California immigration plan to legalize workers faces hurdles

Contra Costa Times ^ | 5/11/12 | Matt O'Brien

[SmithL]

In the past two years, Arizona and five other red states made national waves and raised constitutional questions by passing laws designed to crack down on illegal immigration. Now, lawmakers in the biggest blue state are poised to focus the immigration spotlight in another direction.

A bill quietly moving through California's Legislature would grant state work permits to tens of thousands of illegal immigrants who are already harvesting fields, cleaning offices and preparing fast-food.

Frustrated that comprehensive immigration reform is a non-starter in Congress, proponents say the bill would allow California to solve a problem worsened by federal inaction.

"We believe we can become the model," said Manuel Pérez, a Democratic Assembly member who represents the Coachella and Imperial valleys. "The state of California, up until this point, really has been silent on this issue."

Pérez's bill, AB1544, which has already cleared a key Assembly committee, comes as the U.S. Supreme Court deliberates the constitutionality of Arizona's 2-year-old immigration law, which directs local police and sheriffs to enforce U.S. immigration laws.

During recent oral arguments, the court's conservative majority sent out strong signals that it may support key elements of the Arizona law.

"If the Supreme Court says states can make some of their own policies -- if it upholds that -- I would expect you would see not just the enforcement stuff, but this kind of law as well," UC Davis economist Phil Martin, who studies agriculture and immigration, said referring to AB1544.

Many states are likely to follow Arizona's tough approach, which was partially inspired by California's voter-approved Proposition 187 in 1994. The law, which would have kicked undocumented children out of school and denied their parents most public benefits, was overturned by the courts because California was seen as usurping the federal government's immigration authority.

[Tax-chick]

Wouldn’t this mean they would have to be paid the state’s minimum wage and receive all mandated benefits ... making their employment uneconomical in their current occupations?

[LibertarianLiz]

Aren’t they already receiving those benefits in the state of CA?

[kabar]

"If the Supreme Court says states can make some of their own policies -- if it upholds that -- I would expect you would see not just the enforcement stuff, but this kind of law as well," UC Davis economist Phil Martin, who studies agriculture and immigration, said referring to AB1544.

This is nonsensical. The AZ law, SB 1070, enforces existing federal law, it does not override or preempt it. It is against the law for illegal aliens to work in this country and illegal for employers to hire them. CA would be preempting federal law and violating the supremacy clause of the Constitution.

SCOTUS upheld AZ's 2007 law that mandated that businesses use E-verify or risk losing their licenses.

[umgud]

illegal immigrants who pay a state fee and prove they are trying to become proficient in English and that they have been working in California for at least 150 days would be able to get a permit authorizing them to live and work in the state.

How could this actually work for employers who still have that pesky Federal I-9 requirement?

[C19fan]

But but didn’t the Obama administration argue that immigration policy and enforcement is 100% decided by the Federal Gov’t.

[ExCTCitizen]

How wonderful....ILLEGALS are welcome in California... Could we trade California to Mexico for Cancun?

[Vigilanteman]

Even if we agreed to keep all the pickers, lawn mowers, roofers and other gainfully employed illegal aliens in return for being allowed to deport the moochers, gang angers, drug runners and other undesirables, Maldef, Mecha and La Raza would still object.

[ScottinVA]

Let me get this straight... only the feds can actually enforce immigration law... but a liberal, sanctuary state like CA can legalize the illegals?