Gwinnett.talk

By Michael H. Smith

December 17, 2007 1:35 AM | Link to this

You can bet there will be legal challenges to any efforts made on the part of the county to discourage contractors from employing unauthorized workers. No one needs any special insights to understand why. It is all about money, plain and simple. When unions and the ACLU will file lawsuits to stop even the federal government under the Department of Homeland Security from doing the job of enforcing federal laws against the hiring “illegal aliens” and the employers who hire them, combined with the resources of Chamber of Commerce and the Business Round Table, including the many Un-American ethnocentric lobbying groups (representing mainly the abject interests of Mexico) to thwart the laws of this land against the interests of the American workers and the very fabric of America’s laws: “I told you so”, rings about as shallow as a rooster crowing victory for another sunrise.

Sorry Bob, you could have written the ordinance yourself and the results would have been a lawsuit. That my friend, you can believe!

Be that as it may, (sincerely with no offense intended towards you Mr. Griggs) I still applaud Commissioner Green for the stand she has been willing to take while the others seem to totally embrace, if not out right support knowingly, violations of U.S. laws, only to reward the wrong doers the benefits of county taxpayer dollars for committing very obvious crimes.

However, I think, as expressed before, that there is another way to skin these illegal cats, under a voluntary compliance policy. The county can set any conditions it wants on rewarding contracts to bidders and it is legal to discriminate against hiring illegal unauthorized alien workers, as well to give a preference to the hiring U.S. citizens under current statues of federal law, which does not exceed or further exacerbate in any way violations current to state laws. So, if it is found that this ordnance fails legal contest in “federal district court”, I sincerely hope the Commissioners will simply make it a matter of written county policy to only reward contracts to employers who will voluntarily comply with the very intent, point-by-point, of Commissioner Green’s ordnance.

By Bob Griggs

December 17, 2007 8:07 AM | Link to this

Michael— first, Ben failed to mention that I, too, commended Commissioner Green for making the effort and questioned why our full-time commissioner, Charles Bannister, hadn’t come up with something already. We’ve heard a lot of complaints from him, but no leadership.

Second, I believe that the ordinance could have been written in such a way that it would not have been challenged. You may recall that E.R. Snell and others also raised concerns before the ordinance was adopted on the very same issues. Snell was right. Snell wasn’t opposed to verification of employment, however— that company has been doing it voluntarily for a couple of years.

My solution is simple— with the intent to “promote fairness and equity in the issuance of public contracts,” simply require contracts to participate in two free, federal programs— E-Verify (formerly the Basic Pilot Program) and the Social Security Number Verification Service (SSNVS).

The feds impose greater responsibility on those who participate in the program. Sanctions for hiring an ineligible worker are left to the federal government, eliminating the primary issue with our ordinance about which the federal judge was concerned.

By Michael H. Smith

December 17, 2007 9:00 AM | Link to this

Bob, First: “simply requiring” contractors or any employer to participate in the two voluntary programs exceeds existing requirements of federal law, which could very easily be considered enforcement to control immigration, as was the complaint of the judge. Second: if a new ordnance is created inline with present federal law and compliance is put on a voluntary bases, though, there will probably be more lawsuits anyway, it is very doubtful any judge can force the county into awarding contracts to the non-voluntary compliant bidders. As I said there is another way to skin this illegal cat, though, I’m not in the least delusional in the fact that this fight against illegality will end anytime soon, no matter what is done, until both employers and the illegal aliens are convinced they will pay a very high legal price for violating the law. Third: we certainly agree and share the mutual discontent with the others in our government at every level who do nothing whatsoever against the lawbreakers involved in this corruption of our laws and the intent of those laws.

By Bruce Wicox

December 17, 2007 11:36 AM | Link to this

Just few things to ponder, the county’s largest contractor didn’t like the way it was written and wasn’t going to play, the commission changed it to please them.

Now a new set of contractors want to exercise their right to challenge the law, it becomes the end of the world? I guess it is all about money, the biggest contractor has more rights than the other contracttors.

A couple of hundred thousand was alloted for training, was it used or wasted? Rumor has it a search was on for a Director at $150,000, when first proposed no director would be needed. I don’t believe there has been even one inspection of a company or any illegal found.

I can not commend any commissioner for not researching the issue and getting legal advice before passing a ‘Feel Good’ ordinace that is costing the county hundred of thousand of dollars.

By Wow!

December 17, 2007 8:43 PM | Link to this

Mr. Wilcox,

Have you ever posted anything that wasn’t critical or condescending towards the world in general?

Eat some prunes and take a long walk. You’ll feel better in the morning.

By Bruce Wicox

December 17, 2007 9:29 PM | Link to this

Wow, would you like to point out anything I wrote that isn’t true?

Some people just don’t hide their heads in the ground.