01.23.08
The Georgetown City Council Immigration Ordinance Was An Exercise In Democracy
The Georgetown City Council last night did the expected but in an unexpected way. It was pretty much expected that the original proposal was dead in the water because several like it had already been struck down around the country. But instead of just killing the proposed ordinance the council did the unexpected and voted to insert a clause in all new contracts stipulating that contractors must abide by local, state and federal laws.
Now it seems that this was all about the city council wanting to warn contractors to comply laws already in place.
“I think the council got what they wanted — to let contractors know that they expect them to comply with the law — and we got what we had hoped for,” said Rita Gonzales-Garza, co-chairwoman of the League of United Latin American Citizens.
We know that’s not what the original intent was. More than likely the city’s legal team had already come to understand that the proposed ordinance was too restrictive and would be shot down, just like those that came before this one. (It would be interesting to know what the contractor, who was the template for this proposed ordinance, thinks about last night’s “action”.)
Instead of dropping the whole thing and making one council member look bad the council worked up a “compromise” that changes nothing. I think KEYE had the best take on it.
By a unanimous vote, the council decided to amend the clause to read, “all future contracts must abide by city, state and federal laws.â€
“They got what they wanted, and we got what we wanted,†Rita Gonzales-Garza with LULAC said.
And what they wanted was for employers not to discriminate against Hispanics.
So the city isn’t going to make vendors sign an affidavit stating they’re not using undocumented workers, and won’t check to make sure they don’t. The vendors just have to agree to abide by city, state, and federal laws.
The council, it would seem, also came to terms with the fact that enforcement of an ordinance like this would have been a huge burden on the city. This action leads to an obvious question, were previous contractors not expected to “..abide by city, state and federal lawsâ€? That’s the way new clause makes it seem.
Elise Hu at Political Junkie has this to say:
Well, nevermind.
That’s essentially what Georgetown City Council said about a much-publicized proposal which would have required contractors hired by the city to offer proof that all their workers are US citizens. The council was scheduled to vote on the measure tonight, but after hearing public comment (mostly from opponents), council backed off. It decided instead to insert a clause in all future contracts that would require businesses to “comply with all applicable federal and state laws and local ordinances.”
The AAS has more, Georgetown . council reaches deal on immigration issue, and the protesters were allowed to do their thing. And because of this Georgetown is now facing a lawsuit regarding another city ordinance:
Diaz said Tuesday that he and a small group were demonstrating peacefully on the sidewalk outside council chambers. Two city police officers told him that the group should have registered with the city for a permit, Diaz said.
The lawsuit alleges that police threatened the protesters with arrest because they violated a city ordinance requiring that they apply 30 days ahead of time for a permit.
“People holding signs on a sidewalk is classically protected freedom of speech,” said Texas Civil Rights Project attorney Jim Harrington, who is representing the group in the lawsuit, which was filed Tuesday in federal court in Austin.
Georgetown officials said they could not comment on the lawsuit until they had time to study it.
City spokesman Keith Hutchinson said Tuesday that he was unaware of the details of the discussion between the protesters and police.
“We are looking at the ordinance to see if changes need to be made,” he said.
This all seemed rather inane and pointless until I received this via email:
I think it actually did some good; the council learned something about dividing and/or marginalizing segments of the community, there was some really good testimony on the status of our immigration system from the perspective of a contractor who employs documented workers and pays them health insurance, social security, etc–he supported our stand! [Against the restrictive ordinance.] And the folks who spoke in opposition to the scapegoating language left there feeling empowered. So—in terms of political behavior, it was good for the community.
So there we have it. A member of the city council proposes and ill conceived, knee-jerk law that is defanged by the city council. Instead the council will insert a clause in all new contracts which states that contractors must abide by local, state and federal laws. In the process another, more than likely, unconstitutional city ordinance is exposed and will now have to be changed. This was an exercise in democracy.