The Law of Unintended Consequences: Immigration and E-Verify

A recent article in Businesweek, A Verification System for New Hires Backfires makes clear just how complex the immigration issue is.

The story of one flower grower's attempt to utilize E-Verify, the national registration system that allows an employer to check on worker's eligibility (after they are hired) has made it very difficult to staff his green houses, particularly during the spring growing season. Even accounting for some hyperbole his quote is fairly chilling: "Those who want to work fail to pass E-Verify, and those that pass fail to work."

The system, now utilized by about 5% of America's employers according to the article, would be mandatory if a bill, H.R. 2885 introduced by Representative Lamar Smith (actually my congressman) were to become law. If you want to check out the E-Verify website for yourself, go here.

The bill has been passed by the House Judiciary Committee, and is still pending in the House Education and the Workforce and Ways and Means. See here for Congressional action.

The stop in Ways and Means is not just an idle one, since according to a 2008 Congressional Budget report, a national mandate would cut federal tax revenue by more than 17 billion dollars (that's billion with a B).

Everyone knows that immigration is a major problem that actually needs a solution. And it seems to me to be area where the law of unintended consequences could be particularly relevant.

A hat tip to Kriss Dunn at [the hr capitalist] for his post, 99 Problems: E-Verify Ain't One ...

Arizona Immigration Law Valid According to Divided Supreme Court

To the political bonfire of illegal immigration, the U.S. Supreme Court has just dumped several gallons of petrol, with its decision upholding the Legal Arizona Workers Act, which places penalties for hiring illegal workers on most Arizona employers and requires that employers use E-verify. U.S. Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting (5/26/11) [pdf].

The nitty-gritty of the legal argument is this. When Congress passed the Immigration Reform & Control Act, it expressly pre-empted ""any State or local law imposing civil or criminal sanctions (other than through licensing and similar laws) upon those who employ . . . unauthorized aliens."

It is the parenthetical phrase "(other than through licensing and similar laws)" that the Arizona legislature has driven the proverbial truck through, and now the Supreme Court has backed them up.

I will leave it to the immigration experts to talk about the impact on that particular body of law. The politico's can talk about what will happen from a political standpoint. My amateur observation is that many states, including Texas, will pass similar laws, a move will be made in Congress to roll back the savings clause, and all of these actions will be more for political purposes than for resolution of a national problem.

From a positive perspective, it is possible given that the defendant in this case was the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that this will be the spark (or explosion) that leads to serious discussions to come up with a rational national solution. (And I say to myself, and pigs may fly.)

One concern raised by the Chamber and the dissenting justices is that employers will choose not to hire Hispanic employees in order to avoid any threat of the rather severe sanctions that can be imposed on them. The majority opinion authored by Justice Roberts rejected that argument:

The Chamber and JUSTICE BREYER assert that employers will err on the side of discrimination rather than risk the “‘business death penalty’” by “hiring unauthorized workers.” [cites omitted] That is not the choice. License termination is not an available sanction simply for “hiring unauthorized workers.” Only far more egregious violations of the law trigger that consequence. The Arizona law covers only knowing or intentional violations. The law’s permanent licensing sanctions do not come into play until a second knowing or intentional violation at the same business location, and only if the second violation occurs while the employer is still on probation for the first. These limits ensure that licensing sanctions are imposed only when an employer’s conduct fully justifies them. An employer acting in good faith need have no fear of the sanctions.

As a textbook statement of what the world should be like, I would not quarrel with the logic of Justice Robert's statement.

As someone who every day sees how the real world works, it could not be further from reality. Employers who have had too many instances where their proper actions have been sustained only after lengthy and expensive court processes, will be hard to convince at the sub-conscious level that this scheme does not pose potential problems for them and alter their actions accordingly.

Today's decision leaves me with two distinct thoughts about the Supreme Court, not the merits of this case.

First, I regret that we no longer look for regular practicing lawyers for the Supreme Court, but choose them from judges, government lawyers and appellate specialists. From my small niche of labor and employment law,  it seems to me that the Court is far out of touch with what happens in the real world of the workplace.

Secondly, it makes me think about the political rhetoric against "judicial activism" and that "judges should not make law."

I don't think anyone seriously believes or can even say with a straight face that when Congress passed the savings clause that is the subject of this lawsuit that they were consciously deciding that states should be able to gain such a dominant place in the enforcement of the immigration laws. The situation was much different then, but no one really believes that the Congress which passed IRCA, which contains the language quoted above, made a conscious decision to endorse legislation like the Arizona statute. The fact is Congress didn't think about it in this context, nor was there probably any reason for them to do so.

That is not a criticism of the Supreme Court for doing their job. Because Congress didn't think about it in this case, and can never think of every possible situation, we have given to the courts the powers to fill in the gaps, to supply the answers where Congress gave us none. Hopefully that is done  using consistent legal principles, but even doing so will rarely point to one correct answer; in this case it clearly resulted in multiple answers. The only way we know what is the "correct answer" is by counting the number of judges on each side. 

Which means nothing more than that all the political rhetoric about appointing judges who will not make law, just follow it, is just political bs. Everyone wants judges who will apply the principles the way they want them applied in these situations. That's our system and that's fine.

What bothers me is politicians who either don't understand the system, or more cynically understand the system, but are not honest about it and hide behind the false statement that judges' job is not to make law, just interpret it.

I have not studied it enough to know whether I think today's decision was a legally correct one or not. What I do know is that in making it and in his opinion for the court, it would be ludicrous to say that Justice Roberts was just acting as an umpire. His job is very different, and frankly much more important, than that. In this case, Congress did not give us the clear cut answer and now the Court has.

POWER To The People and Unintended Consequences

Immigration is a political hot button, which may be one of the greatest understatements of the year. It is certainly an issue on which people disagree, unfortunately, often disagreeably.

I certainly don't want to add to that unhelpful dialogue, but I have to admit my first reaction on reading the substance of the POWER Act (Protect Our Workers from Exploitation and Retaliation Act) was to quickly jump to what I forsee as unintended consequences.  The bill was introduced by Senator Menendez (D - NJ) and at this point has only three co-sponsors, Senators Gillibrand (D-NY), Murray (D-Wash), and Harkin (D-Iowa).

In short, the bill would prevent the deportation of individuals during the pendency of certain proceedings. One is criminal prosecutions where the individual is important to the prosecution. I can see how that could help overall crime enforcement and since the initiating action, a crime, is by some one other than the person tryng to avoid being deported, not that easy to abuse.

The other type of proceeding hower is serious labor violations. Under that section, an individual could avoid deportation if the individual:

(2)(A) has filed, or is a material witness to, a bona fide workplace claim (as defined in section 274A(e)(10)(B)(iii)(II) of such Act, as added by section 3(b)); and

(B) has been helpful, is being helpful, or is likely to be helpful to--

(i) a Federal, State, or local law enforcement official;

(ii) a Federal, State, or local prosecutor;

(iii) a Federal, State, or local judge;

(iv) the Department of Homeland Security;

(v) the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission;

(vi) the Department of Labor;

(vii) the National Labor Relations Board; or

(viii) other Federal, State, or local authorities investigating, prosecuting, or seeking civil remedies related to the workplace claim.

A summary of key provisions by the National Immigration Law Council makes it seem that protection from deportation would extend to a civil claim:

Stay of removal and employment authorization. Workers who have filed workplace claims or who are material witnesses in a workplace claim may receive a stay of removal and employment authorization until the workplace claim is resolved. This would allow workers to more effectively claim their labor rights and would allow the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) to effectively prosecute employers who break the law.

It is not clear whether the suit has to be prosecuted by the government or if protection is extended to a suit where the individual employee is the plaintiff.

Although there is a provision that filing a claim just to avoid deportation will not be allowed, it does not take a genius to figure out that this statute will lead to a lot more suits and that "protection" against suits filed for that purpose is feeble to non-existent.

One of the aims of the legislation is certainly laudable, to provide a counter-balance to those unscrupulous employers who hire illegal aliens, take advantage of them and use either actual immigration enforcement or the threat of it to insulate them from liability for their wrong doing.

I won't argue with that aim, but on first blush, I have to believe there is a better solution.

Hat tip to Prof Marcia McCormick at Workplace Prof Blog,  Bill to Protect Non-Citizen Workers.

Four Pillars for Immigration Reform

Having just finished with one hot potato, at least two Senators are ready to tackle yet another. And surprisingly enough, it is a bi-partisan effort. In a Washington Post opinion piece, Charles E. Schumer and Lindsey O. Graham - The right way to mend immigration offer four premises on which any new legislation should be based:

Our plan has four pillars:

• requiring biometric Social Security cards to ensure that illegal workers cannot get jobs;
• fulfilling and strengthening our commitments on border security and interior enforcement;
• creating a process for admitting temporary workers;
• and implementing a tough but fair path to legalization for those already here.

Obviously, the biometric card will set off concerns in some circles. Trying to get ahead of the curve on that one, the Senators were quick to point out:

Each card's unique biometric identifier would be stored only on the card; no government database would house everyone's information. The cards would not contain any private information, medical information or tracking devices.

Given how stormy the last time immigration reform was raised and given the hard feelings generated by the healthcare battle, it would not seem like an auspicious time.

Still stranger things have happened and if the bipartisan spirit continues, with even a low level of Republican support in the Senate, there should have a fighting chance for reform.

However, it should be remembered that this is an issue which does not necessarily divide only along partisan lines, but also has a geographic element.  Even more importantly, there is a long way between agreement on concepts and agreement on final language of a bill. And just like biometric cards, the pathway to citizenship is a concept that will be a non-starter for many.

I don't think President Obama needs to set aside any days in the near future for a signing ceremony, but it certainly is an interesting start.

5th Circuit to Hear Katrina Related FLSA Labor Case En Banc

Yesterday the 5th Circuit announced it would hear Castellanos-Contrera v. Decatur Hotels en banc.

The case turns on whether an employer who brought foreign workers in post-Katrina  under the H-2B visa program was required to reimburse them for recruitment, transportation and visa expenses in order to meet requirement that wages be paid "free and clear" under the FLSA.

The original panel said no, although it took two opinions to do so. I know that the 5th Circuit has a lot of Katrina related cases that deal with insurance coverage and it may be that there are other H-2B FLSA cases. 

Or maybe a majority of judges just thought the panel got it wrong.

For links to the panel opinon and replacement opinion, see my original post from February 2009.

"But He's an Illegal Immigrant" Argument Held Prejudicial by Texas Supreme Court

Given that President Obama turned his attention to immigration reform this week, see NYT story, it is somewhat ironic that the issue also surfaced in a more unlikely place, the Texas Supreme Court. The issue before the Court -- whether or not a jury should be informed (repeatedly) that the driver involved in a fatal collision was an illegal immigrant. The underlying suit was against his employer for negligent entrustment.

In TXI Transportation Company v. Hughes, (Tx 3.12.10) [pdf]  the Court held that such information was not only inadmissible, but was in fact prejudicial so that its admission was not harmless error and required a retrial.

The Court's holding was no doubt influenced by the fact that plaintiff had made the illegal status, and in fact the issue of illegal immigration, a central part of its trial theme.

Justice Medina wrote for the Court:

Hughes [the plaintiff] faced a difficult conceptual burden. He had to convince a jury that a collision involving on-coming traffic, that unquestionably occurred in the eastbound lane of Highway 114, was the fault of Rodriguez, the eastbound driver. The task was all the more difficult because Rodriguez possessed a clean driving record and commercial driver’s licenses from both Texas and Mexico. Hughes had some evidence of how Rodriguez might have been at fault for the collision in his lane, but the issue was hotly contested.

The record indicates that Hughes sought to hedge his theory by calling attention to Rodriguez’s illegal immigration status whenever he could....

That "hedge" including calling Rodriguez as the very first witness and the first questions were about his immigration statuts. As the Court noted that was followed by:

over forty references to Rodriguez’s status, including thirty-five to his status as an “illegal immigrant” and seven to his prior deportation.

And it was not just questions to him, TXI representatives were also cross-examined regarding whether they owed a “duty” to the public to prevent an “illegal” from driving a TXI truck:

• “Do you think he is entitled to drive here if he’s illegally here?”
• “And you don’t think you owe any duty . . . to the public . . . to the people who are driving up and down [Highway] 114 . . . to decide whether he’s illegal or not?”
•  “Mr. Rodriguez is still illegal in the United States, is he not? . . . Will anybody ever turn him in, or will he just continue to drive for TXI?”

In fact, there was a lot of evidence that was available about Rodriguez, since he:

•  was an undocumented Mexican alien who had illegally entered the United States on multiple occasions;
• invented a false Social Security number, which he used to apply for a Texas commercial driver’s license; 
• falsely answered “no” in his deposition when asked if he had ever lied to obtain a Texas driver’s license; 
• falsely answered “yes” on his TXI employment application when asked if he had the legal right to work in the United States;
• pleaded guilty to and was convicted of a misdemeanor immigration violation, serving four months in jail; and
• was previously deported and ordered not to return to the United States for ten years.

Still the Supreme Court rejected the use of such evidence both on substantive grounds and for impeachment. Under the substantive law of negligent entrustment it was not relevant, since his illegal status had not caused the collision.

By its holding that it was also improper impeachment evidence, the Court has made it a case of broader importance.

Justice Medina concluded forcefully for the eight members of the court who participated in the decision:

Such appeals to racial and ethnic prejudices, whether 'explicit and brazen' or 'veiled and subtle,' cannot be tolerated because they undermine the very basis of our judicial process.

Hard to argue with that.

Ironically, in this case the ruling bailed out an employer, but from an employment law context it is employers who are most likely to feel stymied by its reach.

Supplemental information (3.12.10): For more background information on the case itself see the AAS article about the oral argument last May. One aspect that is significant is that the underlying judgment was originally $22.4 million but was reduced to $15.8 million by the appellate court. Four members of a single family were killed in the accident.

Less Than 15 Employees? There's Always Immigration Discrimination

Hat tip to Professor Rick Bales at Workplace Prof Blog for picking up the DOJ's announcement of a new video for employers about their responsibilities and the rights of employees under the anti-discrimination provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act, DOJ Releases Video About Immigration-Related Workplace Discrimination.

As you can see, rather than being enforced by the EEOC or a state agency, it is enforced by the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices of the Department of Justice. From the FAQ Page for OSC, here's what the Act prohibits, which also includes national origin discrimination for employers not covered by Title VII and retaliation against those who participate in the OSC process:

*Citizenship or immigration status discrimination with respect to hiring, firing, and recruitment or referral for a fee, by employers with four or more employees, subject to certain exceptions. Employers may not treat individuals differently because they are, or are not, U.S. citizens or work authorized individuals. U. S. citizens, recent permanent residents, temporary residents, asylees, and refugees are protected from citizenship status discrimination. Exceptions: permanent residents who do not apply for naturalization within six months of eligibility are not protected from citizenship status discrimination. Citizenship status discrimination which is otherwise required to comply with law, regulation, executive order, or government contract is permissible by law.

* National origin discrimination with respect to hiring, firing, and recruitment or referral for a fee, by employers with more than three and fewer than 15 employees. Employers may not treat individuals differently because of their place of birth, country of origin, ancestry, native language, accent or because they are perceived as looking or sounding "foreign." U.S. citizens and all work authorized individuals are protected from national origin discrimination. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has national origin jurisdiction over employers with 15 or more employees.

* Unfair documentary practices related to verifying the employment eligibility of employees. Employers may not, on the basis of citizenship status or national origin, request more or different documents than are required to verify employment eligibility and identity reject reasonably genuine-looking documents or specify certain documents over others. U.S. citizens and all work authorized immigrants are protected from document abuse.

* Retaliation. Individuals who file charges with OSC, who cooperate with an OSC investigation, who contest action that may constitute unfair documentary practices or discrimination based upon citizenship status or national origin, or who otherwise assert their rights under the INA's anti-discrimination provision are protected from retaliation.

My recollection is that the OSC has been around since the mid-1980's without a lot of impact, but when immigration heats up again as it inevitability will, it's good to be aware of its existence.

Particularly for those small employers who don't normally have to worry about discrimination.

Turning Up the Heat on the Immigration Issue in the Texas Legislature

Those who follow Texas legislature know it is not really until April and May that the legislative process really kicks into high gear. Although it meets in regular session only five months every 2 years, most voting on substantive legislation occurs in that two month period. Highly contentious matters that take a lot of legislative time can block others from consideration.

My guess is that the legislative calendar just got a lot "tighter" as the state attorney general, Greg Abbott issued an opinion that two controversial measures that would crack down on employer's for hiring illegal aliens would not be pre-empted by the federal immigration law.

The question presented was:

"If Texas legislation (1) provided for the suspension or revocation of the business licensure of employers of unauthorized aliens; (2) relied solely upon a federal determination of immigration status; and (3) did not impose civil or criminal sanctions, would the law be permissible under the U.S. Constitution?"

Attorney-General Abbott was not having to go too far out on a limb since he only opined that if the closely followed an Arizona law that did the same and the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals followed the 9th Circuit's holding in Arizona Contractors Association, Inc. v. Candelaria the law would be permissible. (GA-0695).

The Texas legislature has a host of bills dealing with immigration. Among them are:

• HB 48, Relating to the suspension of certain licenses held by employers for the knowing employment of persons not lawfully present in the United States;
• HB 254, Relating to restricting illegal immigrants to certain geographic regions;
• HB 261, Relating to the enforcement of state and federal laws by certain governmental entities;
• HB 266, Relating to regulating the provision of benefits and services to, and the verification of the employment status of, immigrants and to enforcing laws relating to immigrants; providing civil and criminal penalties;
• HB 276, Relating to the requirement that state agencies report the cost of services and benefits provided to unlawful immigrants;
• HB 404, Relating to the enforcement of state and federal laws governing immigration by certain governmental entities;
• HB 416, Relating to a requirement that a recipient of money from the Texas Enterprise Fund participate in a federal work eligibility verification program;
• HB 622, Relating to the suspension of certain licenses held by employers for the knowing employment of persons not lawfully present in the United States;
• HB 658, Relating to requiring governmental entities to participate in the federal electronic verification of work authorization program;
• HB 1061, Relating to the requirement of citizenship or lawful presence in the United States for issuance or renewal of certain occupational licenses, driver's licenses, and identification certificates;
• HB 1278, Relating to the proof of identity and residency required of an applicant for a driver's license or personal identification certificate;
• HB 2222, Relating to a prohibition on law enforcement inquiries regarding the nationality or immigration status of a victim of or witness to a criminal offense;
• SB 357, Relating to a prohibition against the knowing employment of persons not lawfully present in the United States and the suspension of licenses held by certain employers for the knowing employment of those persons;
• SB 358, Relating to the enforcement of state and federal laws governing immigration by certain governmental entities.

Some of these will no doubt be among the heated issues being fought at the end of the session.

Hat tip to DLR ($) for the story on the AG's opinion.

Immigration Battle Coming to Texas Legislature

Or at least it will if there is much action on bills to be filed by Representative Leo Berman (R-Tyler), Berman Will File 9 Bills About Illegal Immigration. The Texas legislature has not been heavily involved in the immigration fight that has been a major topic in some other state's recent legislative sessions but that could change this year.

According to the paper's story, the bills to be offered by Berman would among other things:

• challenge automatic citizenship under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The bill says the state of Texas will not issue a birth certificate to children of illegal immigrants born in the state;
• put an 8 percent surcharge on money wired from Texas to Mexico, Central and South America;
• make English the official language of Texas;
• require "sanctuary cities," such as Houston, Austin and Dallas, to enforce immigration laws or be held liable for nonaction;
• pass a bill similar to one passed in Oklahoma that would provide no public state benefits for illegal immigrants and authorizes law enforcement officers to take Section 287 G training with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security allowing them to deal directly with illegal immigrants; and
• require employers to verify citizenship of anyone they hire.

It will be interesting to see how much traction this type of legislation gets as Berman himself thinks it is possible that his proposed legislation will be blocked by the Senate or vetoed by the Governor.

It is also a reminder that we are into the second week of filing season for the 81st session of the legislature which convenes on January 9, 2009. Stay tuned for summaries of filings of bills of interest to employers.

Court Won't Enjoin Arizona Legal Workers Act

Absent some other last minute judicial intervention it appears that Arizona's law that imposes strict sanctions for hiring illegal workers is set to go into effect on January 1, 2008 as U.S. District Judge Neil Wake late yesterday denied a temporary injunction that would have delayed its implementation.

My Arizona colleagues including Kerry Martin and Scott Blaney, have been monitoring the situation closely and had this update late last night:

Arizona Legal Workers Act Survives First Challenge

Just hours ago, Judge Neil Wake of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona denied a temporary restraining order seeking to block enforcement of the Arizona Legal Workers Act. For now, it appears that Arizona’s sweeping new law aimed at stopping the employment of unauthorized workers in Arizona will take effect as scheduled on January 1, 2008. The Act allows for suspension and revocation of licenses of businesses that knowingly employ unauthorized workers.

Judge Wake previously dismissed a challenge to the law because the plaintiffs failed to name the proper defendants. Today, he reiterated that the plaintiffs’ delay in naming the proper parties was a basis for his decision. The plaintiffs have appealed the previous dismissal of their complaint to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and also asked Judge Wake on Tuesday for an injunction while the appeal is pending, which he denied today. Judge Wake cited statements by Arizona County Attorneys that they would not take legal action against any Arizona employers until after February 1, 2008 as a further basis for his ruling. It is important to note, however, that the County Attorneys were explicit during Tuesday’s hearing before the Court that they can and likely will begin investigating complaints filed pursuant to the law beginning in early January.

Given today’s developments and the County Attorneys’ statements, Arizona businesses should prepare for the new law to take effect as scheduled on January 1, 2008.

Here's a link to my colleagues complete report. If you want a feel for those who have been actively supporting the act check out their home page.

The Immigration Issue: Lighting the Fire

Shortly, perhaps this week according to the story in today's NYT, the Department of Homeland Security is set to issue final rules which would require employers to fire workers who use false social security numbers. U.S. Set for a Crackdown on Illegal Hiring.

The final regulations, first proposed in draft form last summer, had been delayed awaiting potential Congressional action on an overall solution to the immigration issue which of course did not happen.

Among the likely results of the final regulations between now and the end of the year —

• the Social Security office will be swamped with calls for clarification by employers;
• large numbers of individuals will lose their jobs;
• an increase in charges and litigation related to national origin discrimination; and
• more business owners prosecuted for hiring illegal aliens;

Among the possible results following the implementation of the regulation

• increased pressure on Congress to act on immigration;
• increased unemployment (official or otherwise);
• lower productivity for the nation's workforce as a whole; and an
• increased strain in relationships between the immigrant community and those supporting a hardline position on immigration

It may well be that some sort of catalyst is needed to provide the necessary foundation for a solution to this complex problem. It is possible these regulations will be that catalyst.

On the other hand, my apprehensions about the law of unintended consequences are quite high.

Update (8/10/07): Here is a link to the final "no match" regulations and also a brief summary prepared by my firm.

Additonally, the Department of Homeland Security indicated its intent to increase civil penalties as much as 25%. See the Fact Sheet: Improving Border Security and Immigration Within Existing Law, for more information on other steps announced by the Department today.

Living and Losing at the American Dream - Jail Time and Immigration

A blog I haven't followed long, the New Jersey Employment Law Blog has a post about a West Coast sentencing of the owner and manager of Golden State Fence Co. following their plea bargain for knowingly hiring illegal aliens. See, Hiring Undocumented Workers: The Stakes Just Went Up for Business.

Quoting the sentencing judge:

Prosecution is long overdue in this area. Honestly, the government's efforts have been at the border, not with the employer. Obviously, the government has signaled a change with this case.

There's no question that pressure is rising in all parts of the country, and although it won't be just limited to them, I would wager that it is the small business that is most vulnerable.

It's ironic that Golden State Fence's website has this banner on the top: "Home of the American Dream" which I am pretty sure is what the illegal immigrants that were working for the company thought they were participating in. It's even more poignant when you read the company history:

Golden State Fence is a Family owned and operated business led by Founder Mel Kay, Jr., President and Chairman of the Board of Directors. Born and raised in Southern California during the Great Depression, Mr. Kay came from a family of 11 children. A classic American Dream story, Mr. Kay spent his childhood working to help support the family and left high school early at his father's orders to work full time. Shortly after this his father's untimely premature death left Mr. Kay as the primary supporter of the family. He started his first business in 1965 on the ground that Golden State Fence sits today. Over the last 40 years Mr. Kay has employed thousands of Southern California residents and today Golden State Fence employs over 700 individuals at 8 locations throughout Southern California. Golden State Fence is widely recognized as California's leader in the Fence industry and is one of the Inland Empires leading businesses. Mr. Kay has always taken great pride in building Golden State Fence based on the principles of Integrity, Honesty and Hard Work.

Now I don't know anything about about the facts and this story from NPR makes it clear it was not just a one time problem.

However, it only emphasizes to me that there has to be a better way to deal with immigration than penalizing those who want to work, and usually it is hot, dirty work at that, and those who want to give them that chance.