|
|
State
Laws and Policies, and Local Ordinances |
|
OVERVIEW |
|
|
E-Verify State Laws, Executive Orders, and Local Ordinances (11/09) |
|
|
Most State Bills Mandating Use of
the Employment Eligibility Verification Basic Pilot Fail in 2007 (10/5/07) |
|
ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINIONS |
|
|
Nevada AB 383 is Federally Preempted
(Office of the Attorney General, State of Nevada, 3/3/08)
|
|
ILLINOIS |
|
|
CONTINUING THE PIONEER TRADITION: Illinois' Basic
Pilot/E-Verify Laws as a Model Policy. Illinois is the first state to enact laws
intended to protect employers and workers who are affected by the
federal Basic Pilot/E-Verify program. (10/31/08) |
|
|
Restrictions on use of Employment
Eligibility Verification Systems (new Section 12 of the Right
to Privacy in the Workplace Act, Public Act 095-0138). |
|
|
Employment-related civil rights
violations defined (Section 2-102 of the Illinois Human
Rights Act, Public Act 095-0137, amended to define new
employment-related civil rights violations). |
|
|
E-Verify: Employer Attestation Form
(Illinois Dept. of Labor). The employer must attest that it has
(1) received E-Verify training materials from DHS and that all its
personnel administering E-Verify have completed the computer-based
tutorial, and (2) posted in a clearly visible place (a) the DHS notice
that the employer is enrolled in E-Verify and (b) the OSC
antidiscrimination notice. |
|
|
Privacy in the Workplace Complaint
Form (Illinois Dept. of Labor). |
|
[BACK TO TOP]
|
Fact
Sheets and Analysis |
|
GENERAL |
|
|
Why States and Localities
Should Not Require Employers to Participate in Basic Pilot/E-Verify
(HTML
|
PDF) (revised 2/09)
|
|
|
State and Local
Proposals That Punish Employers for Hiring Undocumented Workers Are
Unenforceable, Unnecessary, and Bad Public Policy (PDF)
(1/08) |
|
|
Facts About Federal Preemption:
How to Analyze Whether State and Local Initiatives Are an Unlawful
Attempt to Enforce Federal Immigration Law or Regulate Immigration
(6/07) |
|
ARIZONA |
|
|
Erecting Its Own Tombstone:
Arizona's Mandatory Basic Pilot/E-Verify Law. Arizona's
requirement that employers verify workers' employment eligibility via
Basic Pilot/E-Verify has yielded negative results for the state, its
businesses, and its workers. Other states considering similar
measures would do well to pay attention to these results. (4/08) |
|
|
New Arizona Law Requires Employers
to Use Flawed Employment Eligibility Verification Basic Pilot (IMMIGRANTS'
RIGHTS
UPDATE, 7/20/07) |
|
|
What Do the New
Immigration Laws & Regulations Mean to Me?: Common Questions and Answers
(Arizona Contractors Association) [English
|
Spanish] |
|
|
Advisory Regarding Registering for
E-Verify
("Immigration Advisory: E-Verify and October 1
Notice from State," Arizona Contractors Association) |
|
|
Legal Arizona
Workers Act:
Frequently Asked Questions about
Employer Sanctions Law
(Maricopa County Attorney) |
|
|
Rehired and Seasonal Employees & I-9
Compliance
(Memo to the Arizona Farm Bureau summarizing the
rules and regulations regarding complying with I-9 employment
eligibility verification requirements with respect to rehired or
seasonal employees, 2/12/08) |
|
ILLINOIS |
|
|
CONTINUING THE PIONEER TRADITION: Illinois' Basic
Pilot/E-Verify Laws as a Model Policy. Illinois is the first state to enact laws
intended to protect employers and workers who are affected by the
federal Basic Pilot/E-Verify program. (10/31/08) |
|
|
New Illinois Laws Create Important
Protections against Flaws in Employment Eligibility Verification Basic
Pilot (IMMIGRANTS'
RIGHTS
UPDATE,
10/5/07) |
|
[BACK TO TOP]
|
Litigation |
|
ARIZONA |
|
LEGAL
ARIZONA WORKERS ACT: LAWSUIT CHALLENGING ITS PROVISIONS
Arizona Contractors Association, Inc., et al. v. Criss Candelaria, et
al. |
|
|
Lawsuit Challenges Arizona’s
Employer Sanctions Law as Being in Conflict with Federal Law (IMMIGRANTS'
RIGHTS
UPDATE, 10/5/07) |
|
|
9th Circuit ruling affirming federal
district court decision. "We uphold the statute in all
respects against this facial challenge, but . . . [i]f and when the
statute is enforced, and the factual background is developed, other
challenges to [it] as applied in any particular instance or manner will
not be controlled by our decision." (9/17/08)
|
|
|
Appeal to the 9th
Circuit of the federal district court decision -- opening and reply briefs,
and petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc:
|
|
|
Appeal to the 9th
Circuit of the federal district court decision -- amicus briefs:
|
|
|
NEWS RELEASE:
Civil Rights Coalition to Argue in
[Federal District] Court That Arizona Employer Sanctions Law is Illegal
(11/14/07)
|
|
|
NEWS RELEASE:
Civil Rights Coalition Challenges
Arizona Employer Sanctions Law. Lawsuit filed in
federal district court challenges new Arizona law that threatens employers with
permanent loss of business licenses based on invalid new state
requirements; alleges that the law conflicts with federal immigration
law and the U.S. Constitution. (9/4/07)
|
|
[BACK TO TOP]
|
|
OKLAHOMA |
|
OKLAHOMA LAW:
25 Okla. Stat. § 1313(B)&(C) AND 68 Okla. Stat. § 2385.32 |
|
|
Preliminary injunction (in Chamber of Commerce of the United
States et al. v. Henry) postponing enforcement of employment-related
portions of Oklahoma anti-immigrant law:
|
|
[BACK TO TOP]
|
Immigrants'
Rights Update Articles
(back
to IRU index) |
|
|
Flawed District Court Decision
Upholds Missouri Local Ordinance Sanctioning Employers of Unauthorized
Workers (2/27/08) |
|
|
Most State Bills Mandating Use of
the Employment Eligibility Verification Basic Pilot Fail in 2007 (10/5/07) |
|
|
Lawsuit Challenges Arizona’s
Employer Sanctions Law as Being in Conflict with Federal Law (10/5/07) |
|
|
New Arizona Law Requires Employers
to Use Flawed Employment Eligibility Verification Basic Pilot (7/20/07) |
|
[BACK TO TOP]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
