Immigration Politics Georgia

looking for a better life • news and pro-enforcement opinion

D.A. King

Hate mongering challenged: Federal judge rejects SPLC move to dismiss Dustin Inman Society libel/defamation case

By

Image: CAPS

D.A. King and the Dustin Inman Society are said to be the first to overcome dismissal hurdle

“The society is seeking $25,000 in donations to fund its legal effort against the SPLC. Supporters can contribute on GoFundMe.”

The Daily Signal

April 4, 2023

SPLC to Face the Music for ‘Hate Group’ Defamation as Lawsuit Clears Major Hurdle

FIRST ON THE DAILY SIGNAL—The Southern Poverty Law Center routinely brands mainstream conservative and Christian organizations “hate groups,” placing them on a map with chapters of the Ku Klux Klan, but most lawsuits aiming to hold the SPLC accountable for this alleged defamation have failed.

On Friday, however, a federal judge denied the SPLC’s motion to dismiss a defamation lawsuit, allowing the case to proceed.

The SPLC branded the Georgia-based Dustin Inman Society an “anti-immigrant hate group” in February 2018 after the SPLC had previously stated in 2011 that it did not consider the society a “hate group.” The society, named after a 16-year-old Georgia boy killed in a 2000 car crash caused by an illegal immigrant, aims to combat illegal immigration.

“After telling the Associated Press in 2011 that we were not a ‘hate group,’ the SPLC changed their mind and made us an ‘anti-immigrant hate group’ within days of their registering as active lobbyists against pro-enforcement, immigration-related legislation here in the Georgia Capitol,” D.A. King, the society’s founder and president, told The Daily Signal in an emailed statement Tuesday.

King claimed that the SPLC’s “goal was clearly to paint us as the extremists and to marginalize us in the eyes of state lawmakers and the media. That effort was largely successful.”

  • Related: The SPLC took in $140 million in donations for 2021 alone

As I explain in my book “Making Hate Pay: The Corruption of the Southern Poverty Law Center,” the SPLC took the program it used to monitor the Ku Klux Klan—the Intelligence Project—and weaponized it against conservatives and Christians, branding them “hate groups” in an effort to raise money and demonize its ideological opponents. The SPLC has an endowment of more than $500 million and bank accounts in the Cayman Islands. Amid a racial discrimination and sexual harassment scandal in 2019 that led the SPLC to fire its co-founder, a former employee came forward, calling the “hate” accusations a “highly profitable scam.”

King’s lawsuit quotes Heidi Beirich—then-director of the Intelligence Project—who told The Associated Press in 2011 that the SPLC did not consider the society a “hate group,” but rather listed King as a “nativist.”

“His tactics have generally not been to get up in the face of actual immigrants and threaten them,” Beirich said. “Because he is fighting, working on his legislation through the political process, that is not something we can quibble with, whether we like the law or not.”

D.A. King and former Georgia Gov. Zell Miller, a Democrat, in 2005. (Photo: D.A. King)

The lawsuit claims that the SPLC did not indicate that King or the Dustin Inman Society had changed their activities between 2011 and 2018—in fact, many of the statements and activities the SPLC cites as evidence that the society is a “hate group” date back to before 2011.

The lawsuit cites an SPLC definition for “anti-immigrant hate group” that dates back to 2020, which no longer appears on the SPLC website—although the center appears not to have adopted a new definition:

Anti-immigrant hate groups are the most extreme of the hundreds of nativist groups that have proliferated since the late 1990s, when anti-immigration xenophobia began to rise to levels not seen in the United States since the 1920s. Most white hate groups are also anti-immigrant, but anti-immigrant hate groups single out that population with dehumanizing and demeaning rhetoric. Although many groups legitimately criticize American immigration policies, anti-immigrant hate groups go much further by pushing racist propaganda and ideas about non-white immigrants.

While the SPLC brands the society an “anti-immigrant hate group,” it does not point to any specific evidence that King or the society “maligned an entire class of people” or fit the definition cited above. “Further, a cursory review of [Plaintiff] DIS’s website would have revealed that the Board of Advisors of [Plaintiff] DIS is a diverse group of Americans with a variety of racial and immigrant backgrounds,” the lawsuit alleges.

Inger Eberhart, a member of the society’s board and its director of communications, is a black woman; Everette Robinson and Catherine Davis are also black; Mary Grabar is a legal immigrant from Slovenia (then part of Yugoslavia); Maria Litland is a legal immigrant who appears on the Austrian Society of America website; and Sabine Durden-Coulter immigrated legally from Germany. Durden-Coulter lost her son in a 2012 car crash caused by an illegal immigrant (with no connection to the crash that killed Dustin Inman).

While the SPLC claimed not to have any knowledge of the society’s board in legal filings, the SPLC’s article on the society notes its “eight-member board of advisors.”… the article continues here at the Daily Signal.

 

Martha Zoller and Rep Todd Jones on air, March 27, 2023 Re: SB 233 “school choice” #BrianKemp

By

 

 

In the closing days of the 2023 push for “school choice” in Georgia, Martha Zoller had Rep Todd Jones on her show yesterday (here). He is carrying this year’s school choice bill in the House. I listened in for the first time in awhile.

Martha Zoller

We were happy (surprised) to hear Rep Jones finally mention illegal aliens as related to the “educational freedom”, “put parents in charge,” “Promise Scholarship” topic. We were disappointed that he didn’t mention that in the current version of SB 233 there is no language that excludes illegal alien parents from the state benefit process or serving on an oversight committee.

There seemed to be some confusion on Martha’s part about what informed, pro-enforcement watchers were saying about illegal aliens as related to being eligible students.

Audio and transcript on the bottom.

Martha found time later in her show to mention me and suggest that I arrange an interview on her show. We were not aware of that possibility. The usual process of radio show hosts having guests on for interviews is that the host invites the guest. But it seems that Martha has some resentment towards me for not memory-holing Gov Brian Kemp’s defiant betrayal on his 2018 campaign promises regarding “criminal illegals,” the promised  public registry of criminal illegals, the “Brian Kemp Track and Deport plan” and his pledge on ending “sanctuary cities.”

We now have sanctuary counties in Georgia.

  • Related: Under Gov Brian Kemp, Georgia is a sanctuary state for “criminal illegals”

Martha now says Kemp has done a lot on illegal immigration in Georgia, just different things than he said he would do – while continuing to try to divert listener’s attention to “the border.” During the last campaign Martha explained that Kemp had not done what he promised because things had changed at the border (even more illegal aliens crossing). We’ll get to all that and more after the legislative session is over.

Meantime, I am happy to be on Martha’s show anytime she wants me on. I wonder if I should regard  it as a hostile interview.

Audio (five-ish minutes) & partial transcript

Rep Todd Jones:

“… my swearing in in January of 2017.

Martha Zoller:

And then tell us about Senate Bill 233.

Rep Todd Jones:

Sure. So, Senate Bill 233, uh, effectively the- the Georgia Scholarship Promise Act, is what many are calling a voucher, but to me it’s an opportunity to provide families who are right now districted to a bottom 25% school within the state of Georgia, to provide them with an alternative, provide them with an opportunity. Frankly, to provide them hope.

Martha:

Now, you are getting some pushback from a lot of areas, okay, but one of them is in some of the anti illegal immigration groups, are, and, uh, many of them are Republicans, are- are pushing back saying that this is gonna open the door to illegal immigrants, uh, in education. Now I would argue that we already are required by the, by the Supreme Court to educate all children that are in our country regardless of their immigration status, but is there any foundation or any accuracy to some of the claims being made there?

Rep Todd Jones:

Yeah. So, when we were forming 233 with Senator Greg Dolezal, he’s the primary author of this, uh, on the Senate side. I’m honored to be carrying it on the House side. There was a series of things that we wanted to be able to do to make it clear, uh, what parents would be, uh, allowed to be able to take advantage of this voucher or the students, what a school would have to do. If it was a private school, what would have to occur for a homeschooling student, a hybrid school, et cetera. What would be accountability standards? What were the financial standards? And all the transparency that goes along with it. We wanted to make it the strongest school choice bill in the entire country in terms of, I’ll say, accountability.

Uh, in terms of this question around I’ll say illegal, uh, immigrants receiving the voucher, I can say this. To your point, the Supreme Court’s been very clear in terms of being able or having to educate students within the public school system, but we added in to 233 not only are you an existing public school student, but you also are eligible for HOPE. And HOPE, as you know, is effectively our opportunity to provide kids a pathway into the university system and be able to cover anywhere between 90% to 100% of their cost.

That does not provide for the funding of anyone who is here illegally. So ultimately, putting the guardrails around not just are they in the public school system, but also eligible for HOPE puts the guardrail in in terms of who can and who can’t. But the other thing I like to mention is, is that the voucher itself is not fungible cash. It’s not just cash that’s deposited into the parents’, um, I’ll say bank account, but rather it is a third party administered account that can only be released based on approved or pre-approved expenses that the commission has already reviewed and has indicated that those are expenses that are appropriate to be paid for by the account.

Martha:

You know, since about the 1850s or ’60s in New Hampshire and Vermont, there has been a system called Town Tuition. Uh, it is a system where basically the money follows the child. And it became about because there were a lot of small towns in New Hampshire and Vermont where maybe they didn’t have enough money to have a middle school and a high school, or whatever. So there’s been this, you can go to … It used to be you can go to parochial schools, you can go to private schools. Up until the 1980s, you could go to parochial schools. And they’ve had this in place for, you know, 150 years.

Um, hav- are you aware of that system? Had you heard about it? Has anybody looked at it if so? Because it seems like we got a model that’s worked for 150 years, and, you know, but nobody seems to know about it.

Rep Todd Jones:

So, I would, A, yes, I am aware of it. B, I also agree with you that no one is aware about it, is- is aware of those programs. But you’re starting to see maybe not exact replicas, but at least I’ll say, a- a- a good overlap, uh, in Arkansas, you’re starting to see, in Florida, in terms of what they voted last Thursday in terms of universal money follows the student. So, these are I’ll say concepts that are starting to sweep across the country, especially in those states that lean red or hard red. And we hope that our, and coming back to 233, we feel as if we have tailored this in such a way, uh, that to your exact point, if the school’s in the bottom 25% of our state, we’re not looking to do anything adverse to that school.

I want to be clear. If a student takes a voucher from one of those school systems, the per capita funding actually goes up, not goes down, and that’s a long formula and a, probably for a longer conversation. But we see this as an and, Martha, not an or. We’re gonna continue to fund public education, totally fund public education and provide those students who are districted to a bottom 25% school to be able to have an opportunity to do something else, because let’s face it, education is the great equalizer.

Martha:

Amen to that, you know. Education and economics is what separates us. Okay.

Rep Todd Jones:

That’s right.

Martha:

And that’s what we need to- to look at. Um, of course, I’ve gotten a number of question when the people heard you were gonna be on. I got some questions that I’ve k- kind of compiled because they were all on the same topic. Um, Florida made some big changes in their education system back during Governor Bush. And- and e- essentially by adding choice-…”

 

Dog & Pony Show prediction: SR 85 – Senate Republicans to consider ways to reduce pesky “onerous and burdensome” occupational licensing practices

By

 

Update: SR 85 was put on the Senate Consent Calendar for Study Committees which was approved on March 27, 2023. Vote record here (Senate vote 295).

The 2021 House version of this effort did not allow public comment and handpicked all advocate “witnesses.”

 

 

 

From experience, we predict a star and regular “expert witness” will be media darling, illegal alien and FWD.us lobbyist Jaime Rangel.

Jaime Rangel, illegal alien and FWD.us lobbyist in the GA Capitol.

Did you know that Georgia apparently “has some of the country’s more burdensome occupational licensing laws and that onerous occupational licensing requirements can inhibit economic mobility, limit job prospects, and hinder small businesses?”

That is the opinion of the sponsors  of SR 85 under the Gold Dome. They are all Republicans.

At the “request” of the Georgia Chamber of Commerce, these GOP state senators want to create a ‘Senate Occupational Licensing Study Committee’  to decide how to “reform”occupational licensing  and “streamline processes, reduce barriers to work, and eliminate unnecessary rules and regulations.” They plan on a series of meetings to hear from the special interest community on how this can be done and maybe how other states have handled “reforming” this “onerous” system.

What, you may ask is the “onerous and burdensome” part of the Georgia occupational licensing system? In large part it refers to the fact that Georgia has laws in place that require verification of lawful presence for occupational and professional licensing. Shorter: Dismantle the laws – periodically obeyed and enforced – that are aimed at keeping black market labor out of Georgia’s workforce.

This writer has been working on the verification law, OCGA 50-36-1 since 2006.

I know because I followed this same dog and pony show study committee process when the House produced it in 2021. Then it was part of a study committee dedicated to “Innovative Ways to Maximize Global Talent.” It is the work of the partnership between the Georgia Chamber of Commerce et al and a leftist group known as the Coalition of Refugee Services. That partnership is known as Business and Immigration for Georgia or “BIG.”

  • Related: The Georgia Chamber of Commerce and “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion.”
Darlene C. Lynch of “BIG’. Photo, Dustin Inman Society

A “Progressive” woman named Darlene C. Lynch works for both CRSA and the “BIG Partnership” and organized and ran the 2021 Georgia House Special Committee “Innovative ways to Maximize Global Talent” that saw three 2021 Summer and Fall meetings – with two in Georgia’s public colleges. Back then the study committee produced the impetus for a bill (HB 932) that would have eliminated the current twelve month residency period before a (public) college -bound student could qualify for instate tuition. The bill only applied to foreigners migrating into Georgia. Americans moving here from other states were not covered under that measure. They would still pay the much higher tuition rate in their first year living here. About three times as much as a student who migrated here from Afghanistan, for example.

For clarity: The goal was and is for some foreigners (example) to be able to migrate into Georgia and qualify for instate tuition the same day while Americans moving here are required to be residents for a year before that could access the same tuition rate.

  • Related: For academic year 2020-2021, the average tuition & fees for Colleges in Georgia was $4,739 for in-state and $17,008 for out-of-state. Americans who relocate here would pay the higher amount in their first year of residence. Newly arrived foreigners would pay the lower amount. That is a difference of $1226.90. 

That same effort is back in today’s General Assembly in both the Senate and House. 

That 2021 special study committee was created by a resolution that passed unanimously in the House at the end of the 2021 session. Rep Wes Cantrell was the sponsor of the resolution (be sure to see all cosponsors) and served as the chairman of the agenda-driven committee that took zero pubic comment and arranged the witnesses.

Some of the agenda items from the hand-picked, pre-screened witnesses at the 2021 special committee mentioned above:

  • Changing state law so as to allow foreigners to be law enforcement officers in Georgia
  • Reciprocal agreements on occupational licensing rules with other states and foreign nations – put a different way, other states and nations would decide who was eligible to be receive occupational and professional licenses in Georgia.
  • “Relaxing” state law that requires immigration verification of applicants for occupational and professional licensing.
  • Lower tuition rates in public colleges for illegal aliens living in Georgia with DACA  status than the rate Americans and legal immigrants from other states pay.
  • Removing the existing 12 month residency waiting period before new Georgia residents can access instate tuition in public colleges for refugees – but not for Americans moving here from other states.
  • Reducing the educational period to become a medical doctor by two years, student loan forgiveness for foreign medical students and “relaxing the immigration issues for foreign medical graduates.”
  • Creating a new state bureaucracy to accommodate “an office or a division of cultural and linguistic responsiveness.”

I lost track of the number of times “…the number one state for business” was tossed out.

I covered the meetings extensively for the subscription news outlet Insider Advantage Ga and also posted those reports here.

 

 

School choice – SB 233: GOP lawmakers ignore warnings on attention to immigration status of ‘parents’ at their political peril — Repost and updated

By

UPDATE: March 14, 2024. The House passed SB 233 today with no debate on or attention to the below. Several House embers told us they “had to vote for school choice…” despite understanding that it will reward and encourage illegal imigtrati9on into Georgia. By our math, this is exactly three weeks after the murder of Laken Riley, allegedly by an illegal alien who migrated to our state.

Heads up to House Republicans: Designating the Promise Scholarship as a “state grant” would require applicants (“parents”) to participate in the verification of lawful presence process in OCGA 50-36-1 and is an easy, two line solution to the very real problem.

Hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens have been Georgia residents for more than a year.

Update: March 31, 2023 11:00 PM: SB 233 failed in the House, a vote to reconsider passed and the has been put back on the General Calendar for next year. See the Breitbart story “Georgia blocks plan to open K-12 grants to illegals.”

Update: March 28, 2023, 10:50 AM: GOP Gov Brian Kemp has publicly endorsed the bill and is now urging the House to pass it. There is still no language excluding illegal alien “parents” from the oversight process.

Update: March 24, 6:22 AM: The House took up this bill yesterday but ended up voting 95-70 (see “House vote 293”) to table the measure – after Gov Kemp sent word through a floor leader that he supports the school choice legislation as is. *Notable that 13 members were excused from voting.

Rep Will Wade offered a plea for passage from the Well before Pro Tem Jan Jones moved to table the illegal alien -friendly measure. Two minute audio from House floor:

__________________________

Most conservative Georgians do not want illegal aliens to be able to apply for any non-fed mandated benefit, direct the destination of state funds, be reimbursed for out-of pocket expenses, or serve on a “Parent Review” committee that determines what expenses are eligible to be considered as a “qualified education expense” under state law.

Despite more than a year of warnings to Republican lawmakers under the Gold Dome, language in the pending “school choice” bill does not require “parents” (who make the application to begin the proposed new state grant process) to be U.S. citizens or have legal immigration status.

  • Best solution: Amend the bill to require “parents” to be verified as U.S citizens or Lawful Permanent Residents (green card holders) as is the well-disguised requirement for student eligibility.
  • A weaker (partial) solution: Clearly designate the scholarship as a “state grant’ in the bill and add sentence that requires verification under OCGA 50-36-1.

(Beginners guide: We think the “Promise Scholarship” should be regarded as a “state grant” and thereby a public benefit under Georgia’s verification of lawful presence law OCGA 50-36-1. We have repeatedly urged all concerned to make that clear (or not) in the bill. If it is a state grant, the applicant (the “parent”) would be required to complete the prescribed verification process to swear to “lawful presence.”)

Below is another line-by-line write up on part of the role of “parents” in the administration of and participation in the proposed new state “Promise Scholarship.”

  • UPDATE Nov. 16, 2023, 9:05 AM The current version of SB 233 is LC 49 1473 according to the House Clerk just now.

Modified structure.

SB 233 As amended by the House Education committee

* LC 49 1450

See also LC 49 1458S and LC 1458S/hrcs (lines may not exactly match in later versions).

Line #

37  ‘Parent‘ means a biological parent, legal guardian, custodian, or other person with

38 legal authority to act on behalf of a student.

 

64  (G) Other expenses authorized by the State Board of Education or the commission; or

65  (H) Individual education expenses authorized by a majority of the parent review

66  committee provided for in Code Section 20-2B-6.

 

72  (a) A student shall qualify for a promise scholarship account under this chapter if:

73  (1) The student’s parent resides within Georgia and has been a Georgia resident for at

74  least one year; provided, however, that the one-year requirement shall not apply if the

75  student’s parent is an active duty military service member stationed in Georgia within the

76  previous year;

 

201  (3) The commission shall develop a system for parents to direct account funds to

202  participating schools and service providers by electronic funds transfer, automated

203 clearing-house transfer, or another system that the commission finds to be commercially

204 viable, cost-effective, and easy for parents of participating students to use. The

205 commission shall not adopt a system that relies solely on reimbursing parents for

206 out-of-pocket expenses, but may determine certain qualified education expenses that must

207 require reimbursement or preapproval for purchase. The commission is authorized to

208 qualify private financial management firms to manage the payment system.

 

231  (a) To assist in the determination of whether certain expenses meet the requirements to be

232  considered a qualified education expense under this chapter, a parent review committee

233  shall be established.

234  (b)(1) The committee shall comprise one person with relevant knowledge, skills, and

235  abilities and eight parents of participating students appointed by the president of the

236  commission. Four of the parents shall reside in local school systems with student

237  enrollment greater than 10,000, and four of the parents shall reside in local school

238  systems with student enrollment less than 10,000.

239  (2)(A)Members of the committee shall serve for staggered three-year terms and may

240  be reappointed; provided, however, that no individual shall be permitted to serve more

241  than three terms.

Illegal immigration: What is “parole?”

By

 

What is parole?

USCIS uses its discretion to authorize parole. Parole allows an individual, who may be inadmissible or otherwise ineligible for admission into the United States, to be paroled into the United States for a temporary period. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) allows the secretary of homeland security to use their discretion to parole any noncitizen applying for admission into the United States temporarily for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit. (See INA section 212(d)(5).)

An individual who is paroled into the United States has not been formally admitted into the United States for purposes of immigration law.

Parole is not intended to be used solely to avoid normal visa processing procedures and timelines, to bypass inadmissibility waiver processing, or to replace established refugee processing channels.

Length of Parole

If authorized, we will specify the duration of parole for a temporary period of time to accomplish the purpose of the parole. For example, if parole is requested to attend a civil court proceeding between private parties, we may authorize parole for the period of time necessary to attend the proceedings. We typically grant parole for no more than 1 year, although we may grant parole for a longer duration depending on the reason for the parole.

Parole ends on the date the parole period expires or when a parolee departs the United States or acquires an immigration status, whichever occurs first. In some cases, we may place conditions on parole, such as reporting requirements. We may revoke parole at any time and without notice if we determine that parole is no longer warranted or a parolee fails to comply with any conditions of parole.

Work Permits

We may, at our discretion, grant a parolee temporary employment authorization, if it is not inconsistent with the purpose and duration of their parole. You may request employment authorization after being paroled into the United States by filing Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization.

The above pasted in from the USCIS site here. See “terminology.”

Who is a “Qualified Alien?”

By

 

Qualified Alien: As defined under PRWORA (8 U.S.C. 1641)

An alien who is lawfully admitted for permanent residence under the Immigration and Nationality Act;

An alien who is granted asylum under section 208 of such Act;

A refugee who is admitted to the United States under section 207 of such Act;

An alien who is paroled into the United States under section 212(d)(5) of such Act for a period of at least 1 year;

An alien whose deportation is being withheld under section 243(h) of such Act;

An alien who is granted conditional entry pursuant to section 203(a)(7) of such Act as in effect prior to April 1, 1980;

An alien who is a Cuban/Haitian Entrant as defined by section 501(e) of the Refugee Education Assistance Act of 1980;

An alien who has been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty under section 431 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. 8 U.S.C. 1641 contains more on aliens battered or subjected to extreme cruelty.

 

Sen. Greg Dolezal omits requirement that students in SB 233 be U.S. citizens or green card holders in bill presentation – Video & transcript

By

House Education committee 8:00 AM meeting, March 21, 2023 Left: Rep Todd Jones, (R) Sen. Greg Dolezal in 8:00 AM House Education committee hearing.

Why do you think Sen Dolezal didn’t tell the committee and the world about the illegal immigration component of his bill?

Eligible students must be U.S. citizens or green card holders. Why doesn’t the bill have the same requirement for the “parents?” We’ll tell you in another post.

  • Related: A line-by-line look at the role of parents in the proposed new state “Promise Scholarship” grant 

__

Sen. Greg Dolezal (R- Cumming) Lead sponsor, SB 233 “school choice” – presenting the bill as passed by the senate to the House Education committee. Partial transcript. This begins after start of presentation and stops well before the end.

“Um, I thought I would start, Mr. Chairman, the same way I started in the subcommittee yesterday, which is simply to talk about this bill from a high level, what this bill does, who it does it for, how it will function, and what it is that we’re doing.

Senate Bill 233 is the Georgia Promise Scholarship Act, and from… At a high level, it takes the state funding for students who are currently enrolled in public school, it allows their parents to redirect those funds to an educational outcome, and a pathway of their choice.

That can be homeschool, virtual school, private school, co-ops, and as the education industry continues to innovate, hopefully we’ll continue to see further opportunities for parents to pursue excellent education outcomes for their children as we move into the future.

So, in the colloquial terms, as we’ve heard these… This term bantered about, it’s a money follows the child program. Mr. Chairman, I think it’s important to just talk through a high level of how schools are funded in the state of Georgia.

You have three buckets of funding, federal funding, state funding, and then the local funding, the local funding comes from the tax digest. The state funding is appropriated on a per capita basis, as you know, and it is designed to cover the marginal costs of adding a student to a system, so therefor the state funding for every school system in the state of Georgia fluctuates as the head count fluctuates, which is almost guaranteed to be some fluctuation year over year as you have [inaudible 00:01:36] student that move through the system.

The local funding, which comes from the local tax digest is designed to cover the fixed cost. That’s your building costs, and other hard costs that tend to be more static in nature, and don’t fluctuate as much via head count.

That funding is obviously based on the tax digest, and not at all tied to head count. What the bill, as it passed the Senate will do, it was… It will allow students to take $6,000, which is slightly less than the average that the state spends per student, uh, in the K through 12 public education system, and allow them to pursue one of those opportunities.

–>Who is eligible for the program? Like I mentioned, the students who are currently enrolled in public school, or those entering public school for the first time, and then the students who were attending a school that would be deemed to be in the bottom 25%, so the bottom quartile of schools in the state of Georgia *(actually, lines 71 & 72 create the requirement that the student be a U.S. citizen or Lawful Permanent Resident (green card holder) – also found on lines 82 & 83 in the latest version of the bill).

  • Update, March 22, 2023 6:20 AM: The Republican-majority House Education committee passed the latest version of SB 233 out on an unaccountable voice vote yesterday.

How is the funding spent? If you’re familiar with FSA programs, or other things that are administered by a third party, this would be very similar. These, uh… The state finance commissioner would stand up a third party administrator, and the, the funds would flow through that, that third party…”

end of transcript.

 

SB 195 dismantles state law on illegal aliens accessing occupational licenses: It passed senate with zero “no” votes

By

 

Update: SB 195 saw significant change (improvement) in the House and passed that body on March 27, 2023. See House vote 319 here.

SB 195 is yet another Republican bill under the Gold Dome apparently aimed at dismantling law we worked to put in place making life more difficult for illegal aliens. It passed the senate on March 6 without any member voting against it (vote record on the bottom).

The Georgia Chamber of Commerce goal is to allow a member of the U.S. military and their spouses to see a fast track to obtaining a professional or occupational license. According to the bill, generally, if a spouse of a member of the military moves to Georgia and already “holds a current and valid license to practice a profession, business, or trade issued by another state for an occupation with a similar scope of practice in this state” the Georgia licensing process will be “expedited.”

Professional and occupational licenses are “public benefits” under state law.

Bills we worked to see passed in 2006, 2009, 2011, 2012 and 2013 deal with a verification system in which applicants for occupational and professional licenses must swear on an affidavit they are eligible for the public benefit because of U.S. citizenship of are have “lawful presence.” That system is set up in OCGA 50-36-1. That existing verification system should not be waived for anyone, including a spouse of a member of the military who could be in the U.S. illegally.

Sen. Larry Walker (R- Perry) lead sponsor of SB 195. Other sponsors here.

The bill is easily fixed with the addition of this sentence: “Nothing contained in this Code section shall be construed to permit the issuance of a license without verification under Code Section 50-36-1.”

Please contact your own state Rep and point this out? We doubt this is the only such bill.

Also please contact the chairman of the House Regulated Industries committee, Rep Alan Powell at his Gold Dome office 404-463-3793 – alan.powell@house.ga.gov . just leave a polite message on voice mail or with the staffer who answers the phone: We are watching SB 195 and want to be sure you add ‘belt and suspenders’ language to keep illegal aliens out of our occupational and professional licensing process.”

 

Correction, apology and clarification: Partially inaccurate analysis of SB 233 – “school choice”

By

 

Re; SB 233 as passed the senate (SB233/CFSA)

  • Update: I retract the below correction apology clarification and apology 

Correction: The conclusion I came to and posted here regarding eligibility of students for the proposed new state grant known as the “Promise Scholarship” in SB 233 was inaccurate. I wrote that aliens illegally paroled for admission into the United States by the Biden administration would be eligible for the proposed new benefit. That conclusion is wrong. In fact, eligibility for the benefit requires that a student be a United States citizen or a “permanent resident alien” (green card holder) who meets the definition of an eligible noncitizen under federal Title IV requirements.”

That restriction does not include recipients of Biden’s illegal parole as I wrote. I deeply regret the obvious error.

As Georgia’s only full time pro-enforcement voice on immigration, we strive for accuracy and have promised swift correction on any inaccurate information. I have proven that no matter how many times one checks his work, if the same glaring error is repeated in the analysis process the conclusion will be flawed.

One of the first things I was taught as a seventeen-year-old recruit was that “Marines do not make excuses.” That said, I wish I had paid much closer attention in grade school class on Roman numerals.

Including state Rep Will Wade, and Senator Colton Moore’s Chief of Staff Michael Gargiulo, many thanks to the various people who politely convinced me to check my work yet again. I am profoundly sorry for my mistake and grateful for the confidence so many people show for our credibility.

Clarification: As the state-funded private school tuition scholarship proposed in SB 233 would benefit entire families, we have been consistent in our opinion that students and “parents” (applicants) be U.S. citizens or green card holders (“LPRs” – Lawful Permanent Residents).

I have repeatedly pointed out that we see no provision that “parents” are required to have that status  – or have any lawful immigration status. Due to the involvement of “parents” in the application process, oversight authority and apparent ability to access payments for “certain qualified education expenses,” we believe the absence of that language is crucial in any judgment of the pro-enforcement fairness and viability of the measure. Please see more on parents here.

We are of the opinion that any new “Promise Scholarship” would be a state grant public benefit under OCGA 50-36-1 and that applicants (“parents”) would be required to complete the verification of “lawful presence” in that code section. Assuming this is the case, it would not alone limit the participation of “parents” to U.S. citizens or LPRs. It would allow “parents” with non-immigrant visas and Biden’s illegal parole to apply and participate. We respectfully recommend that legislators educate themselves on this matter.

In the interest of “a belt and suspenders” clarity, the bill should contain language on this point. We also note that similar previous legislation did not require students to be U.S. citizens or LPRs, only cited 50-36-1 as an eligibility and verification reference and was murky in it’s language and wrong in its presentation.

dak

 

A line-by-line look at the role of “parents” in the proposed new state “Promise Scholarship” grant  SB 233

By

 

There is no requirement in the bill that “parents” who apply for benefits be U.S. citizens or have legal immigration status. Existing law requires verification of “lawful presence” for applicants but that law (OCGA 50-36-1) sees spotty compliance and enforcement. Wording should be added to the bill that inserts language referring to that law. 

 

PARENTS    SB 233 AS PASSED SENATE

 Creation of a new state grant to be known as a “Promise scholarship” for which parents  must apply for student’s access to state funds.

___

There is no requirement that “parents” be U.S. citizens or have legal immigration status.

Lines 32 & 33: “Parents” can also be a legal guardian, custodian, or other person with legal authority to act on behalf of a student.”

Lines 66 & 67: A student shall qualify for a promise scholarship account under this chapter if:  The student’s parent or parents currently reside within Georgia;

Lines 78-81: It is the “parent” who begins the process of accessing the new “Promise scholarship” state grant for the student (and thereby the family) by submitting an application to the state – “The student’s parent submits an application for an account to the commission no later than the deadline established by the commission.”

Lines 101-104: “Parents” are the recipient of the state funds for the “Promise scholarship” and student account funds are a result of the choice of the parent.

“Any account funds directed to a participating school or service provider are so directed on behalf of the participating student’s parent, the recognized recipient of such participating student’s account funds, and wholly as a result of the genuine and independent private choice of the parent.”

The “parent” signs an “agreement” promising to do and not do certain things in relation to the student’s education.Lines 105-108:  The parent of each student participating in the program shall comply fully with the participating school or service provider’s rules and policies. Any parent who fails to comply with the provisions of this chapter and commission regulations relating to the program shall forfeit the account and all account funds therein.  (If there is monitoring and then enforcement).

 Lines 156 -159: “The commission shall develop a system for parents to direct account funds to participating schools and service providers by electronic funds transfer, automated clearing-house transfer, or another system that the commission finds to be commercially viable, cost-effective, and easy for parents of participating students to use.

The new state grant would set up a system of reimbursements for out-of-pocket expenditures for…parents.

Lines 160 – 163: (The) commission shall not adopt a system that relies solely on reimbursing parents for out-of-pocket expenses, but may determine certain qualified education expenses that must require reimbursement or preapproval for purchase (italics mine). The commission is authorized to qualify private financial management firms to manage the payment system.

“Parents” will be appointed by the state to serve on an oversight committee that makes decisions on eligible/qualified expenses.

Lines 186 – 192 “To assist in the determination of whether certain expenses meet the requirements to be considered a qualified education expense under this chapter, a parent review committee shall be established. The committee shall be composed of eight parents of eligible students. Four of the parents shall reside in local school systems with student enrollment greater than 10,000, and four of the parents shall reside in local school systems with student enrollment less than 10,000.”

There is no requirement that “parents” be U.S. citizens or have legal immigration status.

___

We have a solution: Only U.S. citizens and green card holders should be allowed to apply for or benefit from “Promise scholarship” benefits.