In a remarkable case just decided by the Tennessee Supreme Court, Sandoval v. Williamson, the Court concluded that a provision in the Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Act, “which does not allow for additional [partial] benefits . . . for any employee…
Workers' Comp Prof 
Ohio is still struggling with this issue. Our legislature is continually proposing legislation from barring all undocumented workers from receiving benefits.
LikeLike
I think it is legitimately a difficult issue (as opposed to issues that are illegitimately–not credibly–difficult). And it doesn’t help that even states that are not border-area flashpoints for immigration disruption have been at times drawn into the immigration debate at the local level from time-to-time. https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/287g-program-immigration MCD.
LikeLike
Thanks for sharing that link. Yes, I gave a talk on the issue when the legislation first came out. I came up with a lot more pros and cons than I thought, and was left with the conclusion that I didn’t really have a position. In Ohio, however, the legislation is not about solving a problem, but pandering to a constituency.
LikeLike
Right — and the pandering was mightily facilitated by Rehnquist’s opinion in Hoffman Plastic Compounds suggesting a really broad kind of obstacle preemption, as between even federal statutes. But that may be one of the more effective arguments against any state action: whether you (as a state legislator or judge) think you are helping or hurting immigration policy, states may well be ousted from the field altogether.
LikeLike