http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?news ... 6365&rfi=6

Debate Continues
Leg., Levy Butt Heads On Accountability Bill



By Jeff Guillot September 13, 2006


Suffolk County Executive Steve Levy's proposed bill regarding employer accountability was once again the topic of debate at the September 5 meeting of the Suffolk County Legislature, which was a continuation of the August 22 meeting that was adjourned due to time constraints. As previously reported, this adjournment was partly due to the number of people who showed up to address the Legislature regarding this bill - 57 in total. Last Tuesday was no different.

Forty-three speakers signed up to address the Legislature. The legislation would force all companies that execute contracts with Suffolk County to verify the legal status of their employees and fine companies for knowingly hiring undocumented workers.

Many speakers, hailing from Suffolk and beyond, questioned whether Levy's bill is in violation of existing federal and international laws that deal with immigration.

"This legislation will violate Article Two of the International Declaration of Human Rights, to which all American governments must adhere," said Dr. Gregory Maney, a professor of sociology at Hofstra University. Maney argued that the bill singles out illegal immigrants, facilitates discriminatory hiring practices, and creates a "general environment of hate."

Another argument was that this bill is in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. "Executive Levy is sitting on a tack when it comes to the legality of this bill," said Jackson Chin, a Manhattan-based attorney who has tried cases like this in the past - notably in Hazleton, Pennsylvania. There, Chin said, a similar bill passed, and he believes it has brought about a surge in hate crimes. He warned that this legislation could bring about a great deal of litigation that would do "far more harm than good" to constituents.

"The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution states that you cannot have laws on a state or local level that mirror those of the federal government," said Legislator Vivian Viloria-Fisher (D-Port Jefferson). "I believe that this law is unconstitutional, and pre-emptive of the Constitution, meaning that it tries to do what the Constitution states is the job of the federal government, and only the federal government."

She went on to say that Levy's bill is "based upon ideals, rather than empirical data." Viloria-Fisher, who noted that she is an immigrant herself, feels that this bill, while it may be well-intentioned, will lead to "an environment of hatred, havoc and confrontation in Suffolk County.

"Even at the Legislature meeting [on September 5], I was walking alongside a priest who had spoken before the Legislature, and I was called a [racial epithet] by someone who was attending the meeting," Viloria-Fisher recounted. "If the Legislature meeting was any indication, we could be declaring open season on anyone who is of Latino origin by people who choose to live in a climate of hate."

Legislator Ed Romaine (R-Riverhead) also raised some questions regarding the legislation. At the September 5 meeting, Romaine asked George Nolan, counsel to the Legislature, to produce an answer as to whether he thought the bill was, in fact, preemptive of the Constitution. As the bill was sent back to the Legislature's Ways and Means Committee, Nolan stated that an answer would be given at the next Ways and Means session.

"There's no such thing as a perfect bill," said Romaine. "When you look at a piece of legislation, there are always parts of it you like, and parts you dislike. If you asked me today, I would support this bill. However, I feel there are different approaches one can take to this issue without bringing about the issue of preemption of the United States Constitution. Executive Levy got all the press he wanted from this bill, it's gotten national headlines, but maybe he should have put a little more thought into parts of it."

"That is inaccurate," Levy said, responding to the criticism. "We tailored this law so that it only deals with companies who seek to do business with Suffolk County, with 'seek' being the operative word. Only Suffolk County has the right to deal with those who executive contracts with it. It would be another thing if we were checking every business that works with the county, but we aren't."

Romaine and Viloria-Fisher agree that it is not clear how this bill would be enforced, and that Chief Deputy County Executive Paul Sabatino did not adequately explain the enforcement issue before the Legislature.

"This bill, if it becomes law, will be self-enforcing," Sabatino explained. "For example, if I am driving, I am not going to run through a stop sign because I fear there may be a police officer waiting for me." He added that the majority of contractors who work for Suffolk respect the law, and enforcement measures with both the Department of Labor and the Suffolk County Human Rights Commission would be enacted via new amendments added to the bill.

"That is a completely inadequate response," Viloria-Fisher said. "There are over 10,000 businesses who work with Suffolk County. How do we expect departments to investigate them all? Also, there is no empirical data that exists that outlines how many Suffolk County contractors hire undocumented workers right now, or historically, and Executive Levy has admitted that."

"Also, there is no money allocated for enforcement," Romaine commented. "I don't see any numbers reflecting how much this will cost taxpayers."

Presiding Officer Bill Lindsay (D-Holbrook) said he does not understand why there is so much emphasis being placed on enforcement. "All this is going to be is another piece of paper, verifying the documented status of a company's employees in the packet of forms that Suffolk County gives out when you do business with us," Lindsay said. "The law already states that you must fill out an I-9 form, and verify that you're paying prevailing wage."

Levy agreed with Lindsay, stating, "Instead of, for example, six forms given to prospective companies, we're giving seven. I don't see what the big deal is. It's obvious that this bill has very broad appeal, and the people who oppose my bill are the same people who, when the federal government passed its immigration legislation, said to go after the employers." Levy said that now that he is attempting to hold employers accountable, the same people are attacking his plans.

While the penalties, if the bill passes, include cutting ties with a company that hires undocumented workers, Levy also said that, if employees were to give fraudulent identification, the employers would not be held accountable. "[E]mployers make the request to their employees to offer their identification, and if it's fraudulent, they're not liable - the same is the case with federal law."