Selwyn Duke — Canada Free Press — Toronto

What Ann Coulter and the GOP dare not say about immigration

In a recent election piece, pundit Ann Coulter identified illegal migration as one of the two most important issues of our time. She writes that if we fail at halting it, “the country will be changed permanently.” She continues: Taxes can be raised and lowered. Regulations can be removed (though they rarely are). Attorneys general and Cabinet members can be fired. Laws can be repealed…

“…To be fair, Ann Coulter at least made passing mention of this reality when she slipped into her piece that “Massive legal and illegal immigration has already so changed the California electorate [emphasis added]….” Yet with the exception of Pat Buchanan, yours truly and a few others, this is an area where you’re more likely to hear the truth from leftist commentators – when they’re licking their chops over how successful they’ve been at importing their voters. Just consider, for instance, a 2011 NPR piece in which Mara Liasson cites a study by Ruy Teixeira at liberal feel tank Center for American Progress and writes:

Recent surges in the number of Hispanics in Arizona and Georgia could make those states potentially friendlier to Democratic candidates as well next year [2012]. Teixeira thinks similar population shifts could make holding on to Pennsylvania, where the president campaigned Wednesday, a little bit easier.

And if you think it’ll be a bit easier in 2012, wait till you see 2022.

And 2032 and 2042? Well, Orwell’s calling.

The fact is that upon being naturalized, our modern-day immigrants generally vote Democrat by wide margins – irrespective of whether upon arrival they were labeled legal or illegal.

And this isn’t hard to understand. Would you expect a devout Muslim to relinquish his faith upon setting foot on American terra firma? Would you suppose that mere passage across a border could magically transform a committed communist into a fan of free markets? My point is that ideology is much like religion: It is something deep-seated. It becomes part of a person’s self-image and gives his life meaning. And whether or not America is still the land of the free, it’s certainly not the land of the free from harsh realities.

And the reality is this: Most of today’s immigrants’ native lands have socialist-type governments because their peoples support socialist politicians. This is why Democrats import them: so these new arrivals can support socialist politicians here. They’re casting the votes Americans won’t cast…”

MORE HERE

We support HB 59 in Georgia

HB 59 POINTS

A BILL to be entitled an Act to amend Chapter 36 of Title 50 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to verification of lawful presence within the United States, so as to clarify that postsecondary education is a state and local public benefit; to reserve postsecondary education benefits to citizens and lawfully present and eligible aliens; to require verification of the eligibility for such applicants for such benefits through the federal SAVE program; to provide for related matters; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes. HERE
—-
HB 59 points

* HB 59, proposed by Gwinnett state Rep. Tom Rice is essentially a bill that says we must obey the law passed in 2006 (OCGA 50-36-1) and that all public universities and tech schools in Georgia must ask for proof of eligibility from student applicants for admission and verify that aliens who apply are indeed eligible, using immigration status.

* Governor Nathan Deal supports the concept and promised action as candidate:
“Question: “If elected, will you do whatever necessary to prohibit illegal aliens from attending any school in Georgia’s university system and our technical college system? This is a YES or NO question.

Barnes: “I am not in favor of illegal immigrants attending Georgia’s public colleges and universities.”

Deal: “Yes.”

(in the Marietta Daily Journal August, 2010
Read more: The Marietta Daily Journal – D A King Illegal Immigration)

*The Regents hope to convince us that Georgia has an unlimited and infinite number of resources and public funded college classroom seats. We don’t.

* The radical hard left that opposes HB 87 (of course they do) wails that we should not punish illegal alien children for what their illegal alien parents have done. Maybe, but with Georgia being a destination and home for hundreds of thousands of real, legal immigrants from all over the world and a limited number of public college classroom seats, one needs to ask why we would punish their lawfully present children for what their parents did not do – intentionally and brazenly violate American immigration and employment laws while taking advantage of the federal mandate that we educate their children K-12.

* Why would we dedicate any of our limited taxpayer financed state post secondary education resources to educate a student who is in the country illegally when that individual is not eligible to work anywhere in the country upon graduation?

* If you have asked yourself why we would turn away a member of the U.S. military – or a veteran – because we admitted an illegal alien…well, me too.

* The author of the 2006 state immigration law, Senator Chip Rogers, testified to “legislative intent” in a February 2011 House Higher Education Committee hearing on HB 59. He made it clear that the law’s intent was to preserve Georgia’s university classroom seats for students who are either U.S. citizens or lawfully present aliens.

Senator Don Balfour, chairman of the Senate Committee on Rules also took the time to testify at the 2010 House committee in favor of the bill and carefully explained that his own son had been denied admission from a local university because it had no available seats for his selected classes. His son was a member of the United States military.

• At least two Democrats in the House have said they want to not only expand enrollment of illegals in Georgia’s post secondary system, but also reward them with instate tuition… MDJ last week HERE http://mdjonline.com/view/full_story/17109805/article-Two-Cobb-Democrats-want-in-state-tuition-for-illegal-immigrants?instance=secondary_story_left_column

Federal law (8USC1621 – which is part of OCGA 50-36-1) on illegals and post secondary education:

§ 1621. Aliens who are not qualified aliens or nonimmigrants ineligible for State and local public benefits

c) “State or local public benefit” defined
(1) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3), for purposes of this subchapter the term “State or local public benefit” means—
(A) any grant, contract, loan, professional license, or commercial license provided by an agency of a State or local government or by appropriated funds of a State or local government; and
(B) any retirement, welfare, health, disability, public or assisted housing, postsecondary education, food assistance, unemployment benefit, or any other similar benefit for which payments or assistance are provided to an individual, household, or family eligibility unit by an agency of a State or local government or by appropriated funds of a State or local government.

HERE

HERE

WSB TV Atlanta

Enforcement activist: Atlanta breaking state immigration law

By Tom Regan

ATLANTA —
An outspoken advocate of immigration enforcement has filed a complaint with a state compliance agency against the city of Atlanta.

The complaint accuses Atlanta’s mayor and city council of violating HB87, Georgia’s immigration law that was passed last year. The complaint says the city continues to accept Mexican government photo identification cards as valid for city government transactions.

The cards are called “Matricula Consular.”

“The Matricula Consular is listed as unacceptable identification in HB87. On their ordinance, they’re accepting it for any transaction as proof of identity,” immigration enforcement activist D.A. King said.

King told Channel 2’s Tom Regan the MC card, which is officially issued by the Mexican Consulate, is counterfeited and sold online. He said it is easily copied and duplicated, making it unreliable.

“These cards are not difficult to get. I have two of them myself,” King said.

One of the cards shows a picture of King and identifies him as “Al Qaeda Gonzolez.” The card was shown in an online article by a Hispanic newspaper advocating use of the card in Mexico.

“We have cases of law enforcement officers that have stopped people [who are] in the country illegally that not only have one or two Mexican Metricula Consular cards, but as many as 12 with different names,” King said.

Regan went to the Mexican Consulate of Atlanta for comment on the card controversy. A representative said no one was available for comment Tuesday.

A representative for Mayor Kasim Reed told Regan the law department of the city of Atlanta would look at the complaint and the ordinance to determine if acceptance of the MC identification is illegal under state immigration law.

HERE

Almost a year ago, while HB 87 was still in process. I got the Libertarian to admit his open borders position – but FOX FIVE edited it out of the taped debate. All systems normal.

Repost from the Marietta Daily Journal blog

GALEO’s Jerry Gonzalez named one of “100 Most Influential Georgians” and other amazing tidbits

by D.A. King

Blogging While D.A. King

January 04, 2012 Jerry Gonzalez, Executive Director of the Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials (GALEO) has been named one of “100 Most Influential Georgians” by Georgia Trend magazine in its January edition. Again.

No, really.

To get a handle on Gonzalez’s “influence” and style, it should be pointed out that pro-enforcement denizens of the Georgia Capitol are forever grateful to “Angry Jerry” for his relentless race-baiting on the crime of illegal immigration, his well-known fuming, disrespectful rants during testimony in Gold Dome committees against Georgia’s illegal immigration enforcement bills over the years and his willingness to personify the radical left on the issue in general.

He served as an ideal educational example for legislators unfamiliar with the illegal alien lobby.

And there is this little gem: “Influential” Gonzalez was recently removed from a Rome, Georgia panel discussion on the subject of Georgia’s recent illegal immigration law, HB 87, hiring legal labor and use of E-Verify because the organization he heads and members of the GALEO Board of Directors are part of a pending ACLU lawsuit seeking to halt enforcement of parts of the law. Apparently the organizers saw a conflict.

Determined to get the anti-enforcement side injected into the event, Gonzalez drove from Atlanta to the Rome event anyway and was soon ejected and removed by local police from the property for screaming at a member of the panel, Georgia state Representative Katie Dempsey. The diminutive and well-liked Dempsey was a co-sponsor of HB 87 and a staunch supporter of E-Verify.

The Rome News Tribune covered the event and reported on Gonzalez’s antics HERE.

Part of the explanation from glossy Georgia Trend on how “influence” is defined:

“..Individuals on the list – some who are very much in the public eye and some who choose to work behind the scenes – are selected for the power and influence they wield. These are the people who affect the lives and livelihood of all Georgians in one way or another…”

Indeed.

You can read the GALEO press release on the Georgia Trend award HERE.

Also notable in the same issue of the magazine: An essay from author and periodic MDJ guest columnist Phil Kent correcting some slips on HB 87 by GT editors in a previous edition (HERE) .

Just so you’ll know.

Read more: The Marietta Daily Journal – GALEO’s Jerry Gonzalez named one of “100 Most Influential Georgians” and other amazing tidbits

I forgot to post this last week. And Happy New Year!

Marietta Daily Journal

January 29, 2011

Prediction – Media in New Year will continue to ignore fact that enforcement works

At the end of another year of federal government sanctioned colonization of America by millions of resentful illegal aliens, some predictions and observations for 2012 involving the organized crime of illegal immigration.

Prediction: Agenda-driven pollsters will continue to attempt to sway public opinion on what should be done with the millions of illegals who have created a massive, well-funded, bi-partisan and liberal media-backed defense force against deportation — the punishment for unauthorized presence in the USA.

Consider the ubiquitous campaign-driven “scientific immigration polls” containing questions that perpetuate the straw man argument that since it would be (regrettably) difficult to deport every illegal by sundown tomorrow, the only other option must be to begin another massive legalization. These skewed polls intentionally omit the proven and recognized effective reasonable solution called “attrition through enforcement.”

This concept — repeatedly presented in this space for nearly a decade and proven successful each time a state passes an immigration enforcement law — acknowledges that it took more than 30 years for the current national-suicide crisis to develop and that there is no magical overnight remedy. It could take 30 years to fully solve.

Gradual attrition of the illegal population through enforcement of the law is the logical and reasonable third choice Americans are not supposed to ever consider. Especially in an election season poll.

Predictions within a prediction: The media will continue to hide that fact that nearly half of the insurgent illegal aliens currently in the United States did not arrive here illegally. They came on legal tourist visas and refused to leave. The media — and the candidates — will fail to make the fact that we have no dependable system in place to monitor visa-holder departures a campaign issue.

Attrition through enforcement recognizes that border security and law enforcement is a fundamental duty of the federal government and is not a campaign bargaining chip. And that like all criminals, illegals flee enforcement.

One comical example: In 2007 when Arizona passed its E-Verify law, hundreds of thousands of fearful illegal aliens fled that state. The panicked howls from northern Mexican local officials said a lot. They pleaded for American advice on providing education, jail space, services and jobs to the hordes of impoverished returning Mexican citizens.

Proof that enforcement works came when much of the state and national media spent six months condemning Georgia’s most recent illegal immigration law known as HB 87 because illegals are leaving for friendlier states. As planned.

Another prediction: An increasing number of Georgia’s agriculture employers will begin to use the numerically unlimited federal H2A temporary guest worker visa established as part of the 1986 amnesty. According to a few grudging press reports, many Georgia growers who wailed that HB 87 and its E-Verify component made it hard to find and hire black market labor are now applying for legal workers… using the legal H2A method.

“I think a lot of growers are looking to H2A as an alternative this spring,” Charles Hall recently told Atlanta’s WXIA-TV. Hall is director of the Georgia Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association. R.T. Stanley, an onion farmer interviewed by WXIA, will also reluctantly use the H-2A program next year. Stanley says he and other farmers are “just forced into it because they can’t get enough labor otherwise.” There is now a shortage of illegals because enforcement works.

Prediction: Farmers will not turn down any taxpayer-funded subsidies in 2012.

Prediction: On immigration enforcement, GOP presidential candidate “Make ‘em Legal but Don’t Call it Amnesty” Newt Gingrich will continue to spew what National Review blogger and Center for Immigration Studies Executive Director Mark Krikorian charitably calls “gibberish” on enforcement. And the media will continue to ignore the fact that Mitt Romney is talking about attrition through enforcement.

Recent reports of declining unemployment numbers in Alabama and Georgia will ignore the fact that pending E-Verify and enforcement laws in both states were passed to protect legal workers and create job openings.

Observation: Because of her work on the issue when she served in the Justice Department, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan will reportedly recuse herself when the nation’s high-court considers the Obama administration’s challenge to parts of Arizona’s latest illegal immigration enforcement law in 2012.

Prediction: Justice Sonia Sotomayor, an unapologetic former member of the anti-enforcement National Council of La Raza (“The Race”) will not recuse herself.

And the dependable media will remain as silent on this travesty as they hope you will on immigration enforcement in 2012.

D.A. King is president of the Cobb-based Dustin Inman Society and a nationally recognized authority on illegal immigration.

Read more: The Marietta Daily Journal – D A King Prediction Media in New Year will continue to ignore fact that enforcement works

Marietta Daily Journal
January 4, 2012

Occupiers protest against Cobb foreclosure auction

MARIETTA —Members of Occupy Atlanta came to Cobb on Tuesday to protest the county’s monthly foreclosure auction. The roughly 10 protesters didn’t garner much support though, drawing little more than giggles as they chanted “Banks got bailed out — we got sold out.”

After being threatened with arrest after they tried to disrupt the sales by blowing miniature train whistles, protesters moved from the steps of the Cobb Justice Center to a nearby sidewalk.

“…Rich Pellegrino of the Cobb Immigrant Alliance said he is planning a march from the Cobb Civic Center to the Marietta Square for February, and he is seeking out support from groups ranging from the Cobb United for Change Coalition to the tea party.

“Cobb is changing quite a bit,” he said. “It’s almost equal white and minority, and the same with political ideology. Cobb is going into the 21st century, whether they like it or not.”

So far, Pellegrino said he and Martin Altamirano, who went on a hunger strike for 11 days last year to protest Georgia’s immigration law, are the only Occupy Cobb members…”

“A lot of immigrants are affected by the foreclosures that are occurring in Georgia and all over the United States,” said Altamirano, who stood on the sidewalk holding a protest sign. “We’re trying to make connections to people. We have to look for solutions in favor of the 99 percent.”

Read more: The Marietta Daily Journal – Occupiers protest against Cobb foreclosure auction

To: Members of the Georgia Immigration Enforcement Review Board
Chairman Ben Vinson, board members: Mr. Phil Kent, Mr. Shawn Hanley, Mayor Boyd Austin, Sheriff Mike Yeager, Commissioner Terry Clark, Mr. Robert Mumford

*COMPLAINT

REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND/OR INVESTIGATION BY THE IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT REVIEW BOARD ESTABLISHED BY SECTION 20 OF THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION REFORM AND ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 2011 (HB 87)

As a Georgia citizen and registered voter I, D.A. King, herein make a valid and lawful complaint concerning violation of Georgia law (50 -36-1) regarding the crime of illegal immigration as related to actions by elected and or appointed officials, public employees and public agencies in Georgia.

I have read and understand the language of OCGA 50-36-3 establishing the Immigration Enforcement Review Board and further understand that the board is authorized to review violations by public officials, employees and agencies ONLY for possible violation of OCGA 13-10-91 (related to use of the federal E-Verify database), OCGA 36-80-23 (related to sanctuary policies for illegal aliens) and OCGA 50-36-1 (requirements for verification of eligibility for Public Benefits).

I hereby attest that I am a legal resident of the state of Georgia and a registered voter in Georgia.

My address is: ****** Marietta, Ga. 30066

My Georgia voter Registration Number is ************

My complaint is directed at clear violations by City of Atlanta in Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed and the Atlanta City Council members individually, and others.

I outline my complaint and request for investigation below.

I contend that the City of Atlanta is in violation of OCGA 50-36-1 in that it has in place a 2004 ordinance (04-0-0772) officially recognizing and accepting the Mexican government issued matricula consular “for purposes of establishing a positive identification” involving transactions and providing benefits and services which is direct conflict with state law.

In an attempt to prevent the illegal administration of Georgia’s public benefits and to reduce the drain on the shrinking state budget resulting from the crime of illegal immigration, OCGA 50-36-1 was modified in 2011 to require the presentation of at least one secure and verifiable ID document by applicants for many public benefits when those applicants swear to eligibility on a required affidavit. The law clearly refers to the definition of acceptable documents and also documents which are not acceptable, including the Mexican matricula consular, a form of ID needed only by individuals who are present in the United States in violation of American immigration laws. Legal residents possess legitimate forms of identification.

50-36-1 “

(e) (For effective date, see note.) An agency or political subdivision providing or administering a public benefit shall require every applicant for such benefit to:

(1) Provide at least one secure and verifiable document, as defined in Code Section 50-36-2;”

Definition from: 50-36-2:(3) “Secure and verifiable document” means a document issued by a state or federal jurisdiction or recognized by the United States government and that is verifiable by federal or state law enforcement, intelligence, or homeland security agencies. Secure and verifiable document shall not mean a Matricula Consular de Alta Seguridad, matricula consular card, consular matriculation card, consular identification card, or similar identification card issued by a foreign government regardless of the holder’s immigration status. Only those documents approved and posted by the Attorney General pursuant to subsection (f) of this Code section shall be considered secure and verifiable documents…”

It is my educated opinion, one that is shared by the Office of Intelligence of the FBI, that the acceptance of the matricula consular ID presents a threat to national security.

I ask that all legal avenues be pursued to insure that the elected and appointed officials and all employees of the City of Atlanta cease official acceptance of the matricula consular and similar consulate issued ID documents immediately, revoke the city ordinance described herein and come into compliance with state law or be held accountable.

I attach a copy of the City of Atlanta ordinance in question as well as additional educational information below

Please feel free to contact me for any further information.

*PLEASE NOTE: I have searched the Website of the Department of Audits and Accounts for a Review Board compliant form. I have created my own form, as I am unable to locate any official complaint form for submission to the Review Board, established by state law effective 1 July, 2011.

Signed: D. A. KING

__________________ on 3 January, 2012

HELPFUL INFORMATION:

Text of OCGA 50-36-1 HERE

Text of OCGA 50-36-2 HERE

Text of OCGA 50-36-3 establishing Immigration Enforcement Review Board (effective 1 July 2011) HERE

Complete text of HB 87 as passed HERE Department of Audits and Accounts Website on method and grounds for filing a complaint to Review Board HERE

Image of City of Atlanta ordinance 04-0-0772 HERE

Congressional testimony of Steven Mc Craw, Assistant Director, Office of Intelligence, FBI, on dangers of acceptance of matricula consular ID HERE

To illustrate lack of security of matricula consular, images of D.A. King’s matricula consular ID cards HERE. (I am an American born, U.S. citizen)

Additional info on matricula consular ID and the City of Atlanta HERE and HERE https://www.thedustininmansociety.org/blog/?p=4260

O.C.G.A. § 50-36-3

O.C.G.A. § 50-36-3

GEORGIA CODE
Copyright 2011 by The State of Georgia
All rights reserved.

*** Current Through the 2011 Extraordinary Session ***

TITLE 50. STATE GOVERNMENT
CHAPTER 36. VERIFICATION OF LAWFUL PRESENCE WITHIN UNITED STATES

O.C.G.A. § 50-36-3 (2011)

§ 50-36-3. Immigration Enforcement Review Board; membership; duties; sanctions; civil actions

(a) As used in this Code section, the term:

(1) “Board” means the Immigration Enforcement Review Board.

(2) “Public agency or employee” means any government, department, commission, committee, authority, board, or bureau of this state or any political subdivision of this state and any employee or official, whether appointed, elected, or otherwise employed by such a governmental entity.

(3) “Served” or “service” means delivery by certified mail or statutory overnight delivery, return receipt requested.

(b) The Immigration Enforcement Review Board is established and shall consist of seven members. Three members shall be appointed by the Governor, two members shall be appointed by the Lieutenant Governor, and two members shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives. A chairperson shall be selected by a majority vote of the members. All matters before the board shall be determined by a majority vote of qualified board members. Members shall be appointed for terms of two years and shall continue to hold such position until their successors are duly appointed and qualified. A member may be reappointed to an additional term. If a vacancy occurs in the membership of the board, the appropriate appointing party shall appoint a successor for the remainder of the unexpired term and until a successor is appointed and qualified.

(c) The board shall be attached to the Department of Audits and Accounting for administrative purposes. The members of the board shall receive no compensation for their services but shall be reimbursed for any expenses incurred in connection with the investigation and review of complaints from funds of the board appropriated to the Department of Audits and Accounting for such purposes.

(d) The Immigration Enforcement Review Board shall have the following duties:

(1) To conduct a review or investigation of any complaint properly filed with the board;

(2) To take such remedial action deemed appropriate in response to complaints filed with the board, including holding hearings and considering evidence;

(3) To make and adopt rules and regulations consistent with the provisions of this Code section; and

(4) To subpoena relevant documents and witnesses and to place witnesses under oath for the provision of testimony in matters before the board.

(e) The board shall have the authority to investigate and review any complaint with respect to all actions of a public agency or employee alleged to have violated or failed to properly enforce the provisions of Code Section 13-10-91, 36-80-23, or 50-36-1 with which such public agency or employee was required to comply. Complaints may be received from any legal resident of this state as defined by Code Section 40-2-1 who is also a legally registered voter. The method and grounds for filing a complaint shall be posted on the Department of Audits and Accounting’s website.

(f) The board shall meet at a minimum of once every three months and shall send a notice to all interested parties of the places and times of its meetings. The board shall issue a written report of its findings in all complaints which shall include such evaluations, judgments, and recommendations as it deems appropriate.

(g) The initial review or hearing may, as determined by the board, be conducted by the full board or by one or more board members. Such review panel or members shall make findings and issue an initial decision. The initial decision shall be served upon the complaining party and the applicable public agency or employee that is the subject of a complaint within 60 calendar days. If the findings are adverse to the public agency or employee, or both, such party shall have 30 days to take the necessary remedial action, if any, and show cause why sanctions should not be imposed.

(h) In the event that the remedial action does not occur to the satisfaction of the review panel or members, the reviewing panel or members shall make a recommendation specifying an appropriate sanction. Sanctions may include revocation of qualified local government status, loss of state appropriated funds, and a monetary fine of not less than $1,000.00 or more than $5,000.00. Sanctions shall only be imposed against an individual employee or official where there is a finding supported by a preponderance of the evidence that such individual knowingly and willfully violated or failed to abide by the provisions of Code Section 13-10-91, 36-80-23, or 50-36-1.

(i) The initial decision or recommendation for sanctions, or both, shall be served upon the complaining party and the applicable public agency or employee that is the subject of a complaint. Where an initial decision is made by fewer than the entire board, the decision may be appealed to the full board. Appeals shall be filed with the board not later than 30 days following the recommendation for sanctions, or 30 days following the initial decision, if no adverse findings were made. Appeals may be made by the complainant or sanctioned public agency or employee. The full board shall by majority vote affirm, overturn, or modify the initial decision. The board may conduct a further hearing on the matter, or make a final decision based on the record from any previously held hearing by the original reviewing panel or members, or determine that no action is necessary based on the information before the board. Where the initial decision or recommendation is made by the full board, such decision shall be the final decision of the board following 30 days after service on the public agency or employee, unless further action is taken by the board prior to the expiration of the 30 day period.

(j) When a public agency or employee fails to take the specified remedial action, the Attorney General shall be authorized to bring a civil mandamus action against such public agency or employee to enforce compliance with applicable law and the sanctions recommended by the board. Nothing contained in this Code section shall prohibit the Attorney General from seeking any other remedy available by law.

HISTORY: Code 1981, § 50-36-3, enacted by Ga. L. 2011, p. 794, § 20/HB 87.