While most of the attention in the illegal immigration debate has been focused on Arizona, the Pennsylvania legislature has also been dealing with the issue.
Last month, the state house in Harrisburg passed two bills aimed squarely at employers who hire undocumented immigrants. Rep. John Galloway (D-Bucks) was the principal sponsor of House Bills 1502 and 1503, which would require contractors and subcontractors doing business in Pennsylvania to verify the employment eligibility of their employees through the federal government's e-Verify program or the Social Security Number Verification Service. Contractors fail to do so could be barred from state projects or even lose their state licenses or certifications. The measures, if they become law, are expected to impact the construction industry most.
'Too many good-paying jobs are being lost, and many trades are being decimated by illegal and unfair practices that have afflicted the construction industry,' Galloway said. 'Because illegal immigrants are willing to work under the radar for less pay and no benefits, they are taking construction trades jobs from well-trained, dedicated Pennsylvania workers. My bills would protect jobs and level the playing field for honest companies that do the right thing.'
There are an estimated 35,000 illegal construction workers in Pennsylvania. The unemployment rate in the construction industry is over 35 percent In addition to the negative impact on jobs, Galloway said illegal employment brings fiscal strain to local communities and the state.
'We are losing millions of dollars in an underground economy,' he said. 'Contractors who employ illegal workers don't pay taxes. Illegal workers don't pay taxes yet put a strain on our education, judicial system and health-care systems that our taxpayers pay to support. H.B.1502 would ensure that taxpayer dollars being spent to create jobs for Pennsylvanians.'
Galloway said his motivation for introducing the bills was similar to that of the recent, much harsher, legislation in Arizona.
'Inaction by the federal government on immigration issues is forcing Pennsylvania to take up this issue,' he said. He also noted that, although Democrats at the federal level had expressed dismay at the Arizona laws, here in Pennsylvania the proposed bills have broad bipartisan support.
Among the Democrats voting for the bills was John Yudichak, (D-Luzerne).
'These bills are about protecting thousands of jobs,' he said. 'The Center for Immigration Studies estimates that in 2009, between 18,000 and 35,000 construction jobs were being held by illegal workers. It is time for Pennsylvania to protect our hard-working citizens and punish companies that are breaking the law by hiring illegal workers.'
The bipartisan vote doesn't surprise Susan Guerette, a partner at the Radnor, Pa: based law firm of Fisher & Phillips.
'With the unemployment rate where it is, there is pressure to protect U.S. jobs and workers. Leaders on both sides of the aisle have an interest in that and there is public support for it. There is also frustration with the federal government that it is not addressing immigration. This is really a federal issue, but there has not been any action at the federal level so the states are stepping in to fill that void.
Still, she acknowledges that these particular bills may be focusing on a business where Americans do want to work.
'The construction industry was targeted because it is one of the main problems in illegal unemployment,' Bond said. 'With about 35 percent unemployment in that industry, Pennsylvania has an estimated 35,000 illegal construction workers, and you can imagine the tax and social welfare implications of that.'
Guerette also worries about the effect a patchwork of such laws may have for large employers. Fourteen states and the federal government use some form of e-Verify.
'Having states enact their own particular bills creates a dynamic where companies that do work in a number of different states have to learn the requirements of each particular state, which can be complicated and burdensome.'
On the plus side, she notes, 'employers who use e-Verify also gain the presumption that they did not employ someone knowing that they weren't authorized to work.'
Of course, there are still some concerns about the e-Verify system itself. Critics say the system is still rife with errors.
Senate versions of both bills are in two different committees, and Calloway hopes to see them sent to the Senate floor for a vote in the fall.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий