[BikerNYC]

If an employer wants to gain the economic benefits when hiring illegals, it must accept the economic downsides, too. This is one of them.

[Tammy8]

I agree, the employer should pay, not worker's comp. Years ago an illegal was killed on a ranch from a gasoline explosion. That went to court in Arizona, and the judge ruled that the ranch owner had to pay the illegal's family the same amount of money that would have been paid by worker's comp if he had been a legal employee. I thought this was fair. The problem with allowing them worker's comp funds is that fund in many states is subsidized by the taxpayers when a large amount is paid out. Employer contributions do not totally support the program in every state.

The other unfair issue is even in places where worker's comp is totally employer funded- why should the costs be spread amongst all of the business owners that contribute- surely this illegal was not covered, if his employer did not contribute on his behalf and report that he was employed. That employer should shoulder the cost alone.

[Sonny M]

If an employer wants to gain the economic benefits when hiring illegals, it must accept the economic downsides, too.

Its hard to say who to root for in this case.

One one hand, the kid is an illegal and should not have been here in the first case and broke the law.

On the other hand, a rash of these kinds of lawsuits and the publicity this can (and hopefully does) gain, could stop employers from hiring illegals, thus draining the demand for cheap labor and removing incentives for them to come here illegally.

Either way, I hope this case gets some news coverage and reaches the SCOTUS.

[Richard Kimball]

I agree. People hire illegals because they work harder and are cheaper. One of the big reasons they're cheaper to hire is because they don't get benefits. Employers pass them on to the social net, which is one reason that hospitals are going bankrupt (they must treat, so illegals go and don't pay).

I think we need a multiple pronged approach to this situation. First, we DO need to liberalize legal immigration laws. Second, we need to clamp down on illegal immigration. The system now rewards lawbreakers (both employers and illegal immigrants), while keeping immigrants that want to enter the country legally and follow the rules in limbo for years.

[jackbenimble]

I agree. I am vehemently against illegal immigration and want it stopped. One of the things that will stop is to remove the economic and other incentives for employers to hire illegals. They should definitely not get a pass on workers comp. I think every time an illegal shows up in the emergency room for any reason it should be handled as a workman's comp case and the last employer to give the illegal a paycheck should be on the hook and liable for the hospital bill. You hire an illegal to mow the lawn and three days later they have appenticitis ... well you just bought them an operation. Of course the operation should be followed by deportation.

[ZULU]

If the guy used falsified documents to prove legal residencey, he should get NADA.

If he did not, and the employer knowlingly hired an illegal, the employer should be required to pay the employer share of his workman's compensation PLUS the state match. (I believe the employer pays part of the Worker's Comp and part comes from State funding - the taxpayers shouldn't have to pay this employer's mistake - just the employer.) Maybe more of these exploiters will be less willing to hire these invaders.

[Clock King]

If an employer wants to gain the economic benefits when hiring illegals, it must accept the economic downsides, too. This is one of them.

I agree.

[streetpreacher]

Agreed. I don't see how a conservative could disagree with this judge's decision.