Dustin Inman Society MEDIA ADVISORY 28 November 2011
The Dustin Inman Society
3595 Canton Rd. A-9/337
Marietta, Ga. 30066
Contact: D.A. King
DA@TheDustinInmanSociety(dot) o r g
Pro-enforcement immigration activist challenges syndicated talk radio host Neal Boortz to defend his support for the legalization proposal from presidential candidate Newt Gingrich
After trying unsuccessfully to have a brief on-air debate today with Neal Boortz regarding the recent re-submission of the long-discredited “Red Card” amnesty plan for illegal aliens by Newt Gingrich, DIS president D.A. King extends his open challenge to Boortz to participate in a public equal-time discussion moderated by a third party.
One in which “the high priest of the painful truth” would not have access to a dump button.
According to King, at the 25th anniversary of the signing of the Simpson-Mazzoli legislation, as a member of congress who voted YEA on that failed amnesty, Newt Gingrich has finally made public his willingness to repeat the process of rewarding and legalizing illegal aliens who may have missed that “one-time” process or been able to avoid capture by a succession of unenthusiastic White House administrations. “Pro-enforcement voters all over the nation should be grateful to Gingrich for his confession” says King.
“It is clear that Boortz spent his weekend soaking up talking points to viciously defend Gingrich and his amnesty plan” said King today. “What is not clear is who was conducting the instruction, Gingrich, Cecilia Munoz or Jerry Gonzalez.”
King went on: “while citing many of the hot-button far-left liberal points on excuses for not honoring our immigration system with enforcement, Libertarian Boortz added at least one astounding never-been-heard point to the anti-enforcement argument. A clearly upset Boortz actually said that ‘ “illegals come here for the rule of law” reports a laughing King.
“In support of his pal Newt http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-nuze/2011/nov/28/republicans-get-smart/ , Boortz has come out wildly swinging from the left of Barbara Jordan and her recommendations to congress in 1995 and in the process is attacking faithful Republicans who demand a candidate for president who will promise never to repeat any form of legalization for the border escapees” said king. “No word yet on why we must discard forever the concept of an equal application of the law or how we hold “citizen hearings” for millions of illegals who even now are likely printing up documented proof of their long-time U.S. residency. I am dying to hear Boortz estimate the size of the riotous un-citizen mobs that would surely be marching in the streets of America demanding U.S. citizenship and the right to vote. Somebody needs to be allowed to tell Neal that the real and reasonable solution is attrition through enforcement” ended King.
King said he would be happy to participate in any public debate that pleases Neal Boortz and any resulting admission fees should be donated to the families of slain Border Patrol Agents.
ENFORCEEMNT WORKS! GEORGIA FARMERS RESORT TO BEGINNING TO OBEY LABOR AND IMIGRATION LAWS WITH USE OF EXISTING GUEST WORKER PROGRAM – H2A!
What next? Newt Gingrich supports enforcement?
Note from D.A. – watch the below news video and then tell me if you see what appears to be a child working in this Georgia onion field planting the crop?
WXIA TV Atlanta
VIDALIA, Ga. — Georgia vegetable growers are expecting to plant fewer crops this fall, and to try to use an unpopular federal program to recruit legal farm workers next spring.
“I think a lot of growers are looking to H2A as an alternative this spring,” said Charles Hall, director of the Georgia Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association.
H2A provides temporary visas to foreign workers to enter the United States solely to work in an industry lacking a local labor force.
Growers are turning to H2A as a way to manage shortages of migrant labor expected next spring. Growers say Hispanic migrant workers have been frightened away from Georgia by the state’s new Arizona-style immigration law… MORE HERE
Read more: The Marietta Daily Journal – D A King Adios Newt Nothing ‘humanitarian’ about Gingrich amnesty proposal
Marietta Daily Journal
November 25, 2011
Many thanks to the former House Speaker for explaining his core values and oh-so-morally-superior “compassion” on America’s illegal immigration crisis, another amnesty and the rule of law in the GOP presidential primary debate this week.
This long-time American was ever so close to making the blunder of supporting him for president.
With a blend of talking points taken from the anti-enforcement Chamber of Commerce, Barack Obama, the National Council of La Raza, the open borders Big Religion Inc. and Jerry Gonzalez of GALEO, the former speaker ended any confusion about his aversion to enforcement of the laws on immigration he voted for as a congressman.
“I do not believe that the people of the United States are going to take people who have been here a quarter century, who have children and grandchildren, who are members of the community, who may have done something 25 years ago, separate them from their families and expel them. I’m prepared to take the heat for saying, let’s be humane in enforcing the law without giving them citizenship but by finding a way to create legality so that they are not separated from their families” said Gingrich.
Heads up for Newt from recent Rasmussen poll headlines:
“59% say U.S. government encourages illegal immigration
63% favor immigration checks on all routine traffic stops
Most voters oppose public schooling, tuition breaks, driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants
64% say U.S. society fair and decent”
Gingrich also degraded and insulted the entire concept of legal immigration and U.S. citizenship by referring to not-yet-captured illegal aliens as “law-abiding citizens.”
He added, “I do believe if you’ve been here recently and have no ties to the U.S., we should deport you.” So it is a matter of time? Golly, thanks Newt. Apparently there is a statute of limitations on immigration violations for the would-be president of the republic.
It’s ironic that Gingrich would pick a figure of “a quarter century” as a time period for which an illegal can avoid deportation and then gain legal status in the USA.
Twenty-five years ago, then Congressman Newt Gingrich voted for the Simpson-Mazzoli legislation that legalized illegal aliens and offered the promise of future employer sanctions and secure American borders.
It was to have ended illegal immigration in the U.S forever.
The 1986 “one-time” amnesty legislation eventually made about three million illegal alien fugitives legal. The borders were not secured. Despite tireless work on the part of the Obama administration and the media to convince America otherwise, they still aren’t secure. Employers continue to hire and employ the less costly black-market labor who made it past Border Patrol Agents.
Despite the fraud involved in the same scheme in 1986, for Gingrich, it seems that amnesty is an every-25-year “humanitarian” project.
Gingrich also said with a straight face at the debate he wanted to create “a guest worker program” to help solve illegal immigration.
This dishonest concept and talking point taken straight from George W. Bush, John McCain and Ted Kennedy is offered up knowing that most Americans are unaware that we already have multiple guest worker programs in place. Including for agriculture. And that we already take in more than a million guest workers each year. Along with another million or so legal immigrants annually. While unemployment runs around 10 percent. And wages are stagnant. And many local governments all over the nation are going broke.
Gingrich knows no debate moderator is ever going to ask him or any other candidate for a reasonable explanation of this lunacy.
As I type, I can hear the usual voices on talk radio who have made up their minds to back Gingrich — no matter what — yelp that we can’t “round up and deport millions of illegal aliens” … yada yada.
Sure we could. Obama is claiming to have deported about 400,000 illegals last year and the year before. That claim is deceptive at best, but certainly those numbers are easily reached. Deporting say, half-a-million illegals every year until they are gone is quite possible and most American would support the endeavor. This one included.
But the real answer is attrition through enforcement — making the illegals leave on their own because of a lack of jobs, benefits and services and fear of strict, enthusiastic enforcement of the federal immigration laws for which the 1986 Congressman Newt Gingrich voted.
He has made it crystal clear that they now mean very little to him.
Adios, Newt — we know you too well.
D.A. King is president of the Cobb-based Dustin Inman Society which is actively opposed to any legalization of illegal aliens.
AJC opinion column judges and rates opinion column by D.A. King (me) on Rick Perry’s support for bi-national health care (PERRYCARE) today – but refuses to note Perry’s open borders agenda. Or explain why they don’t judge it all TRUE and fail to provide link to the speech cited in both columns in which Perry expresses his support for binational health care and open borders.
Note from D.A. – I don’t have an entire page devoted to Perry and immigration as stated in the AJC opinion column below – only a page on the DIS Website. HERE
Atlanta Journal Constitution
November 22, 2011
Did Rick Perry propose a bi-national health care plan with Mexico?
The Truth-O-Meter Says: MOSTLY TRUE
Says Rick Perry “proposed a binational health insurance program with Mexico.”
D.A. King on Tuesday, October 11th, 2011 in an op-ed
Did Rick Perry propose a bi-national health care plan with Mexico?
The term “Obamacare” is used by critics to describe the health care overhaul that President Barack Obama signed into law last year.
And some conservatives derisively use the phrase “Romneycare” to slight Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney and the changes he approved to Massachusetts’ health care system when he was governor there.
How about “Perrycare”? That’s Georgia anti-illegal immigration activist D.A. King’s term for what he contends was an effort by Texas governor and Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry to impose a binational health care plan between his state and Mexico. King even has a website dedicated to highlight Perry’s stance on immigration issues.
King is one of the most vocal voices in Georgia’s ongoing debate over illegal immigration.
“Granting instate tuition to illegals is only a small part of Perry’s problematic record,” King, president of the Dustin Inman Society, which is opposed to open borders between the U.S. and Mexico, wrote in a recent op-ed to the Marietta Daily Journal. “We noted that Perry had dismissed any consideration of a state immigration enforcement law such as Arizona, Georgia and other states struggled to put in place; had proposed a binational health insurance program with Mexico (Perrycare?); has expressed his support for legalizing the fugitive illegals who have escaped capture at American borders (it’s not amnesty, it’s a guest worker plan!); and refused to use the power of his office for any E-Verify legislation in Texas. So what if that state has one of the highest number of illegals in the country?”
King made a number of points, but we decided to look at the Perrycare charge because the presidential candidate’s immigration policy has come up in a number of other forums.
Some Perry critics describe him as being soft on illegal immigration because of his position on allowing students who are illegal immigrants to pay instate tuition at colleges in Texas. The criticism has hurt Perry’s standing among some Republicans. So we wondered if King had found another case in which Perry could be criticized as soft on illegal immigrants.
Our colleagues at PolitiFact Texas recently examined this issue when another GOP presidential candidate, Rick Santorum, a former U.S. senator from Pennsylvania, said Perry supported binational health insurance. Santorum’s claim was rated Half True.
King dismissed the PolitiFact Texas ruling, forwarding us an e-mail with a widely circulated speech by Perry on the issue. The Texas governor urged lawmakers there to pass a telemedicine program that allows “individuals living on the Mexican side of the border” to get care from a specialist hundreds of miles away. Telemedicine is using forms of communication such as video conferences to provide health care, according to the American Telemedicine Association.
Perry also mentioned a study to look at the feasibility of binational insurance.
“This study recognizes that the Mexican and U.S. sides of the border compose one region, and we must address health care problems throughout that region,” Perry said.
Those comments were made in August 2001, two weeks before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
The study guidelines were outlined in House Bill 2498, passed by the Texas Legislature in 2001. It begins by stating the interest of the state to deliver affordable health care services to citizens “on both sides of the Texas-Mexico border.”
The 141-page report, released in 2003, found some legal problems with the idea and logistical challenges, such as there are no laws in Mexico preventing a doctor from performing the duties of a specialist. The report found other problems. Some Texas health care providers were concerned that medical care in Mexico did not meet their standards, the medical equipment in Mexico was not as advanced and some medicine approved in Mexico may not meet Food and Drug Administration guidelines.
The report offered several options if Texas wanted to move forward with the idea. Perry and state lawmakers didn’t act. A spokeswoman for Perry noted to PolitiFact Texas that the Legislature took no further action on the topic.
Still, some websites have bashed conservative media for not being more critical of Perry.
“However, in spite of the Legislature’s failure to act, Perry made clear his willingness to funnel Texas’s assets to Mexico,” an item in the New American website said. It then had excerpts from Perry’s August 2001 speech. The website failed to note that the speech was made two years before the study.
By signing the bill that allowed the study, and through his 2001 speech, we can see how some find seeds for Perry’s support of a binational health insurance program with Mexico. But the governor never acted on the study, and he hasn’t appeared to talk much about the subject since 2001.
Still, Perry pushed for the study, which implies his interest in the idea.
From the New York Times on illegal alien workers and restaurants:. Immigration Crackdown Steps Into the Kitchen
“We always, always hire the undocumented workers,” he said. “It’s not just me, it’s everybody in the industry. First, they are willing to do the work. Second, they are willing to learn. Third, they are not paid as well. It’s an economic decision. It’s less expensive to hire an undocumented person.”
While many restaurants do comply with the law, according to government officials, labor economists say immigrants are highly appealing hires because they tend to be especially loyal, stable and dependable. They are also more likely than United States citizens to work for lower wages without health insurance, sick days or paid vacations and paid breaks.
Of nine major chefs and restaurateurs asked about the government’s intensified focus on employers of immigrants — Wolfgang Puck, Stephen P. Hanson, Stephen Starr, Jeffrey Chodorow, Danny Meyer, Daniel Boulud, Rick Bayless, Rich Melman and Nick Valenti — only Mr. Valenti’s company, the Patina Restaurant Group, would comment.
In a written statement, the company said: “Patina Restaurant Group does periodically bring in employees from other countries following all Federal Immigration laws. This is a small percentage of our workforce, for which we utilize the programs provided by the department of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, allowing us to bring in chefs and management talent from abroad, along with international students to expand their knowledge with hands on training.”
Attention KSU security: Jerry Gonzalez of GALEO to speak at KSU today
by D.A. King
Attention KSU security: Jerry Gonzalez of GALEO to speak on campus today
November 16, 2011
Readers who have never seen or heard Jerry Gonzalez, Executive Director of former Georgia state Senator Sam Zamarripa’s anti-immigration-enforcement Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials Inc. ( GALEO) will apparently have that always eye-opening opportunity this evening at KSU.
I am told the lecture – and I do mean lecture – is sponsored by the Lambda Theta Alpha Latin Sorority Inc.
According to a post on the GALEO Facebook page (a valuable source of insight on how the far left-wing thinks) Gonzalez is speaking today – for three hours – on the what he sees as the difficulties with American immigration laws, the horrors of Georgia’s recently enacted HB 87 and the concept of federal “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” – what most people refer to as amnesty-again.
This long-time American strongly recommends attending if you can spare the time.
According to GALEO the no-cost entertainment begins at 6:30 in Kennesaw State University’s Clendenin Building, room 1008.
Attendees should be ready for the very possible exposure to one of Gonzalez’s well-known, but seldom reported hissy-fits if things don’t go the way he demands at the KSU event.
A recent Rome News-Tribune news report ( Immigration discussion gets heated during panel”“ – November 9) recounts Gonzalez’s antics at a similar event in that lovely Georgia city. Apparently, Gonzalez was “uninvited” as a panel member on a scheduled meeting there focused on needed adjustments by business and Human Resource managers in Georgia due to the E-Verify requirement in Georgia’s new law.
According to the Rome news report, Gonzalez showed up anyway, angrily shouted at Rome’s diminutive and well-liked state Repesentitive, Katie Dempsey, from the audience during and after the event and ended up being escorted out of the event, the building and off the property by local police. Dempsey was a cosigner on HB 87.
Word around Rome is that the meeting organizers learned of GALEO’s involvement in a pending lawsuit against the governor and the state to stop enforcement/HB 87 and concluded that Gonzalez wasn’t the best choice for a rational, unbiased discussion. (Duh).
One poster on the Rome newspaper’s comments section offers more on the possibilities for Gonzalez being removed from the panel there: “Jerry is a threatening, angry wanna-be “tough guy” who says English as the official language of the USA “would be an insult” to his culture. Maybe they learned that Gonzalez had the Socialist Workers Party come to his 2003 group to help with trying to get Ga drivers licenses for illegals. He has hysterically screamed at women legislators before, most recently before this, in the last legislative session, in the Capitol, at a state Senator from Gwinnett County who made the remark that Georgians should not have to pay for illegals on the floor of the Senate.” I couldn’t have said it better myself.
I can personally confirm that last observation. I was in the Georgia Capitol last session when Capitol Police warned Gonzalez that he would be removed if he continued his screaming at state Senator Renee Unterman after her complaint to them.
Anyway, if you have time tonight to see the illegal alien lobby and listen to the amazing arguments used against enforcement of American immigration laws, today is your chance.
The Department of Homeland Security will begin a review on Thursday of all deportation cases before the immigration courts and start a nationwide training program for enforcement agents and prosecuting lawyers, with the goal of speeding deportations of convicted criminals and halting those of many illegal immigrants with no criminal record.
The accelerated triage of the court docket — about 300,000 cases — is intended to allow severely overburdened immigration judges to focus on deporting foreigners who committed serious crimes or pose national security risks, Homeland Security officials said. Taken together, the review and the training, which will instruct immigration agents on closing deportations that fall outside the department’s priorities, are designed to bring sweeping changes to the immigration courts and to enforcement strategies of field agents nationwide.
According to a document obtained by The New York Times, Homeland Security officials will issue guidelines on Thursday to begin the training program and the first stages of the court caseload review. Both are efforts to put into practice a policy senior officials had announced in June, to encourage immigration agents to use prosecutorial discretion when deciding whether to pursue a deportation.
The policy, described in a June 17 memorandum by John Morton, the director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, suggested that the Obama administration would scale back deportations of illegal immigrants who were young students, military service members, elderly people or close family of American citizens, among others. While the announcement raised excited expectations in Latino and other immigrant communities, until now the policy has been applied spottily, deepening disillusionment with President Obama in those communities.
The Obama administration has removed high numbers of illegal immigrants, nearly 400,000 in each of the last three years. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Mr. Morton said those numbers would not decrease, but they wanted agents and courts to focus on deporting the worst offenders, including national security risks, criminal convicts and those who repeatedly violate immigration laws. Many immigration offenses, including being present in the United States without legal status, are civil violations; they are not crimes.
Administration officials have flexibility to transform immigration court procedures because those courts are part of the Justice Department in the executive branch, not part of the federal judiciary. Central to the plan is giving more power to immigration agency lawyers — the equivalent of prosecutors in the federal court system — to decide which deportation cases to press.
“We are empowering the attorneys nationally to make them more like federal prosecutors, who decide what cases to bring,” said a senior Homeland Security official, who asked not to be named because the policy has not been formally announced.
In the first stage of the court docket review, which will begin on Thursday, immigration agency lawyers will examine all new cases just arriving in immigration courts nationwide, with an eye to closing cases that are low-priority according to the Morton memorandum, before they advance into the court system.
At the same time, immigrants identified as high priority will see their cases put onto an expedited calendar for judges to order their deportations, Homeland Security officials said.
The goal is to “reduce inefficiencies that delay the removal of criminal aliens and other priority cases by preventing new low priority cases from clogging the immigration court dockets,” the Homeland Security document said. Officials said the first stage was an “initial test run” that would be completed by Jan. 13.
The Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, a research group that analyzes immigration court data, reported in September that the backlog before the nation’s 59 immigration courts was at “a new all-time high.”
In a second stage, to begin Dec. 4, the Department of Homeland Security and the Justice Department will start six-week pilot projects in the immigration courts in Baltimore and Denver, in which teams of immigration agency lawyers will comb through the current dockets of those courts. They will focus on cases of immigrants who have been arrested for deportation, but who are not being held in detention while their cases proceed.
Immigrants who are deemed to qualify for prosecutorial discretion will have their cases closed, but not dismissed, officials said. That means that agents could re-open the deportations at any time if the immigrants commit a crime or a new immigration violation. Immigrants whose cases are closed will be allowed to remain in the United States, but they will be in legal limbo, without any positive immigration status.
The pilot projects will also end on Jan. 13, and then officials will decide how to expand the program to all immigration courts nationwide early next year.
Also on Thursday, Homeland Security officials will introduce a training program based on scenarios that could arise in enforcement operations, which every Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent must complete by mid-January. The goal is to instruct agents, many of whom have expressed doubts about Mr. Morton’s policy, to apply the prosecutorial discretion criteria.
The approach of deporting some illegal immigrants but not others requires a deep change in the mentality of the agents, who have long operated on the principle that any violation was good cause for deportation.
Republicans in Congress have denounced the new deportations policy, accusing the Obama administration of trying an end-run around Congress by granting de facto amnesty to illegal immigrants. Representative Lamar Smith, a Republican from Texas who is chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said the prosecutorial discretion policy had the “specific purpose of overruling or preventing orders of removal for illegal immigrants.”
Administration officials said they would proceed case by case using existing legal authorities, and had no plans to exempt any large group of illegal immigrants from deportation.