for verification are still not sufficiently up to date to meet the IIRIRA
(Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act) requirement for accurate
verification, especially for naturalized citizens.”11 Specifically:
o The rate of “tentative non‐confirmations” for all foreign‐born persons who are
actually work‐authorized employees (false‐positives) is 3.0%.
o The rate of false positives for U.S. born work‐authorized persons is 0.1%
o Among the work‐authorized foreign‐born, naturalized U.S. citizens receive
“tentative non‐confirmations” at a rate of 9.8% while those who have not become
U.S. citizens receive “tentative non‐confirmations” at a rate of 1.4%. Addressing this
disparity “will take considerable time and will require better data collection and
data sharing between SSA, USCIS, and the U.S. Department of State than is currently
the case.”12
o These “tentative nonconfirmation”
rates are understated because they do not include
cases that are not contested by the employee.
o The problem of false “tentative non‐confirmations” is addressed by providing for
manual review of these cases. However reviews can take months and can result in
significant lost wages and discrimination against foreign‐born persons who are, in
fact, authorized to work in the U.S.13
• E‐Verify does not substantially improve employers’ ability to detect fraud when borrowed or
stolen documents are used by unauthorized workers to obtain employment and it also
cannot detect counterfeit documents containing information about persons who are work‐authorized.
• The percentage of E‐Verify users who reported that the program made them more willing to
hire immigrants was greater than the percentage who reported being less willing to hire
immigrants, presumably leading to a net reduction of employment discrimination against
immigrants.
• E‐Verify, as currently operated, involves some privacy concerns. Specifically, under current
procedures, employers enrolling in the program are not verified against any listing of
employers, making it easy for someone to pose as an employer and obtain access to the
system. Further, employers do not consistently convey information to workers about
tentative non‐confirmations in a private setting.
10 Westat, Findings of the Web Basic Pilot Evaluation: Report Submitted to the US Department of Homeland Security,
September 2007. Available at http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/WebBasicPilotRprtSept2007.pdf
11 Ibid, page xxi
12 Ibid, page xxvi
13 Ibid
16
• E‐Verify is relatively easy to use and does
not impose a significant cost burden. Most
employers reported spending $100 or less
in set‐up and annual operating costs.
Arizona Employer Enrollment in EVerify
A list of Arizona employers enrolled in E‐Verify as
of August 28, 2008 was released by the
Department of Homeland Security.14 This list does
not include employers doing business in Arizona
who may have enrolled in E‐Verify using a
company address in another state. It also does not
necessarily include every employer’s location in
Arizona. It is, however, the most complete list
available of employers who have enrolled in the E‐Verify
program.
Analysis of this list provides a picture of the
number and percent of employers enrolled by
county. Overall, about 5.6% of Arizona employers
were enrolled in E‐Verify as of August of 2008.
Yuma County had the largest share of firms
enrolled in E‐Verify at 7.2%, followed by Maricopa
County at 6%, Pinal County at 5.7%, and Yavapai
County at 5.3%. See sidebar for a description of
how these estimates were calculated. Apache
County had the smallest share of its firms enrolled
in E‐Verify as of August 2008 at 1.1%. The number
and percent of businesses enrolled in E‐Verify for
all Arizona counties is shown in Table 7 on the
following page.
14 Available on the AZ Attorney General’s web site at http://www.azag.gov/LegalAZWorkersAct/EVerify_All.pdf
Methodology of
EVerify
Enrollment Analysis
1. The list of Arizona employers
enrolled in E‐Verify was searched to
calculate the number of employers
enrolled in each city and town in
Arizona. These numbers were
aggregated by county to get the
number of enrolled employers in
each county.
2. The total number of employers in
each county was estimated using
U.S. Census bureau data on the
number of firms in each Arizona
County in 2002. The 2002 number
of firms was increased by the
annual rate of growth of GDP for
Arizona from 2002 to 2007. This
methodology assumes that each
county in Arizona grew at the same
rate as the state and that the
average firm size did not change
over this time period. To the extent
that a county grew more slowly
than the state, this method will
overstate
the number of firms in
2007 and understate the percent of
the county’s firms that have
enrolled. To the extent that a county
has grown more rapidly than the
state, this methodology will understate
the number of firms in 2007
and over��state
the percent of firms
in the county that have enrolled.
17
Table 7. Arizona Employer Enrollment in EVerify
County
Est. 2007 Number
of Firms Number Enrolled Estimated % Enrolled
Apache County 3,248 35 1.1%
Cochise County 9,433 366 3.9%
Coconino County 13,535 752 5.6%
Gila County 5,241 278 5.3%
Graham County 2,013 111 5.5%
Greenlee County 426 13 3.1%
La Paz County 1,267 49 3.9%
Maricopa County 306,152 18,251 6.0%
Mohave 14,881 695 4.7%
Navajo 7,623 310 4.1%
Pima 79,336 4,038 5.1%
Pinal 10,844 620 5.7%
Santa Cruz 4,439 162 3.6%
Yavapai 23,902 1,259 5.3%
Yuma 9,419 678 7.2%
Arizona Total 491,760 27,617 5.6%
Voluntary Employer Enhanced Compliance Program
The Attorney General’s Office has established a “voluntary employer enhanced compliance
program” following amendments to LAWA, effective on May 1, 2008. Employers enroll in the
program by submitting a signed “Affidavit and Agreement” whereby they promise to verify the
eligibility of all new employees using E‐Verify and to use the Social Security Number Verification
Service to verify the Social Security numbers of all employees who are not checked through the E‐Verify
program. An employer enrolled in this program who is subsequently the subject of a
complaint filed with regard to the hiring of a particular worker shall not be in violation of the Legal
Arizona Workers Act if the employer in good faith verified the employment eligibility of the
employee named in the complaint. As of November 19, 2008, a total of 2 employers had enrolled in
the Voluntary Employer Enhanced Compliance Program.
Another impact of law designed to increased deportation of immigrations is its impact on
expanding the underground economy.
An article in the November 30 2008 edition of The Arizona Republic reported that one impact of the
Legal Arizona Workers Act has been to move some illegal immigrants into the underground
economy. The requirement that employers use E‐Verify has had the intended effect of making it
more difficult for illegal immigrants to work using forged documents. According to the article,
rather than “self‐deporting” and leaving Arizona, however, some illegal immigrants are resorting to
IMPACTS ON THE UNDERGROUND ECONOMY
18
more informal forms of earning money. These include breeding and selling puppies, engaging in
arbitrage activities such as buying items at garage sales and reselling them at swap meets; working
for employers willing to pay them in cash; and borrowing friends’ identities in order to work.
Accurate estimates of the number of illegal immigrants resorting to such measures are impossible
to obtain. To the extent that this is occurring, however, the phenomenon is lowering income tax
revenues to the state because the incomes generated through these informal means are unreported
and untaxed. This phenomenon has implications for any approaches to worksite enforcement,
whether enacted at the state or federal level.
It is too soon to measure the impacts of the Legal Arizona Workers Act. There have been relatively
few complaints under the law and, as of the writing of this report, no actions in Superior Court. The
proportion of Arizona firms that have enrolled in E‐Verify is small, and the declines in ELL
enrollments in early 2008 were small. The majority of Arizona’s small businesses report that LAWA
has had “no impact” on their business. All of this suggests that the law’s effects have been limited.
It is important to remember, however, that the Legal Arizona Workers Act has been in effect for less
than one year as of the date of this report and that it took effect during a severe economic
downturn. Because illegal immigration results, in part, from a mismatch between the legal
immigration system, the labor‐needs of the economy, and the size and skill‐profile of the available
native‐born labor force, we would expect the impact of the Legal Arizona Workers Act to vary
during a business cycle and to be most pronounced during periods of very low unemployment and
tight labor markets and less pronounced during an economic downturn.
The current economic down‐turn has resulted in declining employment in Arizona, particularly in
sectors such as construction that employ significant numbers of low‐skilled (immigrant) workers.
Thus the current downturn in employment appears to have diffused LAWA’s impacts, which may
not become evident until the employment picture in Arizona improves. When the economy begins
to recover, we would expect an increase in the number of LAWA complaints filed by the public and
a decrease in the number of small businesses reporting “no impact” of the law.
Ultimately, the extent of any impacts will depend on a number of things including the nature of the
economic recovery, how soon the construction sector recovers, and on whether there are any
changes are made to federal immigration law. It is too soon to determine the LAWA’s impacts on
Arizona’s economy. It is also too soon to measure its impacts, whatever they may be. Enough time
must pass for sufficient data to develop in order to compare Arizona’s economic performance
before and after the law’s implementation to that of other states with similar economies that have
not passed a similar law.
Questions of measuring LAWA’s impacts aside, there are two specific aspects of the law that shape
its impacts and merit discussion.
First, because the statute is enforced by county attorneys through civil action in Superior Court,
enforcement is reactive. An investigation must be initiated by a member of the public filing a
complaint. A proactive approach such as making the use of E‐Verify a precondition of obtaining a
SUMMARY
19
business license, enforceable through a licensing board (with subpoena power) was not written
into this statute.
Second, because county attorneys do not have the power to subpoena records during the course of
an investigation, developing sufficient evidence to file a civil action in Superior Court must be done
without access to internal company records. Such access must wait until a specific case is before
court and the rules of civil procedure then do allow access to company documents.
Finally, the relatively few number of complaints filed as of the writing of this report are not
necessarily an accurate measure of the law’s effects. Numerous references were made during the
course of this research to the law’s “chilling effect.” Newspaper reports and other anecdotal
evidence point to increased vacancies in immigrant neighborhoods and markets catering to
immigrant communities being particularly affected by the economic downturn. Anecdotes are not
statistical evidence, however, and further analysis will have to reveal the law’s impacts.
20
Arizona Attorney General Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
about the Legal Arizona Workers Act15
What is the Legal Arizona Workers Act?
This state law allows a County Attorney to bring a civil suit to suspend or revoke business licenses
if a business intentionally or knowingly hired an “unauthorized alien” worker after December 31,
2007. The law was passed in 2007 and became effective on January 1, 2008. The statute was
amended by the Arizona Legislature in 2008, with those amendments becoming effective on May 1,
2008.
Who is “an unauthorized alien?”
Any person who is not a United States citizen, not a permanent resident, and not otherwise
authorized to work in the United States under federal law is an unauthorized alien.
Does the Legal Arizona Workers Act apply to workers who were hired before January 1,
2008? No.
Does the Legal Arizona Workers Act make it a state crime to employ an unauthorized alien?
No. Federal law defines several crimes that may be committed in connection with employment of an
unauthorized alien, but the Legal Arizona Workers Act does not impose criminal penalties.
Does the Legal Arizona Workers Act apply to workers who are paid in cash?
Yes.
Does the Legal Arizona Workers Act apply to an employer who hires an independent
contractor?
When an employer uses a contract, subcontract or other independent contractor agreement to
obtain the labor of an alien in Arizona, the employer may not knowingly or intentionally contract
with an unauthorized alien or with a person who employs or contracts with an unauthorized alien
to perform the labor.
I know of an employer who has an unauthorized alien worker on his payroll. What can I do?
You can make a complaint with as much information as possible about the employer and employee.
Where may I make a complaint?
You can make a complaint with the County Attorney in the county where the unauthorized alien is
or was working, or with the Attorney General’s Office.
Since I have a choice, where would you recommend I make my complaint?
The choice is yours to make. You may consider that County Attorneys are authorized by the law to
investigate and pursue court action against employers who violate the law. In contrast, the Attorney
General's Office is authorized by law only to investigate, and then turn the case over to the County
Attorney of the county where the violation is alleged to have occurred. That County Attorney would
make the decision about whether to file a court action against the employer.
15 Available at http://www.azag.gov/LegalAZWorkersAct/FAQ.html
APPENDIX A
21
Where can I get a complaint form?
A complaint form can be downloaded and printed from this Web site. The complaint form on this
Web site will be accepted by all the County Attorneys in Arizona, and whether you file that
complaint form with a County Attorney or this Office, your complaint will be investigated. Some
County Attorneys have their own alternative forms, so in those counties you have the option of
using either the form on this Web site or the form available from that County Attorney’s office.
I cannot download the complaint form from this Web site. Where else can I get that
complaint form?
Copies of this form may be picked up at the main office of the Attorney General (1275 West
Washington in Phoenix) or at any of the Attorney General’s satellite offices across the state. A list of
satellite office locations and hours can be found on this Web site. Or you may call the Attorney
General’s Office at 602.542.5025 (or 1.800.352.8431 from outside the Phoenix and Tucson
metropolitan areas) and a copy will be mailed to you.
What sort of information do I need to make a complaint?
You need to provide information supporting the allegation that an employer has knowingly or
intentionally violated the law by hiring an unauthorized alien worker. The complaint form available
on this Web site shows the kinds of information that will be helpful in investigating the complaint.
Click here for the complaint form.
May I make an anonymous complaint?
The complaint form available on this Web site requires your signature and contact information
because investigating anonymous complaints is often more difficult and time‐consuming,
particularly if any follow‐up information is needed. The law states that anonymous complaints are
not prohibited, but if you make an anonymous complaint, your complaint may or may not be
investigated.
May I make a complaint over the telephone or by email?
Some County Attorneys may accept complaints by telephone or e‐mail. You should contact the
office of the County Attorney in the county where the unauthorized alien is or was employed to
inquire about complaint procedures in that county. Contact information for all County Attorneys is
available on this Web site.
If I make a complaint and give my name, will my name be made public?
Since the complaint is a public record, it is possible that your name could at some point be made
public.
How much time will it take for me to make a complaint?
We estimate it will take between 10 and 30 minutes to complete the complaint form.
What will happen after I make a complaint?
Your complaint will be reviewed by the office with which you file the complaint. Each County
Attorney’s office is likely to have its own procedures for investigating complaints, but if additional
information is required, most likely you will be contacted by the investigator who has been
assigned to look into the complaint. It is difficult to estimate how much time the investigation may
require.
22
A business down the street has workers who only speak Spanish (or any other nonEnglish
language). Is that enough for me to make a complaint?
No. You need evidence that the workers are not legally authorized to work in this country, and that
the employer hired them knowingly or intentionally. The law states that complaints based solely on
race, color or national origin shall not be investigated.
I have read in the newspaper that several groups have challenged the constitutionality of the
Legal Arizona Workers Act. Has the court ruled that the law is valid?
The federal District Court in Phoenix has ruled that the law is not unconstitutional and may be
enforced. That decision has been appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit in San Francisco. A hearing in that appeal is scheduled for mid‐June. Meanwhile, County
Attorneys are free to enforce the law.
I am an employer. What must I do to comply with the Legal Arizona Workers Act?
Under this state law, after December 31, 2007, you may not hire any unauthorized alien as an
employee or independent contractor. Also, you must use the federal government's E‐Verify
program to check the employment eligibility of every new employee hired after December 31, 2007.
Are all Arizona employers required to use the EVerify
program?
Yes. Arizona law requires all employers to use E‐Verify for new workers hired after December 31,
2007. In addition, after September 30, 2008, an employer will not be eligible to receive an economic
development incentive or a government contract or subcontract unless the employer uses the E‐Verify
program.
Where can I learn about the “EVerify”
program?
You can learn about the program, including how to register and how to use the system, by calling E‐Verify's
toll‐free number (1.888.464.4218) or by going to its Web site.
What is the advantage of using the EVerify
program?
Again, Arizona law requires all employers to use E‐Verify for new workers hired after December 31,
2007. In addition, if an employer is accused of employing an unauthorized alien worker but can
prove that the employment eligibility of that employee was verified using the E‐Verify program,
there will be a “rebuttable presumption” that the employer did not intentionally or knowingly
employ an unauthorized alien.
How can I learn whether an employer has enrolled in the EVerify
program?
Every three months, the Attorney General’s Office will request a list from the United States
Department of Homeland Security of employers from this state enrolled in the E‐Verify program.
The first such list was requested on August 1 (three months after the effective date of the 2008
legislation). That first list was received on October 21, and it is posted here.
It is important, however, to understand what the list contains and what it does not, which is
explained in the answer to the next question.
I have checked the list on this Web site of employers enrolled in the EVerify
program, but
there is no listing of the particular employer I was checking. Does that mean the employer is
not enrolled?
Not necessarily. The list does not necessarily include every employer doing business in Arizona that
has registered with the E‐Verify program, or every location of the employer’s business in Arizona,
for at least the following reasons:
23
• This list was compiled by the United States Department of Homeland Security from
information available on its computer system as of August 28, 2008, so it would not include
an employer that registered with E‐Verify after that date.
• This list contains only employers that provided an Arizona address to the United States
Department of Homeland Security when registering with E‐Verify, so it does not necessarily
contain all registered employers that conduct business in Arizona or that have one or more
employees in Arizona. For example, an employer headquartered in another state may have
used its headquarters’ address when registering for E‐Verify, and the employer may use E‐Verify
to check all new hires nationwide, including in Arizona, but that employer would not
appear on this list because it did not register for E‐Verify using an Arizona address.
• This list does not necessarily include every location in Arizona at which a registered
employer conducts business. When an employer registers with the United States
Department of Homeland Security to use E‐Verify, the employer is asked to provide a single
address for contact purposes, even if the employer operates at more than one location.
Therefore, the absence of a business address on this list does not mean or imply that the
business operating at that address either is or is not registered with E‐Verify.
• When an employer registers with E‐Verify, the employer uses the legal name of the
individual or business entity. In many cases, however, an employer may use a trade name for
public business purposes. For example, an employer operating a fast‐food franchise
restaurant would register with E‐Verify using the franchisee’s legal name, but only the
franchise trade name may be visible to the public on the restaurant.
• Therefore, if you do not find the name or address of a particular business on this list, you
should not assume that the employer that operates that business is not registered to use E‐Verify.
If you want to know whether a particular employer is registered with E‐Verify, you
should ask the employer.
What if I use the federal I9
process but do not use EVerify?
Once again, Arizona law requires all employers to use E‐Verify for new workers hired after
December 31, 2007. An employer that can prove that it has complied in good faith with the I‐9
process and other requirements of the federal law found in 8 United States Code section 1324a(b)
will have an affirmative defense that the employer did not knowingly or intentionally employ an
unauthorized alien.
What will happen if I try to comply with the I9
process but make an innocent mistake?
An employer that makes a good faith effort to comply is considered to have complied,
notwithstanding an isolated, sporadic or accidental technical or procedural failure.
What is the Voluntary Employer Enhanced Compliance Program?
It is a new program established in the Attorney General’s Office pursuant to the recent amendments
to the Legal Arizona Workers Act, which became effective on May 1, 2008. As its name makes clear,
each employer must decide whether or not to participate in this voluntary program.
How can an employer sign up for the Voluntary Employer Enhanced Compliance Program?
An employer may enroll in this new program by submitting a signed, notarized “Affidavit and
Agreement” form. The form and instructions are available on this Web site. If you want to know the
exact terms, you should review the Affidavit and Agreement form in detail, but among other things,
24
the employer promises to verify the employment eligibility of all new employees using the E‐Verify
program, and to use the Social Security Number Verification Service to verify Social Security
numbers of all employees who are not checked through the E‐Verify program.
What will happen if a complaint is made against an employer that is enrolled in the
Voluntary Employer Enhanced Compliance Program?
If an employer is enrolled in the Voluntary Employer Enhanced Compliance Program and a
complaint is made regarding the hiring of a particular worker, the employer shall not be in violation
of the Legal Arizona Workers Act if the employer in good faith verified the employment eligibility of
the employee named in the complaint through the E‐Verify program or if the employer in good faith
verified the Social Security Number of the employee named in the complaint through the Social
Security Number Verification Service.
How can I learn whether a certain employer is enrolled in the Voluntary Employer Enhanced
Compliance Program?
When an employer enrolls in the program, the Attorney General’s Office will provide confirmation
to the employer in a form suitable for public display, but the law does not require the employer to
display it. On this Web site is a list of employers enrolled in the program.
How can I learn whether the courts have ruled that a certain employer has violated the Legal
Arizona Workers Act?
The name of each first‐time violator, the location of each such violation, and a copy of the court
order will be available on this Web site.
25
Legal Arizona Workers Act
Prescribed Complaint Form
Instructions:
1. This complaint form is prescribed by the Arizona Attorney General’s Office pursuant to Arizona Revised
Statutes §§ 23212(
B) and 23212.01(
B). You may use this form to make a complaint either to the County
Attorney of the county where an unauthorized alien worker is or was employed, or to the Arizona Attorney
General’s Office. The final page of this form provides the address and telephone number of each County
Attorney and the Arizona Attorney General’s Office. Mail the completed form to the appropriate address from
the final page. If you have any question about this form, please direct your question to the office where you
intend to send your completed form.
2. The law does not require you to use this complaint form, nor does the law prohibit anonymous complaints.
However, if you submit a complaint by telephone or email
or if you use a different complaint form or if you
use this form but refuse to provide your contact information and signature or if you make some other form of
anonymous complaint, your complaint may or may not be investigated, at the discretion of the investigative
agency. If you intend to submit your complaint to a County Attorney, but do not wish to use this form, you
should contact that County Attorney’s office to determine how to submit your complaint.
3. Please use a black or blue pen and PRINT clearly.
4. Please complete all sections of this form that you can, using additional pages if necessary. If you do not know
the requested information, write “unknown.” Do not guess or make up information.
Employer:
After December 31, 2007, the following employer hired one or more unauthorized alien workers as employees
and/or independent contractors:
Name of employer: ____________________________________________________________
Type of business: _____________________________________________________________
Address where the unauthorized alien worker is or was employed:
_________________________________________________________________________
Employer’s phone number: ______________________________________________________
Names of managers, supervisors, or others who are familiar with employer’s hiring practices:
________________________________________________________________________
Does the employer have one or more business licenses? _____ If so, what licenses? _______
_________________________________________________________________________
Knowingly submitting a false and frivolous complaint is a Class 3 misdemeanor,
punishable by a fine of up to $500 plus other costs and up to 30 days in jail.
A complaint based solely on race, color or national origin will not be investigated.
26
Unauthorized Alien Worker (#___)*:
After December 31, 2007, the following person was hired as an employee or independent contractor by the
employer named on the first page and at the time of hiring, the following person was not authorized to work in
the United States:
Name:___________________________________________ Date hired: __________________
Aliases: ______________________________________________________________________
Physical description, identifying marks: _____________________________________________
Home address: ________________________________________________________________
Phone number: ________________________________________________________________
Date of birth: ___________________ Social Security number: __________________________
Job description: ________________________________________________________________
Address where this person works or worked for employer:_______________________________
What information leads you to believe that this worker was not authorized to work in the United
States?_______________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
Did the employer know that this worker was not authorized to work in the United States?______
If your answer is “yes,” what information leads you to believe that the employer did know that
this worker was not authorized to work in the United States?_____________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
Did the employer check this worker using the E‐Verify system? ___________________________
If so, when? ___________ What was the result?_______________________________________
Did the employer check this worker using the Social Security Number Verification Service?______
If so, when? ____________ What was the result?______________________________________
Did the employer complete an I‐9 form for this worker? ______ If so, when? ________________
Did the employer accept any false documents from this worker in the I‐9 process? ____________
If your answer is “yes,” did the employer know the documents were false?___________________
What documents were false? _______________________________________________________
What information leads you to believe that the employer knew that the documents were false?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
* Use as many copies of this page as necessary to describe every unauthorized alien worker, one worker per page,
then number each page at the top right corner, beginning with page “2”.
27
When did you become aware of the information provided on the previous pages?_________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
How did you become aware of the information provided on the previous pages?__________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
Are you now an employee of the employer named on the first page?___________________________
If not, have you previously been an employee of the employer named on the first page?___________
If you were previously employed by the employer named on the first page, when did you start, when
did you leave, why did you leave, where did you work, what positions did you hold, and who were your immediate
supervisors? ______________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
My Contact Information:
Name: ______________________________________________________________________
Home address: _______________________________________________________________
Home phone: ________________________________________________________________
Work phone: _________________________________________________________________
Cell phone: __________________________________________________________________
E‐mail address: _______________________________________________________________
Signature:
I hereby affirm that the information set forth on all the pages of this form is true and correct.
Signature:_____________________________________ Date: ______________________
28
Mailing Addresses and Telephone Numbers
Apache County Attorney
P. O. Box 637
St. Johns, AZ 85936
928‐337‐7560
Mohave County Attorney
P. O. Box 7000
Kingman, AZ 86402
928‐753‐0719
Cochise County Attorney
P. O. Drawer CA
Bisbee, AZ 85603
520‐432‐8700
Navajo County Attorney
P. O. Box 668
Holbrook, AZ 86025
928‐524‐4026
Coconino County Attorney
110 East Cherry Avenue
Flagstaff, AZ 86001
928‐779‐6518
Pima County Attorney 32 North Stone Avenue,
Suite 1400
Tucson, AZ 85701
520‐740‐5600
Gila County Attorney
1400 East Ash Street
Globe, AZ 85501
928‐425‐3231
Pinal County Attorney
P. O. Box 887
Florence, AZ 85232
520‐866‐6271
Graham County Attorney
800 Main Street
Safford, AZ 85546
928‐428‐3620
Santa Cruz County Attorney
2150 North Congress Drive,
Suite 201
Nogales, AZ 85621
520‐375‐7780
Greenlee County Attorney
P. O. Box 1717
Clifton, AZ 85533
928‐865‐4108
Yavapai County Attorney
255 East Gurley
Prescott, AZ 86301
928‐771‐3344
La Paz County Attorney
1320 Kofa Avenue
Parker, AZ 85344
928‐669‐6118
Yuma County Attorney
250 West 2nd Street,
Suite G
Yuma, AZ 85364
928‐817‐4300
Maricopa County Attorney
301 West Jefferson
Phoenix, AZ 85003
602‐506‐3411
Arizona Attorney General
1275 West Washington
Phoenix, AZ 85007
602‐542‐5025 ‐or‐
1‐800‐352‐8431 (outside Tucson and Phoenix metro areas)
