BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 1544 Page A Date of Hearing: April 18, 2012 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT Sandre Swanson, Chair AB 1544 (V. Manuel Perez) - As Proposed to be Amended: April 18, 2012 SUBJECT : Undocumented workers. SUMMARY : Enacts the California Agricultural Jobs and Industry Stabilization Act of 2012. Specifically, this bill : 1)Defines "employee" to mean an agricultural employee and a person employed to provide domestic services, janitorial or building maintenance services, food preparation services, or housekeeping services. 2)Defines "employer" to mean an agricultural employer and a service industry employer. 3)Defines a "service industry employer" to mean a person who employs 25 or more employees who provide domestic services, janitorial or building maintenance services, food preparation services, or housekeeping services. 4)Requires the Employment Development Department (EDD), upon certification that there are not enough legal residents of California to fill all open agricultural and service industry jobs in California, to issue permits authorizing an undocumented person who meets specified criteria to reside and work as an employee in California. 5)Requires EDD to issue permits authorizing an undocumented person who is an immediate family member of a person to whom the department issued a permit and who meets specified criteria to reside in California. 6)States that it is the intent of the Legislature that these requirements be interpreted and implemented in a manner that recognizes and takes into account the difficulties encountered by aliens in obtaining evidence of employment due to the undocumented status of the alien. 7)Provides that, within 90 days of the implementation date of this bill, an employer shall not employ an undocumented person AB 1544 Page B who does not have a permit issued pursuant to the provisions above. 8)Provides that an employee permitted to work in this state pursuant to this bill is entitled to all the same wage and hour and working conditions protections under existing law provided to an employee who is a legal resident of California. 9)Provides that a permit issued pursuant to this bill shall not limit an employee to a single employer or occupation. 10)Requires EDD, beginning the third year after it makes the certification required above, in conjunction with the Legislative Analyst's Office, to annually publish a report analyzing whether this program has caused the displacement of employable legal residents of California in the agricultural and service industries. 11)Provides that the program created pursuant to this bill is not intended to confer legal status in a manner that would restrict the enactment of superseding federal legislation that seeks to alter that status. 12)Requires EDD, by May 1, 2013, to submit a formal request to the federal government to receive the necessary authority to administer the provisions of this bill. 13)Provides that this bill shall not be implemented unless EDD receives the necessary authority, consistent with federal law, to administer this program. 14)Makes related legislative findings and declarations. EXISTING FEDERAL LAW provides that a nonresident seeking admission to the United States as an immediate relative of a citizen of the United States or as a family sponsored immigrant is inadmissible as a public charge, unless, among other methods, a person petitioning for that person's admission has executed an affidavit of support with respect to that person. The affidavit of support requires that the sponsor pledge to take certain actions to maintain and support the nonresident while he or she resides in the United States. FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown AB 1544 Page C COMMENTS : One of the most significant areas of policy debate in recent years has concerned federal and state action (or inaction, as the case may be) around issues of immigration. Despite discussion in recent years at the federal level, many critics have described the federal situation as a "stalemate." As a result, some states have entered the fray with policy proposals of their own. As a recent report by the National Conference of State Legislators indicated, "As in previous years, law enforcement, identification/driver's licenses and employment remained the top issues addressed in state legislation related to immigrants."<1> Some have addressed the frustration playing out at the state level as follows: "So what does this all mean? It means that state governments, as a direct result of Congress' inaction, are grappling with hundreds of pieces of legislation with the hopes of bringing some sense of order to immigration. It's incomprehensible that as one arm of the federal government sues Arizona and Alabama to preserve its authority over immigration, another arm, Congress, refuses to exercise their authority to pass comprehensive legislation. It's time Congress took the pressure off of states and did its job by creating a workable immigration system that serves our state's and nation's needs."<2> This bill enacts the California Agricultural Jobs and Industry Stabilization Program. The author indicates the following as his reasons for bringing forth this measure: "California agriculture, and to a lesser extent the service industry in California, depends significantly on labor from outside the state and nation for their economic success and contributions to the state economy. Data confirms that without access to this labor the economic results for agriculture would be measurably reduced. Because of ------------------------- <1> "Immigration Policy Report: 2011 Immigration-Related Laws and Resolutions in the States." National Conference of State Legislatures (August 9, 2011). <2> Feliz Sefsaf, Wendy. "States Grapple With Broken Immigration System as Congress Does Nothing." Immigration Impact (August 20, 2011). AB 1544 Page D California's precarious fiscal situation, it cannot sustain any revenue deductions. Without this unauthorized workforce the agriculture and service industries would suffer irreparable economic damage and as a consequence so would California's economy. This legislation links the need of these vital economic sectors in California will the phenomenal contributions made by the unauthorized workforce by providing stability to these workers and their immediate family members. It establishes a state operated pilot program under the auspices and with the permission of the federal government that would issue federal/state permits for workers in these two industries in California. These workers would be allowed to work and remain legally in California until the US Congress or President of the United States decides on a course of action that determines the immigration status of these workers." PREVIOUS EFFORTS AT FEDERAL "AgJOBS" LEGISLATION : For several years, bipartisan legislation was introduced with broad support in Congress. This legislation has generally been referred to as the Agricultural Job Opportunities, Benefits and Security Act (or "AgJOBS"). The "AgJOBS" compromise was carefully negotiated by employee groups such as the United Farm Workers and major agribusiness employers after years of intense conflict. AgJOBS has traditionally been endorsed by major labor and management representatives, as well as a broad spectrum of organizations, including community leaders, civil rights organizations, religious groups and farmworkers themselves. "AgJOBS" represented a major compromise between farmworker advocates and major agricultural employers to address the agricultural immigration crisis. The federal proposals have generally contained two main parts: (1) An "earned legalization" program enabling many undocumented farmworkers and H-2A guest workers to earn a "blue card" temporary immigration status with the possibility of becoming permanent residents of the U.S. by continuing to work in agriculture and by meeting additional requirements; and AB 1544 Page E (2) Revisions to the existing H-2A temporary foreign agricultural worker program. In 2003, the first "AgJOBS" bill was introduced in Congress when United States Senators Larry Craig (R-ID) and Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) and Representatives Chris Cannon (R-UT) and Howard Berman (D-CA) introduced the federal immigration reform bill.<3> On May 14, 2009, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Representatives Berman (D-CA) and Putnam (R-FL) introduced "AgJOBS" in the 111th Congress. In 2011, "AgJOBS" was included in the comprehensive immigration reform bill introduced in the Senate by Senators Menendez (D-NJ), Leahy (D-VT), Durbin (D-IL), Schumer (D-NY), Kerry ( D-MA), and Gillibrand (D-NY) known as the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2011. THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM: FEDERAL PREEMPTION Aside from policy rationale, a fundamental issue concerning this bill is whether or not it is preempted by federal immigration law. Under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2), federal law may either expressly or implicitly preempt state or local law. See Hillsborough County v. Auomated Med. Labs., 471 U.S. 707, 713 (1985). In cases of express preemption, Congress "maŬkes] its intent known through explicit statutory language. English v. Gen. Elec. Co.< 496 U.S. 72, 78-79 (1990). Implied preemption, on the other hand, arises in one of two circumstances. Field preemption occurs when a state or municipality purports to "regulate conduct in a field that Congress intended the Federal Government to occupy exclusively." Id. Conflict preemption can occur "where state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of --------------------------- <3> In 2006, AJR 20 (Nunez) was introduced to demonstrate the California State Legislature's support of the immigration reform bill known as the Agricultural Job Opportunity, Benefits, and Security Act (AgJOBS) introduced by Members of Congress. AJR 20 passed the Assembly Committee on Labor and Employment but was moved to the Inactive File on the Assembly Floor. AB 1544 Page F the full purposes and objectives of Congress." Id. Federal preemption carries particular force in the context of immigration because regulation of immigration and immigrants, legal and illegal, is "unquestionably exclusively a federal power." De Cana v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351, 354 (1976). Federal Law "Congress shall have the Power? To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes? To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization?throughout the United States?" U.S. Const. Art. I § 8 cl. 3, 4. "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." U.S. Const. Art. VI cl. 2. In 1986, Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) in order to make "combatting the employment of illegal aliens" the central approach to immigration policy. Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB, 535 U.S. 137, 147 (2002). IRCA makes it unlawful for an employer to knowingly employ an unauthorized alien. 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1) (2006). Section (h)(3) defines 'unauthorized alien' with respect to the employment of an alien to mean that "at a particular time, that the alien is not at that time either (A) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or (B) authorized to be so employed by this Act or by the Attorney General." Section (h)(2) states that " ŬT]he provisions of this section preempt any State or local law imposing civil or criminal sanctions ? upon those who employ, or recruit or refer for a fee for employment, unauthorized aliens." An employer can confirm an employee's authorization to work by reviewing the employee's United States passport, resident alien card, alien registration card, or other document approved by the Attorney General; or by reviewing a combination of other documents such as a driver's license and social security card. § AB 1544 Page G 1324a(b)(1)(B)-(D). The employer must attest under penalty of perjury on Department of Homeland Security Form I-9 that he "has verified that the individual is not an unauthorized alien" by reviewing these documents. § 1324a(b)(1)(A). Employers that violate IRCA may be subject to both civil and criminal sanctions. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, an entity within the Department of Homeland Security, is authorized to bring charges against a noncompliant employer under § 1324a(e). Depending on the circumstances of the violation, a civil fine ranging from $250 to $16,000 per unauthorized worker may be imposed. § 1324a(e)(4)(A); 73 Fed.Reg. 10136 (2008). Federal Preemption Doctrines The federal preemption doctrine has been divided into the three following categories by the U.S. Supreme court: express preemption, field preemption, and conflict preemption. Express preemption is when the scheme of federal regulation is so pervasive as to make reasonable the inference that Congress left no room for the states to supplement it. Wisconsin Public Intervenor v. Mortier, 501 U.S. 597 (1991). Field preemption is when a federal statute touches a field in which the federal interest is so dominant that the federal system must be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject. PA. v. Nelson, 350 U.S. 497 (1956). And, conflict preemption is when enforcement of the state statute presents a serious danger of conflict with the administration of a federal program. Id.; see also People v. Giese, 408 N.Y. S.2d 693 (1979). The standard for the federal preemption doctrine is not based on fairness to the parties, but instead is determined by Congressional intent. In re MTBE Products Liability Litigation, 739 F. Supp. 2d 576 (S.D. N.Y. 2010). Courts do not have to decide whether preemption applies solely based on express preemption language in a statute. Jones v. Rath Packing Co., 430 U.S. 519 (1977). In fact, in the absence of express preemptive language, Congressional intent to preempt state law in a particular area may be inferred when the scheme of federal regulation is sufficiently comprehensive to make the reasonable inference that Congress did not leave room for supplementary state regulation. Id. However, finding preemption is inappropriate without clear evidence that federal policy and state law are in sharp conflict or that it would have been physically impossible to comply with both federal and state requirements. Id. However, preemption may be inferred if the AB 1544 Page H scope of statute indicates that Congress intended federal law to occupy the legislative field, or if there is actual conflict between state and federal law. See In re Garrett, 435 B.R. 434 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2010). In Plyer v. Doe, the US Supreme Court agreed that states "might have an interest in mitigating the potentially harsh economic effects of sudden shifts in population", and thereby concluded that States sometimes do have the power to regulate rights afforded to undocumented aliens when these rights have "a discernible impact on "traditional state concerns" 457 U.S. at 228 (1982). However, in the actual process of excluding or including undocumented aliens under the protection of U.S. laws, courts have consistently held that this remains the purview of the federal government. See State v. Patel, 770 P.2d 390, 393 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989). As discussed above, in 1986 Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA). IRCA criminalized knowingly hiring undocumented workers, by imposing a heavy fine and a short prison sentence on employers who knowingly continue to employ undocumented aliens. 8 U.S.C. § 1324a (a)(1), (f)(1). However, under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) or 1996, only the federal government is required to use the E-verify system, the electronic system used to verify the legal status of an employee. Pub. L. No. 104-208; 8 U.S.C. § 402(a). In the perceived absence of proper enforcement since its passage in 1986, several states including Arizona, Alabama, South Carolina and Utah have passed a series of immigration statutes that prohibit undocumented aliens from performing a variety of activities such as living in public housing, securing employment, applying for driver's licenses or attending publically funded schools and universities. One such bill, Act 69, was approved by the South Carolina General Assembly in June 2011, which among other things, imposes employer sanctions and mandates to local law enforcement regarding the identification and apprehension of persons unlawfully present in the United States. U.S. v. South Carolina, 2011 WL 6973241, 1 (D.S.C. 2011). During a Senate floor debate, proponents of Act 69 stated that rather than attempting to enter into a 287(g) agreement (a written agreement with the federal government regarding immigration enforcement) with the federal government as expressly authorized by the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g)(1), the State elected to go AB 1544 Page I forward with its own immigration bill because it was "really important" to have State "control." Id. at 1. Supporters of the bill also voiced the hope that "the Act would encourage persons unlawfully present in South Carolina to find "a different state to go to." Id. at 2. Supporters also stated their expectation that the Act would make the federal government's "phone ring?off the hook." Id. Section 8-14 of the final Act 69 established an elaborate scheme of employer licenses and making it unlawful for an employer to knowingly employ "an unauthorized alien." Id. In addition to challenging four specific sections of the Act, not including the employer licensing section, the United States made a preemption challenge to the Act in its entirety. Id. at 3. In deciding whether preemption applies here, the court stated that "a court should start preemption analysis with a presumption against preemption. Id. at 3. The presumption against presumption only applies when the federal government is legislating in traditionally state controlled areas. Id. However, the court notes that when a state legislates in a traditionally federally controlled area, the presumption against presumption does not apply. Id. The court then cites to numerous recent decisions involving state immigration statutes where "courts have generally declined to apply a presumption against preemption because the field of immigration has traditionally been a responsibility of the federal government and not the states. Id.; See also U.S. v. Arizona, 641 F.3d 339, 348 (2011); Ga. Latino Alliance for Human Rights, 793 F.Supp.2d 1317, 1330 (2011); U.S. v. Alabama, 2011 WL 4863957, 12, 30, 39 (2011). RECENT UTAH LEGISLATION : Last year, Utah enacted a package of immigration legislation that has some bearing on the preemption issues applicable to this bill. HB 116 or the Guest Worker Act was proposed by Utah Representative Bill Wright and sponsored on the Utah Senate floor by Senator Stuart Reid in 2011. HB 116 is almost exactly the same as the introduced version of this bill. Both bills AB 1544 Page J have listed a procedure for workers to obtain permits to work in agriculture or service related sectors. Utah Code Annotated § 35A-8-201 (1) (a)-(c) (2011). Furthermore, both bills have a list of requirements that are to be met by each applicant for such a permit, and allows for immediate family members of the permit-holder to reside in the state for the duration of the permit. Utah Code Annotated § 35A-8-301-303. Finally, both bills require the respective state governments to petition the Department of Justice to receive permission to carry out the guest worker program. Id. The Utah bill also compels the state government to coordinate with the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security to ensure that the guest worker applicants do not pose a threat to national security. Utah Code Annotated § 76-8-1505 (1) (2011). HB 116 and HB 467 (a bill similar to Arizona's S.B. 1070), were signed into law by Governor Herbert on March 15th, 2011. Between March and November, the Department of Justice (DOJ) engaged in talks with Utah state officials. However, in November 2011, the DOJ filed a lawsuit in Utah's District Court claiming that HB 467's attempts to regulate immigration on a state level is clearly preempted by federal law. The DOJ's press release stated that the "federal government has the ultimate authority to enforce federal immigration laws and the Constitution does not permit a patchwork of local immigration policies. A state setting its own immigration policy interferes with the federal government's enforcement efforts." Attorney General Eric Holder also emphasized that "patchwork of immigration laws is not the answer and will only create further problems in our immigration system. The federal government is the chief enforcer of immigration laws and while we appreciate cooperation from states, which remains important, it is clearly unconstitutional for a state to set its own immigration policy." With regards to HB 116 however, the DOJ has not filed a suit yet. In fact in November the DOJ said that it has notified state officials that Utah's Immigration Guest Worker statute is clearly preempted by federal law. However, given that the provisions of HB 116 will not take effect until 2013, the DOJ is opting to continue exploring resolutions short of litigation with state officials. The DOJ statement noted that if "Utah fails to comply with federal law in this area, the department will not hesitate to take the legal action necessary to vindicate the important federal interests in this matter before these laws go into effect." AB 1544 Page K RECENT EDITORIAL TREATMENT OF AB 1544 : In a March 29, 2012, guest editorial in the Sacramento Bee, the joint authors of this measure stated the following: "Immigration has become the third rail of American politics. Whether it's the predictable chorus from the right ("Deport them all!") or the left ("Amnesty for all!"), these shouts are a loud excuse for politicians in both the Democratic and Republican parties to avoid serious immigration policy debate. Yet all Californians suffer from the refusal of Washington, D.C., and Sacramento to negotiate true immigration reform. Agricultural employers watch their crops rot in the fields, dependent on an entry-wage workforce willing to do the backbreaking work of harvesting $37 billion of California agriculture. American citizens overwhelmingly reject these jobs, even with higher wage offers. Unauthorized workers face uncertainty and exploitation as they do the jobs American workers don't want. They cannot count on symbolic rhetoric to stabilize their jobs and instead wait for the next one-dimensional (politically "safe") idea that threatens them without regard for the role they play in keeping California's economic engine - its workforce - stable. Immigrants who enter the United States illegally and engage in the drug trade, human trafficking and other crimes burden our communities at a very high cost in taxpayer dollars and human lives. A real solution has to reconcile economics and human rights with accountability to taxpayers. Such a proposal has to recognize that immigrants who have illegally entered our AB 1544 Page L state are not uniformly "good" or "bad" as a group. Just like any other group. Just like us. We're tired of waiting for a federal solution. We're tired of politics as usual. And so we are taking a risk. We, a Coachella and Imperial Valley Democrat and a Central Valley Republican, have joined forces to carry legislation that will stabilize California's workforce in the industries facing the untenable choice of whether to violate employment laws or risk economic disaster. We think there's a better choice that's healthier for our economy, protects American jobs and deters exploitation of workers with little political power. We introduced Assembly Bill 1544 - the Agricultural Jobs and Industry Stabilization Act of 2012 - to offer an alternative to the business- hostile, anti-worker rhetoric we have listened to for too long. AB 1544 allows currently employed undocumented immigrants already in California an opportunity to pay a fee and remain - without citizenship benefits - part of our workforce. AB 1544 is a permit process, not a magnet for illegal immigration. It restricts its provisions to only those workers who have worked at least 863 hours, or earned at least $7,500, in California during the 24-month period ending Dec. 31, 2008. To annually maintain their permits, eligible workers will have to continue employment in the agricultural or service industries. English proficiency or evidence of English language learning is a requirement to hold a permit. A fingerprinted criminal background check will have to be "clean" - i.e., no felony convictions. AB 1544 Page M AB 1544 does not confer legal status. It allows employers to continue to employ workers safely and legally while enabling workers and their families to remain together without fear. There are many details to work through. We recognize the diversity of stakeholders, including farmers and farmworkers, employers and organized labor, taxpayer advocates and immigrant rights groups. We also recognize the conflicting interests and need for balance that will make our work even more challenging. But we didn't choose public service because we thought it should be easy. We chose to represent the people and the places we care about. Our districts are our homes and our communities, and they are hurting. We want to help by getting the "untouchable" subject of immigration into the public debate and to propose real solutions. AB 1544 is only a small step toward comprehensive immigration reform, but we think that it is a step worth taking." The next day, the Sacramento Bee responded with an editorial of its own entitled, "Reject State Effort to Usurp Federal Law," which stated the following: "In the face of inaction on immigration by Congress over many years, the nation increasingly is lurching toward a patchwork of opposing laws. States are taking it into their own hands to usurp federal power and enact their own state laws on immigration. This is a giant retreat from the idea that the United States is one nation, and a giant misstep toward a loose union of states. At one extreme is Arizona, passing Senate Bill 1070 that AB 1544 Page N effectively establishes a pass system ("show your papers, please") for immigrants or anyone who looks like one. At the other is Utah, passing House Bill 116, which would grant residency and work permits to unauthorized guest workers and their spouses and children. Now two lawmakers seek to have California join the mess with a Utah-like guest worker bill. However well-intentioned, Assembly Bill 1544 by Assembly members Manuel Perez, D-Coachella, and Linda Halderman, R-Fresno, plainly is unconstitutional. Lawmakers should reject it. The U.S. Constitution specifically gives the federal government exclusive power to regulate immigration. State laws that attempt to bypass the federal government are no substitute for doing the hard work of persuading Congress and the president to fix our broken, obsolete immigration system. AB 1544, like the Utah law, depends on getting a waiver or authorization from the federal government. Yet there is no process or law that allows the federal government to transfer authority to the states to grant residency and work permits to people who are in the country illegally. A waiver hasn't happened in Utah, and it would not happen in California. The federal government is more likely to sue the state, just as it is suing Arizona. State guest worker programs have a host of other problems, as the American Civil Liberties Union of Utah pointed out to the Utah Legislature. A state permit holder would not have any protection from deportation in that state, or anywhere else in the United States - nor would a worker's permit protect employers who hire unauthorized migrants in violation of federal law. Such permits would, however, provide a "false sense of hope" to employers and workers who are violating federal law. Yet the problem AB 1544 attempts to address is very real. An estimated half to three-quarters of agricultural workers AB 1544 Page O in this country are unauthorized migrants. The E-Verify program that requires employers to verify the legal status of workers does not address the need for workers. The federal H-2A guest worker program fails to provide enough legal workers. The same is true for janitorial, food preparation and housekeeping workers. AB 1544 is scheduled to be heard in the Assembly Labor Committee on April 18. Lawmakers should kill it there and craft a strategy for working with Reps. Kevin McCarthy, R-Bakersfield, and Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, in the House and Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer in the Senate. This is a situation that calls for a sustained commitment to creating a federal immigration solution." ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : Writing in support of this bill, the California Grape and Tree Fruit League states the following: "ŬW]e are deeply concerned about by the lack of prompt action at the federal level to address labor shortages and ensure long-term labor security. We continue to advocate for a market-based solution for agriculture that ensures our farms have the workers they need and the expertise to harvest our food. However, while we continue to advocate for efforts at the federal level, we vies Ŭthis bill] as an important tool for ensuring the viability of California agriculture by developing a state-run work authorization program to ensure California farms and ranches are able to obtain the vital labor necessary for producing the food and fiber to meet the demands of both a growing domestic and worldwide population." La Cooperative Campesina de California writes: "ŬWe have] been very active at the federal level attempting to support bills that will address the vital issue of immigration impacting the population we serve and the prominent agricultural industry of California and the nation. ŬWe] will continue to support the federal efforts while supporting the efforts of this bill to focus on the labor shortages and labor issues impacting one of the AB 1544 Page P greatest agricultural production regions of the world. This bill opens the possibility of a resolution that protects the workers and the agricultural industry of the State of California ensuring its viable continuity as a leading industry of the world. ŬWe] reiterate that while we will continue to seek the ultimate federal solution to the subject issue, we welcome and strongly support the efforts of this bill to seek a solution that is reasonable and sustainable with great benefits to the farm workers and the agricultural industry of the state." ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : Writing in opposition to this bill, the California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO states the following: "Guest worker programs have historically benefitted employers, not workers. Because workers are dependent on a particular employer or the ability to work in a particular industry, they are extremely vulnerable to abuse. A guest worker program without a path to permanent status is, by its nature, exploitative. Workers are permitted to stay only as long as an industry needs them and when they are no longer in demand, they have no right to stay in the country where they have given these years of service. In addition, state level immigration programs are pre-empted by federal law. Not only would this program jeopardize the rights of workers, but it would also give a false sense of security to immigrant families desperate for real reform. This program would do nothing to stop deportations or raids on immigrants. The only ones who might be protected are employers hiring undocumented workers, but the workers and their families would still have to live in fear. The California Labor Federation continues to believe strongly in the need for comprehensive immigration reform, or any path to legalization that decriminalizes immigrant workers. Far too many California workers must remain in the shadows, unable to demand fair pay or working conditions, because they are undocumented. Even with these injustices, immigrant workers are at the forefront of the Labor AB 1544 Page Q Movement, organizing for a better life and breathing new life into our unions. More must be done to protect these workers' rights and to offer a future of hope and opportunity for them and their families. We also support trade policies that enable workers on both sides of the border to provide for their families so no one has to risk their life crossing the dessert because it is the only way to feed a family. While well-intended, this bill offers only false hope with no real protection or path to permanence for immigrant workers. It also jeopardizes the rights of all immigrants by undermining federal preemption on immigration law." Similarly, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) opposes this bill and states the following: "While we most definitely share your frustration with the federal government's failure to enact immigration reform that would address the status and protect the rights of the millions of peaceful migrants who have contributed so positively to our economy and society, including specifically the many who labor in our agricultural fields, the two bills are not an appropriate state approach to this concern. We oppose Ŭthis bill] because Ŭit is] unconstitutional, would never take effect, and would therefore create false expectations and produce conditions for unscrupulous persons to take advantage of some of our most vulnerable Californians. First, Ŭthis bill is] preempted by the Constitution and federal law. In DeCanas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351 (1976), the Supreme Court held that the Supremacy Clause bars state involvement in immigration regulation. Indeed, beyond the ordinary application of congressional preemption principles, the Court recognized a form of constitutional preemption in the area of immigration, concluding that the "determination of who should or should not be admitted into the country, and the conditions under which a legal entrant may remain" is "a regulation of immigration and thus per se pre-empted by this constitutional power, whether latent or exercised." 424 U.S. at 355. We are concerned that the heavily-involved state-operated regulatory schemes in both Ŭthis bill] would fall within this area and constitute a "constitutionally proscribed regulation of immigration that AB 1544 Page R Congress itself would be powerless to authorize or approve." 424 U.S. at 356. In addition, through legislation, including the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986, Congress has occupied the field of immigrant employment in a manner that does not permit state legislation such as Ŭthis bill]. Second, while Ŭthis bill] conditions implementation upon receipt of federal permission or waiver, such permission will not be forthcoming. Therefore, the legislation would very likely never take effect. As noted above, Congress itself may be constitutionally powerless to delegate the authority in the bills to any state. In addition, nothing in current federal law would permit the Administration to grant a waiver or permission for California to operate the extensive regulatory scheme in Ŭthis bill]. Therefore, absent congressional action (and, as noted, serious questions could be raised about the legality of such action), the legislation cannot be implemented. If Congress were prepared to act, a uniform national approach to reform, including status adjustment for undocumented workers, would be far preferable to any state delegation like that contemplated in the Ŭbill]. Finally, if the legislation never takes effect, we have serious concerns that the bill, if enacted, would create false expectations, which will never be realized, among those who would be eligible for some adjustment of status. We are also concerned that unscrupulous notarios and others would take the opportunity to swindle members of this vulnerable population by promising assistance in registering and receiving a status adjustment that will never come. Moreover, we are concerned about how the unsolicited provision of personal information to government agencies or the collection of such information by private persons could create real danger for those who provide it." Finally, Asians Americans for Civil Rights and Equality (AACRE) and the California Immigrant Policy Center write the following in opposition to this bill: "We strongly believe that immigrants regardless of status are a vital part of our economy and cultural fabric. Attempting to confer federal benefits to immigrants at the state level would create a patchwork of immigration policy AB 1544 Page S in all 50 states. The regulation of immigration implicates exclusively federal concerns, because of the need to have a uniform national policy toward immigration. The Chinese Exclusion Case, 130 U.S. 581 (1889); Fong Yue Ting v. U.S., 149 U.S. 698, 711 (1893). We agree that states have the ability to take a range of activities concerning immigrants that do not conflict with Congress's plenary power over immigration. However, it is well settled that Congress has fully occupied the field of immigration regulation through the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and that states are preempted from legislating within this sphere. See INA, Title 8 § 1101, et seq.; LULAC, 908 F. Supp. 755, 775-76, citing Gonzales v. City of Peoria, 722 F.2d 468 (9th Cir. 1983) ("We assume that the civil provisions of the ŬINA] regulating authorized entry, length of stay, residence status, and deportation, constitute such pervasive regulatory scheme, as would be consistent with the exclusive federal power over immigration."). In creating immigration policy on the state level conferring federal benefits to immigrants, Ŭthis bill] arguably conflicts with Congress's plenary power over immigration and may, as a result, be considered unconstitutional. In states like Arizona, Georgia, and Alabama where SB 1070 and copycat legislation that criminalize immigrants are being challenged in the courts, immigrant legal advocates consistently argue the need to preserve Congress's plenary power over immigration matters. Legislation such as Ŭthis bill] undermines our efforts to combat anti-immigrant legislation in other states like the one mentioned above. We must do what we can to preserve the integrity of the U.S. Constitution so that those individuals whose sole objective is to promote an anti-immigrant agenda cannot cite legislation such as Ŭthis bill] to further advance their state-by-state strategy of pushing anti-immigrant policies in an attempt to erode the federal government's plenary power over immigration. As stated previously, California is the state with the largest immigrant population in the country and as such we owe the immigrants who reside in our state a more thoughtful approach on these matters and urge you to take into consideration the bad precedent legislation such as this would create." AB 1544 Page T RELATED AND PRIOR LEGISLATION : AB 1546 (V. Manuel Perez) would enact the California High-Skilled Worker Retention and Family Act of 2012. AB 1546 was pending before this Committee, but the author has indicated that he does not wish to pursue that measure at this time. AB 735 (Keene) of 2007 would have required all persons who are not citizens of the United States and who are currently working or wish to work in the state to possess a California Work Permit issued by the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement. AB 735 was referred to this Committee but not heard at the request of the author. REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION : Support Act for Us, for Liberty, For a Just America California Association of Nurseries and Garden Centers California Citrus Mutual California Communities United Institute California Grape & Tree Fruit League La Cooperativa Campesina de California Opposition Asian Americans for Civil Rights & Equality California Immigrant Policy Center California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund Analysis Prepared by : Ben Ebbink / L. & E. / (916) 319-2091