At least the senate bill does recognize the growing problem with illegal alien criminals. It adds fifty deputy United States marshals a year for the next five years to haul illegal alien criminals and other deportees back to their country of origin.

Looks like a tough list of "triggers", but don't be surprised if certification occurs even before 18 months have transpired. A lot of what is in Title I is actually weakening earlier Congressional mandates. My least favorite of these is Sec. 130. US-VISIT System, which requires the secretary of DHS to submit to Congress no later than six months after enactment a timeline for equipping all land border ports of entry with the US-VISIT system, deploying at all land border ports of entry the exit component of the US-VISIT system and making all immigration screening systems interoperable. In other words, instead of requiring DHS to implement exit controls on U.S borders-a requirement of the 2002 Border Security Act and a 9/11 Commission recommendation-DHS is back to formulating a plan instead of moving ahead.

Title II. Interior Enforcement
This section directs DHS, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the U.S. Attorneys Office (AO) to add additional immigration lawyers and judges to assist in the litigation and adjudication of immigration cases but doesn't provide any specific authorization. Most of what is in this title is "subject to the availability of appropriations." Since appropriations are currently insufficient to fund the required attorneys in most branches of the federal government this directive is little more than wishful thinking. However, the senate did correctly identify where there are not enough immigration attorneys to handle amnesty and adjustments for the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants, namely in the office of General Counsel; USCIS adjudicators; attorneys in the Office of Immigration Litigation; attorneys in the AO; immigration judges and supporting personnel; Bureau of Indian Affairs (yes, even on the reservations there are apparently jobs that Americans won't do!) staff attorneys and support staff; and federal public defenders.

It is novel, by contrast, that appropriations are authorized for continued operation and expansion of the legal orientation program on immigration court procedures. In other words, the federal government will fund more training for private sector immigration attorneys.

A couple of desirable improvements in the law are contained in Title II:

Title II contains a very important amendment to the federal criminal code by expanding penalties pertaining to passport, visa and document-related fraud. This has very important implications for preventing terrorists and criminals from entering the country "through the front door" or protecting themselves from detection by obtaining fake documents. In addition to better defining what constitutes immigration document and visa fraud, it provides stiff penalties for document traffickers and counterfeiters. It is document fraud that lies behind the ease with which illegal immigrants can remain in the country, and these provisions in Title II are new and important reforms.

Title II also reforms the practice of allowing illegal immigrants to depart voluntarily, by tightening up the rules for voluntary departure agreements. It provides that the failure of the alien to comply with a voluntary departure agreement subject to arrest, civil penalties and an alternate order of removal, along with an automatic $3,000 fine. It also makes aliens previously permitted to depart voluntarily ineligible for a second or subsequent voluntary departure agreement.

Title III. Employer Enforcement
Title III's most extensive, complex and controversial provisions establish a national system of electronic employment verification. It provides for a worksite enforcement system that relies on electronic employment verification and a reduced list of documents that may be presented to employers to prove identity and work eligibility. It also increases penalties significantly over current law for unlawful hiring, employment and recordkeeping violations. A new, and better defined standard is set for unlawful hiring, recruiting or referring for a fee or for unlawfully continuing employment is "knowing or with reckless disregard." However, the title also provides a defense for employers who establish that they have complied in good faith with all document and electronic verification requirements applicable to them at the time.

This new system would require employers in national security-related industries, industries involving critical infrastructure and federal contractors to electronically verify employees, including new hires and current employees, within six months of the bill's enactment. All employers would be required to electronically verify new hires within 18 months of enactment, or on the date on which the secretary certifies that the system is operational. Once the system is implemented, all employers would be required to verify all current employees within three years of enactment. This is a very aggressive timetable for employer compliance and for DHS to keep pace with the demand on the new system. Since the "new system" is a beefed up version of the existing SAVE system, presumably DHS is confident they can meet employer demand without a backlog that would undermine the entire premise.

The bill also addresses the resistance of the Commissioner of Social Security to share information that allows ICE to pursue enforcement actions. Going forward, the Social Security Administration will have to share with DHS: (1) names and addresses of people who submitted information that did not match that contained in the Social Security database; (2) whenever two or more people use the same social security number for tax purposes; (3) names of persons under 14 or who are working or whose date of death occurred in a previous year (because illegal aliens often use the social security numbers of infants and the deceased); (4) information regarding a person for whom wages are reported by more than one employer; or (5) information regarding a person not authorized to work in the U.S. This last requirement is of particular interest because earlier immigration reforms gave the Social Security Administration access to DHS immigration data base files-so SSA could takes steps to quickly match up the records of people known to have deportation orders with social security tax or benefits records.

The bill also gives the Commissioner of Social Security a firm deadline of not later than 180 days after date of enactment to administer and issue fraud-resistant, tamper-resistant Social Security cards. Within 180 days of enactment, the commissioner is to report on the utility, costs, and feasibility of including a photograph and other biometric information on the Social Security card. In other words, undertake the long overdue task of providing others with some level of proof that the person presenting the social security card is actually the person to whom it was initially issued. The bill requires Social Security Administration to review the SSA databases and information technology to identify any deficiencies and discrepancies related to name, birth date, citizenship status or death records of the social security accounts likely to affect immigration enforcement or the proper functioning of the EEVS. In other words, SSA must clean up its databases. For people who have been identity theft victims of illegal aliens for employments purposes, the bill requires SSA to establish a procedure by which an individual may freeze his/her social security number so that it may not be used for any confirmation under EEVS until it is reactivated by that individual.

The bill increases penalties on employers who fail to file correct information returns and for employers that have filed "non-match" social security numbers for ten or more employees for three years in a row.