By W. Dan Lee, Esq.
(Admitted in California, Illinois, Washington, D.C.)
A Warning from the Georgia Mass Enforcement Action
Recently, there was a large-scale immigration enforcement action at an electric vehicle battery plant site in Georgia. The project involved general contractors, joint ventures, subcontractors, and staffing agencies. Hundreds of workers were investigated over identity and work authorization issues.
The details and legal issues of this case will continue to be contested, but one message is crystal clear: investment is not a shield, and U.S. immigration, labor, and safety regulations apply equally regardless of company size or nationality.
Why Do These Incidents Keep Repeating?
First, indirect employment is not a safe zone. The larger the project, the more layers of subcontractors and staffing agencies are involved. The law doesn’t just ask “who issued the paycheck?”. It asks who assigned the workers, gave them instructions, and exercised control on-site. If even one link in the employment chain breaks compliance, the entire project can be shaken.
Second, procedures are public, and violations leave traces. The U.S. employment verification system (Form I-9) requires document review, recordkeeping, and retention at the time of hire. Rules cover re-checking expiration dates, retention periods, and form completion. Immigration, labor, and safety regulations are public information, and evidence of noncompliance is easy to find. “We were too busy” or “it was customary practice” are not valid excuses.
Third, safety, wages, and immigration are interconnected. At worksites where construction, installation, commissioning, and operations overlap, industrial safety rules are strictly applied. Anyone who creates hazards, exercises control or holds authority to correct them can be held responsible. That’s why a general contractor cannot escape by saying “I didn’t know, it was the subcontractor’s job.” Wage, break, and overtime rules also vary by state, and if public subsidies are involved, additional obligations like “local prevailing wage” may apply.
What Really Happens on the Ground
First, the trap of the B-1 business visa. Engineers from headquarters sometimes enter the U.S. on a business visa and end up doing actual installation and commissioning work, far beyond the scope of “advisory” support. But on-site production, installation, and maintenance are generally considered employment activities. If the actual work conflicts with the visa purpose, enforcement is almost certain.
Second, the ripple effect of a single error on Form I-9. The I-9 must be completed and verified as of the hire date and retained for the statutory period. With subcontractors and staffing firms in the mix, paperwork easily becomes disorganized. Once an audit begins, fines are just the start—work stoppages, delays, contractual penalties, and reputational damage can cascade like dominoes.
Third, joint and multiple employer liability. If a safety lapse occurs, any evidence of on-site control—like email approvals, schedule directives, or distribution of safety instructions—can become the basis for liability. If contracts blur safety responsibilities, or written terms don’t match actual practice, the company will be disadvantaged.
Ten Things Companies Must Do Now
1. Full I-9 audit (internal review). Re-examine every employee’s I-9 as of their hire date. Verify acceptable IDs/work authorization, expiration dates, re-verifications, and retention deadlines. Ideally, do this under legal counsel to preserve attorney–client privilege.
2. E-Verify and state-level compliance. Some states and public projects require E-Verify. Set clear internal policies on where and to whom this applies and build training and recordkeeping systems.
3. Due diligence on subcontractors and staffing agencies. Before signing, review the counterparty’s I-9/E-Verify policies, visa sponsorship history, and prior investigations or fines. Contracts should include compliance representations, audit rights, immediate termination and indemnity clauses, and flow-down obligations to lower-tier subcontractors.
4. Recheck visa/work authorization alignment. Choose visas that match actual work: E-2 (investor), L-1 (intra-company transfer), H-1B/H-2B (professional/temporary), J-1 (trainee). Stop the practice of using B-1 business visitors for production, installation, or maintenance.
5. Wage and labor compliance systems. Apply both federal (minimum wage, overtime) and state requirements (paystubs, meal/rest breaks). For public or subsidized projects, review prevailing wage obligations in advance.
6. Design a safety governance structure. Link site access badges to I-9 verification and proof of safety training. Document safety training, inspections, and corrective action authority. In an accident, the key question will be: “Who had the authority?”
7. Worksite enforcement response manual. Create a playbook: warrant review, assigning interview escorts, instructions to preserve records, designated media/consulate contacts, and site access control. Practice with drills. Improvised responses amplify risk.
8. Whistleblower and anti-retaliation systems. Provide multilingual anonymous hotlines, train managers on protecting whistleblowers, and enforce anti-retaliation policies. Early detection and internal correction are always cheaper than external exposure.
9. Build a “data room” (compliance archive). Organize I-9, E-Verify records, payroll, schedules, safety training, and subcontractor contracts/inspection reports in a standard folder structure. Track access and changes (audit trail) for investigations and audits.
10. Leadership briefing and responsibility matrix. Define and share decision-making authority across executives, site managers, HR, procurement, safety, and legal. In a raid or accident, clarity on who decides what reduces chaos.
Prevention Is the Only Cost-Effective Path
Enforcement is not just about fines. It can trigger site shutdowns, supply chain disruptions, delays, customer claims, financing and insurance defaults, and even political or community backlash. For large investment projects, one incident can quickly escalate into a diplomatic or political issue.
When you add up all these costs, they far exceed the expense of simply complying with basic regulations from the start. To dismiss this as “someone else’s problem” is dangerous. The next enforcement action could be at your site.
For Korean companies building factories and hiring workers in the U.S., the message is clear: from today, compliance must bind every link in the chain—from general contractors down to subcontractors. That is the only way to safeguard investment and protect jobs.