The Missing Piece in Immigration Enforcement, Employer Accountability
While immigration debates focus on borders and arrests, enforcement rarely reaches the employers who create demand for undocumented labor, leaving the root of the problem largely untouched.
Editor’s Note:
This opinion piece examines how immigration enforcement operates in practice, particularly with respect to employment and employer accountability. It is intended to explore policy outcomes and enforcement structure, not to advocate for a specific political position.
Holly Springs, NC, Jan. 30, 2026 — Immigration enforcement is often framed around what happens at the border or during high-profile workplace actions. Public discourse tends to focus on arrests, removals, and security measures, with enforcement success measured by visibility rather than outcomes.
What receives far less attention is the part of the system that determines whether unauthorized employment exists in the first place: employer accountability.
Federal law already prohibits the hiring of workers who are not authorized to work in the United States. In theory, that requirement should serve as the primary guardrail against illegal employment. In practice, enforcement rarely extends beyond paperwork violations, modest fines, or compliance agreements. Criminal prosecutions are uncommon, and meaningful consequences for employers are rarer still.
That imbalance has shaped the system that exists today.
What is often missing from the discussion is a basic reality: most people living in the United States without legal status are here to work. National research consistently shows that roughly three-quarters of undocumented adults participate in the labor force — a higher share than the U.S.-born population. Most are of prime working age, and many enter the workforce in response to job availability rather than through public assistance or government services.
Their employment is also highly concentrated. Construction, agriculture, food processing, hospitality, landscaping, cleaning services, and caregiving account for a significant share of undocumented labor nationwide. These are sectors that have experienced persistent labor shortages for years and rely heavily on physically demanding, low-wage work that is difficult to fill consistently through the domestic labor market.
Yet enforcement efforts rarely reflect this reality.
When violations are identified, the consequences typically fall on workers rather than employers. Workers are detained or removed. Jobs are quietly refilled. Businesses continue operating with little interruption. The underlying demand remains unchanged.
Part of the reason lies in the structure of employment enforcement. Hiring violations are typically treated as civil matters rather than criminal ones. Employers may accept documentation in “good faith,” thereby creating broad latitude and plausible deniability. In many industries, layered subcontracting further distances decision-makers from workers. By the time enforcement occurs, responsibility has often been diluted across multiple parties.
This structure is not accidental. It has developed alongside an economy that depends on a steady supply of labor while avoiding the legal and financial obligations that come with direct employment. The result is a system in which enforcement is visible but limited, and accountability rarely extends to those with the greatest control over hiring decisions.
The consequences extend beyond immigration policy. Wage pressure, uneven competition among businesses, and labor instability all flow from the same imbalance. Employers who follow the law compete against those who don’t. Communities absorb the impacts while the root cause remains largely unaddressed.
If the goal were truly to reduce unauthorized employment, the solution would not require sweeping new legislation or dramatic policy changes. It would require enforcing existing law where it matters most.
That would mean holding employers accountable for repeated or willful violations. It would mean closing loopholes that allow subcontracting to serve as a shield. And it would mean treating illegal hiring as more than a paperwork issue when patterns of abuse are evident.
Until that happens, immigration enforcement will continue to focus on outcomes rather than causes, removing workers while leaving the underlying system intact.
And the question will remain: if the goal is to stop illegal employment, when will enforcement begin with the people doing the hiring?
About the Author
Christian A. Hendricks is the publisher and founder of Holly Springs Update, a local news publication covering Holly Springs, NC, and its surrounding area. From time to time, he shares his views on national, regional, and state issues. He can be reached via email at christian.hendricks@hollyspringsupdate.com.