http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ ... 30405/1039


Migrant Rule May Cost Town A Supercenter

By Kevin Bouffard
The Ledger


AVON PARK'S DRAFT ORDINANCE
Avon Park city commissioners are considering a law to regulate illegal immigrants. Following is one of the more controversial aspects of the proposal:

"WHEREAS, any for-profit entity, including acts committed by its parent company or subsidiaries, that aids and abets illegal alieans or illegal immigration shall be denied approval of a business permit, the renewal of a business permit, city contract or grants for a period no less than five years from its last offense. Aiding and abetting shall include, but not be limited to, the hiring or attempted hiring of illegal aliens, renting or leasing to illegal alients, or funding or aiding in the establishment of a day laborer center that does not verify work status. Any act that aids and abets illegal aliens within the United States, not just within the city limits, will constitute a violation; ..."

AVON PARK -- A proposed ordinance outlawing assistance to illegal immigrants, which has brought national attention to this small Highlands County town, could prevent the city from issuing a business license for a proposed Wal-Mart supercenter scheduled to open next year.

"I think it can be construed that way," said Avon Park's city attorney, Michael Disler, who said he played no role in drafting the ordinance. "It's not constitutional, in my opinion."

Disler told The Ledger on Wednesday the ordinance was "poorly drafted" and had "too many problems," including overly broad language and equal protection concerns.

Those comments elicited an angry reaction from Mayor Tom Macklin, who has championed the illegal immigration measure.

"If he felt that way, it was incumbent upon him to state that to City Council," Macklin said. "That speaks volumes of Mr. Disler's ability."

Macklin said he drafted the ordinance based on a similar measure from Hazleton, Pa., which is scheduled for a vote today.

At issue is the "Illegal Immigration Relief Act," which Macklin proposed at the June 26 council meeting. It passed by a 3-2 vote.

Disler said he got the ordinance only that afternoon and did not render an opinion during the council debate. The council is scheduled to take a final vote at its July 24 meeting.

As currently written, the ordinance says: ". . .any for-profit entity, including acts permitted by its parent company or subsidiaries, that aids and abets illegal aliens or illegal immigration shall be denied approval of a business permit . . . for a period no less than five years from its last offense.

"Aiding and abetting shall include, but not be limited to, the hiring or attempted hiring of illegal aliens. . . . Any act that aids and abets illegal aliens within the United States, not just within the city limits, will constitute a violation . . ."

That clause would seem to bar the city from issuing a business permit to Wal-Mart Stores Inc., which is proposing to break ground on a new supercenter in the city later this summer. It would employ about 300 people.

In March 2005, Wal-Mart agreed to pay a record $11 million fine in a settlement with federal prosecutors and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security over hiring illegal immigrants.

The settlement stemmed from enforcement actions conducted in 2001 at Wal-Mart stores in four states involving 100 illegal janitorial workers and in 2003 at stores in 21 states involving 245 illegal janitorial workers.

The federal government charged the nation's largest retailer even though the workers were employed by private contractors hired by Wal-Mart.

Eric Brewer, a Wal-Mart spokes-man, said the Avon Park ordinance would not affect his company's plans to build the supercenter even though the 2003 enforcement action and 2005 settlement fall within the five-year window.

"I don't feel it's going to apply to us in this particular instance," Brewer said.

But he acknowledged "it's broad language. I suppose it depends on how you define it."

That should be left to city officials, Brewer said.

Macklin and Councilman Doug Eason, who voted for the ordinance, said the five-year period would not be applied retroactively to any business if the measure is approved.

"If that's the opinion of the attorney, we may have to go back and change the verbiage that makes it clearly not retroactive," Macklin said. "I don't believe the intent of this council is to penalize people for actions prior to the adoption of this ordinance."

Macklin said City Manager C.B. Shirey had discussed that issue with City Attorney Disler, who agreed the five-year period would not apply retroactively.

"I had no discussions with C.B.," Disler told The Ledger.

However, the city attorney agreed with Macklin on the retroactive issue.

Eason said he was not aware of the Wal-Mart settlement when he voted for the ordinance but that it would not change his vote on July 24.

"I don't know that we'll have to amend it before we pass it," he said. "After we pass it, we'll have to tweak it."

Macklin said he wants to go ahead with an ordinance, possibly with amendments, at the next meeting because it will send a strong message on controlling illegal immigration.

"I think existing businesses and new businesses need to know from this point forward that if they hire an illegal alien, there will be consequences," the mayor said.

Councilman George Hall, one of the two members who voted against it, said he hoped the Wal-Mart question would cause one supporter to reconsider and defeat the ordinance, which has divided the community of nearly 9,000 residents.

"I know we have an illegal immigration problem. I'm not turning my head to that. I just don't think it will have any effect at all," Hall said. "I'm one who feels it is prejudicial. I think it violates civil rights. I think it promotes racial profiling."

Above all, he added, the city cannot afford to defend the law from an inevitable court challenge. The Avon Park ordinance has gained national media attention and drawn fire from civil rights and pro-immigration advocates.

"I firmly believe, if we pass it, it will cost us so much money to defend it," Hall said. "This is a small city, and we don't have the resources to spend. This could cost us millions of dollars."