From: “D.A. King” <Dking1952@comcast.net>
Subject: Media request – SB 497
Date: June 11, 2024 at 12:37:25 PM EDT
To: Chuck Martin <chuck.martin@house.ga.gov>, “Rep. Chuck Martin” <
Rep. Martin,
I am compiling information and quotes for a write up on the newly re-named High Demand Apprenticeship Program and your amendment on line 201 (SB 497 as passed) which adds “apprenticeships” to the list of public benefits in OCGA 50-36-1.
In addition to the very real possibility that illegal alien employees are participating in the apprenticeship training, my original concerns were that illegal aliens who were also employers can send an employee to be *“upskilled” at taxpayer expense and then collect the contract completion award of up to $50,000.
Having worked with OCGA 50-36-1 since 2006 I am very familiar with the system it creates for verification of “lawful presence” of applicants for public benefits. It appears that by the addition of ‘apprenticeships’ to the list you have improved the HDAP with the requirement that the apprentice applicant be subject to the verification process. As the sponsoring employer is not applying to be an apprentice, it seems that he would not be included in the multiple steps involved in OCGA 50-36-1 – including the affidavit and SAVE verification.
If so, there is still no safeguard against $50,000 of taxpayers money going to reward an illegal alien employer for the upskilling process paid for by the taxpayer.
Question: Was it your intent to omit the employer from a verification process or do you hold the position that the addition on line 201 of SB 497 will somehow include the verification of lawful presence for the employer who sends an employee to be trained, please? If it is the latter, it will help my readers (including many state legislators) if you could offer an explanation of that position.
As you no doubt are aware, there are multiple public examples of illegal aliens running businesses as employers here in Georgia. As I sent to you, Senator Strickland and Gov. Kemp earlier this year, I cite two of those examples here.
Also, senior officials at TCSG have volunteered that H1B workers are already in the apprenticeship program which apparently indicates that employers are being rewarded with up to $ 50K for Georgia taxpayers funding the OJT/upskilling of temporary workers who are supposedly hired because of their specialty knowledge and expertise in the relevant industry. H1B workers in compliance with the federal law on that visa have “lawful presence.”
Question: Do you agree that SB 497 did nothing to exclude H1-B workers from the apprenticeship program?
In addition to my own now widely-read blog, I also write on James Magazine Online, in various Georgia newspapers and at The Federalist. My deadline on gathering information for this educational opinion piece is noon, Monday, June 17, 2024.
I hope you will reply to my inquiry to insure accuracy and fairness in my column.
Thank you,
D.A. King
404-*****
___
Response from Rep.Martin received June 17, 2024 at
Mr. King,
Here are two questions I’ve asked of TCSG and the answers:
- Can H1B Visa status be legally used as a determining factor in awarding the apprenticeships?
H1B status is not considered an awarding factor in the HDCI process. Since the program’s inception, no apprentice supported under the HDCI program has been an H1-B visa holder. While not connected to HDCI Program, USDOL, a federal agency, coincidently offers apprenticeship grants to help employers reduce their reliance on H1B workers. This is unrelated to any apprenticeship funding mechanism offered by TCSG.
2. Is the system aware of any persons receiving the benefit that are not in the country lawfully?
No. All apprentices must be full-time permanent employees of a Georgia business, which are generally prohibited from hiring a person who is not in the country lawfully per federal DHS rules and required to conduct E-Verify on each fulltime employee. As a double check, we are implementing a SAVE verification process for HDCI apprentices moving forward.
Your questions:
Question: Was it your intent to omit the employer from a verification process or do you hold the position that the addition on line 201 of SB 497 will somehow include the verification of lawful presence for the employer who sends an employee to be trained, please? If it is the latter, it will help my readers (including many state legislators) if you could offer an explanation of that position.
No, in fact, I believe the language covers the employer as well. Additionally, ‘Apprenticeship sponsor’ is defined in the bill (lines 116 – 120), so the additional language added to 50-36-1 is a bit of “belt and suspenders” for state verification.
Question: Do you agree that SB 497 did nothing to exclude H1-B workers from the apprenticeship program?
As the name implies, the HDAP is an apprenticeship program. Individuals who meet the requirements for an H1B must have sponsorship, specific skills and are typically over the age of 21, making it highly unlikely such individuals would meet the application requirements; I draw your attention to lines 91 – 98 in the bill defining application requirements.
Best Regards,
Charles E. “Chuck” Martin, Jr.
House Higher Education – Chairman
State Capitol Room 417
Atlanta, Georgia 30034
Phone: 404-656-5064
