Thread: Your morning jolt: Shifting from stick to carrot on illegal

Your morning jolt: Shifting from stick to carrot on illegal immigration
9:10 am April 1, 2011, by jgalloway

With the Legislature leaving early for a 10-day break, illegal immigration is one of those issues left in the lurch.

HB 87 failed to reach the Senate floor for a vote, after substantial committee changes. Which means no conference committee action is possible until the General Assembly returns on April 11.

But signs have been tossed around this week, indicating that we may be headed toward a resolution of the debate’s trickiest proposition.

The argument in the state Capitol has never focused on giving local law enforcement the power to ask for proof of U.S. citizenship. That has always been a given among the Republican lawmakers in charge.

The meat of the conflict has been over how to bring pressure on Georgia businesses to stop hiring illegal immigration. Agricultural concerns have all but said that crops won’t be able to make it out of the field without that cheap and plentiful labor force.

HB 87 originally contained penalties for businesses that don’t enroll in the federal E-Verify program, which ascertains whether a potential hire is a legal U.S. resident. A Senate version originally required businesses to use E-Verify, but included no penalties.

But when the Senate Judiciary Committee made its changes to HB 87 this week, my AJC colleague Jeremy Redmon caught this:

The committee added a provision that says employers would not be eligible for certain state income tax breaks unless they use a federal work authorization program called E-Verify.

A business – or a farm — wouldn’t be forced to close if it chooses not to screen its workers, but it would take a tax hit. An incentive to comply, rather than a directive.

Another hint came from Gov. Nathan Deal who, in a quick interview this week with Denis O’Hayer of WABE (90.1FM), addressed federal programs to bring in foreign workers. Said Deal:

â€

This is the script from the link included in the above article:

There They Go Again--The Georgia Legislature and Immigration

This week both branches of the Georgia State Legislature have been busy in trying to pass anti-immigration legislation. The curious part of their efforts is what appears to be a complete lack of communication between the branches and what their specific purposes are.

THE GEORGIA HOUSE DISSES THE GEORGIA SENATE

On Monday, the Georgia House completely eviserated the Senate version of the anti-immigration legislation by substituting, in whole, for the entire SB 40, with what it was HB 87. Unfortunately, the committee chair and the bill's sponsor were not completely truthful with the public, or with their committee members about the actual content of the "new" SB 40, better known now at HB 87 "Heavy." Sections 1 through 9 of HB 87 and HB 87 Heavy are identical. Section 11 through 18, and Sections 20 through 22 also are identical. BUT, there are two significant and otherwise unnoticed changes in Section 10, and in Section 19.

First, in Section 10, the House has added an entire new section of the Georgia Code, to be known as 16-11-203. You will find this language in the last paragraph of Section 10:

The testimony of a witness with knowledge of any officer, employee, or agent of the federal government having confirmed that a person is an illegal alien shall be admissible to prove that the federal government has verified such person to be present in the United States in violation of federal immigration law. Verification that a person is present in the United States in violation of federal immigration law may also be established by any document authorized by law to be recorded or filed and in fact recorded or filed in a public office where items of this nature are kept.

What does this mean? For those lawyers out there the meaning is clear. Hearsay evidence can now be used to put people in state prison for fifteen years! For potential criminal defendants, you no longer have the right to face your accuser! No right to prove to the person who said you were in violation of federal immigration law that they are wrong. And, we all know about how wrong the federal databases can be, about how complicated immigration law is, and how difficult it is to ascertain whether someone is "illegal" in the United States. Obviously, the Georgia State Bar should get immediately involved, as should the criminal defense bar, to stop what is a wholesale sellout of the criminal justice system.

To give you an example as to how broad this language could be: E-Verify is a government database. E-Verify determines employment eligibity, but since it ties into the USCIS database, it is arguably a database that can be relied on to verify status. An employer who enrolls in E-Verify, has an agreement with DHS, and is thus an "agent" of ICE (read the MOU). Can the Georgia court rely on the testimony of an E-Verify employer about a person's non-eligiblity for work to convict someone of transporting, harboring, or inducing an alien? Clearly, that is what the House is hoping for if this language remains in the bill. Or did they have other motives? We do not know, becuase Chairman Golick and Rep. Ramsey did not allow any questioning or review of the bill or public testimony on it before it was passed summarily out of the House Judiciary Committee!

Section 19 of HB 87 Heavy is also different from HB 87. In the addition of Section 50-36-2 to the Georgia Code, subsection (e) is amended to add a new sub-subsection ( and push the prior sub-subection ( down to sub-subsection (9). The new sub-section ( reads, refering to who this code section does NOT apply to:

Paragraph (2) of subsection (a) of Code Section 40-5-21 or paragraph (2) of subsection (a) of Code Section 40-5-21.1;

What the heck does that mean? The first part refers to this language within the statute governing who are exempt from carrying a Georgia driver's licenses:

(2) A nonresident who is at least 16 years of age and who has in his or her immediate possession a valid license issued to him or her in his or her home state or country; provided, however, that any restrictions which would apply to a Georgia driverÌ

The meat of the conflict has been over how to bring pressure on Georgia businesses to stop hiring illegal immigration. Agricultural concerns have all but said that crops won’t be able to make it out of the field without that cheap and plentiful labor force.

"They are not the ones doing these jobs anymore!"
They are doing your job and my job! I remember an article here 6mons. ago
Washington State couldn't get people to pick the apples!