I'm not saying our local paper The Herald is referencing my site, but when you read this recently published story and then read my first post on this issue Illegal Immigration and SC's 5th District Representative there almost seems to be a connection.
Here's the interesting passage:
Last month, the Observer found illegal immigrants working for contractors on two S.C. sites under development by Ralph Norman, a Republican congressional candidate. Large signs proclaimed both were Norman projects. Marshall and another ethics expert dismissed the Rock Hill developer's Norman's claims that he was not responsible because the men weren't his employees.So, The Herald continues to defend John Spratt's continued inaction on Illegal Immigration even when it's common throughout his district. But, continuing their attack on Ralph Norman they dedicate a full paragraph to condemning him:
Norman also said it was unfair to burden business with policing immigration status.
"He's staking out a leadership position on principle, but then is clearly failing to be anything like a leader in his own business," said Richard Toenjes, a philosophy professor and associate in UNC Charlotte's Ethics Center. "Benefiting from something that he opposes officially is surely bordering on hypocrisy."
Critics of Norman's Democratic opponent, U.S. Rep. John Spratt, try linking him to a brother-in-law who runs an a S.C. greenhouse operation with a large Latino work force. The owner, Louis Stacy, and Spratt say the congressman and his wife have never had a stake in the business.
Marshall, whose sister is also an attorney said, "I would be puzzled if anybody held me accountable for anything she did. If there's genuinely no connection, there's no problem with it."
Last month, the Observer found illegal immigrants working for contractors on two S.C. sites under development by Ralph Norman, a Republican congressional candidate. Large signs proclaimed both were Norman projects. Marshall and another ethics expert dismissed the Rock Hill developer's Norman's claims that he was not responsible because the men weren't his employees.But one must note a couple key points elsewhere in the article. Note these two direct quotes from the article:
None interviewed by the Observer is using voluntary federal programs that could identify illegal immigrants. Neither do many employers, but successful congressional candidates may vote on changes to the nation's flawed immigration system.and
Following the law is a minimum requirement, said Jack Marshall, a Virginia lawyer and ethics consultant to business and government.So, everybody is worried about Ralph Norman's company hiring a subcontractor that happened to employ Illegals. Some of the articles I have seen have harped on the fact that Norman doesn't use the Federal Program to check a worker's status. Hmmmmm, here it is stated quite clearly that the Program is voluntary and that NO candidate is using it. In fact, many employers do not. Didn't I also see that an Ethics expert says that following the law is acceptable...excuse me, the minimum.
Why is there a double standard here? There is the expectation that Ralph Norman MUST use a voluntary program that no other candidate, nor many businesses choose to use. On the other hand, John Spratt is not required to do ANYTHING about the Illegal Immigration in his district. The Herald doesn't even give him a slap on the wrist for it.
Now Playing: "Rock The Party" by P.O.D.
Technorati: Ralph Norman, John Spratt, Immigration, Election