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.
"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."
I have a different concept of how workmen's comp works. I seem to recall that there is a payroll tax and I believe there is an employee component and an employer component. The benefits, on the other hand, are paid out of the fund that is created by these payroll tax revenues coming in.
At issue is what happens when an employee who has not had these taxes paid on his/her behalf gets injured. It isn't fair to pay for his benefits out of a fund that he and his employer never contributed to having him covered in. It is also not fair to simply allow his employer to pay back premiums. That would be like not carrying health insurance, then paying back premiums after you have a heart attack and expecting the insurance company to cover it.
At the risk of redundancy, I think it is emininently fair to assess the cost of benefits to the employer who knowingly hired an illegal and did not pay worker's comp premiums. Of course, you raise a good point in distinguishing between employers who knowingly hire illegals and those who are misled by forged documents. The second group is definitely more problematic.