Why do employers rarely face charges for hiring undocumented workers?

A Michigan couple was recently taken into custody for allegedly hiring and providing housing for hundreds of undocumented immigrants in their plumbing business, generating substantial profits. The case emerged after a five-year investigation and was detailed on the Internal Revenue Services website, capturing national attention due to its rarity: employers are seldom held criminally responsible for employing undocumented workers.

Under the Trump administration, immigration enforcement has primarily focused on deporting undocumented workers rather than pursuing their employers. Federal efforts have increasingly targeted small businesses, from farms to restaurants, yet most employers avoid criminal charges. Experts note that holding employers accountable has been a challenge across both Democratic and Republican administrations.

Challenges in Prosecuting Employers

Prosecuting business owners is difficult because the government must prove intent, demonstrating that employers knowingly hired undocumented workers. Investigations can span months or even years, as in the case of the Michigan couple arrested on November 18, 2025. Tools like E-Verify, which could help verify employee work status, are not widely mandated, and many states do not require all businesses to use them. Additionally, employers often hire through contractors or off-the-books arrangements, limiting liability.

Because of these loopholes and the high legal threshold for prosecution, experts say employers are largely insulated from criminal liability, while workers face immediate deportation. The imbalance is blatant, said Muzaffar Chishti, senior fellow at the Migration Policy Institute. Workers face all the consequences, employers face very few.

Historical Context and Legal Framework

Before 1986, there were no penalties for hiring undocumented workers. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 introduced civil and criminal penalties, but required proof that employers knowingly hired illegal workers, making prosecution difficult. From 1986 to 2019, fewer than 15 employers were charged annually, and convictions were rare, often resulting only in fines.

E-Verify, launched in the late 1990s, remains voluntary in most states, with only 14% of U.S. employers participating as of mid-2025, according to the Migration Policy Institute. Federal mandates to expand E-Verify have repeatedly failed.

Presidential Enforcement Patterns

Different administrations have varied in enforcement priorities. The Bush administration conducted large workplace raids, detaining hundreds of undocumented workers. Obama and Biden shifted focus toward employer scrutiny, but prosecutions remained limited. During Trumps second term, workplace raids and immigration crackdowns surged, but charges against employers were still rare. Notably, in 2017, Trump commuted the sentence of Sholom Rubashkin, a business owner previously convicted under immigration-related financial charges.

Details of the Michigan Case

The Michigan couple, Moises and Raquel Orduna-Rios, allegedly employed over 200 undocumented immigrants between January 2022 and December 2024, housing many in dilapidated motels and houses while generating $74 million in revenue. Federal agents monitored their vans, financial records, communications, and employees over several years to build the case.

Undercover operations gathered testimony from employees confirming that the company provided housing, vehicles, and tools to undocumented workers. Investigators also obtained messages from Moises Orduna-Rios instructing employees to be cautious due to ongoing scrutiny. The couple was arrested on November 18, 2025, on federal charges.

Federal authorities emphasized the thoroughness of the multi-year investigation, which relied on financial tracking, employee interviews, and detailed surveillance to establish intent and criminal liability.

Analysis: Employer Accountability Remains the Exception

From the author’s perspective, the Michigan case underscores how rare sustained federal action against employers remains, despite decades of statutory authority. The multi-year investigation highlights the level of evidence required to meet the legal standard of proving intent, a threshold that continues to shield most employers from criminal liability.

The facts of this case illustrate why prosecutions are uncommon: extensive surveillance, financial analysis, undercover testimony, and documented communications were necessary to establish knowing employment and facilitation. Such resource-intensive efforts are not feasible in most cases, reinforcing a systemic imbalance in enforcement outcomes.

The case also reflects broader policy limitations. Voluntary participation in E-Verify, widespread use of contractors, and off-the-books employment structures continue to constrain enforcement. As long as these conditions persist, accountability will likely remain focused on workers rather than employers.

Ultimately, the Michigan arrests do not signal a shift in enforcement norms, but rather an outlier made possible by unusually comprehensive evidence. The underlying legal and structural barriers to employer prosecution remain unchanged.

Sources:

• Employers rarely face charges for hiring undocumented workers. Why?