As the federal government begins pumping billions of stimulus dollars into Georgia, lawmakers here are cracking down on lax enforcement of a state law that prohibits taxpayer funds from going to illegal workers.
A bill likely to pass the General Assembly this week gives the state more power to force local compliance with a 2006 anti-illegal-immigration law. Supporters say the bill is needed because the previous law wasnât enforced.
The measure would require local governments, state agencies and companies that do public business to show they are using federal databases to make sure they donât hire illegal workers or provide them with public benefits. If they donât, local governments would face cuts in state road funding and other penalties, and companies could have contracts revoked.
The proposed tightening of the stateâs anti-illegal- immigration rules comes as the federal government has begun funneling stimulus dollars through state agencies and local governments. Anti-illegal-immigrant groups across the country have expressed concern that some of the federal money may end up going to illegal immigrants.
H.B. 2, initially sponsored by Rep. Tom Rice (R-Norcross), passed the House and was approved by the Senate Public Safety Committee last week with no opposition.
Senate Majority Leader Chip Rogers (R-Woodstock) told the committee that the bill was necessary because the Georgia Security and Immigration Compliance Act, which Rogers sponsored in 2006, was being ignored by local governments.
âWe are passing a state law that says you have to follow a state law that says you have to follow a federal law,â he told the committee. âIt is very sad that we are at this point.â
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported in January that the 2006 law was not being enforced. The law required that governments and businesses working for them use E-Verify, a federal program that checks whether people can work in the United States. The law also required they sign up for another federal database program to check whether people were eligible for benefits. If people arenât on the E-Verify list, they must be denied work. If they are not on the other database, they must be denied benefits.
The AJC found that while many governments in Georgia had signed up for E-Verify, no state agency was checking to see whether they were using it. The AJC found that 21 of 159 county governments and 234 out of 536 chartered cities and towns had not registered with E-Verify. Some told the AJC they didnât know they had to do so, even though the law had been in effect for years.
In addition to the E-Verify problems reported by the AJC, few local governments and state agencies have signed up for the federal program checking public benefits.
Karen Weinstock, Atlanta office managing attorney for the law firm Siskind Susser and an expert on the 2006 law, said the state has never enforced it.
âDoes it really stop people from not complying if they donât want to comply?â she said. âDefinitely not.â
Both supporters and opponents have been unhappy with the 2006 law. Supporters have said local governments are willfully ignoring the lawâs requirements, while opponents have argued the law is confusing and a waste of resources.
âCities and counties in the state have been laughing at the federal law. Now they are laughing at the state law,â said D.A. King, president of the Marietta-based Dustin Inman Society, an anti-illegal-immigration group.
King said counties and cities provide all kinds of public benefits, including licenses for businesses, and they need to be checking to make sure anyone who gets benefits is legally allowed to be in the United States.
Al Outland of the Georgia Municipal Association said the GMA opposes H.B. 2 because the state hasnât clearly defined what a public benefit is, whether welfare, licenses or other services.
âIt still remains unclear,â he said. âWith a lack of clarity, compliance becomes difficult.â
Jerry Gonzalez, executive director of the Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials, said his group considers E-Verify âdeeply flawedâ and âa waste of time for American workers,â so any attempt to beef up the 2006 law was a mistake.
âGeorgia should not be in the business of regulating federal immigration law,â he said. âEspecially during these hard economic times, it just doesnât make any sense.â
Under the new bill, the state Attorney Generalâs Office would define what constitutes a public benefit, while the state inspector general would review annual reports from governments for compliance. Governments would be required to post information about compliance with the law on their Web sites or annually in a newspaper. Companies have to provide affidavits they are complying with the law before they can be awarded contracts. If not, they could lose state road money.
State Inspector General Elizabeth Archer could not be reached for comment Friday.
The law would also require that any person jailed in Georgia be checked to see whether they are legally in the United States. Under the 2006 law, only people arrested for a felony or some misdemeanors were to be checked.
Michele NeSmith, research and policy development director for the Association County Commissioners of Georgia, said the requirements set out in the 2006 bill have been confusing, and rulings from the Attorney Generalâs Office âhave been no help.â
âWe want to comply. We just need to get guidance on how to do it,â she said.
Whatever her misgivings, the ACCGâs representatives at the committee meeting said nothing publicly.
âChip Rogers is the majority leader, so I think it has a pretty good chance of passing,â NeSmith said later.
