“As an American who happens to be Black, it is so difficult to stay up-to-date on what is supposed to offend me. – Contrary to what SJWs and their sycophants in the media tell you, illegal is not a race just as 21 Savage is not an immigrant; he is an illegal alien. He earns money rapping about drug abuse, murder, and sex crimes;…”
By Inger Eberhart
As an American who happens to be Black, it is so difficult to stay up-to-date on what is supposed to offend me. One year it’s cotton in aspirin bottles, another it’s the American flag, and another is Gucci clothes and accessories. In lieu of the SJW hopscotch or what I will coin as ADHD activism, what truly offends me is the “intersectionality” (I’m sick of this word) of race and immigration.
To set the record straight, illegal is not a race.
This point is clearly missed on the author of a recent NY Times Opinion piece about “immigrant” Rapper 21 Savage who’s songs are entitled “Ghostface Killers”, “Slaughter Your Daughter”, “break da law”and “Disrespectful”. It’s truly charming how the opinion writer aches to elicit sympathy for a rapper who glorifies murder, prostitution, drug use and outright breaking the law which according to his lawyer “is clearly not a danger to the community, and in fact, his contributions to local communities and schools that he grew up in are examples of the type of immigrant we want in America.” Oh really?
So, let’s deconstruct this.
“Ghostface Killers” talks of drug dealers and users shooting and killing along with using women as prostitutes all while calling people the n-word. Just a sample of the lyrics: “Automatic (auto) automatics, in the trunk. Shoot the maggots, shoot the maggots with the pump…Drug dealers in the Mulsanne, at the top of the food chain…After I cut off a thot I giver her some money for service…These n-word is broke and it’s pitiful.”
As the crisis on our border intensifies, these porous borders become a magnet for drugs such as meth, heroin, cocaine, and fentanyl. Just this year alone, ICE has seized enough fentanyl to kill almost every American. From 2010 to 2017, heroin-related overdose deaths increased by more than five times. In terms of sex crimes, women and children at the border are particularly vulnerable. Children and women from Central America are victims of sex and human trafficking where some are forced into servicing 15 to 40 men a day. Even one woman or one child trafficked is one too many. The city of Atlanta (previously nick-named “Chocolate City”, “Black Mecca”, etc.), where 21 Savage lives, is a hub for sex and human trafficking. His next “song” is just as illustrious.
“Slaughter Your Daughter” speaks of introducing young ladies to drugs, getting them hooked, and high, turning them into strippers and using their bodies to make money for 21 Savage. Here’s a sample: “Ferragamo…I bought a Benz…I gave her a molly. She talking to Scotty. She dancing in Follies…” Throughout his oh-so-Shakespearean-prose, at no time does he specify an ethnicity or race. As long as 21 Savage can purchase “Ferragamo” and “a Benz”, separating families gets his seal of approval. Wryly, in his next song, he doesn’t conceal what he and his family are doing.
Illegal alien rapper, “21Savage” Image: HipHopDX
“Break da law”‘s chorus is “..Me and my dawgs break laws, 21 gang ’til I fall…Don’t you cross the gang, dawg. We’re like barbed wire…” Ironically, that is what he and his parents were doing as they overstayed their one year visa (no barbed wire necessary) in 2005. So, true to his lyrics, they did “break da law” and continue to break the law through their continued presence in the United States. The Department of Homeland Security calculated that for FY2017, over 700,000 people have overstayed their U.S. visa. I suspect there is a United Nations-type representation in this group of people of which he is one. All 700,000+ are all illegal aliens by the way.
Contrary to what SJWs and their sycophants in the media tell you, illegal is not a race just as 21 Savage is not an immigrant; he is an illegal alien. He earns money rapping about drug abuse, murder, and sex crimes; all of which happened to Angel Families at the hands of illegal aliens. He openly touts disrespecting our laws while begging for mercy as he remains in the US which, in fact, breaks the law.
Unlike his rap songs where the culprit gets away, 21 Savage must now face the consequences of his actions. Maybe his next rap album will rap about the international caravan of people he meets as they are all deported out of the US and returned to their home countries.
Inger Eberhart of Cherokee County, Georgia is a member of the board of advisors of the pro-enforcement Dustin Inman Society.
Spending bill amnesty: Here are the Republicans who voted to gut interior enforcement…
The House and Senate passed H.J.Res. 31 on Thursday to fund roughly 25% of the federal government, including the Department of Homeland Security, through Sept. 30. In addition to allowing DHS to increase the number of low-skilled guest workers through the H-2B visa program, the bill also reduces the number of detention beds used by ICE to detain criminal aliens and recent illegal border crossers and protects sponsors of child smuggling from deportation.
The bill passed by an 83-to-16 margin in the Senate with Republicans and Democrats in equal support of the bill. The official roll call can be found here.
Eleven Republicans voted against the legislation, including Sens. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, Tim Scott of South Carolina, Marco Rubio of Florida, Rand Paul of Kentucky, Mike Lee of Utah, Tom Cotton of Arkansas, Ted Cruz of Texas, Ben Sasse of Nebraska, Mike Braun of Indiana, and Joshua Hawley of Missouri.
“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!
“It has been estimated that 73 million existing jobs will be eliminated by the year 2030 due to automation.”
The U.S. has admitted one million immigrants a year on average since 1990. Only about 7 percent of these are admitted based on skill or education. Here.
“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
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
Image: GDOT
