A Big, and Overlooked, Illegal Immigration Development in BizzyBlog’s Home Township (UPDATE: Commenter Refutes Significance)
Wow, that will teach me to go a week or so without checking Bloglines.
It’s a story that appears to have been missed by the entire SOB Alliance. But the miss by yours truly is the most grievous of the bunch, given that the action took place in BizzyBlog’s home township:
Illegals are Deerfield Twp. law’s target
Last Updated: 7:15 am | Thursday, April 19, 2007Deerfield Township will not do business with contractors who hire illegal immigrants.
A resolution passed Tuesday night requires would-be contractors to certify that they comply with the employment provisions of the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act. The rule also means that any contractor convicted of an immigration law violation in the previous four years in Warren County, or in neighboring counties, will not be allowed to work for the township.
….. Chris Romano, vice president of the board of trustees, spearheaded the effort. Romano said the township’s $20 million budget buys a lot of goods and services, and the township should not work with businesses that break the law.
“It’s a chance for the township to be a part of the solution,” he said.
As far as Romano knows, Deerfield Township is the first township in Ohio to pass this type of measure.
This is a very good idea that I hope will spread quickly. I can’t wait to hear the squeals that will occur if someone proposes a law like this in a so-called “sanctuary city” (read “outlaw city”) like Michael Bloomberg’s New York or Gavin Newsom’s San Francisco. See Update.
_______________________________
UPDATE, May 2: I’m going to defer to the judgment and experience of Symmes Township Trustee Eric Minamyer as expressed in Comment 4, especially these excerpts of it –
….. My point is that the Deerfield trustees probably think they did something more than symbolism, which they did not, or worse they knew this was meaningless. Either way it shows a lack of statesmanship. It is especially troubling to claim to the “first†as if the rest of us are slackers.
….. The current state law requires that a contractor certify as part of any contract with the state (which includes townships) that they obey the law including immigration laws. Deerfield could have simply added a clause to its contracts rather than pass this resolution. It doesn’t add red tape it is just smoke and mirrors politics, which I hate. This could have been done without fanfare.
Based on what Eric is saying, what Deerfield has done has no real significance. That said, it seems like Eric’s suggestion of “add(ing) a clause to its contracts” would be a good idea, if for no other reason than to make it crystal-clear that employment of illegals doing work under government contracts had better not happen. It would be interesting to see what the response would be in the “sanctuary cities” if someone challenged them to do that.
I didn’t no there was a problem! ;-)
Comment by Brian — April 29, 2007 @ 4:11 pm
The reason no one else passed such a resolution is because it is unnecessary.
Federal law mandates that employees provide proof of eligibilty to work and/or citizenship.
Ohio administrative code requires contracts and contractors to comply with all laws, federal and state. This includes immigration law.
Sounded good as a response to a murder by an illegal alien though. Too bad it was a shallow gesture at best.
Comment by Eric Minamyer — April 30, 2007 @ 4:21 pm
Nice to hear from you, Eric.
The article isn’t clear on “resolution” v. “ordinance.” If I understand correctly, “resolution” isn’t a binding law, and an “ordinance” is.
The article makes the “resolution” sound like it has “ordinance” characteristics.
At worst, based on your points, it’s extra red tape that doesn’t seem particularly time-consuming.
At best, it’s a way to let employers who think they’re untouchable that they’re not, and the the “everybody does it, and no one cares” logic isn’t going to fly around here.
If it’s only symbolic, and it supports existing law, I’m suuuuuuure that sanctuary cities will have noooooo problem adopting resolutions/ordinances like these. (/sarcasm) If the objections they raise are the ones you have raised, I can at least respect them for saying they’ll uphold the law in letting out government work (even though they’re rampantly violating it in other areas). But I’ll betcha that your arguments won’t be theirs, and I’d like to see them smoked out.
Comment by TBlumer — April 30, 2007 @ 10:42 pm
Townships pass resolutions which are laws just like cities pass ordinances, so this resolution is a law.
My point is that the Deerfield trustees probably think they did something more than symbolism, which they did not, or worse they knew this was meaningless. Either way it shows a lack of statesmanship. It is especially troubling to claim to the “first” as if the rest of us are slackers.
There are other things that can and should be done that actually have an impact such as having law enforcement enforce the laws like they do in Butler County. Deerfield Township officers can enforce existing laws if they are funded to do so.
I support efforts to deport those in the country unlawfully. I deplore shallow meaningless acts.
It was showboating without even asking if it mattered. I doubt the news reporters bothered to look at whether this resolution accomplished anything.
I feel especially bad for the father who lost his son to a murder in a bar fight, but I feel even worse that an elected official did not have the courage or knowledge to explain to him that the resolution is meaningless.
The current state law requires that a contractor certify as part of any contract with the state (which includes townships) that they obey the law including immigration laws. Deerfield could have simply added a clause to its contracts rather than pass this resolution. It doesn’t add red tape it is just smoke and mirrors politics, which I hate. This could have been done without fanfare.
Townships buy most big things through a state run pool anyway. This covers police and fire equipment and such.
Oh, well.
Comment by Eric Minamyer — May 1, 2007 @ 11:42 pm
Eric, see the Update in the post.
Comment by TBlumer — May 2, 2007 @ 3:00 am