Trump has promised a massive immigration crackdown. Here's what to know if ICE comes knocking at your business door
As some of his first acts in office, Trump has signed an executive order attempting to limit birthright citizenship, increase border protections, and enforce the removal of people without legal status to the fullest extent possible. He also signed an executive order last week to cut federally funded programs that provide financial benefits to people without status, although most undocumented immigrants aren't able to access government benefits anyway.
For employers, the president's focus has sparked concern over whether U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the agency in charge of enforcing immigration laws, will come knocking on their office door and disrupt their operations. Roughly 37,660 people have been deported during Trump's first month in office, Reuters reported, and Trump has made it clear that those efforts haven't been fast enough. Immigration officials have reportedly been told to make between 1,200 and 1,500 arrests a day, according to a recent internal memo, reported on by The Washington Post. As a result, two top ICE officials were demoted earlier this month due to slow progress.
Historically, these kinds of raids have happened in industries like agriculture, manufacturing, hospitality, or construction, says Ali Brodie, a partner at Fox Rothchild's immigration practice. But under the new administration, she says, 'every business in America is fair game.'
The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) requires companies to verify an employee's eligibility to work, which is typically done through an I-9 form. Should ICE be tipped off from members of the public or other federal agencies about undocumented workers at a certain job site, the agency may decide to perform an I-9 audit, during which ICE analyzes an employer's records to ensure compliance with immigration laws. And if ICE has reason to believe that one or more undocumented people are on the premises, they may decide to conduct a raid—unprompted visits during which federal agents may question, detain, or arrest people on site.
'We're already seeing a return of the ICE audit since Trump took office. And for corporate clients and others, it's causing real chaos and panic about the possibility of a raid.' says Brodie.
Even the suggestion of a raid can be disastrous for a company. After a recent viral TikTok video falsely claimed a popular restaurant in the town of West New York, New Jersey, had been raided, the owner told ABC News that business dropped 80%. And aside from the immediate profit and loss considerations, the ramifications of raids on workplace culture are severe. 'Employees may fear coming back to work, or they might fear the stability of that employer as a result of the enforcement action,' says Brodie.
With this new immigration direction in full-force, Brodie and other labor and employment lawyers Fortune spoke with all shared the same advice: business leaders need to prepare their workplaces for possible raids and audits now. That includes making sure their I-9 and visa documentation is in order, designating key managers to interact with ICE, and training employees about what to do if ICE comes knocking, according to Spencer Hamer, a labor and employment lawyer at FBFK law.
'This is the time for companies to be working with their outside counsel, their HR teams, to make sure those I-9 documents are in order and their workplaces are prepared,' he says.
Having all necessary documents organized, up-to-date, and in an easily-accessible location is critical. 'As an employer you don't want to be scrambling to find the right papers during a raid when ICE agents are at your facility,' says Hamer.
While all employers are required to complete the I-9 verification process for new hires, the process isn't quite as simple as it may seem. The document itself tends to be 'very challenging' for companies to get right, and is often the 'single most expensive form for employers in their onboarding paperwork,' notes Brodie, referencing potential costly penalties.
'Companies are busy and not everyone will prioritize this, but submitting a single form one day late can cost hundreds of dollars in fines.'
Businesses under pressure to hire quickly may be tempted to cut corners, but that can be expensive. Penalties for improper I-9 documentation range from a few hundred to a few thousands dollars. And businesses that have received multiple violations and are found to have knowingly hired these folks could face tens of thousands of dollars per violation, lawyers say.
In some states, companies with I-9 violations may also be subject to suspension or termination of their business licenses. If worse comes to worse, businesses could also be subject to criminal charges, which sometimes include heftier fines related to trafficking, ICE notes on its website.
Lawyers say that employers should have a process for handling expired authorization documents for current or former employees. I-9 forms must be kept on file for three years, or one year after an individual's last day, whichever is later. It is considered a best practice to conduct regular self-audits of I-9 forms for compliance issues so corrections can be documented promptly. Employers should also consider using E-Verify, a Department of Homeland Security website that allows businesses to determine the eligibility of their employees, for additional confirmation of work authorization.
If ICE comes calling, companies need an action plan.
That includes alerting legal representation, and designating a 'point person' to interact with agents, someone with training on these issues who can answer questions, and take notes on what's going on to relay with executives later, says attorney Patricia Gannon, partner and chair of Greenspoon Marder's immigration and naturalization practice group.
Most importantly, this person should be in charge of first asking officials if they have a subpoena to request documents or a search warrant that allows them to scout around the office, Gannon adds. This paperwork needs to be presented to the employer and be properly signed by a state court judge; otherwise employers don't have to recognize it.
Additionally, it's important to note that while ICE can enter certain public workplace areas, such as a reception space, agents are not allowed to enter private spaces such as break rooms or storage areas without a search warrant. Employers aren't legally allowed to impede a search, but they can object to an officer's actions should they feel it's 'outside the scope of the warrant,' such as trying to access a private area not included in the warrant.
'If you want to delineate between public and private spaces, go online, order a bunch of nice signs that say private, put them up around the workplace and there you go,' says Gannon.
Lawyers say that companies should avoid giving legal advice directly to their employees, and employers can't tell employees to not speak with federal agents. But employers can remind workers of their rights, and connect them with outside legal organizations.
Employees are not required to answer questions from ICE officers or other government officials about their legal status or how they entered the U.S. They have the right to remain silent and ask for legal presentation. Federal agents will also sometimes tell employees to move into groups based on their immigration status. Employees do not have to comply with this, Gannon says.
'Most people I think just get really intimidated, break down, and tell officers everything when they don't need to,' she says.
The American Immigration Lawyers Association has created a 'Know Your Rights' poster, and Brodie says that she and other attorneys are advising their clients to display it for workers in private spaces where employees congregate, like a break room. Employers can also provide contact information for licensed immigration attorneys outside of the company so that staff can reach out, or provide references to immigration support groups.
What may help employees the most is for employers to document the entire raid, by taking notes or video. They can also reach out to the families of those who may be affected to alert them as to what has taken place, says Stephen Toland, an attorney at law firm FBFK.
'There may be some employers who are just sort of sitting on the sidelines and not necessarily putting the plans in place, they have this wait-and-see type attitude,' says Toland. 'With continued momentum around immigration, employers are going to have to start taking the possibility of raids more seriously.'
This story was originally featured on Fortune.com
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump thinks owning a piece of Intel would be a good deal for the US. Here's what to know
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — President Donald Trump wants the U.S. government to own a piece of Intel, less than two weeks after demanding the Silicon Valley pioneer dump the CEO that was hired to turn around the slumping chipmaker. If the goal is realized, the investment would deepen the Trump administration's involvement in the computer industry as the president ramps up the pressure for more U.S. companies to manufacture products domestically instead of relying on overseas suppliers. What's happening? The Trump administration is in talks to secure a 10% stake in Intel in exchange for converting government grants that were pledged to Intel under President Joe Biden. If the deal is completed, the U.S. government would become one of Intel's largest shareholders and blur the traditional lines separating the public sector and private sector in a country that remains the world's largest economy. Why would Trump do this? In his second term, Trump has been leveraging his power to reprogram the operations of major computer chip companies. The administration is requiring Nvidia and Advanced Micro Devices, two companies whose chips are helping to power the craze around artificial intelligence, to pay a 15% commission on their sales of chips in China in exchange for export licenses. Trump's interest in Intel is also being driven by his desire to boost chip production in the U.S., which has been a focal point of the trade war that he has been waging throughout the world. By lessening the country's dependence on chips manufactured overseas, the president believes the U.S. will be better positioned to maintain its technological lead on China in the race to create artificial intelligence. Didn't Trump want Intel's CEO to quit? That's what the president said August 7 in an unequivocal post calling for Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan to resign less than five months after the Santa Clara, California, company hired him. The demand was triggered by reports raising national security concerns about Tan's past investments in Chinese tech companies while he was a venture capitalist. But Trump backed off after Tan professed his allegiance to the U.S. in a public letter to Intel employees and went to the White House to meet with the president, who applauded the Intel CEO for having an 'amazing story.' Why would Intel do a deal? The company isn't commenting about the possibility of the U.S. government becoming a major shareholder, but Intel may have little choice because it is currently dealing from a position of weakness. After enjoying decades of growth while its processors powered the personal computer boom, the company fell into a slump after missing the shift to the mobile computing era unleashed by the iPhone's 2007 debut. Intel has fallen even farther behind in recent years during an artificial intelligence craze that has been a boon for Nvidia and AMD. The company lost nearly $19 billion last year and another $3.7 billion in the first six months of this year, prompting Tan to undertake a cost-cutting spree. By the end of this year, Tan expects Intel to have about 75,000 workers, a 25% reduction from the end of last year. Would this deal be unusual? Although rare, it's not unprecedented for the U.S. government to become a significant shareholder in a prominent company. One of the most notable instances occurred during the Great Recession in 2008 when the government injected nearly $50 billion into General Motors in return for a roughly 60% stake in the automaker at a time it was on the verge of bankruptcy. The government ended up with a roughly $10 billion loss after it sold its stock in GM. Would the government run Intel? U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told CNBC during a Tuesday interview that the government has no intention of meddling in Intel's business, and will have its hands tied by holding non-voting shares in the company. But some analysts wonder if the Trump administration's financial ties to Intel might prod more companies looking to curry favor with the president to increase their orders for the company's chips. What government grants does Intel receive? Intel was among the biggest beneficiaries of the Biden administration's CHIPS and Science Act, but it hasn't been able to revive its fortunes while falling behind on construction projects spawned by the program. The company has received about $2.2 billion of the $7.8 billion pledged under the incentives program — money that Lutnick derided as a 'giveaway' that would better serve U.S. taxpayers if it's turned into Intel stock. 'We think America should get the benefit of the bargain,' Lutnick told CNBC. 'It's obvious that it's the right move to make.' Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
China launches WTO dispute with Canada on steel and aluminium surtaxes
BERLIN (Reuters) -China has requested dispute consultations at the World Trade Organization regarding Canadian surtaxes and quotas on steel and aluminium goods, the WTO said on Wednesday. The disputed measures include a surtax in the form of tariff rate quotas on certain steel imports originating from Canada's non-free trade agreement partners, including China, a notice from the WTO said. China is also challenging a surtax on certain goods that contain steel or aluminium originating from China, it added. (Writing by Rachel MoreEditing by Madeline Chambers) Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

USA Today
27 minutes ago
- USA Today
What six wars did Donald Trump end? See the list of conflicts he claims as settled
As President Donald Trump continues to work toward peace between Russia and Ukraine, he is touting a record of settling six wars. "I've settled 6 Wars in 6 months, one of them a possible Nuclear disaster," Trump wrote on Truth Social on Aug. 18, before the meeting with European leaders and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the White House where he made a similar claim. "I know exactly what I'm doing, and I don't need the advice of people who have been working on all of these conflicts for years, and were never able to do a thing to stop them," the social meda comment continued. But did Trump really end six wars in six months? Here is what we know: More: Trump caught on hot mic talking to Macron: 'I think he wants to make a deal for me' Has Trump ended six wars? Since Trump took office, the United States has been involved in five ceasefires or peace agreements, though not all parties involved credit the U.S. for the agreements. Those include: When asked about the sixth war Trump was referring to, the White House also cited Ethiopia and Egypt. However, there has neither been a war or a peace agreement between the countries, according to Axios. Trump dealt with a dispute between the two countries in his first term as they were feuding over a huge hydropowerdam, the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam. Egypt and Sudan have expressed concern that water flow to their part of the Nile River would be impacted, USA TODAY previously reported. Trump mentioned the countries in a July meeting with the NATO Secretary General where he rattled off other examples of settling wars. "We worked on Egypt with a next-door neighbor who is a good neighbor," he said. "They're friends of mine, but they happened to build a dam, which closed up water going into a thing called the Nile. I think if I'm Egypt, I want to have water in the Nile and we're working on that." The White House did not answer follow-up questions on how this constitutes a "settled war." More: A Nobel Peace Prize for Trump? World leaders are lining up What happened at the meeting between Zelenskyy and Trump? Zelenskyy's August trip to the White House had far fewer fireworks than the February visit, when he was berated by Trump and Vice President JD Vance. In addition to Zelenskyy, French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Finnish President Alexander Stubb, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer also attended the summit on Aug. 18. Zelenskyy, wearing a black suit instead of the military garb that drew comments in February, met with Trump in the Oval Office ahead of the wider group of foreign leaders. He also thanked Trump, something Vance had criticized Zelenskyy of not doing during the previous Oval Office spat. Trump then met with the European leaders in the White House East Room, saying they would know 'in a week or two weeks' if a deal to stop the fighting is possible. After the day of meetings with the European leaders, Trump called Putin to urge him to meet with Zelenskyy. Trump deemed it a step in the right direction. "Everyone is very happy about the possibility of PEACE for Russia/Ukraine. At the conclusion of the meetings, I called President Putin, and began the arrangements for a meeting, at a location to be determined, between President Putin and President Zelenskyy," he wrote on Truth Social. "After that meeting takes place, we will have a Trilat, which would be the two Presidents, plus myself. Again, this was a very good, early step for a War that has been going on for almost four years." Although the meeting showed strong European unity, it was unclear whether major progress toward peace was made. Trump said the United States would help guarantee Ukraine's security in a deal, but did not clarify the extent of the commitment. He also appeared to dismiss the need for a ceasefire ahead of peace negotiations. Contributing: Joey Garrison, Swapna Venugopal Ramaswamy, Bart Jansen, Zac Anderson, Francesca Chambers, Josh Meyer, Kim Hjelmgaard, USA TODAY Kinsey Crowley is the Trump Connect reporter for the USA TODAY Network. Reach her at kcrowley@ Follow her on X and TikTok @kinseycrowley or Bluesky at @