The following is a guest blog post by James C. Anderson of Triebsch & Frampton, APC, in Turlock, California. Mr. Anderson practices in the areas of labor law, employment law for management, business transactions, and civil litigation.
Many California employers use the federal electronic employment verification system, better known as E-Verify, to validate whether the employees they hire are authorized to work in the United States. E-Verify has been a relatively easy and low-risk verification system to use, but that may change with a new law that penalizes the use of E-Verify to check the employment authorization status of someone who hasn’t been offered employment.
The following is a guest blog post by Norton Tooby, who has a national law practice in Oakland, California, providing expert consultation and representation on immigration consequences of criminal convictions, post-conviction relief, and criminal defense of noncitizens.
The Supreme Court has focused attention on the need to advise clients accurately on the specific immigration consequences of a guilty plea. Padilla v Kentucky (2010) 130 SCt 1473. But it’s also essential that defense counsel accurately advise clients about the sentencing consequences of his or her immigration status. Counsel must also do whatever is possible to prevent a defendant’s immigration status from destroying his or her opportunities for the alternatives to incarceration used in most criminal cases that result in sentences.