Immigration Politics Georgia

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

Search Results for: appeals court

Georgia Budget and Policy Institute’s Senior Policy Analyst for Higher Education Should Apologize to State Legislators @GABudget

By

Image: Twitter

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jennifer Lee should correct her agenda-driven inaccuracy

Now that yet another instate tuition for illegal aliens bill (HB 120) has been stopped in Georgia, when will the GBPI board post a correction and apologize to trusting state legislators for fake “facts” ?

FACT: “Illegal aliens who have been awarded deferred action on deportation proceedings through the DACA amnesty by both the Obama and Trump administrations are illegal aliens and do not have “lawful presence” says the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. The decision was handed down March 6, 2019.”

Fast Fact: Appellate Court: Not lawfully present, illegal aliens with DACA are illegal aliens – Georgia issuing public benefits based on disputed status, D.A. King, on ImmigrationPoliticsGA.com, March 8, 2019

FICTION: “Estrada is one of about 21,600 undocumented young people who participate in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program in Georgia. Through DACA, she is lawfully present in the U.S., but Georgia policy requires she pay out-of-state tuition rates three times higher than in-state tuition.”

 “Extending In-state Tuition to Dreamers Creates Opportunity for Georgia” – Jennifer Lee, Senior Policy Analyst for Higher Education, Georgia Budget and Policy Institute,  April 23, 2019

Photo: Twitter

 

 

Illegal immigration in Georgia & SB 448 – perhaps the most, um… ‘incomplete’ bill for 2022 in the Georgia state senate #ButchMiller

By

Sen. Butch Miller, SB 448 sponsor. Photo: Ga General Assembly

We like the concept! But SB 448 looks like a campaign bill to me. While it calls for a “citizenship status” check to determine if a “detained” and/or arrested individual is “lawfully present” in this country, it doesn’t go any further in explaining exactly how the law enforcement officer would go about that status check. Not even by saying the documents on the subject’s person should be used. I struggle not to type “poorly written.” Oops.

Maybe the sponsors could refer to this? See also 8 USC 1304

We again feel compelled to remind all concerned that “lawfully present” is a term that is not defined by congress in the INA.

The 11th circuit court of appeals of appeals weighed in on that in 2019.

But…what, exactly does the LEO do with the information if it looks like the subject is an illegal alien? Maybe nothing?

And why would we watch as yet another law like this is even discussed when OCGA 42-4-14 is ignored? 

Progress would be to actually add a written penalty to OCGA 42-4-14.

___

“SB 448  ( LC 28 0368 )

Law Enforcement Officers and Agencies; peace officer in this state who lawfully arrests an individual with or without a warrant or as the result of a traffic stop shall check such individual’s citizenship status; provide”

“First Reader Summary

A BILL to be entitled an Act to amend Chapter 1 of Title 35 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to general provisions regarding law enforcement officers and agencies, so as to provide that each peace officer in this state who lawfully arrests or detains an individual with or without a warrant or as the result of a traffic stop shall check such individual’s citizenship status to determine if such individual is lawfully present in this country; to provide for related matters; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes.
“BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF GEORGIA:  
SECTION 1.  
Chapter 1 of Title 35 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to general provisions regarding law enforcement officers and agencies, is amended by adding a new Code section to read as follows:  
  
“35-1-24.  
Each peace officer, as such term is defined in Code Section 35-8-2, in this state who  
lawfully arrests or detains an individual with or without a warrant or as the result of a  
traffic stop shall check such individual’s citizenship status to determine if such individual  
is lawfully present in this country.“

Sponsors

No.Number in list Name District
1. Miller, Butch 49th
2. Mullis, Jeff 53rd
3. Gooch, Steve 51st
4. McNeill, Sheila 3rd
5. Payne, Chuck 54th
6. Hickman, Billy 4th
7. Burns, Max 23rd

More on Rep Wes Cantrell’s HB 60 & HB 999 – his secret verification system will not work *School choice

By

Rep Wes Cantrell, Republican, Woodstock

 

K-12 “school choice” for illegal aliens is a bad idea 

“School choice” is a good idea. But illegal aliens should be excluded from taxpayer-funded private school tuition benefits.

You can become familiar with the issue here.

Below are a few nuggets from Rep Wes Cantrell and a bit of simple legal reality. We will now sit back and watch the Gold Dome Dog and Pony Show on”school choice” in a state with more illegal aliens than Arizona.                        

_

We are told that Rep Cantrell’s bill (s) “specifically prohibits those who are here illegally from participating in the (scholarship) program.” Where? What line number?

We assume Rep Cantrell means the “Promise Scholarship” proposed in HB 60 and HB 999. We see no language like that in either bill. There should be. All Cantrell has done is refer to a verification system in a state law, OCGA 50-36-1, which is unworkable for this purpose.

FACT: OCGA 50-36-1 does not require anyone to produce documents that prove lawful presence.

Rep Wes Cantrell is telling constituents and presumably other Republican legislators (it’s apparently still a secret to the Democrats, as he hid it in his committee presentation on HB 60 that saw zero public comments) that OCGA 50-36-1  (“the verification law”) “requires a person to provide proof they are lawfully present in our state in order to receive public benefits.”

Screen shot from Facebook

It doesn’t.

The term “lawfully present” which, as noted by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, is not defined anywhere in the INA, refers to presence in the United States, not Georgia.

Presumably, Cantrell is referring to the section of the verification law that requires the applicant for public benefits to provide at least one “secure and verifiable document” as defined in OCGA 50-36-2.  That affidavit can be seen here from the Georgia AG office website. It is clear that the secure and verifiable documents “may not be indicative of residency or immigration status.” Cantrell is wrong.

It should be noted that the intent of the legislation that created this part of the law was to require applicants to produce documents that provide proof of immigration status or U.S. citizenship.

FACT: OCGA 50-36-1 will not serve to verify eligibility of K-12 students for a state private school scholarship

The verification law was written to verify eligibility of adults or individuals near the age of eighteen. “…if the applicant is younger than 18 years of age at the time of the application, he or she shall execute the affidavit required by this subparagraph within 30 days after his or her eighteenth birthday.”

Neither the application nor the affidavit would have any effect in holding a 4th grader (for example) responsible for the accuracy of the information entered or the documents submitted. Unless the state somehow decides to prosecute a kid for false swearing.

There is no provision for anyone except the applicant for (and recipient of) the public benefit  to complete the application or the affidavit. Repeat: There is no provision for parents to complete or sign anything. While I cannot find it now, I have seen Cantrell tell at least one person on a Facebook exchange that “the parents would sign the application for the student…” or words to that effect.

  • Related: Rep Wes Cantrell’s latest “fix” for HB 999 & HB 60… isn’t

 

Cantrell’s unworkable verification solution could pave the way for massive fraud

The law says that mere completion of the application will serve as “presumed proof of lawful presence” until the information submitted attesting to eligibility is verified by the SAVE program. USCIS would not likely consider a query based on a second party signature on an application or an affidavit. Which means the SAVE program would not be completed.  It is very probable that if Cantrell’s legislation were to become law as it is as I write on Feb 8, 2022 that the “verification system” Cantrell has set up would go no further than a K-12 student (or parent/guardian/custodian) signing off on an application completed by a parent/guardian/custodian and be filed away as a finished product because the SAVE program was never run.

State officials should carefully consider the obvious shortcuts, falsehoods and omissions involved in Cantrell’s plan

Is the “Promise Scholarship” a clear “public benefit” for USCIS?

Curious readers (not many of those in the House Education committee) will need to know the people at USCIS who run the SAVE program must have clear authorization and citation of a statute to verify the eligibility of the applicant for a specific public benefit. OCGA 50-36-1 lays out a list of public benefits that includes “grants” and “state grant or loan.” While the proposed “Promise Scholarship” in HB 60 and HB 999 may in fact fit into one of those two categories for the state purposes, it is not at all clear that it is specific enough for the USCIS staff to operate the SAVE reporting. In early February 2022 I spoke at length with a senior USCIS staffer in the Trump administraton several times on this topic.

As is stated above, under state law, if there is no SAVE check, the affidavit is regarded proof enough for the “verification.”

All of the above is predicated on the presumption that the Plyler v Doe SCOTUS decision and the far left would allow the state of Georgia to ask K-12 students and/or their parents about immigration status. Alabama tried that and was rebuffed. There is a much simpler way to do this.

We don’t see anyone taking the time to create a workable bill. What will happen if this train wreck were to make it to Gov Kemp’s desk and he had to veto it as unworkable (as if) after the Republican base was all “school choice!” juiced?

 

Letter to Georgia Piedmont Technical College President Dr. Tavarez Holston – Re: Georgia driving and ID credentials used as validation of ‘lawful presence’ * Updated #DACA

By

 

 

 

 

“Georgia issues drivers licenses to illegal aliens. Illegal aliens do not have ‘lawful presence.’”

 

*Update: Several days after we sent the below letter we received a phone call from a high-ranking official at TCSG acknowledging the errors and informing us that the related website (s) were being corrected and that no illegal aliens had been granted admission to any TSCG school.

20 August 2021

Dr. Tavarez Holston
President – Georgia Piedmont Technical College 

495 North Indian Creek Drive
Clarkston, GA 30021

Re: Your use of Georgia driving and ID credentials as validation of ‘lawful presence’ for instate tuition purposes.

Dr. Holston,

It is my educated opinion that there exists a serious flaw in your system for allowing students to validate ‘lawful presence’ for purposes of receiving instate tuition. I intend to see this apparent breach of security and compliance corrected and that any student who is not eligible for instate tuition and is currently paying that rate is charged the out-of-state scale. I assume this will require an audit of your past records.

On your ‘new student’ page at the school’s website you have a section on ‘Provide Verification of Lawful Presence in the United States’ that clearly allows students to present a Georgia drivers license and/or a ID card as “validation” of lawful presence:

“Effective January 1, 2012, all students applying for in-state tuition must provide validation of lawful presence in the United States. The following documents will serve as proof of lawful presence in the United States and documentation will be required before you are eligible for consideration of in-state tuition:

  • A current Driver’s License issued by the State of Georgia after January 1, 2008
  • A current ID issued by the State of Georgia after January 1, 2008…”

Georgia issues drivers licenses to illegal aliens. Illegal aliens do not have ‘lawful presence.’

As one example, reports from DDS tell us more than 20,000 illegal aliens who are recipients of the illegal DACA program have been issued these driving and ID credentials. States are fully within their rights to issue drivers licenses and ID Cards to whomever they choose, but these documents in no way demonstrate, validate, prove or indicate ‘lawful presence.’

As someone who has worked on the illegal immigration crisis in the Georgia Capitol since 2004, I am appalled but not surprised to see this “validation” practice in a taxpayer-funded college.

I am sending this letter electronically so as to more efficiently provide your office with needed information for your education.

Directed only at the aforementioned DACA recipients, here are some quotes from other educated sources, which I hope will expand on my claim. To be clear: Deferred action on deportation does indeed make an illegal alien eligible for a Georgia driving and or ID credential. It does not in any way bestow or validate ‘lawful presence.’

* The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against DACA recipient student’s claims of ‘lawful presence’ in Georgia in 2019. On page 26 of the March 2019 11th Circuit opinion the court wrote: “As explained above, appellants are not lawfully present in the United States.”
* “As DACA recipients, they simply were given a reprieve from potential removal; that does not mean they are in any way ‘lawfully present under the (INA) act.” (11th circuit court in the same opinion as above).

* “We have continuously and clearly taken the position in ongoing legal cases that DACA does not confer legal status…”  Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr to WABE News, July, 2017.

* “Illegal immigrants who are granted permission to stay in the country under an Obama administration policy that was announced in June will be eligible for drivers’ licenses in Georgia the state’s attorney general wrote in a letter to the governor.” The Associated Press (writer Kate Brumback) 2012, via the Augusta Chronicle.

In the interest of space and time I will limit my citations to the above for the present time.

It is my contention that if your institution has awarded instate tuition rates to DACA recipients because they were deemed “lawfully present,” you are acting in conflict with state law. I urge you to remove the instructions to students cited above and to adjust your policy and correct any incorrect tuition rates now being granted.

I trust you will regard this heads up as the well-intentioned effort from a concerned taxpayer it is meant to be. I respectfully assure you we will follow up on this very disturbing matter. Please call on me if I can be of any further assistance.

I would be grateful for a reply.

Sincerely,

D.A. King

President, the Dustin Inman Society – for the board

Marietta, GA. 30066

 

Cc: Greg Dozier

Commissioner, Technical College System of Georgia

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Democrat Amnesty: The ‘Drug Trafficker, Pimp, and Rapist Relief Act’

By

Image: CIS.org

Criminal Alien Amnesty Hiding in Biden Amnesty Bill

Andrew Arthur

March 1, 2021

Center for Immigration Studies

Hidden within President Biden’s amnesty bill is a “sleeper” provision that grants amnesty to criminal aliens — or at least makes them eligible to seek it. The fact is, the difference is not that great, as I will explain. You could call it the “Drug Trafficker, Pimp, and Rapist Relief Act” (and include murderers, child sex offenders, and those who convicted of slavery, too).

You have to get down to section 1204, at p. 73, to find the provision, euphemistically named “Restoring Fairness to Adjudications”. Sounds reasonable. Until you read it.

That section would add new waivers to sections 212(c) and 237(a)(8) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Let me give you some history to better explain how breathtakingly lenient those provisions are.

History of Section 212(c) of the INA

There had been a waiver in section 212(c) of the INA since 1952, but that was removed in 1996 by Congress in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA). Why was section 212(c) removed by IIRIRA?

Because it provided relief to some pretty unsavory criminal aliens. Here’s how that provision read, from 1952 to 1990:

Aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence who temporarily proceeded abroad voluntarily and not under an order of deportation, and who are returning to a lawful unrelinquished domicile of seven consecutive years, may be admitted in the discretion of the Attorney General without regard to [their excludability under section 212(a) of the INA].

I will stop right there to explain what that means. The old 212(c) waiver was originally only available to aliens with green cards, and only then if they had been living in the United States for seven years. And it was originally meant to grant them a waiver if they were returning from abroad.

In 1976, however, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) held that it also applied to green card holders who had not left the United States, finding on due process and equal protection grounds that it was not fair to treat returning immigrants differently. That made section 212(c) waivers a form of relief from deportation.

In 2001, the Supreme Court held that: “The extension of § 212(c) relief to the deportation context has had great practical importance, because deportable offenses have historically been defined broadly.” In other words, if you were a lawful permanent resident criminal who had not left the United States, until 1976, you were likely to be deported (because that is what Congress wanted).

And it was granted pretty liberally: Between 1989 and 1995, more than 10,000 aliens were granted 212(c) relief, many if not most because those green-card holders were deportable on criminal grounds. One immigration judge (IJ) before whom I appeared told me that she would usually grant it to an alien at least once.

Recognizing that, again, some serious criminals were benefitting from this waiver, in 1990, Congress barred aliens convicted of aggravated felonies from 212(c) relief if they had served a sentence of five years or more for those crimes. That still allowed some serious criminals to stay, because even though many criminals are sentenced to more slammer time, few actually are in prison for a half decade.

Congress narrowed the waiver even further six years later, in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) of 1996. It barred 212(c) relief to an alien convicted of any aggravated felony, drug crimes, firearms offenses, and some crimes involving moral turpitude.

But even then, five months later 212(c) was rescinded by IIRIRA and replaced by a different form of relief, cancellation of removal for certain permanent residents (42A cancellation), available only to lawful permanent residents who have not been convicted of aggravated felonies.

The decision to rescind 212(c) relief was hardly partisan — it was passed by a Republican Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton… more here. 

 

Pending legislation under Georgia’s Gold Dome to allow illegal aliens to pay lower tuition at public universities than legal immigrants and U.S. citizens #HB120 #KaseyCarpenter

By

 

Image: A.F. Branco – In 2016 three Georgia residents, all illegal aliens who had graduated from Georgia high schools, went to court with the contention that their deferred action on deportation status as DACA recipients somehow provided “lawful presence” in the U.S. Further, they said DACA should allow them to attend the universities the Board of Regents has placed off limits to illegal aliens.
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against them in 2019. On page 26 of the March 2019 11th Circuit opinion the court wrote: “As explained above, appellants are not lawfully present in the United States.”
The court noted the obvious (even the liberal AJC reported it): illegal alien students are still subject to deportation proceedings. “As DACA recipients, they simply were given  a reprieve from potential removal; that does not mean they are in any way ‘lawfully present under the (INA) act.”

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

Updated: Typos corrected 5:32 PM 28 January, 2021.  **Updated 9:15 AM 29 January, 2021 with note on lack of criminal restrictions for eligibility.

UPDATE FEB 19, 8:47 PM – THERE IS NOW A SUBSTITUTE BILL (LC 49 0393S) WITH A SLIGHT CHANGE IN LANGUAGE DESIGNED TO CREATE FAKE NEWS. IT IS WORKING. MORE SUNDAY.

Instate tuition for illegal aliens in Georgia – House Bill 120 sponsored by Republican Rep Kasey Carpenter of Dalton

 Carpenter has three Republican co-signers and five Democrat co-signers. Without ever using “DACA,” the hoped-for contention is that DACA provides “lawful presence.” It doesn’t.

See bottom for a list and contact info of cosponsors.

Rep Kasey Carpenter’s legislation, HB 120, would change Georgia law to allow illegal aliens to access instate tuition rates in Georgia’s public university and technical college systems. Three schools would be exempt because they do not admit illegal aliens at any tuition rate.

Rep Kasey Carpenter Photo: GA General Assembly

These instate rates are much lower than out-of state tuition (what non-residents pay). For academic year 2019-2020, the average tuition & fees for Colleges in Georgia is $4,721 for in-state and $16,879 for out-of-state.

This would mean illegal aliens would pay a lower rate than Americans and legal immigrants from Michigan or Nebraska (for example).

The bill is being promoted in the liberal AJC in a way that makes it sound like it would only apply to illegal aliens with Obama’s illegal DACA action. Here is a quote from an AJC article before the bill officially dropped:

“ (Rep Kasey) Carpenter said his bill would apply to participants in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA.”

The reality is that “DACA” is not mentioned anywhere in Carpenter’s state tuition amnesty bill. Carpenter, along with his far-left, Atlanta-area Democrat co-sponsors has structured the measure so that nearly any ‘youngish’ illegal alien living in Georgia, DACA or not, can pay much less tuition in Georgia taxpayer-funded post-secondary schools than Americans and legal immigrants from most other states *if they meet the bill’s guidelines. *(updated 3:19 PM, January 28, 2021)

Note: Read a well written explanation of what may happen to DACA in the near future from Regulatory Review.

______________________

Requirements for instate tuition for illegal aliens in Carpenter’s bill:

* Student must have graduated from a Georgia High School or obtained a Georgia GED.

* Claim domicile in Georgia since January 1, 2013 or be a dependent “child” of a parent (including illegal alien parents) who claims Georgia domicile since January 1, 2013.

*  Be younger than 30 at time of initial application to a Georgia post-secondary school. This appears to mean the illegal alien who is older than 30 now could have applied in the past and been rejected but can use the date of that original application. (We have not done the math).

* Has not been issued a temporary (non-immigrant) visa to enter the U.S.A. by the federal government.

*The bill says student must be “lawfully present in this state” and present evidence of that status – and that the regents may not allow instate tuition to non-citizens who are not “lawfully present.”

All italics mine.

**UPDATE: January 29, 2021 – DACA has guidelines for eligibility regarding criminal records and convictions. In HB 120 we see no such limiting language. This bill is a separate, state level illegal alien tuition amnesty that should be rejected out of hand by responsible lawmakers.

_______________________

The term “lawful presence” (different from “legal status”) seems to be the rock Carpenter, his Democrat co-sponsors and his foreign labor backers are tying themselves to. Congress, and only congress, makes the determination of immigration status. According to a 2019 appellate court decision discussed further down, “lawful presence” is not defined anywhere in the Immigration and Nationality Act that regulates immigration. Illegal aliens with DACA for example, do not have “lawful presence.”

Carpenter says he is trying to educate more workers. In a pandemic. With high unemployment. A move that will lower wages for Americans if successful.

Carpenter and his Democrat co-sponsors seem to be trying hard to allow the state of Georgia to create its own amnesty for tuition rates. By using the “DACA” label in talking points, but leaving it out of the bill language, they could allow perhaps thousands more illegal aliens to obtain this immigration amnesty for special treatment on tuition than the 21,000 or so illegal aliens that actually currently have DACA status.

We expect the argument to be that illegal aliens with a Georgia drivers license can use it to demonstrate “lawful presence” in Georgia to pay less tuition than legal immigrants.

See bill here

Image: The Dustin Inman Society

FACTS:

 Associated Press: “Some illegal immigrants get licenses in Georgia.”

llegal aliens with deferred action on deportation (DACA or no DACA) can and do qualify for a Georgia drivers license because of federal law (REAL ID Act) – this special treatment applies to obtaining drivers licenses and official ID cards only.

The Georgia state senate passed a bill to end this insanity in 2017. All but one Republican voted in favor. The liberal AJC reported on it with “Georgia Senate passes measure aimed at immigrants without legal status.”

The House never allowed the bill to see a hearing and the bill died. We are forever grateful to former state Senator Josh McKoon for his courage and determination.

Drivers license issued to non-citizens in Georgia, including illegal aliens with deferred action on deportation. Photo: DDS.

Carpenter and his Dem pals may be trying to use the drivers license as a way to get illegal aliens instate tuition. The effort seems to be to use the DACA amnesty as a way to confuse lawmakers and voters on Carpenter’s tuition amnesty bill, it should be noted that illegal aliens with DACA have already lost their case in federal court – twice – when they tried to claim “lawful presence.”

“Illegal aliens who have been awarded deferred action on deportation proceedings through the DACA amnesty by both the Obama and Trump administrations are illegal aliens and do not have “lawful presence” says the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. The decision was handed down March 6, 2019.

The ruling was in response to a suit brought by several illegal aliens in Georgia who were challenging the Board of Regents policy that requires lawful presence for instate tuition purposes and admittance to some USG universities.

The Eleventh Circuit rejected all of the students’ claims. The court noted that  ““lawfully present” is not a stand alone immigration classification, and it is not defined anywhere in the (Immigration and Nationality) Act  *(opinion here).

We wrote it up here, with a link to the court’s opinion.

Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr. Photo: Twitter.com

Georgia Attorney General, Chris Carr:

“We have continuously and clearly taken the position in ongoing legal cases that DACA does not confer legal status…” from the liberal WABE news.

The bill seems to depend largely on lawmaker’s ignorance of the issue and the slanted promotional and inaccurate headline coverage in the media.

________

HB120

Sponsor: Rep Kasey Carpenter (R) Dalton

*Cosponsors

Rep Dale Washburn (R) Macon

Rep Mathew Gambrill (R) Cartersville

Rep Bee Nguyen (D) Atlanta

Rep Zulma Lopez (D) Atlanta

Rep Wes Cantrell (R) Woodstock

Rep Shea Roberts (D) Atlanta

Rep Angelika Kausche (D) Johns Creek

Rep Mathew Wilson (D) Brookhaven

Rep Sam Park (D) Lawrenceville (Added here Jan 11, 2022 after an update with House Clerk’s office. Thank you, Judy!)

*As per Clerk’s office 10:00 AM Jan 27, 2021 & Jan 11, 2022.

Image: Dustin Inman Society

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FAST FACT: Almost 1.15 million aliens in the United States are seeking asylum — enough to make them the 43rd largest state

By

Image: USCIS

Astounding Asylum Numbers in DOS Refugee Report for FY 2021

Center for Immigration Studies

October 28, 2020

Art Arthur

The Department of State (DOS) — with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) — transmitted their Report to Congress on Proposed Refugee Admissions for Fiscal Year 2021 on September 30. My colleague Nayla Rush broke down that report, and the changes that the Biden-Harris ticket has proposed to the number of entries, in an October 6 post, but three statistics stick out therein: the number of aliens seeking asylum from DHS, the number seeking asylum as relief from removal from the immigration courts, and the credible fear grant rate in FY 2020.

Aliens who are present in the United States may seek what is called “affirmative asylum” from asylum officers (AOs) in U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), an agency in DHS. AOs may grant or deny those aliens asylum.

If an AO opts not to grant the alien asylum, and the alien is removable (as most are), the AO can refer the alien to immigration court (part of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) within the Department of Justice (DOJ)), for the alien to renew that application as a defensive application (relief from removal) in removal proceedings.

In addition to adjudicating those affirmative asylum applications, AOs also consider “credible fear” claims for aliens in expedited removal proceedings under section 235(b)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Those AOs can find that the alien has credible fear (in which case the alien is referred to immigration court to file an asylum application before an immigration judge (IJ) in removal proceedings), or determine that the alien does not have credible fear (in which case the alien can ask an IJ to review the AO’s decision).

There were an average of 500 to 550 AOs at USCIS in recent years (USCIS is authorized for 745 AOs), but last year USCIS announced that it planned to hire 500 new employees in the asylum branch of the agency (half of whom would be AOs; the rest staff), and, as of October 2019, they were on track to meet that goal. In a February 2020 report, however, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) was critical of USCIS’s efforts to train those AOs to perform credible fear screenings.

The number of such credible fear referrals skyrocketed in FY 2019, as almost one million aliens entered the United States illegally along the Southwest border or sought entry without proper documents at the ports of entry along that border. As GAO noted: “The number of referrals for credible fear screenings in the first two quarters of fiscal year 2019 alone was larger than the total number of referrals in each of fiscal years 2014 and 2015.”

In fact, AOs completed 5,523 credible fear cases in FY 2009, but in FY 2019, it completed 102,204 (out of 105,439 cases received) — a more than 1,750 percent increase. To help out, DHS assigned refugee officers, former AOs, and (in a controversial move), Border Patrol agents to handle interviews. A federal judge blocked that last effort in August.

All of which brings me back to the DOS report. As of August 31, according to the department, there were 598,692 asylum claims (in addition to credible fear claims) pending with USCIS. Assuming that there were the authorized 745 AOs on that date (the actual number — a moving target — is hard to find), that means that each AO is assigned almost 804 cases to adjudicate — not counting new cases that will be added.

In my experience, AOs generally take two hours to conduct interviews and complete about two per day, but USCIS’s statistics show a much lower completion rate. In September 2019, according to USCIS, AOs conducted 2,799 interviews and completed 6,286 cases. Assuming that there were 500 AOs at the time (likely on the low side), that means they each held 5.6 interviews each that month and completed 12.6 cases per capita — much fewer than one a day.

On top of the AOs’ asylum workload, according to DOS, there were 549,724 asylum claims (as of June 30) pending with the nation’s 520 IJs (the latter as of October — 20 new IJs were on-boarded on October 9, meaning that the number in June was actually closer to 500).

Again, that means that each IJ is assigned 1,057 asylum cases. As a former IJ, I generally completed one to two asylum cases per day, and at best IJs can hear approximately four (assuming that the alien shows up and is ready to go at the merits hearing date, which does not always happen). Consequently, as the Transactional Records Action Clearinghouse (TRAC) reported, in 2019 asylum applicants in immigration court on average waited almost three years for their cases to be decided, time that they will spend in the United States — and a timeframe that does not count appeals.

And, again, the DOS report does not count any new asylum cases that have been filed in the interim in immigration court.

Combined, however, these statistics show that there were 1,148,416 pending asylum cases in the United States — at a minimum. If those applicants were a state, they would be the 43rd largest in the United States, ahead of Montana, Rhode Island, Delaware, the Dakotas, Alaska, Vermont, and Wyoming.

Plus, as the foregoing shows, an asylum applicant denied by USCIS can renew his or her claim with the immigration court. In September 2019, for example, AOs approved 34 percent of the asylum claims they adjudicated (1,501), and referred (for one reason or another) 66 percent (2,901). Those cases — assuming that the aliens actually appear in immigration court — will end up on the IJs’ dockets.

This is a hole that the AOs and IJs will not be able to dig themselves out of without a massive increase in resources.

The Trump administration has, in fact, increased the total number of IJs by 70 percent and, as noted, has at least tried to increase the number of AOs by 50 percent. Joe Biden vows to double the number of IJs (as well as the number of EOIR staff and interpreters), but that hiring will take time and a significant increase in resources — resources Congress, which is stingy when it comes to immigration, may not fund. Much more here.

 

ICE Is To Fast-Track Deportations Across The Country

By

Image: Dustin Inman Society

The new policy will give agents the ability to arrest and deport undocumented immigrants without a hearing in front of a judge

BuzzFeedNews

October 7, 202

Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials have started to implement a policy that allows officers to arrest and rapidly deport undocumented immigrants who have been in the US for less than two years, according to internal emails and documents obtained by BuzzFeed News.

The Trump administration’s effort — to expand quick deportations to undocumented immigrants across the US who cannot prove they have been in the country continuously for two years before they are picked up — was blocked by a federal court judge soon after the policy was first announced in 2019. But in June, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit lifted the preliminary injunction, opening the door for ICE officers to use expedited removal across the country, a policy that will allow the agency to arrest and deport undocumented immigrants without a hearing in front of an immigration judge.

The previous policy only allowed officials to use expedited removal within 100 miles of the border and for those who have been in the country for up to two weeks.

Currently, officers typically arrest immigrants and place them into deportation proceedings. These include a hearing before an immigration judge — a process that can take years. In practical terms, the expanded policy gives ICE officers more power to determine who can be quickly deported, although it’s unclear exactly how fast the process will be.

The shift could allow the Trump administration to increase deportations while circumventing a court system that is severely backed up and short on resources, but advocates for immigrants have said it would destroy their due process rights…

More here.

 

Open records request sent to Georgia Department of Labor today – Re: DDS as verification source of lawful presence

By

To: Mr. Timothy Mitchell
General Counsel
Georgia Department of Labor
Mr. Mitchell,
Please regard this email as my official request for copies of Georgia Department of Labor (GDOL) documents and records under state public records law.
I note that GDOL has an entry on its website (FAQs) informing readers that GDOL uses the Georgia Department of Drivers Services (DDS) to verify the lawful presence required by state law (OCGA 50-36-1) for aliens to qualify for public benefits.
“What is the Applicant Status Affidavit?

Georgia law requires that all applicants for UI benefits who are 18 years of age or older attest they are:

  • a United States citizen, or
  • a legal permanent resident, or
  • a non-citizen legally present in the United States.

The GDOL performs electronic verification of your lawful presence in the United States with the Georgia Department of Driver Services (DDS). The DDS validates the identity of individuals who indicate they have a Georgia-issued driver’s license or identification card.”

State law (OCGA 50-36-1) passed in 2006 and amended in 2009, 2011, 2012, 2013 mandates that this verification process for lawful presence be done using the federal SAVE program operated by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).
1) Please send me a copy of any authorization or replacement law that would alter the GDOL requirement for SAVE verification and/or change verification source to DDS – including bill number, year passed into law and code section.
2) Please send me copies of any and all GDOL documents, emails, memorandums or policy files that pertain to or mention GDOL requesting or discussing a change in state law regarding GDOL’s direct use of the SAVE program and transferring the lawful presence verification to DDS with a time frame of from 1 January 2013 to 15 August 2020.
3) Please send me a copy of any agreement, MOU/MOA between USCIS and GDOL authorizing GDOL to use the SAVE program including original agreement and all renewals from July 1, 2006 to 15 August, 2020.
4) Please send me a copy of any official agreement between GDOL and DDS pertaining to DDS being the source and authority of verification of lawful presence of non-citizen applicants who apply for public benefits at GDOL – including any email, memorandums or proposals for GDOL to use DDS to verify lawful presence of GDOL applicants for public benefits.
5) Please send me a copy of any document that may illustrate the most recent date of a GDOL query to the SAVE program for verification of lawful presence of an applicant for the public benefit of unemployment insurance or other public benefit administered by GDOL.
6) Please send me copies of any/all internal GDOL email or memorandums or policy discussions that mention ‘Permanent Residence Under Color of Law’ (PRUCOL) including GDOL policy on PRUCOL creating eligibility for lawful presence or unemployment insurance and any correspondence between GDOL and DDS pertaining to PRUCOL.
7) Please send me a copies of any document or electronic form that serves as a transmittal of information from GDOL to DDS of information gathered from GDOL collected applications for unemployment insurance benefits.
8) Please send me copies of any and all internal email, memorandums, policy statement or records or correspondence pertaining to or mentioning federal deferred action on deportation or the Obama-invented DACA program for illegal aliens with a time frame of 1 July, 2012 to 15 August, 2020.
9) Please send me copies of any emails, memorandums or inquiries that ask for information on GDOL administering and or issuing unemployment insurance benefits for illegal aliens who have DACA status or other deferred action on deportation status.
10) Please send me copies of any/all GDOL emails, memorandums or internal correspondence pertaining to or mentioning the March 6, 2019 Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals finding that DACA recipients do not have lawful presence or legal status and are inadmissible and removable under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). For clarity, I link to that finding here.
11) Please send me any record or document that shows the response code received from the SAVE program to a query from GDOL on immigration status of an applicant with DACA status for unemployment insurance.
12) Please send any document, record, table or index that shows all possible responses and codes used by the SAVE program to answer GDOL queries on immigration status for applicants for public benefits including unemployment insurance benefits.
Please contact me at any time with questions on my request. Please expect this request to be one of several with a goal of gaining a clear and accurate understanding of GDOL policy and operations on administering public benefits/unemployment insurance.
Thank you for a timely reply. I look forward to your itemized estimate of research costs for my request.
Respectfully,
D.A. King
Marietta, GA.

I support the police.
All lives matter.

There’s ‘DACA’ and then there is more DACA? – Congressional candidates should be asked about amnesty

By

Illegal alien DACA recipient protesting for legalization. 2019 Photo: Texas Tribune

President Trump recently set off a firestorm of criticism from conservatives recently when he indicated his administration may push for some sort of amnesty for some illegal aliens and mentioned the DACA program. Questions should be asked about the deferred action on deportation for childhood arrivals, known as DACA and candidates position on legalization for illegal aliens.

We assume everyone concerned understands that the U.S. instituted an amnesty program in 1986 that was presented as a “one time” action that would legalize about a million and a half illegals and would be the end all solution to illegal immigration. The 1986 amnesty actually legalized almost three million illegal aliens. Most experts on both sides of the debate say it caused an increase in illegal immigration. We are told that there are at least 11 million illegal aliens in the USA today.

At about 375,000 to 400,000, DHS says Georgia is home to more illegal aliens than Arizona and the anti-enforcement Georgia Budget and Policy Institute shows that we have more illegals than Lawful Permanent Residents (green card holders). Estimates from the Federation for Immigration Reform are that illegal immigration costs Georgians about $2.5 billion each year.

When the topic of former president Obama’s DACA executive amnesty comes up, most media coverage leaves out important facts that should be part of the conversation.

DACA recipients are “inadmissible and thus removable” under federal law. 

Illegal aliens who have been awarded deferred action on deportation proceedings through the DACA amnesty by both the Obama and Trump administrations are illegal aliens and do not have “lawful presence” says the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. The decision was handed down March 6, 2019. Here.

An honest discussion of an amnesty for “DACA” should recognize three groups of illegal aliens.

United We Dream poster in support of illegal alien “dreamers.” Twitter.
  • Group one: The number of illegal aliens that now have DACA status according to federal figures (March, 2020) presented by the Migration Policy Institute (see interactive map for state numbers) in Washington: 643,560. It should be noted that originally, almost 800,000 illegal aliens received the DACA benefit but some have lost that status due to criminal offense and some have used DACA to become U.S. citizens.
  • Group two: The number of illegal aliens that would be eligible for DACA (using the Obama guidelines set forth in 2012) if President Trump had not ended acceptance of new applications in September, 2017: 1,326,000
  • Group three – Call it the “next DACA generation.” The number of children who illegally crossed the border in recent years and who will soon be part of the demand for expanding DACA or creating a system of legalization for children who came over our borders as minors with or without parents. This number is estimated at at least one million by the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington.

Note that this figure is not static and will increase. Any conversation should include the topic of recurring legalization “for the children.”

*UPDATE, July 18, 2020:Federal court restores DACA after Supreme Court ruling

We must recognize that all sides agree that at least half of the illegal aliens in the nation today did not cross the border illegally but came on temporary visas and then refused to leave. For example, imaging a family that comes with a temporary worker or visitor on a tourist visa and instead of departing as agreed, simply buys a home and enrolls the now illegal aliens children in American schools and waits for another amnesty.

Visa overstays in 2019 are put at 497,272 by DHS. See page V here.

We note that there is little if any reference to the illegal alien parents who used their children to anchor themselves in the U.S. and are still living, working and driving in Georgia and the U.S. illegally while using stolen or fraudulent ID and Social Security numbers.

Finally, it must be noted that amnesty by any name does not result in increased Hispanic votes for Republicans. After the “one time” Reagan amnesty of 1986, Hispanics rewarded Republican George H.W. Bush with 30% of their vote – tough-talking Trump got 29% in 2016. We think amnesty is mostly for the benefit of the special interests in the business lobby.

Candidates for congress should be asked their plans and positions on solutions and if they will vote to legalize any illegal aliens and if so, what part of the above groups of “victims of borders.”