Crucial Deadline in Alien Amnesty Law Spurs Firings

There were scattered reports Tuesday of employees being fired in Southern California, as well as continuing confusion among workers and employers, as a crucial deadline for employers under the new immigration law passed.

Response to the deadline varied from large to small businesses, from industries heavily dependent upon foreign workers to those with few foreign employees. One trade association in Orange County, the Assn. of Merchants and Manufacturers, recommended firing employees who do not have the full complement of immigration papers, while the statewide association stopped short of such a recommendation.

Some small- and medium-size businesses said they had begun laying off employees or issuing deadlines for the delivery of the necessary documents. Some large employers such as the Hilton Hotels Corp. said they had already enacted long-term employee education programs that demanded documents in advance and, therefore, did not need to dismiss anyone.

Some of those fired are immigrants who do not qualify for amnesty, and are therefore ineligible for work permits because they arrived in the United States after Jan. 1, 1982. Others qualify for amnesty but have not yet received the necessary documents from the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service.

Sept. 1 was the deadline under which all aliens hired after Nov. 6 of last year must have submitted proof of work authorization papers given to them by INS. The employer sanctions portion of the law technically went into effect July 1. However, INS said it would not begin a major enforcement effort until Sept. 1.

“I probably have 14 people who have been fired as of today,” said Garth Ward, president of Fashion Sportswear Inc., which manufactures girls’ clothing. “These are people who probably are eligible for amnesty but haven’t received their receipts (for applying) yet,” he said, adding that he will rehire them if they bring in the proper documentation soon.

Garth said he had also lost several other long-term employees, people who had worked for him since before last Nov. 6. Employees hired before Nov. 6, 1986, are grandfathered into the new law. Employers can legally maintain them on their payrolls without documentation.

“We’ve had reports of a whole bunch of people scheduled to be terminated that we’re trying to check out,” said Cesar Reyes, field organizer for the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America in Los Angeles.

One such worker is Carlos, a Mexican machine operator from the San Fernando Valley who spoke on the condition that his full name and that of his employer not be used because he still hopes to regain his old job.

“Yesterday was my last day,” he said. “I have lived here since 1978 and I applied for amnesty, but I hadn’t gotten my papers yet because of the backup at the church office where I applied. But they said I needed the official papers by today and I couldn’t get them.”

Jay Fong, an attorney with the Asian Pacific Legal Foundation who is familiar with Carlos’ case, said there are many such immigrants who, because of paper work backups at legal offices that are processing amnesty files, may lose their jobs.

“The worst result is that people who are getting laid off or fired will then find it hard to get amnesty because under the law they look like they could become public charges, which disqualifies them for amnesty,” he said.

Government officials recommended that employers use discretion.

“When it comes to someone hired after Nov. 6 who has no standing in this country and has not applied for amnesty, we highly recommend that an employer dismiss that person,” said William Carroll, acting deputy district director of INS in Los Angeles.

But, he added, the INS is not going to make a point of going after employees who have applied for amnesty but do not have papers.

John M. Hermann, president of Total Employee Relations Services Inc., a Costa Mesa-based labor consulting business, said he was advising employers that they had little choice but to dismiss workers lacking documentation.

Estimating that several thousand workers could still lose jobs in Orange County, Hermann called Tuesday the “saddest day” in his 15 years of consulting. “A lot of families are going to be hurt,” he said.

In Irvine, labor contractor Arturo Espinoza said he told 50 of his workers last Friday that he could no longer represent them because they did not have proper papers and would not qualify for the amnesty program.

“It hurts,” he said. “These are good men who work hard. Most have gone back to Mexico, but some are trying to find work in Fresno or Modesto. But the law is closing in up there too.”

Because of the new laws, Espinoza said, he himself has decided to retire this month after 25 years as a labor contractor.

Stan Kyker, executive vice president of the California Restaurant Assn., said he had gotten countless calls from restaurant owners who feel “caught in the middle” between a desire to comply with the law and a loathing to fire good workers.

“I have not heard of anyone who has laid anyone off,” he said. “But there really are a lot of people in turmoil.” He said restaurants are hesitant to fire for two reasons: first, because they are already having difficulty finding replacement workers, and second, because “the measure of risk is not great enough at this stage for INS to come check them.”

Several unions said they plan to conduct surveys of their membership to get a clearer idea of how employers are conforming with the law.

Staff writers Stephen Braun, Steven R. Churm and Henry Weinstein contributed to this report.