On Oct 17, 9:00*am, Sordo** wrote:
New California law bars E-Verify requirement for employers

The measure has upset activists against illegal immigration who got
some cities to require that businesses check the legal status of
workers.

By Paloma Esquivel
Los Angeles Times
October 16, 2011, 6:45 p.m.

For years, activists against illegal immigration pushed cities across
California to adopt ordinances ordering businesses to verify that
their employees were eligible to work in the U.S.

Several cities, including Temecula, Murrieta and Lake Elsinore,
complied and required businesses to enroll in E-Verify, an online
program that uses federal databases to check the immigration status of
workers. Those that refused could face fines or revocation of their
business licenses.

But those victories appear to have been wiped out this month with
legislation signed into law that prohibits the state, cities and
counties from mandating that private employers use E-Verify.

"It's very disappointing when you spend all the time, you go to your
elected representatives and you get them to do something, and then at
the higher level they squash you," said Ted Wegener, founder of the
Inland Empire-based Conservative Activists. The group pushed for
E-Verify ordinances in Riverside, San Bernardino and Orange counties.

Cities that adopted such rules are now preparing to comply with the
new state law.

"Norco is simply going to repeal their ordinance," City Atty. John
Harper said. "I don't think there's any other choice in there."

Harper and city officials in Temecula and Murrieta said that no
businesses had been cited or had their business licenses revoked.
Murrieta, which late last year adopted its E-Verify ordinance under
pressure from residents, allowed people to file complaints if they
believed a business was hiring undocumented workers.

But Brian Ambrose, a senior analyst in the city manager's office,
said, "We have not received a single phone call…. We did not believe
there was ever a problem with illegal immigration here in Murrieta."

In San Juan Capistrano, which mandated the use of the program for some
contractors, officials said the new law would require only a minor
adjustment to remove the E-Verify requirement from contracts.

Those who sought the state law in reaction to the growing number of
localities adopting mandatory E-Verify rules said such moves were a
distraction from a larger problem.

"As a nation, we are in such desperate need of immigration reform,"
said Sara Sadhwani, strategy director for the California Immigrant
Policy Center. "While a handful of cities in California and a handful
of states across the country have moved to mandate the use of this
kind of program, it's very misguided."

The state ban received broad support, including the California Chamber
of Commerce and the California Farm Bureau Federation, which
questioned the accuracy of the databases used by the federal system.

Assemblyman Paul Fong (D-Sunnyvale), who introduced the bill, said he
felt that mandatory E-Verify was an unnecessary burden on businesses.

"It was costly, time-consuming. It's unfair for big businesses and
definitely for small businesses," he said. "Why make a flawed system
mandatory?"

Fong said the system often misidentifies U.S. citizens and legal
immigrants. One such worker is Jessica St. Pierre, 22, who said she
was fired from her job at a telecommunications company because her
name was not correctly entered into the E-Verify system. It took her
four months to get another job.

"I don't see it as being a help, but a burden for people that live
here," St. Pierre said. "This system here is just not up to par in
what it's supposed to be doing, so why have it?"

For Wegener of Conservative Activists, the battle now shifts to the
federal level, where Congress is considering a measure proposed by
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), and co-sponsored by Rep. Elton Gallegly
(R-Simi Valley) and others, that would make a system like E-Verify
mandatory for all employers.

Wegener said that while he's heard some talk of challenging the state
law in court, he doubts many cities will do so.

"Right now, most of the cities are pretty strapped for money," he
said. "So taking on an additional lawsuit? I don't think most of the
cities will."



How long before the mongrelized* State of California begs for a
bailout?

*only 49.6% White