The Economic Policy Institute Defends Illegal Foreign Labor Competition

The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) describes itself as “a nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank working for the last 30 years to counter rising inequality, low wages and weak benefits for working people, slower economic growth, unacceptable employment conditions, and a widening racial wage gap.” Often their research and work has been helpful to me and all advocates for American workers. However, they have released an immigration enforcement “FAQ” which opposes both worksite enforcement and E-Verify. Taken together, EPI is advocating for abolishing enforcement against the illegal black market in labor. 

Here is what Daniel Costa from EPI wrote regarding worksite enforcement:

“Instead of improving conditions for workers, worksite raids rarely result in significant punishment for lawbreaking employers. When employers are punished, the punishment and fines levied on employers are so minimal that they are unlikely to be effective at deterring illegal conduct, and the harshest penalties are rare because the legal standard for them is difficult to prove and they are reserved for repeat violators.”

Essentially, Mr. Costa is admitting that if worksite raids resulted in significant punishments for employers, then it would improve conditions and wages for legal workers. So why does he frame this in a defeatist tone? Why is EPI proposing surrender to illegal labor rather than suggesting we punish unscrupulous employers who are exploiting desperate foreign labor and impoverishing Americans? 

Here is EPI’s “logic” regarding E-Verify:

“Mandating E-Verify for all U.S. employers is a policy priority for many conservatives and advocates of lower immigration levels. They argue that mandatory E-Verify would prevent employers from being able to hire workers who lack an immigration status, opening up jobs for U.S.-born workers. The reality is that—in addition to many U.S.-born workers being harmed by E-Verify’s known errors—mandating E-Verify will not create jobs. Instead, it would push more workers into the informal economy, keeping them from working on formal payrolls.”

Do you follow that at all? E-Verify is bad because it does not create jobs. What labor enforcement mechanisms does EPI support that also do not create jobs? Labor protections, like wage protections, are not designed to create new investment in the economy. EPI either needs to throw away all their other recommendations for labor protections or explain why E-Verify must create jobs to justify protecting American workers from foreign competition. 

Moreover, EPI’s conclusion is based on the assumption that the majority of employers that hire illegal workers—knowingly or not—will decide to violate the federal mandate by paying their illegal workers under the table. That assumption is questionable, at best. It is also important to point out that there is no evidence that any U.S.-born workers have been “harmed by E-Verify’s known errors.” In fact, over 98 percent of new hires were confirmed virtually instantly by E-Verify in FY2024.

With EPI opposing both E-Verify usage by employers and worksite enforcement operations to punish employers that hire illegal labor, that means open season for illegal labor exploitation. It means no one is coming to see if you’re hiring child labor enslaved to cartels like the poor unaccompanied alien children who were lost under the Biden Administration. 

Where are Daniel Costa and EPI with help for those victims of the billion-dollar terrorist slaver cartel trafficking operation who are working against their will on worksites across the country? It is very nice to speak about protecting workers, but if you are abolishing immigration enforcement, you are leaving a desperate foreign population at the mercy of exploitative employers.

EPI is in deep denial about the costs of the illegal black market in labor and desperately wants to split the baby in half, where they support labor protections and also oppose immigration enforcement. It is a contradiction in terms similar to treating scab workers like striking workers. 

Priorities are askew when you find yourself defending the illegal exploitative labor practices of employers for the supposed sake of their victims. You might as well support forcing abused spouses to live with their abuser. No serious defender of workers would ever support unscrupulous employers escaping justice for impoverishing American workers and exploiting foreign ones.