"We have lost our ambition, our imagination, and our willingness to do the things that built the Golden Gate Bridge" - Barack Obama (aka President Malaise)
Pitch in with the Prince William Young Republicans and help defeat Obama in 2012!
Stirrup Attacks Public Procurement Reform
By Greg L | 20 February 2008 | Illegal Aliens, Prince William County | 46 Comments
While the press was focused on yesterday’s discussion about funding for the implementation of the Rule of Law Resolution, Supervisor John Stirrup introduced a proposal during Supervisor’s Time that would help to ensure that illegal aliens are not hired by county contractors and paid with your tax dollars. I guess it’s not all that hard to distract the media after all.
This proposal is similar to legislation proposed by Delegate Paul Nichols during this year’s session of the General Assembly and incongruously left in the House Rules Committee. You would have thought that Speaker Howell, who controls what happens in this House Committee, would have been interested in ensuring that state and local contractors don’t unlawfully hire illegal aliens to perform on municipal contracts. Since Richmond has so far failed to resolve this problem, it is now up to localities in Virginia to solve this themselves to the extent they can, and Prince William County appears to be the first locality to do so. It certainly will not be the last.
Here’s the text of the “Prince William County Public Procurement Resolution”. It should be fascinating to see how the illegal alien lobby reacts to this.
RESOLUTION
“The Prince William County Public Procurement Resolution”
Offered by Supervisor John T. Stirrup
February 19, 2008
WHEREAS, the Government of the United States of America has failed to control the influx of illegal aliens into this County and surrounding areas, resulting in a large number of illegal aliens searching for and gaining employment in this County in violation of Title 8 of the United States Code, Section 1324a; and
WHEREAS, the Prince William County Board of Supervisors has determined that employment of illegal aliens is causing economic hardship to businesses in the County that employ only legal residents of the United States; and
WHEREAS, the Prince William County Board of Supervisors has determined employment of illegal aliens by businesses that contract with Prince William County is against the economic interest of the legal residents of the County; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia State Code, Section 2.2-4302., states that any public body may implement the Virginia Public Procurement Act by ordinances, resolutions or regulations consistent with that chapter and the provisions of other applicable law.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IS RESOLVED that the Prince William County Board of County Supervisors does hereby amend the Prince William County Code as follows;
Every contract to which the County is a party shall expressly contain the following clause:
By signing this Contract, the vendor certifies that 100% of its owners, principles and directors are legal residents of the United States of America. The vendor further certifies that it has verified the legal status of 100% of its employees by the basic employment verification pilot program as jointly administered by the United States Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration or its successor program. The vendor further certifies that it will continue to verify the legal status of 100% of its employees hired after executing this certification. The vendor agrees that its employment of any person without legal status may subject it to termination of this contract for default and agrees that it shall include a similar provision in any subcontract.
Local contractors absolutely should not be hiring illegal aliens to work on municipal contracts, and paying them with your tax dollars. This should be a very popular initiative, and I would not at all be surprised if a lot of localities in Virginia adopt similar reforms in short order.
The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.
You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed.
46 Comments
Views: 1222
Loading ...
Good for Del Nichols and good for John Stirrup. The debate on this should be interesting indeed.
This is GREAT! Nobody should complain unless of course…they hire/support illegal aliens. That to me could be “probably cause” for further investigation.
It’ll be fun to watch the local Chamber of Commerce piss and moan!
Sounds sensible to me
Agreed. Whoever has a problem with this can only have a problem with it because they are hiring them. I also agree that a list should be created with corporations that have a problem with this and then they should be boycotted and picketed.
A BIG THANK YOU TO JOHN STIRRUP! Can we clone him?
park’d…and those companies/organizations should be further investigated for possible “aiding and abetting”.
I just sent all the Supervisors and email asking them to support “The Prince William County Public Procurement Resolution.” I hope this passes and is implemented as soon as possible.
On the surface, I think this is a great resolution, but I do have a couple of questions…
1. Does this apply to all county procurements or only a certain class of procurements?
2. Does the county code already stipulate that goods and services must only be bought from companies owned and operated by only by US citizens (i.e., Buy American Only)? If not, the first line of the “meat” of the resolution (”By signing this Contract, the vendor certifies that 100% of its owners, principles and directors are legal residents of the United States of America.”) is problematic as it would preclude the county from entering into any contract with a foreign-owned (but operating legally within the US) business or a business with foreign investment (and potentially foreign directors, etc. who never set foot in the US legally or illegally).
3. When the county enters into certain types of contracts (i.e., some IT services for example), is there an existing prohibition against off-shoring the work? If not, then the requirement that 100% of the workforce being legal US residents seems to be somewhat backward. If the work is being done in Hyderabad, India, then it is completely legitimate for some of the company’s employees to lack US legal residency. Further, the requirement that 100% of the employees are US citizens means that large multi-nationals with offices in locations around the world would be preluded from contracts with the Prince William as it would be quite likely that some portion of their workforce would not be legal US residents.
The resolution needs to be reworded in such a way as to not rely so much on compliance meaning 100% of the employees versus, say, 100% of US-based employees. Again, in the effort to combat one problem, we need to be careful not to introduce a whole new set of unintended consequences.
Turn, I think you are over complicating things. The intent is for U.S. based businesses to have legal employees and directors/owners. Period.
Why would our county use foreign-based businesses? There are plenty of businesses in our local area.
I must say, I have grown incalculably in my admiration of John Stirrup. He has championed this issue without the fanfare of those who jump on the bandwagon out of expediency and to try to hijack the issue as their own, only to promote their own ambitions. John has listened, and acted, for his constituents for no other apparent reason than because it is the right thing to do. While others call the press conferences, John ever toils for his constituents, seeking ways to help them with their concerns and to improve their quality of life. Now THAT’S a representative!
You know, upon reflection, perhaps John Stirrup should consider that State Senate seat next time around so that we can finally rid ourselves of Bob “if you don’t like it move” and “what’s wrong with amnesty” FitzSimmonds. At least we would know that we have someone who doesn’t just change his rhetoric to suit how the wind blows. Or should that be blow the wind to suit the popular rhetoric?
Patriot:
I understand the intent completely and fully. I *like* the intent. However, even the best intentions can have unforeseen consequences. For instance, does Lockheed do any work for the county? I know for a fact that not all of Lockheed’s employees are legal US residents. They aren’t here. They are in India. But the resolution says that **100%** of the vendors employees must be legal US residents as verified through the basic verification program pilot or its successor. I realize the intent isn’t to keep Lockheed from bidding on County work, but the consequences of the way this resolution is written would do just that.
I don’t for an instant want to see this resolution go away. Rather, its language just needs to be refined with an eye towards the potential unintended interpretations. To use an example I know you’re familiar with, the 14th Amendment wasn’t *intended* to be used to support the “Anchor Baby” loophole, but because of the language used in the 14th Amendment, that has been an unintended consequence.
Turn, do you believe Lockheed has a problem hiring illegal aliens?
John,
Thank you for all of your hard work on this issue. It is so easy to complain, we sometimes forget to say thank you. You have many, many people that support you and your efforts.
Patriot,
No, I do not believe or have any evidence that Lockheed is hiring illegal aliens. That’s not what I said nor what I meant when I used Lockheed as an example.
Lockheed is a multi-national corporation with employees in countries around the globe. Many of those employees are citizens of the host nation, not US citizens. Since the resolution states “The vendor further certifies that it has verified the legal status of 100% of its employees by the basic employment verification pilot program as jointly administered by the United States Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration or its successor program” and doesn’t make clear whether that’s 100% of the US-based employees or 100% of the company’s employees world-wide, one could argue that hiring foreign nationals who work in overseas offices (not in the United States) would violate this resolution because those foreign nationals would not be able to have their legal status verified by Basic Pilot or E-Verify as required, nor would the vendor be able to make any certification to that.
Again, I understand that the purpose of this resolution is to prevent county vendors from hiring illegal workers. The way it is currently drafted, however, leaves it open to be interpreted more broadly.
Let me give you a more clear example. PWC government buys computers from Dell. That means the contract with Dell would need to contain the prescribed contract clause. Much of Dell’s tech support has been off-shored to India which means there are Indian nationals working for Dell in India (not in the United States). Those Indian employees will not be in E-Verify. Does that mean Dell can’t have a contract with the county? I know that this is not the intent of Stirrup’s resolution, and I know that on the surface this just seems silly. But, what happens when a local firm (whose entire workforce is US-based and can be certified in E-Verify) who lost the bid to Dell files an award protest because Dell does not meet the letter of the law because it cannot verify that all of its employees are legal according to E-Verify? That’s all I’m saying about vetting the language used in the resolution more closely.
Turn has a point.
This would mean that the county could not buy a phone system from Alcatel Lucent - a France based company - because many of its directors are not us citizens. Or, buy cars from GM - because many of the employees working on the cars to be delivered to the county are not us citizens.
I am happy to hear that Stirrup is doing something - it is just the language that needs to be clarified - like this - all employees working on the contract will meet the legal requirements of the host country of where the work is being performed. For all work being performed in the US, the company will verify the legal status of 100% of its employees by the basic employment verification pilot program as jointly administered by the United States Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration or its successor program.
You would have thought that common sense would have imposed these restrictions anyway. I hope they do fix the language so that it is not challanged and thrown out in court.
Before you folks waste any more time arguing about how many non resident employees can dance on the head of a pin Lockheed might sell to this county, be advised that this is an administrative tool to be administered by county procurement officials with the discretion to invoke its sanction (default of the contract) or to not invoke it.
Advocator,
where do you get the impression that it will be up to the procurement official? If that is the case, then it will mean nothing, as you cannot legally enforce the rule sometimes, and not enforce it other times.
I like it, I just think it has been worded poorly -
Watch for Corey to take the credit for this and run to the Washington Post for an interview.
# CONVA said on 20 Feb 2008 at 7:24 pm:
Watch for Corey to take the credit for this and run to the Washington Post for an interview.
You mean like he did with last years resolution?
John Stirrup is doing a great job! It takes character to stand up and do what is right.
JOHN STIRRUP IS DOING A GREAT JOB. WE NEED 7 MORE LIKE HIM WORKING FOR THE TAX PAYING CITIZENS OF OUR COUNTY.
AWC I AGREE WITH WHAT YOU SAY,BUT WE NEED STIRRUP HERE. BUT WE NEED TO FIND SOMEONE TO GO AFTER BOB F., AS HE WILL DO NOTHING FOR US.
Great work John and keep it up. Also set that Principi straight. When I heard him say why not 3 or 4 for the Crime unit,he knows not of what he speaks.
We already need more Police and that has been in every plan for years. The more we build the more Police we need.
As a Lockheed retiree I can asure you that Lockheed never hires illegals, most of the time we were required to hire US citizens who had a security clearance we also hired aliens with a valid green card for certain projects. Turn, please document to me on this site that Lockheed has illegal aliens working, view this as a challenge, I submit you can’t back up your allegations with any facts.
I fully agree, John Stirrup is doing a GREAT job concerning the issue of illegal aliens in PWC. However, let’s not forget to also thank those who thus far have been pretty darned supportive of the “rule of law” in PWC. Furthermore, Paul Nichols has done an excellent job thus far too. He’s quite junior, of course, but sure has put his oar in the water early…he too needs to know that we appreciate what he’s done.
Harry,
Turn did not say that Lockheed was hiring illegal immigrants.
What he did say is - Are all of Lockheed Martins employee’s US Residents? The answer is No, as they do hire employees worldwide. As written, it seems like this resolution would preclude PWC from having a contract with Lockheed Martin.
Harry (and anyone else who misread me):
I *NEVER* said or meant to imply that Lockheed was hiring illegals. I just used Lockheed as an example of a multinational corp that I know does some business as a PWC vendor. In a later example I used Dell.
As Pat.Herve clarified on my behalf, I simply asked whether 100% of Lockheed’s (or Dell’s or any other multinational corp doing business with PWC) employees would be able to have their legal status verified via E-Verify. The answer is “no,” but not because they hire illegals. Rather because they have employees in foreign locations who are native to those locations and have never set foot in the US (and thus would not be in E-Verify).
Turn PW Blue,
It seems wise to make these corrections in the proposal now, rather than later. Will you be contacting Mr. Stirrup with the suggestions you have made? Anything dealing with govt bids needs all the shoring up it can get.
If the intent were to forbid the County from doing business with companies that hire illegal aliens, the resolution surely would have said so. The language certifying that “100% [why not 110%?] of owners, directors, and principles [sic - or maybe the drafter really means “principles” as opposed to “principals”]” be legal residents really goes to imposing a US residency requirement for county contractors. As some have pointed out, it’s impossible for large multi-nationals to comply. Beyond that, it’s unconstitutional on its face. Beyond that it’s knowingly ignorant of how the world operates in the 21st Century. Beyond that, it’s leftist economics. I get so annoyed at these uninhibited radical-leftist-anarchist attacks on our sacred foundataional document - I thought the demographics in PWC were more conservative. Of course, maybe it’s not meant to really be enacted, but is more catnip sprinkles from the pols on an extremely gullible sector of the electorate. Observe how many people in this thread accepted it uncritically. As Mr. Lincoln is reported to have said (apparently to Messrs. Stirrup and Stewart): “you can fool some of the people all of the time . . .”
Nova, again…you too miss the point of the resolution….it is meant to prevent companies who hire illegal aliens from getting the contract work. Why would a county government need a gigantic contractor like lockheed anyway? Are they building airplanes or something? Use local businesses…it is better for our local economy.
Turn PW Blue gave a very good example of why our county would use a big company rather than a local business. The county uses Dell computers. Some of their employees are in India. This business practice is perfectly legal. (Regardless of how much I might not like it)
Additionally, it is critical to remember that due to government spending laws, the low bid must be accepted. That low bid might not always be in Prince William County or even in Virginia.
We do still have to obey existing laws: those rascally little complications!
Let’s keep focused. Isn’t this about municipal contracts? The county should not be hiring (in effect) illegal aliens.
Patty,
I don’t think anyone is suggesting that it is a bad idea. The discussion stems from Turn PW blue suggesting a few changes that don’t paint us into a corner when dealing with bids. Larger companies with overseas workers who are not documented legal workers might be a problem legally is what he was suggesting.
After reading the resolution (thank you Greg) it seems to me that John Stirrup and Paul Nichols are taking appropriate action on policy reform measures.
Though I do NOT support the Chambers position and feel they are completely out of touch on this issue, businesses operating legally should have no problem making time to provide proof of citizenship.
I would not paint Marty Nohe’s position with exactly the same brush as the Chamber since I agree that illegals operating small mom and pop service businesses either don’t know they need the license or opt not to get one out of fear they will be arrested and deported in the process.
Patriot: I read the language as posted here. I don’t see where I missed the point. It says what it says. it’s a bad idea to pass ordinances/statutes that are facially invalid because someone knows what the author means. I suspect that a local ordinance that is drafted tightly to only address doing business with companies that hire illegal labor might also be unconstitutional, but that hypothetical isn’t present here. The language prohibits doing business with companies unless everyone (100%) in the management structure is a US citizen or legal resident. That’s what it says. A local government can’t do that and most high school students who’ve taken a course in American government know why. Now either Mr. Stirrup needs to brush up on the basics (which makes one wonder how he could get elected if he’s that much in the dark), or he knows full well that this is a non-starter and is just doing it to stroke a part of the electorate that is equally out of touch with American principles (as opposed to “principals”).
Re your suggestion that the County only deal with businesses in the county, well, that’s a nice bit of caveman economics that, if followed throughout the nation, would get us back to the stone age pretty quickly. We might as well trade for shiny beads.
You know NoVA, you’re really beginning to piss me off and I never thought that could happen! You’ve obviously become an illegal alien apologist, apparently oblivious to the pain that this situation is causing many people, and you NEVER offer anything constructive to the argument…only criticism.
Have you considered that John Stirrup has UNSELFISHLY championed this issue for his constituents because that’s what they are begging him to do? Have you considered using your immense knowledge to offer suggestions to improve the resolution rather than taking a page out of Jimmy Young’s book of discourse (without the simpleton gutter language, of course)? I never thought that I’d be this disappointed in you.
AWC: Don’t be annoyed, AWC, if my ideas don’t make sense, floks can just reject them. If they do make sense, they’ll probably be rejected by a bunch of people anyway. Blogs are just places for batting ideas around and I try to bring some conservative horse sense to this one as a public service. As for Stirrup’s little resolution, I wasn’t even addressing the part about illegal immigrants in the language, - I was talking about the restriction on procurement with companies whose management were not “100%” citizens or legal residents. You’re as conservative as I am - you know how antithetical to conservative economic principles something like that is and you know how much harm it would do to the economy.
I take you at your word that Mr. Stirrup thinks he is being unselfish with this. I further think, however, that the attraction of the issue to politicians is not that they risk a great deal by tossing around really bad ideas about the role of local and state governments in a federal system. I think those bad ideas are very very popular and there’s very little risk in adopting them publicly. Thus, however unselfish it might be for Mr. Stirrup to advocate wildly popular ideas, it concerns me that many local pols (most of them in my own party) abandon the national ethic, conservative principles, and fiscal responsibility just to shag a few votes.
And I have constructively outlined (more than once) a comprehensive federal approach, combined with enforcement of local regulations not specifically targetted at illegal immigrants, that, unlike a lot of these local windmill sallies, would actually alleviate the negative local impacts of the current situation. My program is at least as constructive as much that I see here and has the advantage of perhaps actually making things better.
I’d hate to cause annoyance, especially to you. My purpose is to elevate people’s thought process about tough policy issues. Let’s talk about it.
Far be it for me to agree with “NoVA Scout,” but he is referring to the very legal (constitutional) problem I mentioned in the fifth comment: preemption. I would also endorse his comments regarding the economic issues; this proposal smacks of protectionism.
I don’t thing it’s unusual, however, for a non-lawyer local official to be fairly unschooled in this area of the limitations on local authority (it has arisen mainly in the area of the National Labor Relations Act, with local officials attempting to suck up to union bosses), so I would NOT endorse his comments regarding Supervisor Stirrup and the fact that he may be oblivious to such issues.
What shocks is the fact that a lawyer such as Delegate Paul Nichols would be so oblivious to the constitutional problem as to introduce such a proposal at the state level. I realize that it is not his area of practice, but that is little excuse for someone schooled in the law.
Of course, it’s hardly surprising that the Old Whithered Wench would be so ignorant as to ignore the legal and practical issues. God forbid that legalities and logic should get in the way of her irrationally visceral style of public policymaking. That kind of studied ignorance is one reason why her influence is limited to the blogosphere.
PS: AWC, As you know from my past comments. I’m adamantly, unequivocally opposed (100%) to illegal immigration.
Read the letter from Ruben Pineda in the Journal Messenger (Letter to the Editor). I’d like to see a topic on his letter which is not the first time he’s wrote a letter.
From the Birmingham News
(http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2008/02/local_governments_should_enact.html):
“Kris Kobach, who served as former U.S. attorney general John Ashcroft’s chief adviser on immigration and border security, said there are several areas in which states may pass laws, such as sanctions against employers who hire illegal immigrants, restricting access to secondary education, and not allowing undocumented immigrants to have driver licenses.”
It would appear that procurement laws sanctioning employers of illegal aliens ARE legal…it is, perhaps, just a matter of getting the right language. Obviously, the constitutionality is not the problem. I would love to discuss this with you NoVA…perhaps we sit down and do that one day, as we have previously discussed.
As far as Jimmy Young is concerned, NO ONE has a more “visceral style”(I suspect he was referring to the “primitive or animal” definition of the word) than he. And just because HE is soooo desirous of influence doesn’t mean that everyone is. If anyone is influenced by me it is only because they either respect my opinion or agree with me, and not because I seek it. I guess for Jimmy that desire for influence must feel like unrequited love. Poor boy.
AWC: my point is that it is almost certainly facially illegal for a state or locality to limit its contracting to firms whose management/owners are Us citizens or legal residents. Mr. Kobach’s quote doesn’t address that.
As for Mr. Young, I generally delight in our rare moments of agreement, especially on points of law, but I continue to find it repellent that he deems it necessary to refer to other commenters with demeaning nicknames. Perhaps I feel particularly vulnerable here since, unlike AWC, I am grossly physically unattractive. On the other hand, Mr. Young seems not to be entirely on the clear in this department himself and forbearance might be not only a mark of courtesy and politesse, but also of self-preservation.
You mean, NoVA, because he’s shaped like a toad, with about as much stature, and he has the demeanor of a troll?
All the cleaners that work at night at Lockheed speak spanish and no habla the english when I ask them questions…