ORGANIZACIÓN DE LOS ESTADOS AMERICANOS CP/CAJP-2323/06 add. 4 rev. 1
15 marzo 2006
COMISIÓN DE ASUNTOS JURÍDICOS Y POLÍTICOS Original: Textual
PRESENTACIONES DEL QUINTO GRUPO DURANTE LA
SESIÓN ESPECIAL SOBRE EL PROGRAMA INTERAMERICANO PARA LA PROMOCIÓN Y PROTECCIÓN DE LOS DERECHOS HUMANOS DE LOS MIGRANTES, INCLUYENDO LOS TRABAJADORES MIGRANTES Y SUS FAMILIAS
16 de marzo de 2006
Salón de las Américas
PRESENTATIONS OF THE FIFTH GROUP AT THE
special meeting on the Inter-American Program for
the Promotion and Protection of the Human Rights of
Migrants, Including Migrant Workers and Their Families
March 16, 2006
hall of the Americas
Presentation by Sarah Paoletti: International Human Rights Law Clinic, Washington College Of Law, American University
PROTECTING THE LABOR RIGHTS OF ALL MIGRANT WORKERS IN THE AMERICAS Special Session of the OAS Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs on the Inter-American Program for the Promotion and Protection of the Human Rights of Migrants, Including Migrant Workers and their Families
March 16, 2006
National Employment Law Project
American University Washington College of Law
I. Introduction There are nearly 200 million international migrants in the world, 3% of the world’s population. Eighty percent of migrants are economically active in their host countries. Of international migrants, 2.5 to 4 million cross international borders without authorization each year. Unauthorized immigration, the smuggling and trafficking of people, and the protection of the rights of migrant workers are primary political and policy problems for almost every country in the hemisphere, including those that are primarily receiving nations such as the US, Argentina, Belize, Canada, Chile Costa Rica, Panama, and Uruguay, and for those countries that both send and receive migrant workers, such as Brazil, Mexico and Venezuela.
As many countries in the hemisphere address migration policy, the question of protection of workers’ rights is often not part of the debate. Countries are more apt to focus on issues of border security, employer sanctions and criminalization of immigration as ways to address their migration issues. This approach ignores the human rights of the migrants themselves, as well as a powerful tool to reduce employer incentives to hire and exploit migrant workers.
Recently, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights issued an advisory opinion (Opinión Consultiva 18) on the treatment of unauthorized migrant workers and their labor rights. OC-18 provides that as a matter of compliance with the anti-discrimination provisions of various Inter-American treaties, countries must protect the rights of all migrant workers. Implementation of the Court’s opinion must, as a legal matter, be part of OAS member states’ migration policy discussions. Further, as a practical matter, making sure that migrant workers’ labor rights are protected – no matter when or how a worker came to a country – ensures that unscrupulous employers will find no advantage in hiring and abusing undocumented workers. As such, this element can form a potent part of a country’s migration policy.
This submission looks at good and bad practices – both on the part of the government and the judicial system as well as on the part of different non-governmental organizations – and is based largely on experiences in the United States. We conclude that the principle of equality and non-discrimination must be at the core of any strategy aimed at improving conditions for migrants, both in the host country and the sending countries. We invite the working group, and civil society in other countries, to collaborate on a hemispheric-wide analysis of current practices and best practices, in order to promote OC-18 and a credible, humane immigration labor policy, in the hemisphere.
II. Principle of equality and non-discrimination as applied to migrants in the Inter-American Human Rights System A. Inter-American Court’s Advisory Opinion on the Legal Status and Rights of Undocumented Migrants In September of 2003, the Inter-American Court issued Advisory Opinion OC-18 on the Rights of Undocumented Migrants,26 in which it held international principles of human rights prohibit discrimination on the basis of immigration status, using the term “discrimination” to refer to “any exclusion, restriction or privilege that is not objective and reasonable, and which adversely affects human rights.”27 The Court’s decision made clear that countries have the right to decide under what conditions foreigners may enter its borders, but once a worker enters into an employment relationship, “the migrant acquires rights as a worker, which must be recognized and guaranteed, irrespective of his regular or irregular status in the State of employment.”28 It then outlined the different labor rights which it said were fundamental and must be respected by member countries.29 OC-18 provides an important precedent that may help counteract restrictions on the rights of migrant workers to protection under human rights law, and has been recognized in the observations and recommendations of the annual report from the Inter-American Court, approved by the OAS General Assembly on June 8, 2004.30 Recently, the Human Rights Commission of the High Commission on Human Rights at the United Nations recognized the decision in its resolution 2005/47.31 B. Good Practices vis-à-vis Migrants in and Irregular Status 1. Confidentiality and (non) Cooperation Policies of Administrative Enforcement Agencies Worker advocates in the US believe that the only way to adequately enforce labor rights of all workers is to establish a clear “firewall” between labor enforcement and immigration enforcement; that is, to make it clear that a workers’ immigration status is never a subject of questioning in a labor dispute. In an attempt to ensure that “firewall” is in place, they have developed a number of tools within the court and administrative systems. In general, the policies represent a step forward in protecting migrant workers’ access to remedies for violation of labor rights. However, many of the policies are discretionary or weak, and to be truly meaningful, a specific policy that governs the rights of all workers in all situations should be developed. Otherwise, the existence of this protection will depend in large part on the geographic location in which the worker worked, and the specific law that was violated.
Federal agencies in the United States specifically have recognized that the failure to ensure equal access to labor law enforcement for undocumented migrants has a detrimental impact on all workers, nationals and migrants alike. As such, the following agencies have instituted policies that offer some limited protection to undocumented migrants who make complaints or whose employers threaten to turn them in to immigration authorities if they complain.
Department of Homeland Security (formerly Immigration and Naturalization Service). Since the late 1990’s U.S. immigration authorities have had a policy which gives some protection to workers when an employer threatens to turn them into immigration personnel, thought that protection is somewhat discretionary.
A Special Agents Field Manual for the agency says that when the agency receives information concerning the employment of undocumented or unauthorized aliens, officials must "consider" whether the information is being provided to interfere with employees’ rights to organize or enforce other workplace rights, or whether the information is being provided to retaliate against employees to vindicate those rights.32 If immigration authorities determine that the information may have been provided in order to interfere with employees' rights, "no action should be taken on this information without the review of District Counsel and approval of the Assistant District Director for Investigations or an Assistant Chief Patrol." SAFM 33.14(h). Unfortunately, because this policy grants discretion to the immigration authorities, it is viewed by many advocates as an unreliable protection.
Agency Commitment to Enforcement of Labor Laws for all Workers.
In 1998, the US Department of Labor (DOL) entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service, which is now the Department of Homeland Security, or DHS) establishing that the labor agency will not report the undocumented status of workers if discovered during an investigation triggered by a complaint made by an employee when there is a labor dispute, nor will it inquire into a worker’s immigration status while conducting a complaint-driven investigation.33 Included among the MOU’s stated goals are:
reduce economic incentives for the employment of unauthorized workers and the consequential adverse effects on job opportunities, wages and working conditions of authorized U.S. workers by increasing employers’ compliance with minimum labor standards;
avoid the further victimization of unauthorized workers employed in the U.S. by employers which may seek to abuse the enforcement powers of the signatory agencies to intimidate or punish these workers; and,
promote employment opportunities for legal authorized U.S. workers and improvements in their wages, benefits, and working conditions.
The principal federal law that protects workers’ rights to be paid is the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). FLSA protects most workers’ rights to a minimum wage (currently set at a very low $5.15 per hour), and to overtime pay of one and one half times the regular rate of pay for hours worked over 40 in one week. Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB (discussed below), DOL has stated that it will fully and vigorously enforce the FLSA without regard to whether an employee is documented or undocumented.”34 Like the federal laws, most state labor and employment laws contain no provision that distinguishes between documented and undocumented workers.35
The Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC), which enforces a number of anti-discrimination laws in the United States, has a similar policy of enforcing the law on behalf of all persons who suffer workplace discrimination.36
Protections From Disclosure of Immigration Status in Formal Legal Proceedings
In the United States, when formal legal claims are filed in court, both parties are allowed to ask a broad range of questions, and ask for a broad range of documents, from the other party in a process called “discovery.” The subject matter of discovery covers anything relevant to a claim or defense, or anything that might become relevant. Attorneys representing employers in claims brought by migrants are increasingly using the discovery process to inquire into a plaintiff’s immigration status, ostensibly to obtain information that is allegedly relevant to the damages claimed. These measures clearly serve to intimidate the plaintiff into dropping the charges altogether, due to fear of retaliation and potential immigration consequences.
A series of state and federal cases protect workers from having to disclose their immigration status in legal proceedings. The most recent decision, in a discrimination case called Rivera v. NIBCO37 from an intermediate appellate court covering the western coast of the United States, indicates that at least some courts understand this dynamic. As against the employers’ argument that it “needed” disclosure of status in order to present its defense that the plaintiffs were not entitled to back pay after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB (discussed in greater detail below), the Court weighed the plaintiffs’ interest in non-disclosure, and said:
Granting employers the right to inquire into workers’ immigration status in cases like this would allow them to raise implicitly the threat of deportation and criminal prosecution every time a worker, documented or undocumented, reports illegal practices or files a Title VII action. Indeed, were we to direct district courts to grant discovery requests for information related to immigration status in every case involving national origin discrimination under Title VII, countless acts of illegal and reprehensible conduct would go unreported.38
In a similar case for unpaid wages and overtime noted above, Zeng Liu,39 the defendant made a discovery request for the disclosure of plaintiff garment workers’ immigration status, but the federal court denied the request on the grounds that release of such information is more harmful than relevant.40
C. Bad Practices: Failures to Ensure Non-Discrimination in the Application and Enforcement of Labor and Employment Rights for All Migrants Despite some of the promising practices from the United States specifically discussed above, while workers generally have equal rights under U.S. labor and employment laws regardless of immigration status, with some exceptions outlined here, equal remedies remain elusive and are denied in many circumstances. Because rights are often meaningless without a remedy, this failure is crucial. The practices discussed in this section are not unique to the United States, and are raised solely for the purpose of highlighting specific issues for the OAS Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs’ Working Group on the Inter-American Program for Promotion and Protection of the Human Rights of Migrants to consider in developing its project on migration in order to ensure the protection of the fundamental human rights of all migrant workers, both authorized and unauthorized.
1. Statutory Exclusions for Migrants
In keeping with the principle of equality and non-discrimination, as provided for in the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man, the American Convention, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, all workers, regardless of migration status, state parties cannot discriminate against migrants, regardless of their immigration status, in the affordance of rights and benefits under the law. While a State may distinguish among authorized and unauthorized workers with respect to who may legally work – as part of a State’s sovereign right to govern migration – once a migrant is employed, a State party must ensure that migrant is not discriminated against. This applies in the area of citizenship discrimination, social security or pension benefits, and all other labor and employment laws.
For example, federal law in the United States protects against discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, religion and gender. But, with limited exceptions, there is not protection against citizenship-based discrimination. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 prohibits employment of unauthorized migrants, and requires employers to inspect the documents presented by new employees to determine if employees are eligible to work in the United States. The documents most frequently used are the Social Security Number and driver’s license. In recognition of the negative impact this could have on all persons looking foreign, Congress included provisions to protect citizens and certain categories of legally authorized migrants from discrimination on the basis of their citizenship status. But not only do those provisions not apply to undocumented migrants, they also exclude from protection legal migrants who fail to demonstrate their intent to become citizens in their failure to apply for citizenship within six months of becoming eligible to do so.
Access to Legal Services. In the United States, through the Legal Services Corporation, Inc., the federal government provides funding for the provision of free legal aid to income eligible individuals. In 1996, Congress amended the law under which this money is granted prohibiting any legal aid program receiving any federal funds from representing unauthorized migrants, expanding the previous more narrow prohibition on the use of federal funds to represent unauthorized migrants while still allowing LSC recipients to use other funding for that purpose. Furthermore, the Legal Services Corporation-funded entities are prohibited from representing certain seasonal migrants coming under the H-2B visa program available to employers seeking unskilled laborers on a seasonal or temporary basis.
2. Judicially-created Exclusions from Labor Protections for Undocumented Migrant Workers. Because the remedies issues are often the subject of debate in the courts, a migrant worker’s rights frequently will depend on whether a federal or state court has issued a decision on a particular issue, and what the decision is. Even though many decisions have been in favor of workers, the patchwork nature of the legal system creates a great deal of uncertainty, and does not comply with the human rights requirement that all migrants, regardless of immigration status, be granted equal rights in employment as nationals.
While most federal and state laws in the U.S., including those offering protection for the exercise of freedom of association, anti-discrimination laws, laws protecting health and safety on the job, wage and hour protections, do not distinguish on the basis of the immigration status of a worker, unlawful immigration status sometimes becomes relevant in determining which remedies are available to redress the workplace violation.
Right to Freedom of Association. In the United States, a federal law called the National Labor Relations Act, controls workers’ rights to freedom of association and collective bargaining. As discussed above, it has long been the case that migrant workers, regardless of their immigration status, were considered “employees” covered under the Act. Employer use of workers' immigration status to threaten, intimidate or remove workers in retaliation for their union activities was also held to constitute an unfair labor practice in violation of §8(a)(3) of the NLRA.41 Up until 2002, the federal agency that administers the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board, allowed undocumented migrant workers to receive “back pay;” that is, pay for the time that they would have been working for the company if they hadn’t been fired illegally. But in 2002, the highest court in the country, the U.S. Supreme Court held, in a case called Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc., v. NLRB,42 an undocumented migrant worker illegally fired from his job because he was engaged in a union organizing campaign was not entitled to reinstatement and was not eligible for “back pay.”
Hoffman created an onslaught of litigation by employers claiming that it limits workers’ rights in almost every area of labor and employment law. Fortunately, courts have rejected the most of the extreme expansions of the decision, as discussed in the cases above describing good practices.
Since the Hoffman decision, the National Labor Relations Board has stated that even though undocumented workers are still covered by the NLRA, they will not be entitled to back pay for any period of time during which they lacked work authorization, or to reinstatement when they are illegally fired, unless they can show that they now have lawful employment status.43 This means that for undocumented workers, there is no effective remedy for violations of the right to freedom of association. The Committee on Freedom of Association at the International Labor Office found the refusal to allow for a back-pay remedy violates fundamental labor rights, and has urged the US Congress to conform its internal law to international legal standards.44 Full Protection and Guarantees against Discrimination. Several national laws in the United States protect workers against discrimination on the job. These include the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), Equal Pay Act, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, national origin, gender, and religion). The Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC) is the federal agency that enforces workers’ rights to be free from discrimination. States also have their own anti-discrimination statutes, which often provide broader protections than those available under the federal statutes.
The Hoffman decision has had spillover impacts on protections under the anti-discrimination laws. At the federal level, after Hoffman, while the EEOC reaffirmed that undocumented workers are covered by these federal employment discrimination laws, the EEOC’s policy of pursuing back pay on behalf of undocumented workers has been rescinded.45
The issue of the availability of back pay under state discrimination laws has not been fully addressed by the state courts either since Hoffman. While back pay at the state level may remain unaffected, because there is some law supporting a state’s ability to make its own policy choices in this area, there have been some state court decisions that have harmed undocumented workers. For example, both New Jersey and California courts have concluded that victims of discrimination who are undocumented have no right to certain forms of compensation.46
Guarantee to all Remedies available when Rights to Minimum Wage and Overtime Pay are Violated.
The federal Department of Labor, while it has stated that it will continue to protect victims of wage violation after Hoffman, has not said whether it will seek back pay (pay for work that a worker would have done if s/he hadn’t been illegally fired) for undocumented workers who suffer retaliation for asserting their wage and hour rights.47 As stated above, it is critical that all workers – regardless of their migration status – be deemed entitled to the full range of remedies available under the law when their legal rights are violated, regardless of their migration status.
Protection of Health and Safety on the job.
It is critical that laws designed to protect the health and safety of workers on the job must be applied in their entirety without discrimination as to immigration status. It is important that all workers are not only covered by the relevant statutes, but they are also guaranteed the full remedies afforded under the statutes. Failure to do so not only violates the principle of equality and non-discrimination, it also undermines the efficacy of the health and safety laws as applied to all workers, both authorized and unauthorized.
Workers’ Compensation (for workplace injuries).
In the United States, all states have systems that cover medical benefits, wage loss, permanent disability and loss of life for workers who are injured in the job. The systems vary in their generosity from state to state. The process for an injured worker is to file a claim, which is decided by an administrative agency and which may be appealed to the courts.
In the onslaught of litigation that followed Hoffman – workers’ compensation cases in eleven states in three years -- state agencies and courts have generally decided that migrant workers, even those who are undocumented, continue to be entitled to workers’ compensation benefits.48 Most have granted undocumented migrants the full range of benefits that they claim, including both medical benefits and lost wages. However, in Michigan and Pennsylvania, courts have said that undocumented workers may not be entitled to compensation for certain wages lost because of injuries, while in other states, workers fear prosecution for document fraud and deportation if they file a claim for benefits49 In addition, in those situations where are allowed to sue third parties for lost wages and injuries on the job, it is important that unauthorized migrants be entitled to the full amount of lost wages and all other benefits afforded to all other workers.
Migrants and Death Benefits.
Workers’ compensation laws in many states bar the non-resident family members of workers killed on the job from receiving full benefits. In those states, whenever the family member is living outside the United States and is not a United States citizen, the family members do not receive the full death benefits award. There are several ways in which states limit compensation to nonresident alien beneficiaries. Some states limit compensation compared to the benefits a lawful resident would have received, generally 50% (Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina).50 Some states restrict the types of non-resident dependents who are eligible as to receive benefits as beneficiaries (Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Kentucky, and Pennsylvania). Other states limit coverage based on: the length of time a migrant has been a citizen (Wisconsin), the laws of the alien resident beneficiary’s home country (Washington) or the cost of living in the alien resident beneficiary’s home country (Oregon).51 Alabama denies benefits to all foreign beneficiaries.52 Although these laws do not explicitly discriminate on the basis of alienage alone, they disproportionately deny equal benefits to non-nationals, who are most likely to have beneficiaries who are non-resident aliens.
3. Immigration Enforcement’s Interference with Workers Rights
The good practices outlined in the Section above are often undercut by direct workplace enforcement against undocumented workers at their place of employment, the misuse by employers of government information stating that a workers’ Social Security Number in the United States, for example, does not match government records, and the series of databases that are being used and developed to cross-match employee information in a wide variety of contexts. The system of focusing immigration enforcement in the workplace has created confusion among immigrant workers with respect to whether or not they can expect confidentiality if they have a complaint for violation of labor rights, and trust state and federal agencies whose purpose it is to ensure employers’ compliance with all labor laws.
Local Enforcement of Immigration Laws.
Until recent years, it has been the practice in many cities and states that local police officials do not act as immigration agents, for several reasons. Turning local police into immigration agents is a dangerous trend that deters migrants from accessing or cooperating with the police for fear of immigration consequences. When migrants are afraid to file claims with administrative agencies, call the police, or go to court, they can not benefit from the protections of law enforcement. However, since 1996, the federal agency charged with immigration law enforcement has increased its cooperation with local police and other law enforcement agencies, both formally and informally both through the passage of federal laws authorizing state and local police to enforce the criminal provisions of federal immigration laws, and with a recent policy change authorizing state and local authorities to enforce even civil provisions of the laws. Generally in the US, a person who is unlawfully in the country has committed only a civil violation of the law, although there is a significant increase in criminal prosecutions of individuals in immigration proceedings on visa fraud grounds.53
III. Use of Treaty Agreements to Protect the Human Rights of Migrant Workers and their Families Preliminary research indicates a mix of good and bad practices in the Americas, regarding the role that bilateral and multilateral treaties can play in protecting the human rights of all migrant workers and their families. For example, countries that form part of MERCOSUR (Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay and Brazil) have used that forum to negotiate a reciprocal regularization of unauthorized immigrants involving the MERCOSUR members and the associated states of Bolivia and Chile, as of 2002. And the Andean Community agreement between Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela also reportedly seeks to address labor protections for authorized and unauthorized migrant workers. In negotiating trade agreements, however, enforcement measures for guaranteeing the rights of all workers on whom those agreements have both a direct and indirect impact, have not been as strong as they could be. Thus, it is important for OAS member states to take the opportunities presented in negotiating bilateral and multilateral treaty agreements, particularly trade agreements, to pay particular attention to the impact of the agreements on workers and their migration, and to ensure proper protections to guarantee their human rights.
IV. Conclusion and Recommendations
In order to recognize development and the alleviation of poverty among migrants and all low-wage workers, non-discrimination must be the guiding principle in the enforcement of labor and employment rights. To achieve that goal, we need to ensure not only that the laws do not allow for discrimination, but we must also make sure that a country’s practices ensure equal treatment of all working people within the country’s borders.
The Inter-American Court decision was a landmark in the protection of workers’ rights in the member countries of the OAS. The Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs’ Working Group on the Inter-American Program for promotion and protection of the human rights of migrants should undertake a study of “best practices” that would outline a country’s compliance with the principles of equality and non-discrimination by measuring the country’s performance against the specific areas in which the Court said equal rights must be afforded. These fundamental rights include equal pay, health and safety protection, the right to freedom of association and indemnization. Civil society groups should be involved in this process. Countries’ performance should be measured against these goals and a hemispheric-wide strategy developed to make the necessary changes to ensure that migrant workers, no matter when or how they came to a country, are offered full equality under labor laws. In engaging in such a study, it is recommended that the Committee look to the final comprehensive report issued in 2005 by the Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants (PICUM), 10 Ways to Protect Undocumented Migrant Workers, available at www.picum.org.
ADDENDUM At the request of the Delegate from Mexico, Ms. Paoletti included the following addendum on to her written contribution.
1. In response to the discussion earlier today, I think it is important that we look specifically at the rights of migrants and that we are clear about the differences between those migrants who are smuggled, those who are trafficked and those who migrate on their own. While it is important to work towards ending trafficking, and to providing both protections and remedies for those subjected to trafficking, it is important also to not forget the need to protect the rights of, and provide remedies for, all migrants, regardless of how they entered their host country - whether by force or not.
2. In looking at the situation of those who migrate for work, and particularly in light of current immigration reform debates pending in the U.S. Congress as well as the international debate on migration, it is important for us to look at several key and necessary provisions for any temporary worker (or "guestworker") program. Any temporary worker program should address the following:
a. Wage protections. For example, under the H-2B program in the United States, in certain industries such as landscaping, we have seen a steady decline of the prevailing wage rates in different states (even before you account for inflation).
b. Enforcement of labor and employment laws. It is critical that all temporary workers, as with all undocumented workers, are afforded the same rights and remedies under all labor and employment laws as are afforded nationals. This is particularly important in the area of health and safety, and the provision of workers compensation benefits – as recently illustrated in a series in the newspaper the Sacramento Bee detailing horrific, and in some cases fatal, accidents involving H-2B workers in the forestry industry.
c. Visa portability. Problems arise when a workers right to be in a country is tied directly to that employer. Such an arrangement gives the employer enormous power over the worker, and leads to a situation ripe for exploitation.
d. Access to legal services and education about rights in employment. Currently, federally-funded legal services programs in the United States are prohibited from providing legal assistance to workers on H-2b contracts. The result is that many workers are unable to effectuate their rights because they are unable to find counsel. Possibly even more important – and a role that sending States can play – is the need for workers to be educated about their legal rights before entering another country on a temporary worker visa, without which they often do not know that they have legal rights or whom to contact if they experience problems on the job.
e. Social Security. OC-18 mentions a workers right to social security regardless of immigration status. It is important for temporary worker programs to ensure that workers are entitled to social security, and that the necessary mechanisms are in place so that they may access those social security benefits for which they have paid throughout their employment.
f. Housing. Affordably housing is incredibly difficult to come by in many of the communities that rely in temporary workers. This is true both in the large cities and in the rural farming communities. Ensuring that workers are provided with safe and affordable (if not free) housing is essential to their well-being.
g. Perhaps the most controversial feature discussed in the current immigration debate in the United States is the incorporation of a path towards legalization for workers participating in a temporary worker program. Immigrant and worker advocates in the United States are fighting hard for this, because of the recognition that to deny workers this right can lead to a permanent underclass of workers.
3. Remittances. This is an area where cooperation among the different entities and States represented here today can have a significant impact on the lives of migrants and their families. It is important that States look for ways to facilitate the process of remittances through cooperation with financial institutions to allow for migrants, regardless of immigration status and documentation, to open bank accounts. For example, several banking institutions had started to allow workers from Mexico to open bank accounts with their matricula. This not only saves workers significant amounts of hard-earned money by doing away with the need for them to pay check-cashing fees, and Western Union fees, but it also serves to protect the physical safety of migrants. Migrants are often targeted by criminals who go after them because they carry large amounts of cash because they are forced to cash their pay-checks or receive cash payments because they do not have bank accounts.
4. We heard discussion earlier today of the need to incorporate the gender perspective into our discussions about the protection of the rights of migrant workers. An issue of particular importance when considering the rights of female migrants is the rights of domestic workers and their rights in employment. It is critical not only that the laws fully protect domestic workers, but that there is a mechanism for effectuating those rights. In the fall session of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, advocacy groups presented a general interest hearing on the issue of diplomatic immunity, and the gross exploitation of diplomatic workers that sometimes goes completely unremedied because the employers are diplomats. This Working Group is uniquely situated to look at this issue, and derive potential mechanisms to address the problem of diplomatic immunity in the context of domestic workers.
5. Finally, legal services and the concept of the portability of justice. Again, this Working Group is uniquely situated to work with States parties and other entities to think of ways to assist workers who are seeking to enforce their labor and employment rights after they have left the country of work. Often workers are too afraid to come forward while they are engaged in work in their host country, or they are fired after asserting their rights or they are injured on the job and can no longer work, and they return home. Once they have left the country of work, pursuing their legal claims becomes infinitely more difficult, and so it is critical to examine ways in which States and the other entities represented here today can cooperate with worker rights advocates to ensure that a migrant worker is not forced to abandon his or her legal rights and remedies when he or she returns home.
Presentación de Cecilia Anicama: Comisión Andina De Juristas
www.cajpe.org.pe Propuestas para fortalecer y apoyar el Programa Interamericano para la Promoción y Protección de los Derechos Humanos de las Personas Migrantes desde una perspectiva subregional andina
La Comisión Andina de Juristas estima relevante analizar la situación de los migrantes andinos es decir aquellos originarios de Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Perú, Venezuela y sobre la base de este análisis proponer algunas acciones cuyo fin sea el fortalecimiento del Programa Interamericano para la Promoción y Protección de los Derechos Humanos de las Personas Migrantes.
En primer lugar, es pertinente señalar que la migración como fenómeno social complejo constituye un problema común en los países andinos; en particular por las dificultades que afrontan los migrantes en los países receptores y por las tensiones que ocasiona entre los países de la región. La migración en la región andina se produce en dos modalidades e involucra a diversos actores. Por un lado, existe la migración entre los países andinos y desde los países andinos hacia los países desarrollados, siendo esta la más frecuente. Por otro lado, están involucrados los Estados que regulan la entrada y salida de las personas que migran y los individuos y sus familias que migran en busca de mejores condiciones de vida. La migración a su vez tiene consecuencias económicas, sociales, culturales y políticas en los Estados e individuos involucrados.
En el ámbito de la migración entre países andinos es preciso indicar que esta se produce esencialmente por la mejor situación económica de algunos Estados respecto a los otros y por la necesidad de escapar de situaciones de crisis de distinto tipo, en su mayoría crisis sociales como el caso de la migración producida desde Colombia a Ecuador, Perú y Venezuela como consecuencia del conflicto armado que vive este país.
En relación a la migración hacia países desarrollados es posible constatar que uno de los principales temas de preocupación es la migración de trabajadores calificados que sí logran insertarse al mercado laboral del país receptor, lo cual también ocasiona problemas en los países de origen debido a que estos se ven privados de profesionales calificados necesarios para su desarrollo. A esta situación se suma la casi inexistencia de políticas para promover un contacto más fluido con sus países de origen, como por ejemplo para el envío de dinero a sus países de origen. No obstante, en los últimos años se observa en la región una mayor preocupación por la suerte de los migrantes en el extranjero debido a dos motivos principales que son la importancia de las remesas del exterior para las economías locales y la necesidad de captar el voto migrante en los casos de países en donde el voto aún es obligatorio.
El contexto descrito anteriormente sirve para ubicar el escenario en el que se producen la mayor parte de violaciones de los derechos humanos que se verifican principalmente en los Estados receptores y en los Estados de tránsito. Frente a estos casos, los migrantes, en particular los migrantes indocumentados se encuentran en una situación de vulnerabilidad estructural a raíz de la cual ellos están expuestos a una serie de atropellos como son la discriminación para la concesión de nacionalidad o para acceder a los servicios sociales a los que los extranjeros tienen derecho conforme a ley, las detenciones arbitrarias, la falta de debido proceso, condiciones de vida infrahumanas, las deportaciones masivas, la trata de personas por organizaciones criminales, la explotación laboral y la ausencia de protección de la salud de los migrantes. Las violaciones descritas tienen una mayor incidencia en el caso de mujeres y niños migrantes que los expone a situaciones como castigo corporal, acoso sexual, condiciones de trabajo deficiente, violencia familiar, desintegración familiar, entre otros.
Sin duda, para revertir los problemas que genera la migración en los países andinos y la migración de andinos en países desarrollados son necesarias acciones en el ámbito interamericano, subregional, en los Estados receptores y en los Estados de tránsito. Tales acciones deberían concretarse en el ámbito normativo, de políticas públicas y de mecanismos de promoción y protección de derechos humanos. Estas acciones deben a su vez ser tomadas en consideración en el proceso de implementación del Programa Interamericano para la Promoción y Protección de los derechos humanos de los migrantes en particular en su acción hacia los países andinos.
Así por ejemplo, en el ámbito normativo todos los Estados deberían cumplir las normas internacionales que regulan los derechos de los migrantes. En particular, la Convención Internacional de Protección de los Derechos de los Trabajadores Migratorios y de sus Familias54/. En relación al estado actual de la Convención en la región andina destaca la ratificación efectuada por Chile y Perú durante el año 2005, de este modo, a la fecha Venezuela es el único país andino que no ha suscrito ni ratificado dicho tratado. En esta línea, el Programa Interamericano deberá asistir a los Estados para que estos aseguren el estricto cumplimiento de las disposiciones del tratado citado y procedan a su implementación a través de la adopción de medidas legales o de cualquier otra índole necesarias para tal fin.
En el caso de la subregión andina, resulta también pertinente señalar que Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Perú y Venezuela, Estados miembros de la Comunidad Andina (CAN), deberían cumplir las decisiones55/ adoptadas por este organismo de integración subregional. Es posible constatar que si bien estas tienen carácter obligatorio para los Estados miembros aún se registra un alto índice de incumplimiento. La falta de conocimiento, difusión y capacitación en relación al derecho comunitario y su repercusión en la protección de los derechos de los migrantes andinos; así como la falta de adecuación de las normas y reglamentos que permitan el cumplimento de las decisiones comunitarias son aún tareas pendientes.
Sin embargo, son positivas algunas acciones en curso. Ejemplo de ello es que algunos Congresos de la región están discutiendo la posible creación de una Comisión Permanente del Congreso dedicada al tema de los nacionales en el exterior. En esta línea se han dado normas para promover el retorno de los migrantes reduciendo los costos tributarios y aduaneros. Asimismo, a través de instituciones bancarias, por ejemplo, se reducen y facilitan los trámites para el envío de remesas del exterior, reduciendo de esa manera la proliferación de mercados negros. Otros programas incluyen el financiamiento de vivienda a través de programas estatales que pueden ser pagados desde el exterior. En este ámbito resulta imprescindible que los Estados andinos en coordinación con los Estados receptores fortalezcan los mecanismos existentes y establezcan nuevos mecanismos que contribuyan a asegurar la promoción de los vínculos de los migrantes con sus países de origen. E
n esta línea, teniendo en consideración el papel que cumple el Programa Interamericano para la Promoción y Protección de los Derechos Humanos de las Personas Migrantes, la Comisión Andina de Juristas considera necesario priorizar el análisis, la evaluación y la supervisión del tema de promoción y protección de los derechos de los migrantes en general e incorporar un enfoque subregional que contribuya al reconocimiento de los problemas y necesidades específicas que afrontan los migrantes de cada país del continente y su incidencia en todo el marco de protección de los derechos humanasen el ámbito interamericano. Una acción en esta línea es de carácter imperativo. Para ello, resulta importante enfatizar las capacidades que este Programa tiene para influir en las decisiones que adoptan los Estados de origen, los Estados de tránsito y los Estados receptores de migrantes y las acciones de la sociedad civil a favor de la defensa de los derechos humanos de los migrantes..
En esta línea, la Comisión Andina de Juristas desea proponer algunas medidas para apoyar la implementación del Programa interamericano:
Asistir a los Estados para que cumplan con presentar oportunamente sus informes periódicos al Comité sobre Protección de los Derechos de los Trabajadores Migratorios y de sus Familias así como información que sea solicitada por la Relatoría de la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos
Promover entre los Estados americanos la suscripción y ratificación de la Convención sobre Protección de los Derechos de los Trabajadores Migratorios y de sus Familias
Promover el cumplimiento de las resoluciones adoptadas por la Asamblea General de la Organización de Estados Americanos
Monitorear el cumplimiento de las decisiones emitidas por los órganos de protección de derechos humanos del sistema interamericano
Incorporar mecanismos específicos para el trabajo de apoyo y asistencia a los sistemas subregionales de integración para el respeto y protección de los derechos humanos de las personas migrantes.
Incorporar la defensa de los derechos de los niños como un elemento fundamental del Programa, en particular en relación a los graves efectos que tiene la migración en la protección de sus derechos humanos
Promover un trabajo conjunto con las Defensorías del Pueblo del continente en el tema de migrantes, tanto en la defensa de los derechos humanos como en el seguimiento y evaluación de las políticas públicas.
Finalmente, la Comisión Andina de Juristas desea recordar que para el cumplimiento de los objetivos del Programa Interamericano y su impacto en la protección de los derechos humanos de las personas migrantes será primordial que exista correspondencia entre las demandas sociales, las opciones políticas y las decisiones de las autoridades públicas en especial aquellas vinculadas a la asignación de recursos de un Estado. Por ello, una estrategia que asegure su implementación adecuada exigirá la voluntad política de los Estados y el apoyo y movilización de las organizaciones de la sociedad civil que trabajan por la defensa de los derechos humanos.
1. Aprobado por la Comisión de Asuntos Jurídicos y Políticos en su sesión del 26 de enero de 2006.
2El IIN ha desarrollado un Prototipo Base del Sistema Nacional de Infancia (Montevideo, 2003).
4. Esta idea surge a partir de las resoluciones: CD/RES. 12 (77-R/02), CD/RES. 13 (78-R/03), AG/RES. 1958 (XXXIII-O/03), AG/RES. 2141 (XXXV-O/05).
5. Este Departamento fue creado por Orden Ejecutiva No. 05-13 Rev.1 de la Secretaría General de la OEA, del 15 de diciembre de 2005.
6. De acuerdo a la Constitución de la OMS el goce del grado máximo de salud que se pueda lograr es uno de los derechos fundamentales de todo ser humano sin distinción de raza, religión, ideología política o condición económica o social. La Constitución fue adoptada por la Conferencia Sanitaria Internacional, celebrada en Nueva York del 19 de junio al 22 de julio de 1946, firmada el 22 de julio de 1946 por los representantes de 61 estados y entró en vigor el 7 de abril de 1948. En el Sistema de Derechos Humanos de las Naciones Unidas, el Pacto Internacional de Derechos Económicos, Sociales y Culturales reconoce el derecho de toda persona al disfrute del más alto nivel posible de salud física y mental (Artículo 12). Este Pacto entró en vigor el 3 de enero de 1976 y 142 Estados lo han ratificado. En el Sistema Interamericano de Derechos Humanos, este derecho está protegido por el Protocolo Adicional a la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos (Protocolo de San Salvador) en el Área de Derechos Económicos, Sociales y Culturales en su artículo 10. Este Protocolo entró en vigor el 16 de noviembre de 1999 y ha sido ratificado por 12 Estados.
7. Ver Heidi V. Jiménez y Javier Vásquez, “El Derecho Internacional, instrumento esencial para la promoción de la salud mental en las Américas”, Revista Panamericana de Salud Pública, 9 (4), 2001, p.267.
8. Id. Véase también Mental Disability Rights International, OAS Human Rights Commission Orders Paraguay To End Horrendous Abuses in National Psychiatric Facility, 18 de diciembre de 2003. Disponible en www.mdri.org/projects/americans/paraguay/pressrelease.htm
9. Véase Organización Internacional para las Migraciones, Migración, Prostitución y trata de mujeres dominicanas en la Argentina, Buenos Aires, 2003.
11. ILO: Towards a fair deal for migrant workers in the global economy International Labour Conference, Geneva 2004, p. 7. Available on line at:
12. Noted in the Report of the (UN) Secretary General on the Status of the UN Convention on migrants rights for the 55th Session of the UN General Assembly. Doc. A/55/205. July 2000. The other six are the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Convention for the Elimination of Racism and Racial Discrimination (CERD), Convention Against Torture (CAT), Convention for the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). Texts and status of these conventions available on the website of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights: www.unhchr.ch
13. The ILO Migration for Employment Convention No. 97 of 1949 is ratified by 46 countries, the ILO Migrant Workers (Supplementary Provisions) Convention No. 143 of 1975 is ratified by 19 countries; and the 1990 International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families ratified by 34 countries and signed by 16 others. A number of States have ratified both of the ILO Conventions, several have ratified one or both ILO Conventions plus the 1990 International Convention.
14. Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos. Condición Jurídica y Derechos de los Migrantes Indocumentados Opinion Consultativa OC-18/03 de 17 de Septiembre de 2003, solicitada por los Estados Unidos de Mexico.
15. As reported by Beth Lyons, (USA) National Employment Law Project, September 28, 2003
16. Ver el Informe de la Comisión Mundial sobre Migraciones Internacionales: Las migraciones en un mundo interdependiente: nuevas orientaciones para actuar (octubre de 2005).
17. Recientemente, en su discurso inaugural ante el Comité Ejecutivo del ACNUR, el Alto Comisionado de las Naciones Unidas para los Refugiados, el señor António Guterrez, se refirió a la necesidad de preservar el asilo en medio de los complejos flujos de población como uno de los 3 grandes retos contemporáneos para la protección de internacional.
18. See report of the Global Commission on International Migrations: Migration in an interconnected world: New Directions for Action (October, 2005).
19. Recently, in its opening remarks to UNHCR’s Executive Committee, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Mr. António Guterrez, referred to the need to preserve the institution of asylum within complex population flows, as one of the three major contemporary challenges for refugee protection.
20. Migrants’ Rights. IOM Policy and Activities. Eighty-Fourth Session, IOM’s Council. 13 November 2002.
21. La Conferencia Sudamericana sobre Migraciones es un proceso regional que asegura la inserción de la región en la corriente internacional de mecanismos de diálogo y concertación en materia migratoria que se vienen dando a nivel mundial. Cabe mencionar que los países participantes corresponden al Cono Sur (Argentina, Brasil, Chile, Paraguay y Uruguay), a la Región Andina (Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Perú y Venezuela), y a Guyana y Surinam. Para información adicional: http://www.oimconosur.org.
22. Para información adicional: http://www.crmsv.org.
23. Para información adicional: http://www.siemmes.iom.int.
24. Ministerio de Educación.
25. Esta metodología hace alusión a la capacidad innata que cada ser humano tiene y reforzando la convicción de que todo niño o niña, maestro o maestro, padres y madres, adolescentes y adultos, pueden lograr sus metas.
26. The Legal Status and Rights of Undocumented Migrants, September 17, 2003, available at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/serie_a_ing/serie_a_18_ing.doc.
28. Id. at para. 134.
29. In the case of migrant workers, there are certain rights that assume a fundamental importance and yet are frequently violated, such as: the prohibition of obligatory or forced labor; the prohibition and abolition of child labor; special care for women workers, and the rights corresponding to: freedom of association and to organize and join a trade union, collective negotiation, fair wages for work performed, social security, judicial and administrative guarantees, a working day of reasonable length with adequate working conditions (safety and health), rest and compensation. The safeguard of these rights for migrants has great importance based on the principle of the inalienable nature of such rights, which all workers possess, irrespective of their migratory status, and also the fundamental principle of human dignity embodied in Article 1 of the Universal Declaration, according to which “[a]ll human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”
30. OAS General Assembly, OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS (June 8, 2004), AG/RES. 2043 (XXXIV-O/04), http://www.oas.org/xxxivga/english/docs_approved/agres2043_04.asp. These rights mirror those enumerated in the UN Convention on the Rights of All Migrant Workers and their Families.
31. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, United Nations, Human Rights of Migrants, April 19 2005, http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/E/CHR/resolutions/E-CN_4-RES-2005-47.doc.
3232. US Immigration and Naturalization Special Agent Field Manual, § 33.14 (on file with authors).
33. See DOL Memorandum of Understanding, www.nilc.org/immsemplymnt/emprights/MOU.pdf. The DOL may, however, report the undocumented status of workers in an investigation not prompted by a specific complaint, i.e. a random investigation into an industry (such as poultry factories) known from wage and hour violations.
34. U.S. Department of Labor, Fact Sheet #48: Application of U.S. Labor Laws to Immigrant Workers: Effect of Hoffman Plastics decision on laws enforced by the Wage and Hour Division, available at http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/whd/whdfs48.htm. See also, U.S. Department of Labor, Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc, v NLRB, Questions and Answers (on file with authors).
35. Courts before the Hoffman decision usually held that labor protective laws such as state minimum wage and wage claim law and others apply equally to undocumented workers as they do to workers who are working legally in the country. See, Nizmuddowlah v. Bengal Cabaret. Inc., 415 N.Y.S. 2d 685, 686 (N.Y.A.D. 1979)(recovery of wages must be allowed to prevent unjust enrichment); Gates v. Rivers Construction, 515 P.2d 1020, 1022 (Alaska, 1973)(employer who knew workers’ status should not be allowed to ignore his responsibility to pay wages); Montoya v. Gateway Insurance Co., 401 A.2d 1102 (N.J. Super. A.D. 1979) cert. denied 408 A.2d 796 (1979)(illegal status does not prevent a plaintiff from recovering medical benefits and lost wages under insurance policy); Peterson v. Neme, 281 S.E. 2d 869 (Va. 1981)(undocumented alien could recover lost wages as an element of damages in a negligence action despite stipulation that it would have been illegal to work).
36. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Rescission of Enforcement Guidance on Remedies Available to Undocumented Workers Under Federal Employment Discrimination Laws (Jun. 27, 2002) available at < http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/undoc-rescind.html.> Additionally, after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the Hoffman case discussed below, the National Labor Relations Board was faced with the task of determining when it is appropriate for an employer to inquire about a workers’ immigration status, when that worker has alleged a violation of his or her right to freedom of association. The Board said there is “no obligation to investigate an employee’s immigration status unless a respondent affirmatively establishes the existence of a substantial immigration issue. A substantial immigration issue is lodged when an employer establishes that it knows or has reason to know that a discriminatee is undocumented.” NLRB General Counsel, Procedures and Remedies for Discriminatees Who May Be Unauthorized Aliens after Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. (Jul. 19, 2002) available at < http://www.lawmemo.com/emp/nlrb/gc02-06.htm.> Thus, an employer should not be allowed to raise an issue of immigration status without a showing of relevancy and without showing that it obtained the information lawfully and independently of the proceeding. In a recent case, the NLRB stated that the fact that an employer had received a Social Security no-match letter (discussed below) is not evidence that a particular worker is in the country unlawfully. Tuv Tamm, 340 NLRB No. 86, 2003 WL 22295361 (Sep. 30, 2003).
37. 364 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2004).
38. Additional examples include the recent decision in Michigan, Galaviz-Zamora v. Brady Farms, Inc., 2005 WL 2372326 (W.D. Mich. 2005) and Flores, et al. v Albertsons, 2002 WL 1163623 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2002), where defendants used Hoffman to request immigration documents from janitors in federal court for unpaid wages under state and federal law. The court held Hoffman did not apply to claims of unpaid wages, noting that allowing such discovery was certain to have a chilling effect on the plaintiffs (i.e., would cause them to drop out of the case rather than risk disclosure of their status).
39. 207 F.Supp.2d 191 (S.D. N.Y. 2002).
40. See also, Topo v. Dhir, 210 F.R.D. 76 (S.D.N.Y. 2002); and Flores v. Amigon, 233 F.Supp.2d 462 (E.D. N.Y. 2002). For cases decided prior to Hoffman, see In re Reyes, 814 F.2d 168 (5th Cir. 1987), and Romero v. Boyd Brothers Transportation Co., 1994 WL 507475 (D Ct. Va. 1994). In addition, in Escobar v. Baker, 814 F. Supp. at 1493, the court noted that the plaintiffs had refused to answer questions about their status and held that the status was irrelevant to claims under the Agricultural Worker Protection Act.
41. See Sure-Tan, 467 U.S. 883, 891 (1984); Del Rey Tortilleria, Inc. 272 NLRB 1106 (1984), enf'd., 787 F.2d 1118 (7th Cir. 1986) (employer's demand that employees present social security cards and green cards two days after union filed representation petition constituted unfair labor practice).
42. Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc v. NLRB, 535 U.S. 137 (2002)
43. NLRB General Counsel, Procedures and Remedies for Discriminatees Who May Be Unauthorized Aliens after Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. (Jul. 19, 2002) available at < http://www.lawmemo.com/emp/nlrb/gc02-06.htm.>
44. 332nd Report of the ILO Committee on Freedom of Association Report, Case No. 2227, available at:
45. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Rescission of Enforcement Guidance on Remedies Available to Undocumented Workers Under Federal Employment Discrimination Laws (Jun. 27, 2002) available at < http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/undoc-rescind.html.>
46. See,Morejon v. Terry Hinge and Hardware, 2003 WL 22482036 (Cal.App, 2 Dist. 2003) A New Jersey court held that a worker claiming discriminatory termination under New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination (LAD) was not entitled to claim economic or non-economic damages because she could not be lawfully employed. In that case, the plaintiff had left work on maternity leave and her employer refused to reinstate her after the leave. In reaching its conclusion, the New Jersey Superior court recognized that there might be cases where “the need to vindicate the policies of the LAD … and to compensate an aggrieved party for tangible physical or emotional harm” might lead to concluding that an individual should be able to seek compensation for that harm. Crespo v. Evergo Corp., 841 A.2d 471 (N.J. Super. A.D. 2004), cert. denied 849 A.2d 184 (2004).
47. Federal courts have held that Hoffman is not relevant to wages owed under the FLSA or the state wage and hour laws, and have made rulings favoring plaintiffs. Flores v Albertson’s, Inc, (S.D.N.Y. 2002), Renteria, 2003 WL 21995190 (overtime pay available under FLSA); Flores v. Amigon, 233 F.Supp.2d 462 (E.D.N.Y. 2002)(overtime pay). 2002 WL 1162633 (C.D. Cal. 2002); and Zeng Liu v. Donna Karan Intern., Inc., 207 F. Supp. 2d 191.
48. Tiger Transmissions v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, No. 1 CA-IC 02-0100 (May 29, 2003); Safeharbor Employer Services I Inc., v. Velazquez, 860 So.2d 984 (Fla. App. 2003); Wet Walls, Inc., v. Ledezma, ___S.E.2d ____2004 WL 614898 (Ga. App. 2004); Medellin, Board No. 03324300 (Mass. Dep. Of Industrial Accidents, Dec. 23, 2003); Sanchez v. Eagle Alloy, 658 N.W.2d 510 (Ct. Apps. Mich. 2003); Correa v. Waymouth Farms, Inc., 664 N.W.2d 324 (2003); Ortiz v. Chief Industries, Inc., 2002 WL 31771099 (Neb.Work.Comp.Ct., 2002); The Reinforced Earth Company v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Astudillo), 810 A.2d 99 (Pa.2002); Silva v. Martin Lumber Company, 2003 WL 22496233 (Tenn. Workers Comp.Panel, 2003) Appellant: *** v. Respondent: ***, 2002 WL 31304032 (Tex.Work.Comp.Com., 2002), Design Kitchen and Bath v. Lagos, 2005 WL 2179187 (Md.Ct. Apps. 2005).
49. Sanchez v. Eagle Alloy, 658 N.W. 2d 510 (Ct. Apps. Mich 2003); The Reinforced Earth Company v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board, 810 A.2d 99 (Pa, 2002); Doe v. Kansas Dep’t of Human Resources, 90 P.3d 940 (Sup. Ct. Kansas 2004).
50. Code of Ala. § 25-5-82 (2002); A.C.A. § 11-9-111 (2002); 19 Del. C. § 2333 (2001); Fla. Stat. § 440.16 (2002); O.C.G.A § 34-9-265 (2002); Iowa Code § 85.31 (2002); KRS § 342.130 (2001); 77 P.S. § 563 (2002); S.C. Code Ann. § 42-9-290 (2001).
53. In October, 2005 in Pennsylvania, a local district attorney (an office that usually has no part in immigration enforcement) ordered his detectives to investigate use of false social security numbers at a local plant. The investigation resulted in the arrest of 32 individuals on charges including “identity theft.” Jose McDonald, Thirty-two workers charged as undocumented immigrants Employees arrested at Molded Acoustical Products in Palmer, The Morning Call (October 13, 2005).
54. Aprobada el 18 de diciembre de 1990.
55. Tiene importancia especial en este tema las siguientes decisiones: Decisión 397 de junio de 1996, Decisiones 503, 504 de junio de 2001, Decisiones 526 y 525 de julio de 2002, Decisión 603 de diciembre de 2004, Decisión 545 sobre circulación laboral de junio de 2003 y la Decisión 583 sobre Seguridad Social de mayo de 2004.