This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-1055 
entitled 'Foreign Workers: Information on Selected Countries' 
Experiences' which was released on September 15, 2006. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

Report to the Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of 
Representatives: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

GAO: 

September 2006: 

Foreign Workers: 

Information on Selected Countries' Experiences: 

Labor Migration: 

GAO-06-1055: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-06-1055, a report to the Chairman, Committee on the 
Judiciary, House of Representatives 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

The opportunity for employment is an important magnet attracting 
immigrants, including unauthorized immigrants, to countries. The 
policies and practices used by other countries to manage foreign 
workers, including actions to limit illegal immigration and to reduce 
the employment of unauthorized foreign workers, have been shaped by 
country-specific economic, demographic, and political factors. 
Immigration reform is a matter of continuing debate in the United 
States. This report examines selected countries’ (1) programs for 
admitting foreign workers; (2) efforts to limit the employment of 
unauthorized foreign workers; and (3) programs for providing 
unauthorized immigrants with an opportunity to obtain legal status, 
referred to as regularization. To address these objectives, we examined 
reports from foreign countries, intergovernmental organizations, and 
research organizations. We also interviewed government officials and 
experts from 8 countries—Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, 
Spain, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom—and surveyed 6 other 
countries. We selected these countries based on their net immigration 
rate, population size, membership in the Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development or World Bank classification as high income, 
range of immigration policies, and geographic location. 

What GAO Found: 

The countries GAO studied have programs for admitting foreign workers, 
most of which are focused on recruiting high-skilled or seasonal 
foreign workers. To recruit foreign workers, some countries use 
bilateral agreements with other countries. For example, Canada uses 
bilateral agreements with Mexico and several Caribbean nations to 
recruit seasonal agricultural workers. Some countries manage foreign 
worker admissions by various means, such as quotas or points-based 
systems. However, officials stated that it is difficult to implement a 
system that responds to changing labor market needs and does not create 
incentives for employers to hire unauthorized foreign workers. Some 
countries regulate foreign worker admissions by specifying requirements 
for participation in a foreign worker program, such as work permit 
fees. Moreover, foreign worker programs differ in their requirements 
for workers to return home. Some temporary programs require workers to 
return upon expiration of work permits, while others allow foreign 
workers to renew their permits and apply for permanent resident status. 

The countries GAO studied use a variety of efforts in enforcing laws 
designed to limit the employment of unauthorized foreign workers. In 
some of these countries, employers are required to report workers’ 
information to government agencies or to verify workers’ authorization 
status. Among these countries, the employment of unauthorized foreign 
workers is largely considered one of several illegal labor practices, 
including failure to pay taxes or social insurance contributions, and 
government agencies generally focus their enforcement efforts and 
investigate employers to detect all such practices. Government 
officials and experts have noted that conducting frequent employer 
investigations and publicizing those investigations helps deter 
employers’ hiring of unauthorized foreign workers. Countries can 
penalize unscrupulous employers for employing unauthorized foreign 
workers, including imposing monetary fines on employers. However, 
countries have faced difficulties, such as the prevalence of document 
fraud, in penalizing employers. 

Some countries have implemented large-scale regularization programs 
that allow unauthorized immigrants to apply for legal status on either 
a temporary or a permanent basis. Countries have implemented 
regularization programs for different reasons, such as to help reduce 
the size of the underground economy or to facilitate immigrant 
integration, and governments believe they derive some benefits from 
implementing these programs, such as increased collection of tax and 
social insurance contributions. Under these programs, countries require 
illegal immigrants to meet specified eligibility requirements, such as 
residency and work requirements, before applying for or receiving legal 
status. Employers and unauthorized foreign workers have incentives to 
participate in regularization programs but may not want to because, for 
example, some employers can save money by employing unauthorized 
foreign workers from whom they do not pay taxes or social insurance 
contributions. However, countries have faced difficulties in 
implementing these programs, such as in ensuring timely review of 
applications. Moreover, some experts have reported that regularization 
programs may attract further illegal immigration, while others have 
concluded that programs’ effect on illegal immigration is unclear. 

[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-1055]. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
the link above. For more information, contact Richard M. Stana, 202-512-
8777, stanar@gao.gov. 

[End of Section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

Countries' Programs for Admitting Foreign Workers: 

Countries Use Various Means to Limit Employment of Unauthorized Foreign 
Workers: 

Countries' Experiences with Regularization Programs: 

Concluding Observations: 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Information on Immigration-Related Programs in Selected 
Countries: 

Appendix III: Information on Selected Immigration-Related Programs in 
Australia: 

Appendix IV: Information on Selected Immigration-Related Programs in 
Belgium: 

Appendix V: Information on Selected Immigration-Related Programs in 
Canada: 

Appendix VI: Information on Selected Immigration-Related Programs in 
France: 

Appendix VII: Information on Selected Immigration-Related Programs in 
Germany: 

Appendix VIII: Information on Selected Immigration-Related Programs in 
Spain: 

Appendix IX: Information on Selected Immigration-Related Programs in 
Switzerland: 

Appendix X: Information on Selected Immigration-Related Programs in the 
United Kingdom: 

Appendix XI: Foreign Country Questionnaires: 

Appendix XII: Acknowledgement of Government and Other Entities' 
Assistance: 

Appendix XIII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Bibliography: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Examples of Temporary Employment-Based Visas in the United 
States: 

Table 2: Examples of Tools to Encourage Foreign Worker Return, as 
Reported by Government Officials and Experts: 

Table 3: Resources for Enforcement of Illegal Labor Practices as 
Reported by Various Countries: 

Table 4: Civil and Criminal Monetary Fine Amount Ranges for Hiring 
Unauthorized Workers Reported by Various Countries: 

Table 5: Selected Countries' Regularization Programs: 

Table 6: Selected Information on Countries' Population Characteristics: 

Table 7: Selected Information on High-Skilled Temporary Foreign Worker 
Programs: 

Table 8: Selected Information on Low-Skilled Temporary Foreign Worker 
Programs: 

Table 9: Selected Information on Seasonal Temporary Foreign Worker 
Programs: 

Table 10: Selected Information on Employment Eligibility Verification 
Processes: 

Table 11: Selected Information on Worksite Enforcement Efforts: 

Table 12: Canada Points-Based System: 

Table 13: Data on the Department for the Financial Investigation of 
Clandestine Labor Enforcement Activities for 2003 through 2005: 

Table 14: Tier 1 Points-Based System: 

Table 15: Tier 2 Points-Based System: 

Table 16: Lists of Documents that Potential Employees Can Present to 
Show Work Authorization: 

Table 17: Number of Employer Criminal Prosecutions for Each Year from 
2000 through 2004: 

Abbreviations: 

ANAEM: Agence Nationale de l'Accueil des Etrangers et des Migrations: 
CIC: Citizenship and Immigration Canada: 
COLTI: Comité Opérationnel de Lutte contre le Travail Illégal: 
DILTI: Délégation Interministérielle à la Lutte contre le Travail 
Illégal: 
DDTEFP: Direction Départmentale du Travail, de l'Emploi et de la 
Formation Professionelle: 
DHS: Department of Homeland Security: 
EEA: European Economic Area: 
EU: European Union: 
FARMS: Foreign Agricultural Resource Management Services: 
HRSDC: Human Resources and Skills Development Canada: 
ICE: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement: 
IIRIRA: The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility 
Act: 
ILO: International Labour Organization: 
INS: U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service: 
IOM: International Organization for Migration: 
IRCA: Immigration Reform and Control Act: 
OECD: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development: 
SAWS: Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme: 
USCIS: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

September 8, 2006: 

The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. 
Chairman: 
Committee on the Judiciar: 
House of Representatives: 

According to various studies, immigration affects nearly every country 
in the world, as countries are points of origin for immigrants, places 
of transit, final destinations, or can serve as all three. Migrants 
move between countries for a variety of reasons, including family 
reunification, political protection, and employment. However, the 
opportunity for employment is one of the most important magnets 
attracting immigrants, including unauthorized immigrants, to countries. 
Reports indicate that migrants, especially labor migrants, help to keep 
viable segments of certain labor-intensive industries, expand foreign 
trade, provide valuable language and cultural expertise to companies, 
and contribute to the economic revitalization of some communities. Yet 
these reports also note that immigration, particularly illegal 
immigration, may have adverse consequences, such as helping to depress 
wages for low-skilled workers and creating net fiscal costs for some 
levels of governments.[Footnote 1] 

Countries use a variety of policies and practices related to foreign 
worker programs, including actions to limit illegal immigration and to 
reduce employment of unauthorized foreign workers. These policies and 
practices have been shaped by country-specific economic, demographic, 
and political factors, such as countries' unemployment rates and 
population characteristics. They may include visa categories to allow 
migrants to enter and work in a country on a legal basis, mechanisms to 
regularize the status of unauthorized migrants currently residing in a 
country,[Footnote 2] means to verify workers' employment authorization 
status, and efforts to enforce laws that prohibit the employment of 
unauthorized workers. 

As in other countries, immigrants can legally enter and reside in the 
United States through different channels, such as work visa programs, 
but some also illegally enter or overstay their visas and illegally 
remain in the United States. Various reports have estimated that the 
U.S. unauthorized immigrant population was about 11 million in 2005. 
Congress has passed laws to provide legal channels for immigrants to 
live, work, and become naturalized citizens and to prohibit 
unauthorized migrants from entering and working in the United States. 
In 1986 Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act 
(IRCA),[Footnote 3] making it illegal for individuals or entities to 
knowingly employ unauthorized workers and establishing an employment 
eligibility verification process and a sanctions program for fining 
employers who do not comply with the act. The Illegal Immigration 
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996[Footnote 4] 
revised some provisions of IRCA and established voluntary pilot 
programs for employers to electronically verify employees' work 
eligibility. 

More recently, the House of Representatives and the Senate passed 
different bills to further revise certain elements of U.S. immigration 
law. Among other things, these proposals would revise current border 
and interior enforcement measures and require employers' mandatory 
participation in an electronic employment eligibility verification 
system. The Senate proposal would also establish a new temporary 
foreign worker program and allow certain unauthorized immigrants 
currently residing in the United States to apply to regularize their 
status. 

You asked us to review other countries' efforts to reduce the 
unauthorized employment of foreign workers. This report addresses the 
following questions: (1) What are selected countries' programs for 
admitting foreign workers, and what are the reported advantages and 
disadvantages of these programs? (2) What are selected countries' 
efforts to limit the employment of unauthorized foreign workers, and 
what are the reported advantages and disadvantages of these efforts? 
(3) What are selected countries' programs for providing unauthorized 
immigrants with an opportunity to obtain legal status, referred to as 
regularization, and what are the reported advantages and disadvantages 
of these programs? In addition, this report provides information on 
selected countries' foreign worker programs, worksite enforcement 
efforts, and regularization programs in appendixes II through X. 

To answer these questions, we obtained government agency reports and 
other documents and interviewed officials during site visits to 
Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Spain, Switzerland, and the United 
Kingdom. We also interviewed officials and obtained documents from, but 
did not visit, Australia. In addition, we sent four questionnaires to 
government agencies in 13 countries and received responses from 
Argentina, Austria, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, and 
Singapore.[Footnote 5] We selected the countries for our review based 
on their net immigration rate, size of population, membership in the 
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) or World 
Bank classification as high income, range of immigration policies, and 
geographic location. In the 7 countries we visited and Australia, we 
interviewed officials from the labor ministries, interior ministries, 
finance ministries, treasury departments, social security agencies, 
immigration agencies, law enforcement agencies, and local government 
agencies. We analyzed information and documents, such as agency annual 
reports, manuals, and briefing materials, from these countries to 
determine the characteristics, functions, resources, and outputs of the 
countries' programs to admit foreign workers, enforce laws that 
prohibit the employment of unauthorized foreign workers, and regularize 
unauthorized immigrants. Our questionnaires included general questions 
about the characteristics, functions, outputs, and agency views on the 
advantages and disadvantages of these programs in the surveyed 
countries. We did not independently examine countries' laws and 
regulations, but rather based characterizations of countries' programs 
on information provided by countries in response to the questionnaires 
or in interviews as of July 2006. 

In addition, we interviewed officials and analyzed reports from the 
International Labour Organization (ILO),[Footnote 6] the International 
Organization for Migration (IOM), OECD, and the European Union (EU). We 
also examined reports and studies from research organizations and 
immigration experts, including reports from the Migration Policy 
Institute; the Center on Migration, Policy and Society at Oxford 
University; and the Center for Comparative Immigration Studies. In 
addition, we interviewed officials from the United Nations High 
Commission for Refugees; the United Nations High Commission for Human 
Rights; the Intergovernmental Consultations on Asylum, Refugee, and 
Migration Policies; 6 employer associations; 10 labor groups; and 1 
advocacy group, as well as 19 immigration experts in Belgium, Canada, 
France, Germany, Spain, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United 
States.[Footnote 7] We selected the experts based on the following 
criteria: type and depth of experience; recognition in the professional 
community; relevance of published work; employment history; and 
researchers' recommendations. We also interviewed officials from the 
Departments of Labor and Homeland Security in the United States. We 
analyzed information from these sources to determine their views on the 
advantages and disadvantages of countries' temporary foreign worker 
programs, efforts to enforce laws that prohibit the employment of 
unauthorized foreign workers, and regularization efforts. For more 
detailed information on our scope and methodology, see appendix I. We 
conducted our work from September 2005 through August 2006 in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Results in Brief: 

The countries in our review have programs for admitting foreign 
workers, which have advantages, such as providing employers with a 
legal workforce, and disadvantages, such as difficulties in ensuring 
that foreign workers under temporary foreign worker programs return to 
their home countries. Countries' programs are generally focused on 
recruiting high-skilled or seasonal foreign workers, and countries do 
not recruit significant numbers of low-skilled workers.[Footnote 8] 
Some countries manage the recruitment of workers by bilateral 
agreements or the use of private sector entities, often called third 
party entities. For example, Canada uses bilateral agreements with 
Mexico and several Caribbean nations to recruit seasonal foreign 
workers to work in agricultural sectors.[Footnote 9] The countries we 
studied determine the number of foreign workers that can be admitted by 
a variety of means, such as quota systems. However, experts stated that 
it is difficult to implement a system that flexibly responds to 
changing labor market needs and does not provide an incentive for 
employers to hire unauthorized workers. In addition, countries regulate 
foreign worker admissions by specifying requirements for participation 
in a foreign worker program. These requirements may state, among other 
things, that the foreign worker or potential employer must pay a fee to 
obtain a work permit and specify whether the foreign worker is entitled 
to bring family members. Moreover, the foreign worker programs we 
studied differ in their requirements for foreign workers to return to 
their home countries. Some temporary programs require temporary foreign 
workers to return upon expiration of the work permit, while others 
allow a foreign worker to apply for permanent resident status. Programs 
that require a foreign worker to return home after a work permit 
expires may include a variety of tools to encourage or enforce the 
return of temporary foreign workers, such as allowing foreign workers 
to collect withheld earnings upon return. However, experts and 
government officials noted that it is difficult to successfully ensure 
foreign workers' return, and as a result, countries we studied 
estimated that a significant number of immigrants overstayed their work 
permits, thus lapsing into illegal status. 

Countries we studied use a variety of efforts in enforcing laws 
designed to limit the employment of unauthorized foreign workers, which 
have helped countries address the underground economy,[Footnote 10] but 
they have also faced difficulties in effectively implementing these 
efforts, such as identifying those who are not authorized to work and 
collecting employer monetary fine amounts. In many of the countries, 
employers are required to register the employment of workers with 
government agencies, and in some of these countries, employers are also 
required to verify workers' authorization status. For example, 
employers in the United Kingdom are required to verify the work 
authorization status of all workers to establish an affirmative defense 
against a charge of employing unauthorized foreign workers,[Footnote 
11] while in Belgium, employers are required to review foreign workers' 
authorization. In the countries we studied, the employment of 
unauthorized foreign workers is generally considered one of various 
illegal labor practices, including failure to pay taxes or social 
insurance contributions or provide fair wages and safe working 
conditions. As a result, government agencies in these countries 
generally focus their enforcement efforts and allocate resources to 
detect any illegal labor practices on the part of employers. Countries 
in our review use different tools to conduct enforcement actions 
against employers engaged in such practices. To obtain information on 
potential cases of unauthorized foreign worker employment, for example, 
enforcement agencies may examine various sources, such as tips from the 
public or data in government databases. On the basis of this and other 
information, enforcement agencies may inspect or investigate employers' 
worksites. According to governmental and nongovernmental officials, 
conducting frequent employer investigations and publicizing those 
investigations helps deter employers from hiring unauthorized foreign 
workers, although countries have faced challenges, such as the 
prevalence of document fraud, in investigating and penalizing 
employers. Government agencies may monetarily sanction employers for 
hiring unauthorized foreign workers, although the deterrent effect of 
monetary fines on employers' hiring of unauthorized foreign workers is 
unclear. In addition, countries use other tools, such as excluding 
employers from receipt of public contracts and seizing employers' 
assets, to penalize employers for hiring unauthorized foreign workers. 

Some of the countries we studied have implemented large-scale 
regularization programs that allow unauthorized immigrants to apply for 
legal status on either a temporary or a permanent basis. While 
regularization programs have provided benefits to countries, such as 
reducing employment in the underground economy, countries have also 
faced challenges in implementing and assessing the programs. Countries 
have implemented regularization programs for various reasons, such as 
to help socially and economically integrate unauthorized foreign 
workers. Under most programs, countries required unauthorized 
immigrants to meet specified eligibility requirements, such as 
residency and employment requirements, before applying for or receiving 
legal status. In these countries, employers and unauthorized foreign 
workers have incentives for participation in regularization programs, 
but may not want to participate for different reasons. For example, 
experts have noted that employers save money by employing unauthorized 
foreign workers for whom they do not pay taxes or social insurance 
contributions, and thus, employers may choose not to participate in a 
country's regularization program. Governments in countries that have 
implemented regularization programs to provide unauthorized immigrants 
with legal status perceive benefits from such programs. According to 
government officials and experts, governments can collect taxes and 
social insurance contributions from unauthorized immigrants who gain 
legal status and did not previously pay these contributions. Yet 
governments may incur costs and face difficulties in implementing 
regularization programs, such as in managing the application process 
and in determining whether immigrants granted temporary legal status 
renew their status. In addition, experts have reported that the effect 
of regularization programs on illegal immigration and employment in 
countries that have implemented such programs is unclear. For example, 
some have suggested that regularization programs encourage further 
illegal immigration, while others have noted that a lack of evaluation 
hinders efforts to determine the impact of regularization programs on 
future illegal immigration. 

The policies and practices employed by other countries to regulate the 
employment of foreign workers are shaped by each country's unique 
political, social, cultural, and economic characteristics. These 
characteristics inform countries' decision-making processes and may not 
be readily applicable to the United States. In particular, the 
unauthorized workers who could be affected by a regularization program 
in this country far outnumber the participants in past programs in the 
countries we studied. However, the experiences of other countries in 
addressing foreign worker flows and employment are useful in 
identifying a broad range of issues for consideration by any country 
that attempts to reform its immigration policy and can illuminate the 
potential advantages and pitfalls associated with them. 

Background: 

Political and Social Factors Related to Immigration: 

Individuals migrate between countries for different reasons, including 
for family reunification, humanitarian, and work purposes. Many 
countries provide channels through which immigrants can legally enter 
to live with their immediate family members, and most countries we 
studied also admit immigrants who are refugees or claim asylum. 
Countries also have established temporary and permanent migration 
channels through which individuals can legally enter for employment. 

Social and political factors in countries may affect countries' 
immigration policies. For example, studies have noted that a country's 
perception of its national identity can affect the country's policies 
for admitting and integrating immigrants.[Footnote 12] A country that 
perceives itself as being culturally homogeneous may view immigration 
differently than countries with long histories of immigration. 
Relatedly, countries' policies for granting permanent residence or 
citizenship to immigrants may affect countries' immigration programs. 
For instance, policies regarding permanent residency and citizenship 
may help shape the types of programs countries implement for admitting 
immigrants and facilitating immigrants' social and economic 
integration. 

Studies have noted the importance of social and economic integration 
for immigrants.[Footnote 13] Programs to integrate immigrants into a 
country provide benefits to both the country and immigrants by 
promoting social cohesion; fostering immigrants' support for and 
participation in the country's political, economic, and social systems; 
and helping to ensure the protection of immigrants' rights and to 
enhance their ability to access the labor market. These programs may 
provide immigrants with job training or work experience, language or 
civics courses, and other educational opportunities. 

Countries may implement changes to existing immigration policies, 
including to reduce immigrant admissions or, conversely, to provide 
increased opportunities for legal immigration, based on different 
factors or events. Countries may revise their immigration policies to 
respond to external events, such as humanitarian crises in other 
countries or international conflicts by, for example, changing the 
number of refugees and asylum seekers admitted to the countries. 
Moreover, countries may strengthen their border control efforts, for 
instance, in response to increased illegal immigration flows from 
neighboring countries. 

Economic and Demographic Factors Related to Immigration: 

Various economic and demographic characteristics are linked to 
countries' immigration policies. In particular, studies have noted that 
economic factors, such as unemployment rates, economic growth rates, 
and the size of the underground economy, may affect countries' 
immigration policies.[Footnote 14] For example, high unemployment rates 
may limit the number of foreign workers countries admit, as unemployed 
native workers take jobs typically filled by foreign workers. 
Therefore, high unemployment rates in certain countries may encourage 
foreign workers to seek employment in other countries with lower 
unemployment rates. Likewise, studies have suggested that the relative 
difference in the size and growth of countries' economies can affect 
immigration flows. Countries with large or fast-growing economies are 
attractive to foreign workers--including unauthorized immigrants. 

The employment of unauthorized foreign workers contributes to 
countries' underground economies. The underground economy includes any 
employment in a country for which employers do not pay taxes or social 
insurance contributions and is thus composed of both unauthorized 
foreign workers and native workers for whom appropriate contributions 
are not paid. Studies have noted that both employers and workers 
benefit from working in the underground economy because in doing so, 
neither group pays taxes or social insurance contributions.[Footnote 
15] Employment in the underground economy may negatively affect 
government revenue because governments do not collect taxes and social 
insurance contributions on underground employment. Likewise, workers in 
the underground economy may find it more difficult to access social 
insurance benefits and may be more at risk for exploitation. 

Demographic factors, particularly countries' birthrates and population 
characteristics, may also affect immigration policies. Studies have 
noted that aging, low-growth populations may have long-term effects on 
countries' fiscal and economic outlook, and these countries may be more 
disposed to admitting foreign workers than other countries.[Footnote 
16] For example, as the number of younger people in a country decreases 
relative to the increase in the number of older people, contributions 
made by younger workers to countries' social insurance systems may not 
be sufficient to provide insurance benefits for the increasing older 
population. Therefore, countries with aging, low-growth populations may 
have an incentive to encourage legal immigration and admit large 
numbers of foreign workers who can contribute to countries' tax and 
social insurance systems and may be more at risk for exploitation. 

Yet foreign workers in countries may also be eligible to receive some 
social insurance benefits, and foreign workers' access to such benefits 
varies among countries. For example, in some countries foreign workers, 
including unauthorized foreign workers, can access unemployment and 
health insurance but cannot receive retirement benefits. Given that 
foreign workers contribute to tax and social insurance systems but also 
can receive social insurance benefits, in most countries it is unclear 
whether foreign workers' contributions are greater than the benefits 
they receive or whether foreign workers, particularly unauthorized 
workers, create net fiscal costs for governments. In addition, studies 
suggest that unauthorized foreign workers create other costs for 
governments, such as costs for social services as well as for border 
and interior enforcement efforts. 

Experts have reported that immigration provides economic benefits to 
countries that may exceed any fiscal costs to governments resulting 
from unauthorized immigration.[Footnote 17] These experts have 
suggested that migration helps to allocate labor resources among global 
labor markets, creating net gains for migrants and countries receiving 
the migrants. For example, in some countries there is little direct 
competition between immigrants and local workers for jobs in most 
sectors. In such instances, foreign workers can fill needed jobs for 
which no native workers are available. In countries with more direct 
competition between immigrant and resident workers, particularly for 
low-skilled jobs, immigrants tend to compete with native workers as 
well as with other immigrants already residing in the country with 
similar skills. In these cases, resident workers, both citizens and 
noncitizens, may experience declining wages or wages that rise slowly 
and increasing unemployment rates. Moreover, studies have suggested 
that a high concentration of foreign workers in certain industries or 
geographical areas can depress employment and working conditions in the 
local labor force.[Footnote 18] 

Free Movement among EU Countries: 

Among EU countries, policies and practices established by the EU may 
affect member countries' immigration policies. In particular, within 
the EU, nationals or citizens of member countries can move freely 
between other member countries without being subject to border 
controls. In June 1985, five EU countries initially signed a treaty to 
create a territory within the EU that did not have internal border 
checkpoints and controls, which became known as the Schengen area. This 
treaty includes EU members, other than the United Kingdom and Ireland, 
and does not yet fully apply to the 10 new members that acceded to the 
EU in May 2004.[Footnote 19] When the Schengen area came into effect, 
it abolished the internal borders of the signatory states and created a 
single external border for immigration checks for all states within the 
Schengen area. 

In addition to the right of free movement, nationals of EU member 
countries have the right to work in any other member country. However, 
this right has not yet been fully extended to new member countries that 
acceded to the EU in May 2004. For the first 2 years following 
accession, new member countries' access to labor markets in the 
existing member countries depended on the national policy of each 
existing member country. Among the existing member countries, Ireland, 
Sweden, and the United Kingdom fully opened their labor markets to 
workers from all the new member states. Other existing member countries 
limited workers' access to labor markets under transitional 
arrangements for various reasons, including to limit competition among 
domestic and foreign labor forces. At the end of the initial 2-year 
period, the European Commission assessed the transitional arrangements 
for workers from the new EU countries.[Footnote 20] In addition, 
existing member countries decided whether to continue the arrangements 
for an additional 3 years or to allow workers from the new member 
countries full access to labor markets. Finland, Greece, Portugal, and 
Spain opened their labor markets to workers from the new EU countries 
as of May 1, 2006, while the other EU member countries decided to 
continue the transitional arrangements. At the end of this 3-year 
period, existing member countries can, under limited conditions, 
restrict labor access for an additional 2-year period. Member countries 
cannot extend the transitional arrangements beyond 7 years after the 
new members' EU accession. 

Immigration-Related Programs in the United States: 

United States immigration policy distinguishes between temporary and 
permanent admissions by providing for two types of U.S. visas for 
foreign nationals entering the country. Immigrant visas are issued to 
foreign nationals who intend to live permanently in the United States, 
while nonimmigrant visas are for foreign nationals wishing to enter the 
country on a temporary basis, such as for temporary work, study, or 
tourism. The immigrant visas generally provide a path to eventual 
citizenship, while the nonimmigrant visas require that, upon expiration 
of the visa, the visa holder must either leave the country or change 
status to a new visa category. 

Permanent immigrant visas are issued for family reunification, 
employment, or humanitarian reasons. Immigrants who apply to enter the 
United States for work purposes are required to follow a multistep 
process. First, the potential worker and employer determine if the 
worker is eligible for a permanent employment-based visa based on the 
applicant's skills. Second, most employment categories require that the 
U.S. employer complete a labor certification request for the applicant 
and submit it to the Department of Labor's Employment and Training 
Administration Office of Foreign Labor Certification. This office 
provides labor certifications to employers once employers have 
demonstrated that there are insufficient qualified U.S. workers 
available and willing to perform the work at wages that meet or exceed 
the prevailing wage paid for the occupation, and employment of the 
immigrant will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of 
U.S. workers similarly employed. Third, once the employer receives the 
labor certification, the employer files an immigrant visa petition, 
which must be approved by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS) in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Finally, the 
Department of State provides the applicant an immigrant visa number. 
The visa number indicates that a visa has been assigned to the 
applicant, but the applicant is required to wait, sometimes for years, 
for the visa number to become available in order to complete the 
process of becoming a permanent resident. 

Current U.S. law allows for 140,000 permanent employment-based visas 
per year and preferentially grants these visas based on skill level, 
with highly skilled applicants receiving the highest preference. The 
first level of preference is provided to persons of "extraordinary 
ability" in the arts, sciences, education, business, or athletics; 
outstanding professors and researchers; and multinational executives 
and managers all of whom must meet certain specified criteria.[Footnote 
21] The second level of preference is provided to members of 
professions holding advanced degrees or persons of "exceptional 
ability" in the sciences, art, or business who meet certain specified 
criteria.[Footnote 22] The third preference level is provided to 
skilled workers with at least 2 years' training or experience, 
professionals with baccalaureate degrees, and up to 10,000 unskilled 
shortage workers performing work that is not of a temporary or seasonal 
nature. 

The majority of work-related visas that are granted in the United 
States are for a temporary period and require the employer to file a 
petition with USCIS. The beneficiaries of the visa petition generally 
must provide evidence that they are not coming to live permanently in 
the country, and in some cases, as discussed above, employers must 
receive an employment certification from the U.S. Department of Labor. 
The United States currently has 72 specific types of temporary visas, 
and a subset of these permit the visa holder to be employed while in 
the United States. Table 1 provides examples of some of these 
temporary, employment-based visa programs. Some work visas are designed 
to attract workers in specific labor market sectors, such as nursing or 
corporate managers. One of the largest categories for work-related 
visas is the H visa, which includes the H-1B, H-2A, and H-2B visas, and 
is not specific to a particular market. H-1B visas are for professional 
specialty workers with highly specialized knowledge or distinguished 
fashion models and are renewable for up to 6 years. The H-2A visa is 
for seasonal or temporary agricultural workers and allows for a maximum 
stay of 3 years. Finally, the H-2B visa is a general, temporary visa 
for nonagricultural workers; is limited to 66,000 visas annually; and 
does not have requirements for skill levels. After the temporary visas 
expire, the foreign worker is required to leave the United States. 
Migrants who overstay their visas contribute to the unauthorized 
foreign worker population in the United States, despite provisions in 
the law that limit or control the ability of unauthorized migrants to 
find employment. We have previously reported that the United States has 
difficulty in tracking the status of immigrants who enter the country 
legally and then overstay their visas.[Footnote 23] 

Table 1: Examples of Temporary Employment-Based Visas in the United 
States: 

Visa: E; 
Type of foreign workers: International investors and traders; 
Annual numeric limit: None; 
Length of stay: Renewable up to 2 years with possible extension of 
stay. 

Visa: H-1B; 
Type of foreign workers: Temporary workers in professional specialty 
occupations with highly specialized knowledge or fashion models of 
distinguished merit and ability; 
Annual numeric limit: 65,000; 
(with certain exceptions); 
Length of stay: Renewable up to 6 years. 

Visa: H-2A; 
Type of foreign workers: Temporary agricultural workers; 
Annual numeric limit: None; 
Length of stay: Maximum stay of 3 years. 

Visa: H-2B; 
Type of foreign workers: Temporary nonagricultural workers; 
Annual numeric limit: 66,000; 
Length of stay: Maximum stay of 3 years. 

Visa: J; 
Type of foreign workers: Instructors or researchers in education and 
cultural exchange programs designated by the Department of State; 
Annual numeric limit: None; 
Length of stay: No maximum stay restriction. 

Visa: L; 
Type of foreign workers: Intercompany transfers in a capacity that is 
managerial, executive, or involves specialized knowledge; 
Annual numeric limit: None; 
Length of stay: 5-7 years. 

Visa: O; 
Type of foreign workers: Persons with extraordinary ability in the 
sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics or certain persons 
accompanying or assisting them; 
Annual numeric limit: None; 
Length of stay: 3-4 years. 

Visa: P; 
Type of foreign workers: Internationally recognized athletes, members 
of an entertainment group, or certain other individual performing 
artists or entertainers; 
Annual numeric limit: None; 
Length of stay: 10 years. 

Visa: Q-1; 
Type of foreign workers: Providers of practical training, employment or 
experience in cultural exchange programs approved by USCIS; 
Annual numeric limit: None; 
Length of stay: Maximum stay of 15 months. 

Visa: R; 
Type of foreign workers: Religious workers; 
Annual numeric limit: None; 
Length of stay: Maximum stay of 5 years. 

Visa: TN; 
Type of foreign workers: Temporary workers under the North American 
Free Trade Agreement; 
Annual numeric limit: None; 
Length of stay: Renewable up to 2 years. 

Source: GAO analysis of USCIS data. 

[End of table] 

U.S. immigration laws have also established a variety of means by which 
immigrants can change their status after entering the country. For 
example, some temporary visa categories allow a legal visa holder to 
apply to adjust to lawful permanent resident status under a permanent 
employment-or family-based category after a specified period of time of 
working legally in the United States. In addition, IRCA established a 
regularization program to provide legal status to aliens who had 
continuously resided in the United States illegally prior to January 1, 
1982. It is estimated that the programs under IRCA regularized the 
status of nearly 3 million unauthorized immigrants. 

IRCA also established procedures for verifying the work authorization 
of foreign employees and for enforcing laws to limit the employment of 
unauthorized workers. The act made it illegal for individuals to 
knowingly hire, continue to employ, or recruit or refer for a fee 
unauthorized workers and established a two-pronged approach for helping 
to limit the employment of unauthorized workers: (1) an employment 
verification process through which employers verify newly hired 
employees' work eligibility and (2) a sanctions program for fining 
employers who do not comply with the act. 

Under the employment verification process, employees and employers must 
complete the Employment Eligibility Verification Form (Form I-9) to 
certify that the employees are authorized to work in the United States. 
Employers must request that newly hired employees present a document or 
documents that confirm employees' identity and work eligibility. 
Currently, there are 27 different documents that can be used to 
establish work eligibility. On the Form I-9, employees must attest that 
they are U.S. citizens, lawfully admitted permanent residents, or 
aliens authorized to work in the United States. Employers must then 
certify that they have reviewed the documents presented by their 
employees to establish identity and work eligibility and that the 
documents appear genuine and relate to the individual presenting them. 
In making their certifications, employers are expected to judge whether 
the documents presented are obviously counterfeit. Employers are deemed 
in compliance with IRCA if they have followed the verification 
procedures, including instances when an unauthorized alien may have 
presented fraudulent documents that appeared genuine. We have 
previously reported that current weaknesses, such as difficulty in 
detecting document and identity fraud and the large number of 
acceptable documents for proving work eligibility, have undermined the 
effectiveness of the employment verification process.[Footnote 24] 

Those employers who do not follow the verification process can be 
sanctioned for knowingly hiring or continuing to employ unauthorized 
workers, or for improperly completing the Form I-9. Employers who fail 
to properly complete, retain, or present for inspection a Form I-9 may 
face civil or administrative fines ranging from $110 to $1,100 for each 
employee for whom the form was not properly completed, retained, or 
presented.[Footnote 25] IIRIRA of 1996 limited employer liability for 
certain technical violations of Form I-9 paperwork requirements. 
According to the act, a person or entity is considered to have complied 
with the employment verification process if the person or entity made a 
good faith attempt to properly complete the Form I-9.[Footnote 26] 
Employers who knowingly hire or continue to employ unauthorized aliens 
may be fined from $275 to $11,000 for each employee, depending on 
whether the violation is a first or subsequent offense. Employers who 
engage in a pattern or practice of knowingly hiring or continuing to 
employ unauthorized workers are subject to criminal penalties 
consisting of fines up to $3,000 per unauthorized employee and up to 6 
months' imprisonment. Efforts to enforce these sanctions are referred 
to as worksite enforcement and are primarily the responsibility of U.S. 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in DHS. 

We reported in 2005 that worksite enforcement has been a relatively low 
priority under both the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service 
(INS)[Footnote 27] and ICE, and that since fiscal year 1999, INS and 
ICE have dedicated a relatively small portion of overall agent 
resources to the worksite enforcement program.[Footnote 28] Since 
September 11, 2001, INS and then ICE focused worksite enforcement 
efforts mainly on detecting and removing unauthorized workers from 
critical infrastructure sites, such as airports and nuclear power 
plants, consistent with the DHS mission to combat terrorism. Yet 
employers, particularly those not located at or near critical 
infrastructure sites, who attempt to circumvent IRCA have faced little 
likelihood that ICE would investigate them for knowingly hiring 
unauthorized foreign workers. We reported that INS and ICE have faced 
difficulties in setting and collecting fine amounts that meaningfully 
deter employers from hiring unauthorized foreign workers and in 
detaining unauthorized workers, though we noted that ICE has taken 
steps to address these difficulties. In addition, in 2006 we reported 
that data on individuals' earnings collected by various agencies, 
including the Social Security Administration and the Internal Revenue 
Service, could help DHS detect unauthorized work and enforce 
immigration laws.[Footnote 29] However, while our prior work has 
highlighted the benefits of earnings information for detecting 
unauthorized work, we noted that additional disclosure of earnings 
information should be carefully weighed against the various drawbacks-
-especially privacy considerations. 

Countries' Programs for Admitting Foreign Workers: 

The countries in our review have programs designed to recruit foreign 
workers to fill jobs that cannot be filled by native workers, and these 
programs generally focus on recruiting high-skilled or seasonal foreign 
workers. Some countries facilitate the recruitment of workers by using 
bilateral agreements or third party entities. The countries we studied 
determine and manage the number of foreign workers that can be admitted 
by studying labor market conditions or by implementing a quota system. 
The countries also have admission requirements that employers and 
potential foreign workers are required to meet in order to participate 
in a foreign worker program. The majority of foreign worker programs 
implemented in countries we studied are temporary, and the countries 
use a variety of mechanisms to encourage or enforce the return of 
temporary foreign workers after expiration of work permits. 

Countries Recruit Foreign Workers Based on Skill Level and Can Use 
Bilateral or Other Agreements: 

Countries Recruit Foreign Workers with Different Skill Levels but 
Generally Focus Recruitment on High-Skilled and Seasonal Workers: 

Foreign countries in our review have programs designed to fill high- 
skilled, low-skilled, and seasonal jobs with foreign workers, but 
countries vary in the ways they recruit foreign workers for these types 
of positions. Countries such as Australia, Germany, and Belgium have 
programs designed to actively recruit highly skilled workers.[Footnote 
30] For example, according to government officials, Australia offers 
numerous foreign worker programs to recruit highly skilled foreign 
workers in specific industry sectors that have experienced labor market 
shortages. The country recruits high-skilled workers through, among 
other means, the use of promotional campaigns within specific 
industrial sectors or foreign countries to target foreign workers with 
specific business or trade skills for positions in Australia, such as 
medical practitioners, visiting academics, and business workers. In 
addition, Canadian officials stated that about 55 percent of the 
temporary foreign workers admitted to Canada in 2004 were employed in 
skilled occupations, such as professionals, academics, and engineers. 
According to one expert, because the education and training required to 
become high-skilled takes time to acquire, an efficient way for a 
country to increase its numbers of high-skilled workers is to recruit 
these workers from abroad. For example, during the 1990s, most 
industrial countries made it easier for foreign professionals to enter 
and work temporarily or permanently in response to the economic growth 
of that period. 

While countries we studied, such as Canada, Australia, and Germany, 
have programs designed to legally admit low-skilled foreign workers, 
they generally do not focus their recruitment efforts on this type of 
worker.[Footnote 31] However, jobs in low-skilled sectors, such as 
manufacturing, construction, and cleaning services, are also the 
sectors in which employers with large numbers of unauthorized workers 
are typically found. Government officials and experts told us that the 
high amount of illegal work in these sectors can be an incentive for 
governments to develop programs designed to legally admit low-skilled 
workers. In addition, countries' need for foreign workers to fill low- 
skilled jobs is at least partially determined by the economic situation 
of the countries. For example, experts from Germany stated that the 
high unemployment rate in their country has decreased the need for low- 
skilled foreign workers, and the German government has taken steps to 
fill low-skilled job vacancies with unemployed German citizens. In 
contrast, Canadian officials stated that their country's need for 
temporary foreign workers, of which about 45 percent are low-skilled, 
has increased as the economy has strengthened. 

While most of the countries in our review do not recruit significant 
numbers of low-skilled foreign workers, government officials generally 
told us they recruit foreign workers on a seasonal basis and have 
implemented programs designed to fill those needs.[Footnote 32] For 
example, Germany recruits seasonal workers by allowing employers to 
specify individual foreign workers to fill positions or by allowing an 
employer to request foreign workers through a local employment agency 
without specifying particular workers. Seasonal work, while considered 
to be a type of low-skilled employment, is generally regulated under 
specific programs different from those regulating other types of 
foreign work because seasonal work is of a defined amount of time. 
Seasonal work is generally in the agricultural or tourism industries in 
which the length of such work is defined by growing season and peak 
tourist season, respectively. Foreign workers may therefore have the 
opportunity to participate in seasonal programs on an annual basis. 
Government officials and experts told us that this process of 
repeatedly participating in seasonal programs provides an incentive for 
foreign workers to return to their home countries at the end of the 
season because lapsing into illegal status by overstaying their permits 
may jeopardize workers' ability to participate in future programs. In 
addition, government officials and experts suggested that employers 
benefit from seasonal worker programs under which the same workers 
participate year after year because employers gain benefits from their 
investments in the seasonal workers, such as in the provision of 
training. However, experts also noted that seasonal workers may be 
vulnerable to exploitation because they may not be fully aware of their 
rights or may not report mistreatment if they fear doing so would 
jeopardize their employment.[Footnote 33] 

Countries Can Use Bilateral Agreements or Third Party Entities to 
Recruit Foreign Workers: 

Some countries we studied use bilateral agreements to manage the flow 
of workers between two countries or to manage foreign worker admissions 
in specific labor sectors. For example, the Canadian government uses 
bilateral agreements with Mexico and Jamaica to recruit and admit 
seasonal foreign workers in the agricultural industry. Australia runs 
its Working Holiday Maker Program through reciprocal bilateral 
agreements with other countries. Under this program, Australia admits 
foreigners aged 18 to 30 from specific countries to enter Australia for 
up to 1 year for travel around the country. During their time in the 
country, these individuals can earn money by working for up to 6 months 
each with different employers. An Australian government official stated 
that the working holiday maker program has contributed to the 
Australian economy because it allows employers to hire visiting 
foreigners to do short-term work that the employers would likely not be 
able to obtain Australian workers to do. 

Government officials and experts told us that both the receiving and 
sending countries have incentives to enter into a bilateral agreement. 
The agreements provide the receiving countries with mechanisms to help 
control the flow of illegal migration from sending countries by, for 
example, including provisions that require the sending countries to 
repatriate citizens who are found to be in the receiving country 
illegally. In addition, bilateral agreements allow receiving countries 
to recruit foreign workers from specific sending countries or with 
specific skills or other characteristics to fill jobs in certain 
sectors with labor shortages. Bilateral agreements also may provide 
employers in the receiving countries with some control over recruiting 
workers with appropriate skills to fill job positions, allow employers 
to compare foreign workers' education with the receiving country's 
standards, and help ensure sending countries' assistance in 
repatriating workers after work permits expire. In particular, some 
receiving countries have set up offices in sending countries to recruit 
and provide training for workers to be admitted. In other cases, 
companies themselves have become involved in the recruiting process by 
sending personnel to countries to train and recruit foreign workers. 
For example, in Spain, the autonomous community of Madrid recently 
signed an agreement with Colombia that allows employers to train and 
guarantee jobs to potential workers while they are still in Colombia. 
France has bilateral agreements with Romania and other countries that 
facilitate unauthorized immigrants' repatriation by stipulating that 
deported foreign workers will not be able to secure a tourist visa 
enabling them to return to France for at least a few months after 
repatriation. Moreover, experts told us that receiving countries can 
use bilateral agreements to help manage the flows of unauthorized 
immigrants by providing financial assistance to the sending countries, 
helping to improve financial conditions in the sending countries and 
thus reducing immigrants' incentives to migrate illegally. 

Likewise, sending countries have a variety of incentives for 
participating in bilateral agreements to manage foreign worker flows. 
Sending countries' economies benefit from the remittances that foreign 
workers send back to the countries, and bilateral agreements provide 
sending countries with a vehicle to negotiate appropriate wages, living 
conditions, and job security for their citizens abroad. In addition, 
sending countries may benefit economically and socially from the skills 
and experiences that temporary foreign workers bring back to the 
countries by, for example, encouraging small business and community 
development. Experts have indicated that helping to improve financial 
conditions in the sending countries reduces immigrants' incentives to 
migrate illegally. 

Bilateral agreements also help sending countries ensure their workers' 
rights, such as ensuring employers provide safe working conditions. 
According to studies, the rights granted to foreign workers under 
bilateral schemes vary by agreement and the terms and conditions 
negotiated between the sending and receiving countries. Bilateral 
agreements can ensure that workers admitted are entitled to the same 
working conditions and wages as native workers, and some agreements 
also specify whether and how foreign workers are able to collect social 
insurance contributions made in receiving countries upon the workers' 
return to their home countries. However, nongovernmental officials and 
experts have stated that sending countries, in some cases, may be 
reluctant to advocate for their workers' rights if the countries 
perceive that doing so may hinder their participation in the bilateral 
agreements and thus the flow of remittances. 

In addition, countries use private sector entities, called third party 
entities or operators, to recruit, select, or transport foreign workers 
from sending to receiving countries. For example, the United Kingdom 
allocates a defined number of work permits to several third party 
operators, who then independently recruit workers from other countries 
to work in the agricultural sector. Studies suggest that the use of 
third party entities is a means to link employers in the receiving 
countries with appropriate foreign workers. Government officials told 
us that the use of third party entities requires the government to 
regulate these groups to ensure they are complying with program 
requirements. For example, researchers have stated that third party 
entities can exploit foreign workers by soliciting money from foreign 
workers in exchange for job placement. 

Countries Control the Admissions of Foreign Workers by Limiting Their 
Numbers and Setting Eligibility Requirements: 

Countries Manage Foreign Worker Admissions Using Various Methods But 
May Find It Difficult to Effectively Respond to Changing Labor Market 
Needs: 

Most of the countries we studied assess the need for foreign workers by 
studying the labor market and using the results to determine the number 
of foreign workers to admit to work in specific sectors, but the 
countries varied in the extent to which they have formalized processes 
to assess labor market needs for foreign workers. The officials and 
experts with whom we spoke told us that basing the number of allowable 
admissions of foreign workers on the results of labor market 
determinations helps ensure that the number of foreign workers legally 
admitted matches the actual economic need for workers in specific 
industries. For example, Spain's regional governments determine the 
need for foreign workers in different labor sectors by discussing labor 
market needs with employer and worker associations and submit the 
results to the national government, which then uses the information to 
determine the number of foreign worker admissions for each sector. 
Experts and officials told us that a process for assessing labor market 
needs helps countries match the number of foreign worker admissions to 
labor market needs for those workers. In addition, many countries, 
including Argentina, the Netherlands, and Switzerland, require a 
potential employer to prove that no native workers are available to 
fill a job before the employer can apply to bring in a foreign worker. 
Countries such as France and Canada require employers to advertise job 
vacancies in local newspapers, trade publications, or an employment 
office before the employers can seek foreign workers. However, 
officials and experts told us that the burden on employers for 
completing this requirement can encourage employers to circumvent the 
assessment process and hire unauthorized foreign workers, resulting in 
the need for enforcement tools to address unauthorized foreign workers' 
employment. 

In addition to using labor market assessments to determine the need for 
foreign workers, some countries we studied use quota systems to 
indicate the number of legal foreign worker admissions. Quotas can be 
set at a predetermined number or allow for some flexibility in the 
number of foreign workers to admit based on labor market needs. 
Governments may set quotas on an annual basis in consultation with 
relevant bodies such as employers, trade unions, and local labor or 
employment offices to account for labor market needs. Quotas can be set 
for each labor sector or geographic region or by foreign workers' 
countries of origin. For example, Switzerland has implemented a 
national quota for both temporary and long-term workers that limits the 
number of foreign workers admitted to Switzerland each year. The United 
Kingdom introduced a sector-based scheme in 2003 that created a quota 
of 10,000 workers in the hospitality and food-processing sectors and 
limited the annual number of foreign workers admitted to the United 
Kingdom in those sectors, although the United Kingdom is moving towards 
an employment-based immigration system based on a general points scheme 
to admit foreign workers, as discussed below. Additionally, in Austria, 
the government sets quotas of seasonal workers by sector. In 2006, 
Austria set quotas of 7,500 for workers in the tourism sector; 
7,500 for workers in the agriculture or forestry sector; 
and 7,000 for seasonal harvesters. 

However, it is difficult to implement a quota program that effectively 
responds to changing labor market needs when the number of foreign 
worker admissions has been set under a quota system. Government 
officials, labor unions, and experts told us that quotas may not 
necessarily respond to labor market needs, a situation that creates an 
incentive for employers to hire unauthorized workers and necessitates 
enforcement efforts to control the employment of unauthorized workers. 
Officials and experts also stated that as a country's economy changes, 
the need for foreign workers may shift from one employment sector to 
another. 

Some countries, including Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the 
United Kingdom,[Footnote 34] have used points-based systems for 
managing immigration flows, which allow countries to tailor their 
admission requirements for residence or work permits to migrants who 
meet certain characteristics. In general, under points-based systems, 
immigrants, such as temporary foreign workers, obtain points based on 
various skills and characteristics, including educational or 
professional experience and ability to speak a country's native 
languages. These characteristics may be chosen based on a country's 
perception of attributes that predict a migrant's potential to succeed 
in the labor market. Immigrants whose point totals meet a minimum point 
requirement can qualify for work permits and, in some cases, permanent 
residence status. Under Australia's points-based system, immigrants can 
earn points for such things as skill, age, English language ability, 
specific work experience, an occupation in demand, a job offer, an 
intention to reside in regional Australia, and spouses' skills. Under 
Canada's system, points are assigned to applicants based on age, 
education, work experience, intended occupation, and knowledge of 
Canadian national languages, among other things. Experts have said that 
points-based systems are advantageous because they are transparent to 
both the migrant and employer about the requirements a migrant must 
meet in order to qualify for entry to the country. 

Countries' Foreign Worker Programs Specify Employer and Worker 
Requirements for Participation: 

Countries we studied have foreign worker programs with requirements 
that employers and potential foreign workers are required to meet in 
order for the government to issue a work permit.[Footnote 35] Most 
countries require either the worker or employer to pay a fee in order 
to be granted a work permit. For example, Canada charges individual 
workers a C$150 (about $140) fee to apply for a work permit. The United 
Kingdom charges employers a £153 (about $280) fee to apply for a work 
permit on behalf of each potential foreign worker. Experts have 
suggested that requiring employers to pay a fee for foreign workers' 
permits helps to ensure that employers hire only those foreign workers 
for whom they truly have a need. However, government officials and 
experts stated that the fee requirement may create an incentive for 
workers to seek illegal employment and for employers to hire 
unauthorized workers in order to avoid having to pay the fee. In other 
cases, unscrupulous employers may illegally deduct the cost of the fees 
from foreign workers' wages. 

Many countries' work permits also stipulate that foreign workers can 
only be employed by the employer listed on the permit. Therefore, if 
foreign workers would like to change jobs, the workers must reapply for 
a new permit or work for an alternate employer illegally. While such a 
requirement can help regulate foreign workers' employment, experts and 
other nongovernmental officials told us that the requirement can also 
make it difficult for foreign workers to escape unscrupulous employers 
who may exploit the workers. In addition, the requirements of work 
permits granted under foreign worker programs generally state whether 
family members may accompany a foreign worker. For example, under 
Austria's seasonal worker program, foreign workers are not permitted to 
bring their family members. According to government officials, employer 
and employee groups, and experts, temporary workers may be less likely 
to return to their home countries if their family members are permitted 
to accompany them. 

Countries' Foreign Worker Programs Are Generally Temporary but Vary in 
Their Requirements for Return: 

Regardless of the skill level of the foreign worker, the majority of 
work permits offered by the countries we studied are temporary, 
although the permits vary in their requirement for the workers' return 
at the end of the permit's duration. These permits generally expire 
after a set amount of time--for the countries in our review from 3 
months to 5 years after issuance. However, not all temporary work 
permits require workers to return home at the end of the permit. Some 
temporary work permits are renewable and allow workers to renew the 
permit an unlimited number of times. For example, the Spanish 
government offers foreign workers a 1-year temporary permit that is 
renewable indefinitely, and participants in this program have the 
option to apply for permanent residency after 5 years. Nongovernmental 
officials and experts told us that an advantage of renewable temporary 
work permits is that they provide a means for employers to employ a 
legal workforce, help governments obtain financial benefits from hiring 
legal foreign workers, and reduce employers' incentives to hire 
unauthorized foreign workers. 

Some countries' foreign worker programs offer temporary work permits 
that require the foreign worker to leave the country when the permit 
expires, but government officials and experts noted that it is 
difficult to ensure that the workers return to their home countries. 
Government officials and experts noted that temporary programs are most 
successful in ensuring worker return when the work is of a short, 
defined duration, such as in seasonal labor sectors. Workers may also 
be more willing to return to their home countries if they have the 
opportunity to participate in future programs. For example, Canadian 
officials and experts stated that employers in Canada have an incentive 
to hire legal foreign seasonal workers because they have assurance that 
the workers will be available to work in subsequent years. In addition, 
the foreign workers have incentives to return home because they do not 
want to jeopardize their status in the program and, because the 
agricultural work is located in rural areas of Canada, it can be 
difficult for the foreign workers to integrate into or travel to more 
populated areas of the country. 

Experts and government officials noted that because it is difficult to 
successfully ensure foreign workers' return to their home countries, a 
significant number of foreign workers overstay their work permits and 
become unauthorized immigrants, contributing to countries' illegal 
immigrant populations. The countries we studied use a variety of tools 
to encourage or enforce foreign workers' return to their home countries 
when their permits have expired (see table 2), and these tools are used 
in conjunction with the countries' laws and policies that limit the 
employment of unauthorized workers. For example, government officials 
stated that hiring foreign workers who have an existing attachment to 
their home countries may help ensure that workers return when their 
work permits expire. According to government officials, under Spain's 
seasonal agricultural worker program, the government recruits primarily 
married women, because these workers may be more likely to return to 
their countries in order to see their families. The United Kingdom's 
seasonal worker program primarily recruits foreign students who are on 
vacation from their schools, as these workers have an existing reason 
to return to their home countries. In addition, countries may withhold 
foreign workers' social insurance benefits or earnings, which workers 
can only collect upon return to their home countries. Singapore 
requires employers of non-Malaysian temporary foreign workers to post a 
bond of S$5,000 (about $3,200) per worker, which is returned to the 
employer after the worker has returned home. 

Table 2: Examples of Tools to Encourage Foreign Worker Return, as 
Reported by Government Officials and Experts: 

Tools to encourage foreign worker return: Deportation or expulsion; 
Definition and use: Unauthorized migrants are forcibly removed from the 
country. 

Tools to encourage foreign worker return: Collection of social 
insurance benefits; 
Definition and use: Workers can only collect pension or social 
insurance benefits upon return to their home countries. 

Tools to encourage foreign worker return: Collection of withheld 
earnings; 
Definition and use: Employers or governments withhold a portion of 
foreign workers' earnings that workers can collect only upon return. 

Tools to encourage foreign worker return: Bonds; 
Definition and use: Employers or workers put up a monetary bond for 
work permits, which they can only collect upon workers' return. 

Tools to encourage foreign worker return: Proof of intent; 
Definition and use: Foreign workers must provide proof of their intent 
to return to their home countries before admission, such as by showing 
they have sufficient funds to purchase a return ticket. 

Tools to encourage foreign worker return: Reentry requirements; 
Definition and use: Countries grant reentry only if foreign workers 
return home upon expiration of the work permits. 

Tools to encourage foreign worker return: Recruit specific type of 
worker; 
Definition and use: Countries recruit foreign workers who have an 
existing attachment to their home countries, such as married workers or 
students. 

Tools to encourage foreign worker return: Admission of family members; 
Definition and use: Family members may not be permitted to accompany 
temporary foreign workers, making it more likely that the workers will 
return to their home countries. Countries may also subject family 
members to a waiting period, such as for 1 year, which effectively 
precludes them from reunification with shorter-term workers. 

Tools to encourage foreign worker return: Encouraging circular 
migration; 
Definition and use: Countries establish short-duration work permits 
that are available annually. Foreign workers may be more willing to 
return to their home countries if they perceive that they will be able 
to return to the receiving country at a later date. Furthermore, 
allowing foreign workers to periodically return to their home countries 
helps workers maintain familial and other social networks in their home 
countries, helping to facilitate workers' return. 

Tools to encourage foreign worker return: Facilitated reentry; 
Definition and use: Governments may require departing migrant workers 
to register their return with the government's consulate in the 
receiving country. In exchange, the migrant worker may gain facilitated 
reentry for employment purposes in the future. 

Tools to encourage foreign worker return: Sponsorship; 
Definition and use: Government may require employers and educational 
institutions to be approved to accept foreign workers or students and 
to receive a certificate of sponsorship, which requires, among other 
things, that they notify the government if the migrant is leaving their 
employment. Failure to do so results in removal of the government's 
approval for the employer or institution to accept foreign workers or 
students. 

Source: GAO analysis of country-and expert-reported data. 

[End of table] 

Some programs allow for permanent resident status after a certain 
period of employment and residence, although countries' programs for 
foreign workers generally do not allow for workers to become 
naturalized citizens. Experts stated that granting permanent status can 
help ensure economic growth and sustain social welfare contributions, 
as well as allow employers to retain high-quality workers. Experts, 
government officials, and nongovernmental officials stated that 
offering permanent status is generally reserved for high-skilled 
foreign workers and therefore can be used as a means to recruit and 
retain skilled foreign workers. For example, Germany instituted a 
program for recruiting information technology specialists in which 
foreign specialists could reside and work in Germany for a 5-year 
period, after which they could apply for permanent residency and bring 
in family members if the specialists met a minimum salary requirement. 
In Switzerland, settlement permits can be granted to individuals who 
have resided continuously in the country for 10 years; 
foreigners from European Economic Area countries and the United States 
can receive permits after 5 years of residence. 

Some of the countries in our review have implemented measures to assist 
with the integration of foreign workers and their families who are 
granted long-term residency status and who may face difficulties in 
socially and economically integrating into the countries. For example, 
immigration experts in Germany stated that long term residents from 
Turkey may have difficulty integrating into German society as, in 
general, neither they nor their children could become German citizens. 
Germany has initiated programs to help integrate new immigrants, such 
as requiring them to take language and civics classes. France has also 
faced difficulties in integrating immigrant populations, which, 
according to a government official, have contributed to protests and 
civil unrest. The French government has taken steps to help better 
integrate immigrants, such as establishing a dialogue with immigrant 
organizations and providing scholarships for immigrants. Other 
countries have also initiated programs to help immigrants' integration, 
such as language and culture classes and programs to assist immigrants 
in obtaining employment. 

Additional Insights from Countries' Temporary Foreign Worker Programs: 

The countries whose temporary foreign worker programs we studied noted 
that such programs have provided a variety of benefits to those 
countries by, for example, helping countries fill labor market 
shortages in specific sectors, such as in sectors where there are no 
native workers available or willing to fill jobs. Temporary foreign 
worker programs have also provided channels for legal immigration 
flows, which according to experts, may have helped to reduce employers' 
demand for unauthorized foreign workers and foreign workers' incentives 
to illegally migrate to receiving countries. Yet, governmental and 
nongovernmental officials have noted challenges faced by countries in 
implementing temporary foreign worker programs. Experts have suggested 
that temporary foreign worker programs or other initiatives that 
increase the number of foreign workers legally admitted to countries do 
not help reduce illegal immigration flows but rather help increase 
immigrant populations in receiving countries, which may encourage 
further legal and illegal immigration flows. In addition, countries 
have faced challenges in developing temporary foreign worker programs 
that flexibly respond to changing labor market needs. Countries have 
also experienced difficulties in enforcing requirements specified on 
work permits, particularly in ensuring temporary foreign workers' 
return to their home countries upon expiration of their work permits. 

Countries Use Various Means to Limit Employment of Unauthorized Foreign 
Workers: 

The countries we studied generally require employers to report 
information on workers' employment, such as workers' names and social 
insurance numbers, to government agencies, and in some countries, 
employers are required to review employees' work authorization 
documents. In taking worksite enforcement actions against unscrupulous 
employers and unauthorized foreign workers, including those who do not 
follow government reporting and verification requirements, some 
countries focus enforcement efforts on detecting and penalizing all 
illegal labor practices, while others focus more specifically on the 
employment of unauthorized foreign workers. As part of their worksite 
enforcement efforts, countries use a variety of enforcement tools, 
which are generally focused more on employers than on unauthorized 
foreign workers. To identify employers for investigation, enforcement 
agencies in these countries obtain information or leads from sources, 
such as the public and government databases, and use this information 
to investigate worksites. According to government officials and 
experts, the frequency and publicity of employer investigations helps 
deter employers from hiring unauthorized foreign workers, but countries 
have faced challenges in investigating and sanctioning employers and 
unauthorized foreign workers. These officials also stated that monetary 
fines penalize employers for hiring unauthorized foreign workers and 
may help deter future unauthorized employment, but others have noted 
that fines alone may not be effective in deterring unauthorized foreign 
worker employment. In addition to monetary fines, countries we studied 
use other means, such as seizure of employers' assets, to penalize 
employers for hiring unauthorized foreign workers. 

Countries Require Employers to Report or Verify Workers' Employment 
Information: 

In some countries we studied, the governments typically require 
employers to report information on workers, including workers' names 
and social insurance numbers, to government agencies when the workers 
are hired, and the agencies maintain this information for collecting 
taxes and social insurance contributions, administering social 
insurance benefits, and, in some cases, conducting worksite enforcement 
actions. For example, in France employers are required to submit a 
declaration of hire to the social security administration. In Belgium, 
employers are required to submit native workers' names and social 
insurance numbers to the government's social insurance database. In 
Germany, employers are required to report workers' employment 
information to the government for the payment of taxes and social 
insurance contributions. In some of these countries, employers are 
generally required to review noncitizens' work authorization documents, 
such as work or residence permits, at the time of hire because 
noncitizens typically do not have social insurance numbers to report to 
government agencies. Employers can be subject to penalties if they 
employ unauthorized foreign workers and failed to check those workers' 
work authorization documents. Government officials and experts have 
stated that requirements for employers to report workers' information 
to government agencies help governments maintain records on individuals 
for tax and social insurance purposes, and can help agencies detect 
possible cases of illegal employment. However, officials and experts 
also stated that document fraud may undermine countries' reporting 
requirements and adversely affect governments' ability to hold 
employers liable for hiring unauthorized foreign workers. 

Some countries we studied require employers to review all workers' work 
authorization documents. In the Netherlands, employers are required to 
check workers' identity and work authorization documents, such as 
passports, residence permits, or identity cards, before the workers 
start their employment. Employers are required to maintain a copy of 
these documents for at least 5 years after the workers cease their 
employment with the employers. In the United Kingdom, employers are not 
required to check workers' employment authorization documents, such as 
passports, birth certificates, or work permits, but they cannot 
establish an affirmative defense against a charge of hiring 
unauthorized foreign workers unless they have reviewed workers' 
documents.[Footnote 36] While requirements for employers to review 
workers' employment authorization documents may help employers ensure 
that they hire only authorized workers, according to governmental and 
nongovernmental officials, the vulnerability of verification processes 
to document fraud has made it difficult for employers to verify 
individuals' authorization to work. Officials told us that unauthorized 
foreign workers have used false documents to illegally obtain 
employment in their countries. 

Some Countries Focus Enforcement Efforts on All Illegal Labor 
Practices, while Others Focus More Specifically on the Employment of 
Unauthorized Foreign Workers: 

In some of the countries we studied, labor agencies are primarily 
responsible for enforcing workplace laws and focus their enforcement 
efforts broadly on identifying all types of illegal labor practices, of 
which the employment of unauthorized foreign workers is part, including 
employers' provision of substandard working conditions or failure to 
appropriately pay minimum wages, taxes, or social insurance 
contributions (see table 3). In Germany, for example, worksite 
inspectors can check employers' records and practices to determine 
whether employers have paid proper amounts of taxes and social 
insurance contributions for workers and hired only authorized workers. 
Likewise, in Belgium, France, and Switzerland, enforcement actions at 
worksites are coordinated among multiple agencies and are focused on 
detecting illegal labor practices by employers, though agencies focus 
on different elements of those practices. These countries may have 
focused their enforcement on all illegal labor practices for various 
reasons. For example, because employers' failure to appropriately pay 
taxes or social insurance payments contribute to the underground 
economy, enforcement agencies may focus on detecting all illegal labor 
practices that are linked to the underground economy. Furthermore, by 
targeting employers for failure to provide appropriate wages and 
working conditions along with other illegal labor practices, 
nongovernmental officials have stated that government agencies can 
improve working conditions for all workers and thus help reduce 
employers' incentives for employing unauthorized foreign workers. 

In other countries we studied, particularly Australia and the United 
Kingdom, the employment of unauthorized foreign workers is generally 
considered less of a labor issue than it is in other countries we 
studied. In these countries, immigration agencies are primarily 
responsible for enforcing laws that prohibit the employment of 
unauthorized foreign workers and more specifically focus enforcement 
efforts in that area than similar agencies in other countries we 
studied. Other agencies in Australia and the United Kingdom focus on 
enforcing labor standards, such as ensuring provision of safe working 
conditions and appropriate payment of wages, taxes, and social 
insurance contributions, and these agencies often coordinate their 
enforcement efforts with the countries' immigration enforcement 
agencies. 

Table 3: Resources for Enforcement of Illegal Labor Practices as 
Reported by Various Countries: 

Country: Belgium; 
Primary enforcement agency: Labor agency; 
Enforcement resources: Approximately 1,100 labor agency inspectors; 
Enforcement responsibilities: Investigations of employers' hiring of 
unauthorized foreign workers for at least 3 days each month. 

Country: Spain; 
Primary enforcement agency: Labor agency; 
Enforcement resources: Approximately 800 inspectors and 850 deputy 
inspectors in the labor ministry; 
Enforcement responsibilities: Investigations of occupational health and 
safety conditions, payment of social insurance contributions, and other 
labor issues, including the employment of unauthorized foreign workers. 

Country: Australia; 
Primary enforcement agency: Immigration agency; 
Enforcement resources: Approximately 4,000 immigration agency staff; 
Enforcement responsibilities: Activities related to nonhumanitarian 
entry and stay, refugee and humanitarian entry and stay, enforcement of 
immigration law, and asylum seeker management. 

Country: Canada; 
Primary enforcement agency: Immigration agency; 
Enforcement resources: Approximately 350 to 400 immigration agency 
officers; 
Enforcement responsibilities: Inland enforcement activities, including 
employers' hiring of unauthorized foreign workers. 

Country: United Kingdom; 
Primary enforcement agency: Immigration agency; 
Enforcement resources: Data not available; 
Enforcement responsibilities: Interior enforcement efforts, which are 
currently focused primarily on the removal of failed asylum seekers 
from the United Kingdom. 

Country: Germany; 
Primary enforcement agency: Customs authority in the finance ministry; 
Enforcement resources: Approximately 7,000 staff in the finance 
ministry; 
Enforcement responsibilities: Investigations of employers' payment of 
social insurance contributions and employers' hiring of unauthorized 
foreign workers. 

Source: GAO analysis of country-reported data. 

[End of table] 

Regardless of the focus of enforcement agencies, nongovernmental 
officials and experts have suggested that requiring employers to 
improve working conditions for all workers may help deter employers 
from hiring unauthorized foreign workers. In particular, they have 
suggested that enforcement of laws that require employers to provide 
safe and equal working conditions for all workers would help eliminate 
the advantage employers may gain by hiring unauthorized foreign 
workers. They noted that because employers often provide substandard 
wages and working conditions for unauthorized foreign workers, it is 
less costly for employers to hire unauthorized foreign workers than 
authorized workers. According to these officials, requiring employers 
to provide the same standard wages and working conditions to all 
workers, regardless of their work authorization status, helps reduce 
employers' incentives to employ unauthorized foreign workers. 

Countries Use Various Tools to Limit Unauthorized Foreign Worker 
Employment, but Face Difficulties in Enforcement Efforts: 

Countries' Enforcement Efforts Are Employer-focused but Also Include 
Deportation of Unauthorized Immigrants: 

In some of the countries we studied, officials told us that enforcement 
efforts at worksites are more focused on employers, but countries we 
studied also implement enforcement actions to target unauthorized 
foreign workers. Government officials in France and Spain noted that 
their agencies focus worksite enforcement on investigating and 
penalizing employers for illegal labor practices and place less 
emphasis on penalizing unauthorized foreign workers. In particular, in 
countries such as Spain and France, unauthorized foreign workers are 
viewed and treated as victims. In France, government officials told us 
that unauthorized workers have the same workplace rights as authorized 
workers and, therefore, in some instances, can sue employers for back 
wages, payment of social insurance contributions, or compensation for 
poor working conditions. As a result, employers can be required to 
forfeit any profits gained from employing unauthorized foreign workers, 
which can help deter employers from employing such workers in the 
future. 

Nevertheless, countries in our review also take enforcement actions 
against unauthorized immigrants, including those detected at worksites. 
Unauthorized immigrants can be deported and may also be prohibited from 
reentry. Yet according to governmental and nongovernmental officials, 
it can be difficult for countries to repatriate unauthorized immigrants 
to their home countries, and countries may not be able to deport all 
unauthorized immigrants they identify. In some cases, immigrants' home 
countries may delay or deny issuing necessary travel documents for 
unauthorized immigrants' readmission. These home countries may seek 
benefits, such as visa facilitation or border control training, in 
return for readmitting their citizens who worked illegally in the other 
countries. Some countries we studied used tools, such as limiting 
numbers of visas issued to individuals from sending countries, to 
encourage other countries' readmission of unauthorized immigrants. 

Governments Receive Tips and Check Multiple Databases to Identify 
Employment of Unauthorized Foreign Workers: 

To help detect illegal labor practices by employers, government 
agencies receive information and tips from different sources. These 
sources include workers, other government agencies, and the public. In 
addition to these sources, agencies in some countries share information 
across government databases to help identify possible illegal labor 
practices. If information in social insurance or tax databases does not 
match employers' records, it may indicate that employers are engaged in 
illegal labor activities, including the employment of unauthorized 
foreign workers. For example, in France, government officials stated 
that when inspecting worksites, labor inspectors may compare 
information reported by employers to the French social security 
administration with information in employers' records to determine 
whether employers have properly registered their workers with the 
social security administration and whether workers are authorized. In 
Spain, government agencies plan to use database information collected 
under the country's 2005 regularization program to target employers for 
inspection and to identify unauthorized foreign workers. Government 
officials and experts told us that the sharing of information across 
government agencies and databases can generate leads for investigating 
employers for illegal labor practices. However, some governmental and 
nongovernmental officials noted data protection and privacy concerns 
with the use of tax and social insurance information in identifying 
possible illegal labor practices among employers. In Switzerland, for 
example, a nongovernmental official told us that data protection laws 
prohibit Swiss labor inspectors from comparing social insurance and 
work authorization records. 

Frequency and Publicity of Employer Inspections May Help Deter 
Unauthorized Foreign Worker Employment: 

In countries we studied, enforcement agencies conducted inspections or 
investigations of employers to examine employers' compliance with laws 
that prohibit various illegal labor practices, including the employment 
of unauthorized foreign workers. According to governmental and 
nongovernmental officials, the frequency and publicity of these 
employer investigations help deter employers from hiring unauthorized 
foreign workers. For example, nongovernmental agency officials noted 
that an increased frequency of employer investigations helps deter 
employers from hiring unauthorized workers. Immigration experts and 
governmental officials also suggested that to help deter employers' 
hiring of unauthorized foreign workers, government agencies should 
conduct frequent inspections so as to increase employers' perception 
that they are likely to be investigated, contributing to the deterrent 
effect of employer investigations and monetary fines on employers' 
hiring of unauthorized foreign workers. However, countries have faced 
challenges in conducting employer investigations. For example, 
governmental and nongovernmental officials told us that during 
investigations some employers may claim that they did not knowingly 
hire unauthorized foreign workers because workers presented false 
information at the time of hire. The ability of employers to make such 
a claim creates difficulties for government agencies in proving that 
employers knowingly hired those workers. Additionally, nongovernmental 
officials and experts have noted the importance of resources in 
conducting frequent employer investigations. For instance, one expert 
told us that enforcement efforts do not deter the employment of 
unauthorized foreign workers if countries do not provide sufficient 
resources for enforcement actions so as to increase the likelihood that 
employers will be investigated. 

Furthermore, publicizing enforcement actions against employers helps to 
deter employers' hiring of unauthorized foreign workers. For example, 
government and nongovernmental officials noted that publicizing 
employer investigations and sanctions can be an important deterrent to 
employers' hiring of unauthorized foreign workers. Moreover, experts 
stated that publicizing sanctions imposed on employers serves as a 
deterrent to increase employers' perception that they have a 
significant chance of being penalized for employing unauthorized 
foreign workers. 

Countries Use Monetary Fines to Penalize Employers' Use of Unauthorized 
Foreign Workers, but the Deterrent Effect of Fines Is Unknown: 

Most of the countries we studied use civil or criminal fines to 
penalize and deter employers from hiring unauthorized workers. As shown 
in table 4, the amounts of civil and criminal monetary fines reported 
by country officials, as well as the conditions under which fines can 
be imposed, vary across the countries we studied. 

Table 4: Civil and Criminal Monetary Fine Amount Ranges for Hiring 
Unauthorized Workers Reported by Various Countries: 

Country: Australia; 
Civil monetary fine amount range: None; 
Criminal monetary fine amount range: Individuals and entities can be 
fined up to A$10,000 (about $7,500) for aiding and abetting the 
employment of unauthorized foreign workers. 

Country: Belgium; 
Civil monetary fine amount range: Minimum €3,750 ($4,700) per 
unauthorized worker for workers without residence and work permits; 
minimum €375 ($470) per unauthorized workers for workers without work 
permits; 
Criminal monetary fine amount range: Minimum €15,000 ($18,800) per 
unauthorized worker for workers without residence and work permits; 
minimum €1,700 ($2,100) per unauthorized workers for workers without 
work permits. 

Country: Canada; 
Civil monetary fine amount range: None; 
Criminal monetary fine amount range: Depending on the type of 
conviction, maximum C$50,000 ($43,800) or maximum C$10,000 ($8,800). 

Country: France; 
Civil monetary fine amount range: €3,110 ($3,900) per unauthorized 
worker; 
Criminal monetary fine amount range: Maximum €15,000 ($18,800) per 
offense. 

Country: Germany; 
Civil monetary fine amount range: €5 to €500,000 total ($6 to 
$628,800); 
Criminal monetary fine amount range: Fines imposed on a daily basis 
ranging from 5 to 360 days. Daily fine rates range from €1 to €5,000 
per day ($1 to $6,300). 

Country: Spain; 
Civil monetary fine amount range: €6,000 to €60,000 ($7,500 to $75,500) 
per unauthorized worker; 
Criminal monetary fine amount range: None. 

Country: Switzerland; 
Civil monetary fine amount range: None; 
Criminal monetary fine amount range: Maximum of SwF 5,000 ($4,000) per 
unauthorized worker. 

Country: United Kingdom; 
Civil monetary fine amount range: None; 
Criminal monetary fine amount range: Unlimited amount with criminal 
conviction. 

Source: GAO analysis of country-reported data. 

Note: Amounts in U.S. dollars are rounded, based on the exchange rate 
from July 25, 2006. 

[End of table] 

Government officials noted that employer monetary fines may help deter 
employers' hiring of unauthorized foreign workers, but officials from 
other countries suggested that the deterrent effect of current monetary 
fine amounts in their countries is unclear. For example, 
nongovernmental agency officials from France, Germany, and Spain noted 
that employer monetary fines have helped to deter employers in those 
countries from hiring unauthorized foreign workers. In 2005, Germany 
imposed about €67 million (about $84.2 million) in civil fines, and 
France imposed about €2.7 million (about $3.4 million) in civil fines. 
However, other officials stated that fine amounts may be too low to 
provide a meaningful deterrent. Governmental and nongovernmental 
officials noted that employers often view monetary fines as the cost of 
doing business, and therefore, monetary fines do not meaningfully deter 
employers from hiring unauthorized workers. Officials suggested that it 
can be difficult to set fine amounts that deter employers from hiring 
unauthorized foreign workers but do not drive employers out of business 
or into the underground economy. 

In addition, in some countries we studied, agencies have experienced 
difficulties in imposing fines on employers and in collecting fine 
amounts from employers. For example, governmental and nongovernmental 
officials told us that document fraud hinders the ability of 
enforcement agencies to prove employers hired unauthorized foreign 
workers and to sanction them. Officials also noted that enforcement 
agencies in some countries lack the resources needed to effectively 
investigate and sanction employers, affecting the frequency with which 
employers are fined for employing unauthorized foreign workers. 
Moreover, Belgian government officials told us that the government has 
difficulty collecting monetary fines from employers because employers 
have declared bankruptcy or sold off company assets to avoid paying the 
fine amounts. French and German officials similarly told us that 
employers have declared bankruptcy to help avoid paying fine amounts, 
and other government officials noted that, in many cases, employers 
went out of business before the government collected fine amounts. 
French officials also stated that the government plans to primarily 
pursue civil, rather than criminal, penalties against employers, as 
civil penalties can be imposed and collected more easily than criminal 
penalties in that country. 

Countries we studied have developed tools to help collect fine amounts 
from employers. In Spain, for example, government officials stated that 
if an employer decides to appeal the government's imposition of a 
monetary fine, the employer is required to pay the fine amount to the 
government prior to the appeal, and the government holds the fine 
amount in escrow. One Spanish government official told us that as a 
result of this process, the Spanish government collects payment on most 
of the fines imposed on employers for hiring unauthorized foreign 
workers. In Switzerland, government authorities may, in some cases, 
require employers to pay fine amounts at the time of the worksite 
inspections. Additionally, some countries, such as France and Belgium, 
have developed initiatives to address the problems they have 
encountered when attempting to collect fine amounts from subcontractors 
who may go out of business before paying fine amounts. Under these 
initiatives, governments can hold main contractors responsible for 
penalties assessed against their subcontractors for employing 
unauthorized foreign workers. 

Some Countries Require Employers to Forfeit Benefits or Pay Various 
Costs for Hiring Unauthorized Foreign Workers: 

Some countries use other means in addition to monetary fines to 
penalize employers for hiring unauthorized foreign workers, but may 
face difficulties in applying the penalties. These penalties include 
prohibiting employers from receipt of public contracts; requiring 
employers to pay back wages, taxes, and social insurance contributions 
for unauthorized foreign workers; closing businesses; seizing 
employers' assets; requiring employers to pay costs for deporting 
unauthorized foreign workers; and sentencing employers to prison terms. 
Some government officials told us that by requiring employers to pay 
back wages, taxes, and social insurance contributions for unauthorized 
foreign workers, government agencies eliminate any profits employers 
gained as a result of employing unauthorized workers. In addition, in 
France and Spain, unauthorized foreign workers may denounce, or report, 
their employers to government agencies if the employers are engaged in 
illegal labor practices. In Spain, unauthorized foreign workers who 
denounce their employers may be eligible to obtain legal status. 

Additional Insights from Countries' Worksite Enforcement Efforts: 

The opportunity for employment is a strong motivator for migrants to 
illegally enter a country and employers have a variety of incentives 
for hiring unauthorized workers, including the employers' desire to 
lower costs to be more competitive in the economy. For this reason, 
strong and workable enforcement of labor and immigration laws is a 
critical part of implementing a credible immigration system in any 
country. By preventing unauthorized migrants from finding employment, 
governments may reduce the motivation for migrants to illegally enter 
the country. The countries we studied use different mechanisms and 
government agencies to enforce their laws against employing 
unauthorized foreign workers, yet all countries face challenges in 
implementing effective worksite enforcement policies. These challenges 
include making decisions about how to leverage resources to meet the 
goals of their worksite enforcement programs. Within that framework, it 
is important for countries to determine how best to coordinate the 
various government agencies and to allocate resources for enforcing 
employment laws. While employer sanctions play an important role in 
countries' worksite enforcement efforts, it can be difficult to set 
penalties that are neither so low as to be considered simply the cost 
of doing business by unscrupulous employers nor so punitive that they 
are unlikely to be imposed for fear of bankrupting businesses, which 
may cause native workers to lose their jobs. In addition, publicizing 
worksite enforcement efforts can leverage enforcement resources by 
reinforcing with employers the risk they take when they employ 
unauthorized workers. 

Countries' Experiences with Regularization Programs: 

Some countries we studied have implemented regularization programs that 
provide eligible unauthorized immigrants with the opportunity to obtain 
legal status on a temporary or permanent basis for various reasons, and 
countries have established different eligibility requirements for 
program participation. Employers and unauthorized foreign workers may 
have incentives for participating in regularization programs, but may 
choose not to participate because they gain benefits from unauthorized 
employment. Governments in countries that have implemented 
regularization programs reported benefits from these programs, such as 
collecting increased tax and social insurance contributions, yet 
governments face a variety of challenges in managing such programs. In 
addition, some experts have suggested that regularization programs can 
create a magnet for future illegal immigration flows, but others have 
stated that the impact of regularization programs on unauthorized 
immigration and employment is unclear. 

Countries Have Implemented Regularization Programs for a Variety of 
Reasons: 

Countries we studied have implemented regularization programs for 
various reasons, according to experts. Greece, Italy, France, and Spain 
have implemented regularization programs to help reduce the amount of 
employment that occurs in the underground economy by collecting tax and 
social insurance contributions from unauthorized foreign workers who 
did not previously pay their taxes or required contribution amounts. 
Moreover, regularization programs in France have been intended to help 
facilitate the social and economic integration of immigrants and their 
families. Countries, including Greece, Italy, Spain, and Portugal, have 
also implemented regularization programs to address perceived 
deficiencies of previous regularization or other immigration policies, 
such as unauthorized immigrant populations who failed to participate or 
who subsequent to their regularization lapsed into an unauthorized 
status. In addition, Italy, France, and the United Kingdom have 
initiated regularization programs to allow family members to legally 
remain together in a country or to meet humanitarian needs, such as 
those of asylum seekers or individuals with health concerns. 

Countries Require Unauthorized Immigrants to Meet Criteria for 
Participation in Regularization Programs: 

Some countries we studied, including Italy, Greece, and Spain, have 
implemented programs through which unauthorized immigrants could 
regularize or change their status to gain temporary or permanent legal 
residency, and in some countries, such as Greece and Argentina, 
unauthorized immigrants could eventually apply for citizenship. Other 
countries, including the United Kingdom, France, Belgium, and the 
Netherlands, have implemented regularization efforts on a case-by-case 
basis for humanitarian or family reunification purposes, for 
individuals residing in the countries for long periods of time, or for 
immigrants awaiting decisions on asylum claims. Only a limited number 
of immigrants are typically eligible for participation in these 
programs. In the United Kingdom, individuals who applied for asylum 
before October 2000 and had a dependent residing with them in the 
country between October 2000 and October 2003 could apply for legal 
status for themselves and their dependents.[Footnote 37] Moreover, 
unauthorized immigrants residing in the United Kingdom continuously for 
at least 14 years are eligible for permanent residency. Beginning in 
1998, France implemented a program through which unauthorized 
immigrants resident in the country for at least 10 years could apply 
for regularization. 

Other regularization programs are designed to address countries' large 
unauthorized immigrant populations by providing these immigrants with 
an opportunity to obtain legal status, typically on a temporary basis. 
Governments established eligibility criteria, such as employment or 
residency requirements, that unauthorized immigrants were required to 
meet to be eligible for participation in the programs. For example, 
under Spain's 2005 regularization program, the Spanish government 
required unauthorized immigrants to have job offers from employers in 
order to be eligible for regularization. The government required 
employers to apply for regularization on behalf of their unauthorized 
foreign workers and, in doing so, demonstrate that the workers had been 
present in Spain for at least 6 months and possessed a current contract 
for a job for a minimum period of 6 months.[Footnote 38] Some 
unauthorized foreign workers, such as those who worked in part-time 
jobs or for several employers, could directly apply to the Spanish 
government for regularization without applying through their employers. 
The Spanish government did not penalize employers or unauthorized 
foreign workers who applied for regularization, and only those 
unauthorized immigrants who met the residency and employment criteria 
could apply for legal status. About 700,000 unauthorized foreign 
workers applied and qualified for the regularization program out of an 
estimated 800,000 workers projected to be eligible for program 
participation.[Footnote 39] 

Similarly, other countries' regularization programs have required 
applicants to meet residence or employment requirements. For example, 
experts have reported that under Italy's 2002 regularization program, 
unauthorized immigrants were required to provide proof of employment 
and payment of 3 months' social insurance contributions in order to 
apply for the program. Under Greece's 2001 program, unauthorized 
immigrants were required to prove that they previously had legal 
residence status in Greece and had continuously resided in the country 
since expiration of their status or that they had lived in Greece for 
at least 1 year prior to enactment of the program. Under France's 1981- 
1982 regularization program, unauthorized immigrants were required to 
show that they had resided in France prior to January 1982 and were 
currently employed or had a work contract valid for at least 1 year. 
Table 5 provides information on selected countries' regularization 
programs. 

Table 5: Selected Countries' Regularization Programs: 

Country: Argentina; 
Year of program initiation: 2004; 
Program requirements: Applicants were required to have resided and 
worked in Argentina since June 30, 2004; 
Type of status granted: 2 year residence permit renewable for 2 
additional years; after 4 years, immigrants are eligible for permanent 
residence status; 
Estimated number regularized[A]: 11,300. 

Country: Belgium; 
Year of program initiation: 2000; 
Program requirements: Applicants were required to have been in Belgium 
before October 1, 1999, and to have a pending asylum petition; 
an inability to return to their home country for humanitarian reasons; 
serious illness; or residence in the country for 6 years without 
receiving an order to leave in the past 5 years; 
Type of status granted: Long-term residence status; 
Estimated number regularized[A]: (52,000 applications)[B]. 

Country: Canada; 
Year of program initiation: 1973; 
Program requirements: Applicants were required to have resided in 
Canada before November 1972 and show a stable employment history and 
family ties in Canada; 
Type of status granted: Long term residence status; 
Estimated number regularized[A]: 50,000. 

Country: France; 
Year of program initiation: 1997; 
Program requirements: Applications were for family reunification or 
families in irregular situations; 
Type of status granted: Permanent resident status; 
Estimated number regularized[A]: 78,000. 

Country: France; 
Year of program initiation: 1981-1982; 
Program requirements: Applicants were required to have resided in 
France prior to January 1982 and been employed at the time of 
application or had a valid work contract for at least 1 year. The 
program was expanded to include other types of unauthorized immigrants; 
Type of status granted: Permanent residence status; 
Estimated number regularized[A]: 121,000. 

Country: Greece; 
Year of program initiation: 2001; 
Program requirements: Applicants were required to prove that they 
previously had legal residence status in Greece and had continuously 
resided in the country since expiration of their status or that they 
had lived in Greece for at least 1 year prior to enactment of the 
program; 
Type of status granted: 2 year renewable residence permit; 
after 10 years, immigrants are eligible for permanent residence status; 
Estimated number regularized[A]: (351,000 applications)[B]. 

Country: Greece; 
Year of program initiation: 1998; 
Program requirements: Applicants were required to apply first for a 
"white card," under which they received a 6-month residence permit 
before receiving a "green card" application, which was a renewable work 
and residence permit for 1 to 5 years. For a green card, applicants had 
to prove that were legally employed since January 1, 1998 at the 
minimum wage; 
Type of status granted: White card: 6-month residence permit; 
Green card: 1 to 5-year renewable work and residence permit; 
Estimated number regularized[A]: 371,000[C]. 

Country: Italy; 
Year of program initiation: 2002; 
Program requirements: Applicants were required to provide proof of 
employment and payment of 3 months' social insurance contributions; 
Type of status granted: 1- year renewable permit; 
Estimated number regularized[A]: 635,000[D]. 

Country: Italy; 
Year of program initiation: 1998; 
Program requirements: Applicants were required to have resided in Italy 
prior to March 27, 1998 and employers who paid taxes on their wages; 
Type of status granted: Temporary permit; 
Estimated number regularized[A]: 217,000. 

Country: Italy; 
Year of program initiation: 1995; 
Program requirements: Applicants were required to have been residing in 
Italy, were employed during the past 6 months or had a job offer from 
an employer, and had paid 3 months of social insurance contributions; 
Type of status granted: 1-or 2-year renewable residence permit; 
Estimated number regularized[A]: 245,000. 

Country: Italy; 
Year of program initiation: 1990; 
Program requirements: Applicants were required to have resided in Italy 
prior to December 31, 1989; 
Type of status granted: 2-year renewable residence permit; 
Estimated number regularized[A]: 218,000. 

Country: Italy; 
Year of program initiation: 1987; 
Program requirements: Applicants were required to have an employer 
sponsor and to have been in Italy prior to January 27, 1987; 
Type of status granted: Temporary work permit; 
Estimated number regularized[A]: 119,000. 

Country: New Zealand; 
Year of program initiation: 2000; 
Program requirements: Applicants were required to have been in New 
Zealand for 5 years or more; to have been a parent of a child born in 
New Zealand; to have been a partner of a New Zealander for 1 year or 
more; or to have been married to a New Zealander; 
Type of status granted: 2-year work permit after which individuals are 
eligible for permanent residence; 
Estimated number regularized[A]: 3,700. 

Country: Portugal; 
Year of program initiation: 2001; 
Program requirements: Applicants were required to have been present in 
the country and have a work contract; 
Type of status granted: 1-year permit renewable a maximum of 4 times; 
after 5 years, individuals are eligible for permanent residence; 
Estimated number regularized[A]: 179,000[E]. 

Country: Portugal; 
Year of program initiation: 1996; 
Program requirements: Applicants were required to prove that they were 
involved in a professional activity, had a basic ability to speak 
Portuguese, had housing, and had not committed a crime. Applicants from 
Portuguese-speaking countries could apply if they had been in the 
country since December 31, 1995, and applicants from non-EU states 
could apply if they had been in the country prior to March 25, 1995; 
Type of status granted: Temporary residence permit; 
Estimated number regularized[A]: 22,000. 

Country: Portugal; 
Year of program initiation: 1992; 
Program requirements: Applicants were required to have been in Portugal 
before April 15, 1992; 
Type of status granted: Temporary residence and work permit; 
Estimated number regularized[A]: 39,000. 

Country: Spain; 
Year of program initiation: 2005; 
Program requirements: Applicants were required to have proof of 
registration with a local municipality in Spain before August 7, 2004; 
to have been in the country at the time they applied; and to have a 
work contract and a clean criminal record. Employers were required to 
demonstrate that they were enrolled in and paying into social security, 
had no history of breaking immigration laws in the previous 12 months, 
and had not been sanctioned for violating the rights of workers or 
immigrants; 
Type of status granted: I-year renewable residence permit; 
Estimated number regularized[A]: 549,000. 

Country: Spain; 
Year of program initiation: Country: 2001; 
Program requirements: Applicants were required to have resided in Spain 
since January 23, 2001, and were employed or were family members of a 
legal foreign worker or Spanish citizen; 
Type of status granted: 1- year renewable temporary residence permit; 
Estimated number regularized[A]: 235,000. 

Country: Spain; 
Year of program initiation: 2000; 
Program requirements: Applicants were required to have resided in Spain 
prior to June 1, 1999; had either a work permit or residence permit in 
the previous 3 years; or had applied for a work or residence permit; 
Type of status granted: 1-year renewable temporary residence and work 
permit; 
Estimated number regularized[A]: 164,000. 

Country: Spain; 
Year of program initiation: 1996; 
Program requirements: Applicants were required to have worked in Spain 
since January 1, 1996, have a work or residence permit issued after May 
1986, or to be a member of the family of a migrant living in Spain 
before January 1996; 
Type of status granted: 5-year residence permit; 
Estimated number regularized[A]: 21,000. 

Country: Spain; 
Year of program initiation: 1991; 
Program requirements: Applicants were required to have been in Spain 
since May 15, 1991, or were asylum seekers whose applications were 
rejected or pending; 
Type of status granted: 3-year residence permit; 
Estimated number regularized[A]: 110,000. 

Country: Spain; 
Year of program initiation: 1985; 
Program requirements: Applicants were required to have a job offer and 
to have been in Spain prior to July 24, 1985; 
Type of status granted: 1-year renewable residence permit; 
Estimated number regularized[A]: (44,000 applications)[B]. 

Source: GAO analysis based on information reported by countries and 
studies, particularly Amanda Levinson, The Regularization of 
Unauthorized Migrants: Literature Survey and Country Case Studies, 
Centre on Migration, Policy and Society (Oxford, United Kingdom: 2005). 
Data on the estimated number of regularizations are from the OECD. 

Note: In some countries, such as Argentina and Greece, immigrants whose 
status was regularized can eventually apply for citizenship. 

[A] Under each program, individuals are regularized over different 
periods of time. 

[B] Data on the estimated number regularized were not available. 

[C] Data refer to persons who were issued a white card. 

[D] Data refer to the number of permits issued at the beginning of 
2004. 

[E] Data refer to the number of 1-year residence permits provided 
between January 2001 and March 2003. 

[End of table] 

In addition, experts have suggested development and implementation of 
earned regularization programs, which are generally characterized by 
countries' use of a points system for determining whether to regularize 
an unauthorized immigrant's status.[Footnote 40] Although experts 
differ on specific requirements for earned regularization programs, in 
general, these programs would link regularization to a temporary worker 
program and allow unauthorized immigrants to apply for regularization 
only after meeting specified criteria over a certain period of time. 
For example, migrants residing illegally in a country would first be 
granted a temporary residence and work permit for a certain amount of 
time, such as for 3 years, during which they would be required to 
collect credits or points to eventually qualify for a permanent 
residence and work permit. The points could be based on a variety of 
different criteria, like stable employment, payment of taxes and social 
security contributions, legal presence of a family member in the 
country, and documented language fluency. Unauthorized migrants would 
be required to obtain a minimum number of points during the length of 
their temporary permit in order to be eligible to apply for permanent 
residency. Those migrants who failed to obtain the required number of 
points could be required to return to their home countries. 

Experts have pointed out advantages to earned regularization programs. 
They suggest that initially providing unauthorized foreign workers with 
temporary legal status allows the largest possible number of 
unauthorized immigrants to participate in the program and transfers 
work that previously occurred in the underground economy into the 
formal economy. Earned regularization programs also allow unauthorized 
foreign workers who would like to work toward permanent residence 
status to do so based on specific criteria for earning points. However, 
experts have also noted drawbacks to earned regularization programs. 
For example, requiring unauthorized foreign workers to earn the 
opportunity to apply for permanent residence status may complicate 
these workers' ability to economically and socially integrate into a 
country. Moreover, an earned regularization program based on a points 
system could favor high-skilled workers over low-skilled workers, 
making it difficult for low-skilled workers to obtain permanent 
residence status. 

Employers and Unauthorized Foreign Workers Have Incentives to 
Participate in Regularization Programs but Have Not Always Done So: 

According to officials and studies, employers and unauthorized foreign 
workers have incentives to participate in regularization programs but 
have not always participated for various reasons. For example, 
employers may participate in programs by applying for regularization on 
behalf of their workers so as to avoid possible civil, also called 
administrative, or criminal penalties for employing unauthorized 
foreign workers after implementation of the programs. In implementing 
regularization programs, countries such as Spain and France have 
introduced new or strengthened enforcement programs, including 
increased employer monetary penalties, for employing unauthorized 
foreign workers. Experts have suggested that the credible threat of 
enforcement helps create an incentive for employers, as well as 
workers, to participate in regularization programs. 

Unauthorized foreign workers may want to participate in regularization 
programs to be better able to seek fair or higher wages and safe 
working conditions from their employers, and regularization programs 
thus can help to address any employer exploitation of unauthorized 
foreign workers. As a result of regularization, formerly unauthorized 
foreign workers may also be better able to compete for higher-paying 
jobs and obtain opportunities for acquiring or enhancing their work 
skills. Regularization programs also allow formerly unauthorized 
foreign workers to access social insurance benefits. In addition, 
participation in regularization programs may help formerly unauthorized 
foreign workers better integrate into a country by, for instance, 
helping them to acquire education and language skills. Participation in 
regularization programs may also provide formerly unauthorized foreign 
workers with the opportunity to visit their home countries. 

Government officials and experts have noted that not all employers and 
workers may choose to participate in regularization programs. For 
example, unscrupulous employers may not help unauthorized foreign 
workers apply for regularization programs because the employers gain 
benefits from employing unauthorized foreign workers and do not fear 
the possibility of government penalties. Employers can save money or 
gain greater profits by employing unauthorized foreign workers and thus 
not paying taxes or social insurance contributions or providing safe 
working conditions for those workers. Employers who hire unauthorized 
foreign workers may have a competitive advantage over other employers 
who hire only authorized workers and, as a result, may be less willing 
to provide unauthorized foreign workers who want to regularize their 
status with the documents needed to prove that the workers meet program 
eligibility requirements. For example, studies have reported that 
during France's 1981-1982 regularization program, some employers were 
unwilling to provide unauthorized foreign workers with the appropriate 
documentation, as initially required under the program, and in some 
cases, employers fired unauthorized foreign workers who requested their 
employers' assistance in applying for regularization. To address this 
problem, the French government modified program requirements to allow 
third parties to assist unauthorized foreign workers rather than 
relying solely on employers to do so. 

In addition, unauthorized foreign workers may not want to participate 
in regularization programs for various reasons. For example, workers 
granted temporary legal residency status under regularization programs 
may deliberately allow their legal status to expire and revert to 
unauthorized status in order to better obtain employment. Because 
employers can benefit from employing unauthorized foreign workers, 
unscrupulous employers may seek to fill jobs held by workers who 
obtained legal status with other unauthorized foreign workers, 
hindering the ability of workers with new legal status to compete with 
unauthorized foreign workers for jobs. Therefore, government officials 
and experts have stated that it is important to implement new or 
enhanced worksite enforcement efforts in conjunction with a 
regularization program to maximize participation in the program by 
employers and eligible immigrants and to help deter employers from 
hiring unauthorized foreign workers in the future. Unauthorized foreign 
workers may also choose not to participate in regularization programs 
because they lack knowledge about program requirements and may fear 
expulsion if they register for program participation. According to 
government officials and experts, lack of information about 
regularization program requirements may hinder unauthorized immigrants' 
participation in such programs. 

Governments Perceive Benefits from Regularization Programs but Face 
Difficulties in Implementing Such Programs: 

According