Immigration Politics Georgia

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

D.A. King

*UPDATED: SENATE PASSES THE BILL, BOTH GA SENATORS VOTE “YEA” — Why President Trump must veto the spending scam: 5 insane provisions in the amnesty omnibus bill – “If Trump signs this bill… he deserves to lose re-election”

By

Image: Twitter

Conservative Review        

*UPDATE: SEE SENATE VOTES HERE

**UPDATE: HOUSE ROLL CALL VOTE HERE.

 

February 14, 2019

Daniel Horowitz

5 insane provisions in the amnesty omnibus bill

“Before getting into the details of this crazy omnibus bill, it’s important to recognize that we don’t understand all the details. The worst provisions are written in vague language ensconced in an 1,169-page bill, which has already been posted online in two different versions (the first was 10 pages shorter). That is exactly why Democrats are salivating to vote on this within a few hours of passage, which is exactly why Trump has a responsibility to oppose it immediately and demand at least a short-term clean continuing resolution so that he can digest the consequences of this bill. If he cannot make that simple demand, which would not even trigger a phony shutdown, then his presidency is worthless.

The process is indefensible: It is immoral, from any ideological perspective, to vote on an 1,169-page omnibus with new provisions on immigration amid a border crisis. We are already four and a half months into this fiscal year and have been operating on stopgap bills. There is no rush to vote on something like this, which will fund seven departments for the remainder of the year, within a few hours when we should have another stopgap bill while we debate, and even discover, the contents of this long-term bill that makes important statutory changes. The only reason one would pursue this process is to hide things from the American people.

Here are the immediate issues to flag:

1) Less of a wall than even what Democrats already agreed to: Trump originally demanded $25 billion for the wall. Then he negotiated himself down to $5.6 billion. Democrats balked and only agreed to $1.6 billion. This bill calls it a day at $1.375 billion, enough to construct 55 miles. But it’s worse than that. This bill limits the president’s ability to construct “barriers” to just the Rio Grande Valley sector and only bollard fencing, not concrete walls of any kind. There’s no ability to adapt. Furthermore, section 231 prohibits construction even within the RGV in five locations that are either federal or state lands. Remember, the challenge with building a wall in Texas is that, unlike in other states, the feds need to navigate issues with private lands. The first place you’d construct fencing is on public lands, which are now prohibited. The national parks along the border have gotten so bad that park rangers are scared to travel alone in them.

2) Liberal local officials have veto power over wall: Actually, on second thought, it’s likely that not a single mile of fence will be built. Section 232(a) of this bill states that “prior to use of any funds made available by this Act for the construction of physical barriers” the Department of Homeland Security “shall confer and seek to reach mutual agreement regarding the design and alignment of physical barriers within that city.” With whom must the feds consult? “The local elected officials.” Now you can understand the brilliance of limiting the wall to the Rio Grande Valley. These are the most liberal counties on the border (thanks to demographics of open borders itself!), and there is practically no local official who supports the wall in these counties.

What are the consequences? This bill stipulates that “Such consultations shall continue until September 30, 2019 (or until agreement is reached, if earlier) and may be extended beyond that date by agreement of the parties, and no funds made available in this Act shall be used for such construction while consultations are continuing.” Thus, all the Beto O’Rourke type of politicians in that region have de facto veto power. There’s a reason why they didn’t authorize fencing in conservative counties like Cochise and Yuma in Arizona.

3) This bill contains a blatant amnesty for the worst cartel smugglers: Section 224(a) prohibits the deportation of anyone who is sponsoring an “unaccompanied” minor illegal alien – or who says they might sponsor a UAC, or lives in a household with a UAC, or a household that potentially might sponsor a UAC. It’s truly difficult to understate the betrayal behind this provision. One of the driving factors of the invasion is the misinterpretation of the UAC law. Under current law, Central American teenagers are only treated as refugees if they are A) a victim of “A severe form of trafficking” and B) have no relatives in the country. Yet almost all of them are self-trafficked by these very illegal relatives who are indeed present in the country. Rather than clamping down on this fleecing of the American people, the bill gives amnesty to the very people paying the cartels to invade us!

“We can call this the MS-13 Household Protection Act of 2019,” said Jessica Vaughan of the Center for Immigration Studies. “We know that 80 percent of the UAC sponsors are in the country illegally. The number of people this would protect would reach into the hundreds of thousands, if all of the household or potential household members are counted. ICE has estimated that 30-40 percent of the MS-13 members it has arrested in the last two years arrived as UACs. There is no reason to shield any of these individuals from deportation. After all, if the minor is living with family, they should no longer be considered unaccompanied anyway. If there are illegal aliens here who do not yet have a child here to serve as a deportation shield, this certainly is an incentive for them to make the arrangements to bring one.” More here!

 

What helps drive the “family separation”/asylum crisis at our border? The History of the Flores Settlement How a 1997 agreement cracked open our detention laws

By

Image: CIS.org

 

“A new report from the Center for Immigration Studies analyzes how a 1997 legal settlement called the Flores Settlement helped to crack open U.S. detention laws and directly lead to today’s “family separation” asylum crisis. By requiring that all alien minors in detention are held no longer than 20 days, Flores leaves DHS with only two options: Either catch-and-release entire families, or “separate” parents from children by holding the parents for detention and prosecution after their children are released.”

Center for Immigration Studies

The History of the Flores Settlement

Image: CIS.org

How a 1997 agreement cracked open our detention laws

By Matthew Sussis on February 11, 2019

Matt Sussis is the assistant director of communications at the Center for Immigration Studies.

“In April 2018, the Trump administration implemented new guidelines as part of its “zero tolerance” policy toward illegal entry, in response to the rising number of illegal aliens showing up with their children at the southern border. Under these guidelines, the Justice Department prosecuted every border infiltrator for the crime of entry without inspection.

After detaining the parents, the government could either put the children in a shelter (due to legal prohibitions on keeping children in detention for over 20 days), or release the entire family into the interior of the country — “catch-and-release” — and hope that they don’t simply disappear into the illegal immigrant population. The first of these two options has been decried by critics as one of “family separation”.

To understand how this conundrum arose, one must learn the history of the Flores settlement agreement.

Digging into its history bolsters the theory that the Clinton administration was well aware of what it was doing when it signed the agreement, and may have shared more in common with the activist plaintiffs than originally thought with regard to loosening the rules governing asylum.

Key takeaways:

  • The consequences of the Flores settlement, a 1997 agreement between immigration activist groups and the government, have been central to the debates over President Trump’s “zero-tolerance” policy at the border and accusations of family separations. A full understanding of this agreement requires understanding its history.
  • Beginning in 1985, the activist groups began a series of lawsuits against the federal government over its perceived mistreatment of alien minors in detention facilities (notably a 15-year-old Salvadoran girl named Jenny Flores), culminating in a consent decree, the Flores settlement, more than a decade later.
  • This 1997 settlement led to the government agreeing to set immigration detention standards for unaccompanied alien children (UACs), particularly regarding facility conditions and the timing and terms of the UACs’ release.
  • When the government entered into the Flores settlement agreement, its stated intention was to finally resolve years of litigation against the INS, but this is only partially true. Recent comments and actions by Clinton administration officials indicate that they were at least partially motivated by a desire to cooperate with the activist plaintiffs to loosen asylum rules.
  • Since 1997, Flores has been significantly expanded upon by federal judges with loose border proclivities, and is now interpreted to mean that all minors in detention — accompanied by their parents or not — cannot be held for more than 20 days.
  • Partially driven by Flores, the number of apprehended aliens who claim credible fear (the first step in applying for asylum) has soared — up 67 percent in FY 18 vs. FY 17, and up over 10-fold from a decade ago. Moreover, only 3.5 percent of UACs are ever removed, according to DHS.
  • Congress could pass a law superseding Flores, but has yet to do so. Please read the entire CIS report here.

OPINION: A reply to Meg Pirkle: GDOT has easily wrangled an exception in the E-Verify verification – contractor bidding law with an irritated and stern “trust us”

By

Image: GDOT

by | Jan 30, 2019 | The Forum | 0 comments

Re; “Will the General Assembly reverse the 2018 GDOT carve-out on E-Verify for contractor bids?”

GDOT has easily wrangled an exception in the E-Verify verification – contractor bidding law with an irritated and stern “trust us.”

With her response, a writer from GDOT, Meg Pirkle, has publicly accused me of offering up “omissions and factual inaccuracies” in my recent IAG column  about a law and E-Verify usage verification for public contractors system I have been working with since its creation in 2006.

I described a successful move by the Georgia Department of Transportation to put special rules for their contractor bidding process into law via Section 3 of 2018’s SB455. Admittedly, this is an “in the weeds” issue that very few people – including most legislators – are familiar with. I hope that will change. It is important to note however, that if they are following the law, all other public employers now have a different system for this process than GDOT.

State law, OCGA 13-10-91, which, as I wrote, was put into place by then Senator Chip Rogers’ Georgia Security and Immigration Compliance Act of 2006, governs the public employers/contractor bidding process that involves E-Verify.

This Act originally created state law that read: “No public employer shall enter into a contract for the physical performance of services within this state unless the contractor registers and participates in the federal work authorization program to verify information of all new employees.”

Because of loop holes, that part of the law was adjusted in 2009 (See line 33) with the addition of: “Before a bid for any such service is considered by a public employer, the bid shall include a signed, notarized affidavit from the contractor attesting to…” All emphasis mine.

There is a great difference in the two schedules for deadlines for potential contractors to verify use of E-Verify.

Pirkle’s interpretation of my piece is that I question the ethics of the 2018 GDOT legislation that excludes GDOT from the process of contractors submitting proof of E-Verify authority before consideration of their bids. On this, Pirkle has shown a firm grasp of my intent.

 “Omission”

I confess: Pirkle’s accusation that I omitted the response from GDOT’s spokesperson, Natalie Dale, is true. I didn’t take up space in the write-up to feature Dale’s multiple responses because she did not answer most of my questions. Instead, I reserved much of my limited column space to include several news-story examples of GDOT’s past documented violations of exactly the same law on exactly the same bidding process issue. I did however post our entire email thread here.

“Factual inaccuracies”

Pirkle wites that “King suggested that the (E-Verify) affidavit could be submitted electronically; however, the Georgia Department of Transportation’s legal office maintains a strict interpretation of Georgia Code requiring the affidavit to bear the actual inked signature for notarization.”

What I wrote was “…the existing law is clear that bids and E-Verify affidavits may be submitted electronically. If a contract bidder is indeed an E-Verify user, he can easily send that documentation along with his bid from his computer.”

I even linked to the text of the law. That doesn’t seem to have been enough, so I will post the exact language: “(11) Documents required by this Code section may be submitted electronically, provided the submission complies with Chapter 12 of Title 10.” It’s down near the bottom of the page.

Memo to Meg Pirkle and GDOT: I didn’t “suggest” the affidavit can legally be sent electronically, I stated it as the fact that it is. There is a qualifier that reads “provided the submission complies with Chapter 12 of Title 10.” What does the relevant part of that law say? Here’s what.

Regardless of very clear state law, we are now told that GDOT lawyers have quietly “interpreted” that E-Verify affidavits must be sent in via hard copy. And that this is the impetus for SB445 and the carve out for GDOT. How handy.

Why didn’t GDOT ask that the law be changed to accommodate their concerns with sending notarized documents electronically in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 or 2013?

Legislators and Legislative Counsel in the 2009 committee process fully vetted the carefully crafted language on sending electronic versions of all documents when the security on the contractor bidding process was tightened. I was there and participated in that process. Where was GDOT?

Indeed, it should be noted that GDOT lawyers also did not bring forth concerns when the same code was in committee in 2010, 2011, 2012 or 2013.

 Legislators should be very curious to hear what objections the apparently shy lawyers at GDOT have with all this. And they should be interested in what other departments have quietly adopted their own contractor bidding system outside law passed by the General Assembly.

Pirkle should apologize

Pirkle on “inaccuracies” again: “King also insinuates that legislators and/or GDOT had secretly inserted questionable affidavit language into a bill on the last day of the session. This is also inaccurate.”

Nice try. I wrote that “in the haste and bedlam of 2018’s Sine Die, Senate Bill 445 sailed through both the House and Senate.” Perhaps Pirkle doesn’t fully understand the workings of the legislature.  SB445 passed on the last day of the 2018 session with very few “Nay” votes in either chamber. Pirkle should point out the supposed “insinuation” or any mention of any amendment anywhere in my column, or have the integrity to apologize and publicly correct her accusation. “Inaccuracies” indeed.

For readers who are not familiar with endless smoke-and-mirror ways of the Gold Dome Swamp, it may be confusing to read GDOT’s reply to my column on the change they have created in the bidding process they use when Pirkle begins her defense of GDOT’s 2018 SB445 with “The bill included the extension of a deadline to submit a required affidavit as one provision in that bill.” Then ends it with the assurance that “the bidding system did not change.”

Finally, on the lack of lawmaker’s objections to GDOT changing the bidding process rules back to where they were before the added security language was added in 2009, Pirkle notes that “not once in this process did a single lawmaker raise any concerns with the affidavit language.” This is what can easily be labeled “sadly amusing.” Finding any legislator in the Capitol – who, even now – can offer a lucid explanation of the E-Verify statutes would be an interesting, if all but futile mission. When GDOT says they want legislation passed, the response from far too many legislators in leadership is “how high?”

I have spoken to many now-concerned and surprised lawmakers who have taken a second look at the changes in the contractor bidding system created by their votes on SB445. All of them express surprise and regret – and all of them point to the fact that such things happen when rushed Day 40 votes are taken without time for proper debate or education.

Executive version

 GDOT has easily wrangled an exception in the E-Verify verification – contractor bidding law with an irritated and stern “trust us.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fast Fact: Illegal Immigration Expected to Hit Highest Level Since George W. Bush

By

Image: Twitter

Breitbart

February 8, 2019

Illegal immigration this year is expected to hit the highest level in a decade, reaching numbers that the United States has not seen since President George W. Bush.

In December 2018, the last month for illegal border crossing totals, there were close to 51,000 border crossings at the U.S.-Mexico border, a level that outpaced Princeton Policy researcher Steven Kopits’ monthly projection by about 3.5 percent.

The month before, there were nearly 52,000 border crossings. Based on the latest available data, Kopits projects there to be about 606,000  crossings this year at the U.S.-Mexico border, a level of illegal immigration that surpasses nearly every year of illegal immigration under President Obama. Here.

January border stats show a sustained, high volume of families & unaccompanied children from Central America illegally crossing along the SW Border

By

Image: U.S. Customs and Border Patrol

Border Patrol Agents encountered 58 large groups (100+ people) so far this FY compared to 13 in FY18. Here.

U.S. Border Patrol Southwest Border Apprehensions FY 2019

USBP Demographic OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP Total
Southwest Border UAC 4,971 5,264 4,764 5,124 20,123
Family Units 23,114 25,164 27,507 24,116 99,901
Southwest Border Total Apprehensions 50,998 51,857 50,749 47,893 201,497

*Note: Family Unit represents the number of individuals (either a child under 18 years old, parent or legal guardian) apprehended with a family member by the U.S. Border Patrol.

In January, 47,893 people were apprehended between ports of entry on the Southwest Border, compared with 50,749 in the month of December and 51,857 in November. In FY18, a total of 396,579 individuals were apprehended between ports of entry on our Southwest Border.

For breakdown by Sector, visit USBP Southwest Border Apprehensions by Sector

Office of Field Operations Southwest Border Inadmissibles FY 2019

Field Operations Demographic OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP Total
Southwest Border UAC 455 404 353 409 1,621
Family Units 4,178 4,986 4,383 4,212 17,759
Southwest Border Total Inadmissibles 9,770 10,606 10,030 10,314 40,72

Public Safety Legislation: Track and report to Georgia public the number of non-citizens in state prison system with immigration status, nationality and crimes committed

By

Image: Georgia Department of Corrections

 

 

Georgia Rep Jesse Petrea (R, Savannah) has dropped one-page legislation under the Gold Dome to begin the process of creating an official database of criminal aliens in the state prison system. The descriptive caption on Petrea’s new HB 202 reads:

to require the commissioner of corrections to report certain information regarding the immigration status, offenses, and home countries of persons who are confined under the authority of the Department of Corrections…

A staunch advocate of public safety, in 2017 Rep Petrea successfully sponsored HB 452 which required the Georgia Bureau of Investigation to share information it receives from the federal government on the release from federal custody of criminal aliens with Georgia sheriffs

“This bill is about transparency. The people have a right to know when criminal aliens are released back into our communities. That information is not now available to them. The people can form their own opinions based on the data made available to them. My goal is to make the information available” Petrea said at the time.

The current effort at creating official records of crime and punishment of aliens in Georgia will serve to document one of the costs to taxpayers of criminal activity by non-citizens regardless of their immigration status. Including former Commissioner of the Georgia Department of Public Safety, now Republican state Rep. Bill Hitchens, a partial list of cosigners to HB 202 can be seen on the top of Petrea’s bill, introduced yesterday. While only the federal government has authority to deport illegal aliens, Georgia’s new governor, Brian Kemp is expected to show support for the concept, as he ran on a platform of cracking down on criminal aliens and gangs. Georgia has suffered a noted increase in gang activity.

Rep. Jesse Petrea. Image: Georgia General Assembly

Expert observers predict that the corporate-funded anti-enforcement immigration lobby will offer strong resistance to Petrea’s public safety information sharing measure. Currently, the Coca Cola – funded GALEO Corp. is joined by the SPLC and FWD.US along with multiple other leftist groups in a massive lobbying force to convince the Republican-controlled Georgia legislature to kill any legislation that advances immigration enforcement or establishes official records of costs associated with illegal immigration.

According to the left-leaning Georgia Budget and Policy Institute, Georgia is home to more illegal aliens than Lawful Permanent Residents – green card holders.

Contacted by phone Friday, Gwinnett County Sheriff Butch Conway expressed his strong support for Petrea’s bill, saying “it’s always a good idea to collect more information on crime and this is valuable information. It’s a no brainer”, said Conway. In 2009, Conway implemented the federal 287(g) program in the Gwinnett jail.

Legislators in other states have expressed interest in Petrea’s public safety move. Georgia Rep Jesse Petrea can be contacted through his Capitol office.

 

Hall County elections board to study possibility of foreign language ballots

By

Image: Flickr

Gold Dome Republicans will not allow voters to decide on constitutional official English

The liberal Gainesville Times is reporting today that the Hall County elections board is again investigating the possibility of foreign language ballots.

Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act requires that counties with large enough populations of minority groups provide election materials in their population’s native languages. Voters who are not proficient in English have the option to bring a translator with them to the polls.

Hall’s elections board voted last year to reverse plans to provide ballots in Spanish, but now that the busy election season is over, board members said Tuesday that they wanted to devote some time to studying how the county could offer ballots in Spanish.

The corporate-funded anti-English Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials (GALEO) in Atlanta has long lobbied against English as Georgia’s constitutional official language of government and has led the attack on English in the voting process. The Republican-ruled Georgia House killed legislation in 2016 to allow Georgia voters to answer a ballot question on amending the state constitution to make English the state’s official language of government.

The ability to read, write, and speak basic English is a requirement for naturalization.

Gwinnett County is already using foreign language ballots.

“GALEO is very glad about the designation by the U.S. Census Bureau and the requirement to provide much needed Spanish language assistance to Latino voters in Gwinnett County,”  Jerry Gonzalez, executive director of the Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials, said in a news release Monday afternoon.

“Voting is an important right we have as U.S. citizens, regardless of English language proficiency. As we had mentioned over one year ago, the need for Spanish language assistance and information is certainly a reality,” GALEO Executive Director Jerry Gonzalez told the liberal AJC.

Metro-Atlanta’s DeKalb County School system alone deals with 140 languages

The Times’ story on Hall County and foreign language ballots can be read here.   

Speaker Ralston’s handpicked former Democrat candidate defeated in special election run-off

By

Candidate Jesse Vaughn – Image: Chattanooga Times Free Press

North Georgia voters reject former Democrat Party local chairman in Georgia’s House District 5 run-off 

 

Despite a reported $4000.00 campaign donation from Georgia’s Republican Speaker of the House, former Democratic party local chairman Jesse Vaughn has lost the race to fill an empty seat in the Georgia House to opponent Matt Barton.

Barton will replace State Rep. John Meadows, R-Calhoun, who died Nov. 13.

Defeated candidate Vaughn said he switched parties around 2008. His voting record shows he first cast a ballot in a Republican primary in 2010, according to the Chattanooga Times.

He is a former member of the board of directors for the Gordon County Chamber of Commerce.

 

The SPLC is a hate-mongering scam: See the growing IPG page on the Southern Poverty Law Center

By

Image: Fake News Exposed

“Speaking to a friendly audience, Senior Fellow of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), Mark Potok, spoke frankly about his group’s real purpose. It’s not what most in the media think. “Sometimes the press will describe us as monitoring hate crimes,” Potok told a luncheon crowd. Potok then said, “I want to say plainly that our aim in life is to destroy these groups, to completely destroy them.”

Here is our page on the parasitic hucksters at the SPLC