With President-elect Donald Trump promising mass deportations when he takes office on Jan. 20, uncertainty is rising for immigrants across the U.S.
State lawmakers have limited power over federal immigration enforcement. But in Washington’s upcoming legislative session, legislators will be looking at a bill to strengthen the safety net for immigrants working in the state without legal authorization.
Sen. Rebecca Saldaña, D-Seattle, is re-introducing a bill this session to help these workers access unemployment insurance.
Lawmakers, immigrant rights advocates, and business groups in Washington acknowledge the important role immigrants play in helping employers meet state and national labor needs. However, the unemployment insurance proposal is stirring concerns over costs and other issues related to privacy and employer liability.
“We know that inaction and hostility to the immigrant workforce is really harmful to a place like Washington state,” Saldaña said. “It’s all the more reason why I believe, right now, is the time that we need a state program.”
More than 156,000 people who are not legally authorized to work in the U.S. due to their immigration status are employed in Washington. Thousands work in industries such as agriculture, hospitality, construction and retail, according to the Migration Policy Institute.
Unemployment insurance is jointly financed through federal and state payroll taxes, which are taxes withheld from an employee’s paycheck that companies are responsible for paying to the government.
In Washington, immigrants who are not legally authorized to work in the U.S. have contributed nearly $400 million to unemployment funds over the past decade, according to the Washington Immigrant Solidarity Network.
This bill calls for setting aside state funds to run a program for workers who don’t qualify for standard unemployment insurance because of their immigration status. These workers would have access to those funds when they lose employment through no fault of their own.
When workers apply for unemployment insurance, they go to the Employment Security Department’s website and fill out their information to see if they qualify. If the program was implemented, workers without legal work authorization would be directed to a different website.
The program would be run through a third-party administrative system. According to Saldaña, this would lower expenses, protect workers’ identities and prevent employers from being held liable for knowingly hiring immigrants without legal immigration status. These are concerns both advocates and critics raised in the previous session.
In 2022, Colorado was the first state in the country to pass a bill to set up a fund for residents to access unemployment insurance regardless of immigration status. The state set aside $15 million a year for their program.
Cost estimates for legislation introduced in 2023 showed the Washington program would cost about $100 million in the first two-year budget cycle when the program becomes available and $140 million in the cycle after that. It would benefit a little over 5,300 workers each year.
Business groups have concerns about implementing the program and would instead like to see changes at the state and federal levels to allow employers to recruit a legal immigrant workforce when there is a shortage of workers.
“Helping more workers obtain the necessary visas to work legally in our state is a better option because then they could take advantage of the state’s existing unemployment system,” said Janelle Guthrie, a spokesperson for the Building Industry Association of Washington.
But advocates say the proposed unemployment benefit program is vital for creating a safety net for immigrants when they lose their jobs and can’t pay for necessities like food and housing.
“We are working with the Legislature to continue to have Washington be that guiding light in the nation to demonstrate that in hard times, we don’t back away from a fight,” said Sasha Wasserstrom, policy director at the Washington Immigrant Solidarity Network.
– By Jacquelyn Jimenez Romero, Washington State Standard
Romero is is a Murrow News Fellow with the Washington State Standard.
Washington State Standard is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Washington State Standard maintains editorial independence.
So at the end of the year are those illegal workers going to file a federal tax return and pay taxes on the unemployment recieved like legal workers do? What are the job search requirements for illegals going to be? 140 million divided by 5300 is about 26 thousand dollars each a 20 dollar per hour worker would get about 385 a week for a maximum of about 10 thousand dollars but the program costs taxpayers more than double that amount. This sure doesn’t sound like a very cost effective approach. I am thinking getting these people work visas would be a much better way to go.
If you’re not authorized to be working then either you’re working under the table or you’re using a false social security number either way the employer should be fined or shut down it’s time to start following the laws
Agree with Jim.
Niall I stand corrected thank you. But 3000 dollars per person to administrator the program is still a lot I would also note that government programs once implemented tend to cost way more than projected. I tend to be with Brian read above, as a low wage worker illegal workers make it harder to demand better wages from the employer because they have access to a large group of people willing to work for less flooding the market with cheap illegal labor makes it more difficult to demand a living wage. What it does do though is keep the price of fruit and vegetables down for the people that can afford them and keeps the costs of rich people’s house cleaning and yard work down and it makes it harder for people like me to get ahead but hey let’s let anyone come and work or grift off social programs ment for our own citizens doesn’t hurt anyone but our existing poor who are already burdened by our regressive tax structure.
Jim, note that the $140 million estimate is over a two year budget period so the actual cost per affected employee is more like $13,000 per year.
As the article states, many businesses would prefer to have an immigration system that allows more guest workers to obtain the proper visas to work legally here but our immigration system is so broken and has become so politicized that this seems unlikely to happen. Many businesses are unable to hire enough American workers to meet their needs and this is not only an issue of low wages. This broken system really is the worst of all possible options. Yes it allows unscrupulous employers to hire undocumented workers and undercut American workers but it also exposes those guest workers to exploitation including wage theft and other abuses. Most undocumented workers do pay taxes and many are overpaying on what they earn but they are unable to file a tax return to get any refund.
The system is broken for reasons beyond my pay grade, fixing it would serve us all well even immigrants that came the right way.. can we afford to allow 2-3 million undocumented and largely unvetted destitute immigrants without means to come to the country every year indefinitely? I can’t especially because they compete for my jobs and the tax burden it puts on the whole of society. Fix it I hope but I don’t see any support for that from any of my local county and state leaders they like to spend vast amounts of our tax dollars supporting and protecting said people. Wish they wanted to take care of me with such passion and spending but I guess I am not important I am just a citizen.
If receiving welfare required proof of job search and was quite limited in amounts and terms, many who are out of the work force by life style choice would decide that working was preferable to unemployment. The jobs that “no Americans are willing to do” would quickly be filled without reliance on illegal immigration. That is the way it used to be when the unemployed had to stand in line for their check. Now it is a direct deposit into their bank account. If you subsidize unemployment as a choice, you will just get more of it.
I agree if people that were recieving help had to be more accountable the need for services would dry up in a hurry. Not that there isn’t a need. I hear the state of Washington spent a billion a year over the last 4 years on the homeless industrial complex my guess is on top of that there was some more county and local spending and today the problem is about the same as it was then if not worse, what has all that spending accomplished?