February 27, 2015
The below quote is an excerpt from a Time magazine interview with Miami-based activist journalist Jorge Ramos December 1/ December 8, 2014 titled “America’s News Anchor” by Michael Scherer.
On the agenda of expanding NAFTA to include the free flow of labor to match the free flow of goods and services, Ramos has also told me personally that “this country is not ready for that…”
“Then what had he meant by comparing the southern border fence to the Berlin Wall?
Ramos, to Time:
“The taboo issue of an open border should be tackled. Not now. Politically it is impossible even to discuss that,” he said. “But I don’t see why we can’t have in North America the same immigration system that they have within the European Union.”
February 26, 2015
Another reason we call it “Georgiafornia.”
The below are quotes made to foreign langauge media last year by Republican state Senator Tommie Williams after he successfully led the opposition to an amendment that would have ended the practice of awarding Georgia drivers licenses to illegal aliens who benefit from Obama’s mass deferred action amnesty.
“If President Obama gave them a legal status, we should respect that and let them live in peace.”
“This is a country of laws, and if they gave you permission to be here, it is because they have met the requirements for that.”
Williams is the former President Pro Tem of the Georgia Senate. He is often thanked for his help by the illegal alien lobby here. With 56 total members, the GOP has a 38 member super-majority.
This year’s attempt at stopping driver licenses to illegal aliens is SB 6, from Senator Josh McKoon. It has 12 co-sponsors. And near zero chance of even seeing a hearing. There is no similar legislation in the Republican majority House.
Due to the extremely successful news blackout on all nearly things immigration by the Atlanta Associated Press buearu, the Atlanta Journal Constitution, Georgia Public TV, the local NPR station and most TV news outlets, most Georgians have no idea that the Republican-ruled state is giving illegal drivers licenses and other public benefits (including un-employment benefits) or that there is legislation to stop that lunacy. State Tea Party groups are mostly focused on Common Core, a bill to increase taxes for transportation improvement and “religious freedom” bills.
Republican Governor Nathan Deal, back when he would mention the fact that illegal immigration even existed, has made the public estimate that Georgia taxpayers spend about $2.4 billion annually on that crime. The Tea Party groups are crazed about a possible expenditure of $1.3 billion a year to re-build roads, bridges and improve Atlanta’s legendary horrible traffic problems. Most Tea Party groups are extensions of the local GOP groups.
Pro-enforcement conservatives here have taken to calling our Chamber of Commerce-controlled state “Georgiafornia.” We have more illegal aliens here than Arizona and English is an optional language. Ya’ll.
February 25, 2015
Fox News latino
February 24, 2015
For many, the media-perpetuated myth that the last six years has produced “record deportations” makes it hard to accept the fact that it is more difficult to be deported from Obama’s “transformed America” than it is to win the visa lottery.
– D.A. King
Opinion: Pro-enforcement Americans celebrate Texas ruling on Obama’s executive actions
Hooray! Finally! Yipee! Americans win one in America! Viva, U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen!
Last week, Judge Hanen ruled in favor of a 26-state coalition asking that President Obama’s emperor-like decree of de facto amnesty for about five million illegal aliens be delayed while a final determination is made on its constitutionality. Look for this to end up in the U.S. Supreme Court and for Obama’s amnesty to be permanently derailed.
Judge Hanen was confirmed by a 97-0 vote of the United States Senate on May 9, 2002.
There is a bright side of this decision for the Obama administration: Hanen has officially expressed clear agreement with the president. Albeit the pre-November 2014 Obama, who made it clear – 23 times – that he lacks the authority to discard laws he finds obstructive to his agenda or to write his own from scratch.
“My cabinet has been working very hard on trying to get it done, but ultimately … I am president, I am not king,” Obama told Univision in October 2010, when asked why he had yet to achieve legalization for millions of victims of borders.
And at a 2011 Univision re-election campaign speech from Obama: “I swore an oath to uphold the laws on the books … now, I know some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own. But that’s not how our system works. That’s not how our democracy functions. That’s not how our Constitution is written.”
Indeed. Jubilant pro-borders Americans – of all descriptions – are now daring to consider the possibility that at least part of the Rule of Law upon which our republic was founded has survived six years of the rule of Obama and the meddling by Valerie Jarrett and Cecilia Munoz, on what was already the most liberal and generous immigration system in the world.
The endless “our immigration system is broken” cliché is simply a newspeak expression for the resentful anguish that the United States still has borders.
The unsupervised actions of the gang in the White House on immigration have resulted in this dangerous period of constitutional crisis in our existence as a republic. Unless stopped now on his immigration law rewrite, the mind reels at what Obama has planned for his remaining time in office — or what a future president may do with the treacherous precedent Obama is hoping to set.
For many, the media-perpetuated myth that the last six years has produced “record deportations” makes it hard to accept the fact that it is more difficult to be deported from Obama’s “transformed America” than it is to win the visa lottery.
According to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), in Fiscal Year 2014, 6,466 individuals were removed from the interior who were not convicted criminals, fugitives, or repeat immigration violators. Attentive number-crunchers tell us this represents less than six one-hundreths of one percent (.058 percent) of the estimated 11 million ‘unauthorized’ aliens in the U.S.
By comparison, .3 percent of the 15 million visa lottery entrants every year “win” the opportunity to apply for U.S. green cards.
From NumbersUSA.com: “Interior removals have fallen every year Obama has been in office and DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson has pledged to expand the administration’s non-enforcement policies further. As former acting director of ICE John Sandweg told the LA Times, “if you are a run-of-the-mill immigrant here illegally, your odds of getting deported are close to zero.”
Meanwhile, Texas Governor Greg Abbott says already this year, about 20,000 people have crossed the border into his state illegally.
No, expanding DACA and implementing DAPA isn’t about discontinuing deportations or securing our borders. The real prize here is the work permit and the genuine Social Security numbers that are involved in “deferred action status” promised to the irate illegals. This is intended as yet another gift to the group Obama rightly assumes would be the future big-government Democrat voters while he ignores unemployed American workers and our sinking wages.
For common-sense Americans, the majority of whom are pro-enforcement, an inconvenient (rhetorical) question lingers: If Obama had the authority to simply use “prosecutorial discretion” for five million individuals all along, why didn’t he simply order an amnesty for all illegal aliens years ago?
Another rhetorical question: Would Barack Obama, the Democrats and La Raza be as rabidly anti-enforcement on immigration if the hordes of illegals were highly-skilled, English-speaking, potential conservative voters pouring across the border from Manitoba?
Viva, U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen!
D.A. King is president of the Georgia-based Dustin Inman Society and is an independent voter. He describes himself a “pro-enforcement” on immigration and borders. Twitter:@DAKDIS
AND…The other side HERE
February 23, 2015
Atlanta Journal Constitution
Letters to the editor
February 23, 2015
Don’t confuse legal, illegal immigrants
The recent front-page news report on a federal judge in Texas delaying President Barack Obama’s executive amnesty (“Judge puts hold on immigration policy,” News, Feb. 18) has a glaring inaccuracy and a direct contradiction of previous promises on legitimate use of terms and descriptions from the AJC regarding immigration reporting. Readers were repeatedly told “immigrants” are the targets of Obama’s now delayed amnesty and are “seeking relief” from deportation.
The AJC immigration reporter should know real immigrants, by federal definition, do not require amnesty or defacto legalization by illegal executive actions from Obama. Only illegal aliens have a need for that reward. Not that the Obama regime is deporting many “everyday” illegally present victims of borders anyway.
Immigrants should not be smeared and mixed up with screaming and defiant illegals, especially in a news report designed to drive public opinion.
D.A. KING, PRESIDENT, THE DUSTIN INMAN SOCIETY
February 22, 2015
We took a few minutes to illustrate just a few examples of the official use of *”illegal alien.”
- Added 10 November 2015: The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals uses the term “illegal alien” to describe illegal aliens thirty-nine (39) times in its opinion regarding Obama’s DAPA amnesty last night. HERE
- Thanks to our pal Fred Elbel.
Hat tip to Mr. Jon Feere, CIS for his help on the below.
As is illustrated below, “illegal alien is used by federal law enforcement, in federal law, in Georgia law, presidential Executive Orders, the IRS, and by SCOTUS – including by the “wise Latina” Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
Added June 23, 2015:
# Here is an official press release from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security/U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Please note the reference to *”illegal alien.”
Border Patrol Agents Rescue Alien Locked in Trunk
Release Date: June 22, 2015
PINE VALLEY, Calif.—U.S. Border Patrol agents arrested two United States citizens near the Interstate 8 checkpoint on Sunday after finding an *illegal alien in their car trunk.
Yesterday at approximately 11:45 a.m., agents approached a 1998 Toyota Camry that had pulled over onto the shoulder of Interstate 8. After speaking with the 39-year-old female driver and her 43-year-old male passenger, the agents requested a Border Patrol K-9 team to conduct a cursory sniff of the vehicle.
While waiting for the Border Patrol K-9 team to arrive, the driver consented to a search of the vehicle. Agents opened the trunk and discovered an 18-year-old male inside who was sweating profusely due to the heat. The trunk was not equipped with an internal escape latch and the man was not provided with any water. Agents determined that the man was a Mexican national illegally present in the U.S.
The driver and her passenger were arrested and face Federal charges for human smuggling. Their vehicle was seized by the U.S. Border Patrol.
Last fiscal year, the San Diego Sector apprehended 29,911 people for entering the U.S. illegally.
To prevent the illicit smuggling of humans, drugs, and other contraband, the U.S. Border Patrol maintains a high level of vigilance on corridors of egress away from our Nation’s borders. To report suspicious activity to the U.S. Border Patrol, contact San Diego Sector at (619) 498-9900.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection is the unified border agency within the Department of Homeland Security charged with the management, control and protection of our nation’s borders at and between the official ports of entry. CBP is charged with keeping terrorists and terrorist weapons out of the country while enforcing hundreds of U.S. laws.
# One example from federal law:
8 U.S. Code § 1365 – Reimbursement of States for costs of incarcerating illegal aliens and certain Cuban nationals
(a) Reimbursement of States
Subject to the amounts provided in advance in appropriation Acts, the Attorney General shall reimburse a State for the costs incurred by the State for the imprisonment of any *illegal alien or Cuban national who is convicted of a felony by such State.
(b) *Illegal aliens convicted of a felony
An *illegal alien referred to in subsection (a) of this section is any alien who is any alien convicted of a felony who is in the United States unlawfully and—
(1) whose most recent entry into the United States was without inspection, or
(2) whose most recent admission to the United States was as a nonimmigrant and—
(A) whose period of authorized stay as a nonimmigrant expired, or
(B) whose unlawful status was known to the Government,
before the date of the commission of the crime for which the alien is convicted.
(c) Marielito Cubans convicted of a felony
A Marielito Cuban convicted of a felony referred to in subsection (a) of this section is a national of Cuba who—
(1) was allowed by the Attorney General to come to the United States in 1980,
(2) after such arrival committed any violation of State or local law for which a term of imprisonment was imposed, and
(3) at the time of such arrival and at the time of such violation was not an alien lawfully admitted to the United States—
(A) for permanent or temporary residence, or
(B) under the terms of an immigrant visa or a nonimmigrant visa issued,
under the laws of the United States.
(d) Authorization of appropriations
There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out the purposes of this section.
(e) “State” defined
The term “State” has the meaning given such term in section 1101 (a)(36) of this title.
# An Executive Order from a U.S. President:
A proclamation from Reagan titled, “High Seas Interdiction of *Illegal Aliens”:
PROCLAMATION NO. 4865
Sept . 29, 1981, 46 F.R. 48107
HIGH SEAS INTERDICTION OF *ILLEGAL ALIENS
The ongoing migration of persons to the United States in violation of our laws is a serious national problem detrimental to the interests of the United States. A particularly difficult aspect of the problem is the continuing illegal migration by sea of large numbers of undocumented aliens into the southeastern United States. These arrivals have severely strained the law enforcement resources of the
Immigration and Naturalization Service and have threatened the welfare and safety of communities in that region.
As a result of our discussions with the Governments of affected foreign countries and with agencies of the Executive Branch of our Government, I have determined that new and effective measures to curtail these unlawful arrivals are necessary. In this regard, I have determined that international cooperation to intercept vessels trafficking in illegal migrants is a necessary and proper means of insuring the effective enforcement of our laws.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, RONALD REAGAN, President of the United States of America, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the statutes of the United States, including Sections 212(f) and 215(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended (8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a)(1)) [subsec. (f) of this section and section 1185(a)(1) of this title], in order to protect the sovereignty of the United States, and in accordance with cooperative arrangements with certain foreign governments, and having found that the entry of undocumented aliens, arriving at the borders of the United States from the high seas, is detrimental to the interests of the United States, do proclaim that:
The entry of undocumented aliens from the high seas is hereby suspended and shall be prevented by the interdiction of certain vessels carrying such aliens.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-ninth day of September, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and eighty-one, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and sixth.
# Another one:
An Executive Order from President George Bush in 1992 titled, “Interdiction of *Illegal Aliens”
Exec. Order No. 12807
Interdiction of *Illegal Aliens
May 24, 1992
23133 By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including sections 212(f) and 215(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended (8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a)(1)), and whereas:
(1) The President has authority to suspend the entry of aliens coming by sea to the United States without necessary documentation, to establish reasonable rules and regulations regarding, and other limitations on, the entry or attempted entry of aliens into the United States, and to repatriate aliens interdicted beyond the territorial sea of the United States;
(2) The international legal obligations of the United States under the United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (U.S. T.I.A.S. 6577; 19 U.S.T. 6223) to apply Article 33 of the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees do not extend to persons located outside the territory of the United States;
(3) Proclamation No. 4865 suspends the entry of all undocumented aliens into the United States by the high seas; and
(4) There continues to be a serious problem of persons attempting to come to the United States by sea without necessary documentation and otherwise illegally.
I, GEORGE BUSH, President of the United States of America, hereby order as follows: … Sec. 4. Executive Order No. 12324 is hereby revoked and replaced by this order.
Sec. 5. This order shall be effective immediately.
THE WHITE HOUSE May 24, 1992. …
# Here’s a page from Obama’s USCIS where they use *”illegal alien” (mid-paragraph):
More? OK…from the Internal Revenue Service
Immigration Terms and Definitions Involving Aliens
An alien who has been granted the right by the USCIS to reside permanently in the United States and to work without restrictions in the United States. Also known as a Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR). All immigrants are eventually issued a “green card” (USCIS Form I-551), which is the evidence of the alien’s LPR status. LPR’s who are awaiting the issuance of their green cards may bear an I-551 stamp in their foreign passports.
Immigrant visas are available for aliens (and their spouses and children) who seek to immigrate based on their job skills. If an alien has the right combination of skills, education, and/or work experience and are otherwise eligible, the alien may be able to live permanently in the United States. Per USCIS, there are five employment-based immigrant visa preferences (categories): EB-1, EB-2, EB-3, EB-4 and EB-5. Refer to the USCIS Permanent Worker web site for more details.
An alien who has been granted the right by the USCIS to reside temporarily in the United States. Each nonimmigrant is admitted into the United States in the nonimmigrant status, which corresponds to the class of visa with which, or purpose for which, he entered the United States (e.g., a foreign student may enter the United States on an F-1 visa, which corresponds to the F-1 student status in which he was admitted to the United States).
Aliens in some nonimmigrant statuses are allowed to be employed in the United States, and others are not. Some nonimmigrant statuses have rigid time limits for the alien’s stay in the United States, while others do not.
Each nonimmigrant status has rules and guidelines, which must be followed in order for the nonimmigrant to remain “in status.” A nonimmigrant who violates one of these rules or guidelines will fall “out of status.” An nonimmigrant who remains “out of status” for at least 180 days is deportable and will be unable to re-enter the United States for 3 years. A nonimmigrant who remains “out of status” for at least 365 days is deportable and will be unable to re-enter the United States for 10 years.
For more information on the types of visas available, refer to the Department of State’s Questions About Visas web page.
Also known as an “Undocumented Alien,” is an alien who has entered the United States illegally and is deportable if apprehended, or an alien who entered the United States legally but who has fallen “out of status” and is deportable.
Plyler v Doe
457 U.S. 202
Plyler v. Doe (No. 80-1538)
Argued: December 1, 1981
Decided: June 15, 1982 [*]
Held: A Texas statute which withholds from local school districts any state funds for the education of children who were not “legally admitted” into the United States, and which authorizes local school districts to deny enrollment to such children, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
(a) The *illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a “person” in any ordinary sense of that term. This Court’s prior cases recognizing that illegal aliens are “persons” protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which Clauses do not include the phrase “within its jurisdiction,” cannot be distinguished on the asserted ground that persons who have entered the country illegally are not “within the jurisdiction” of a State even if they are present within its boundaries and subject to its laws. Nor do the logic and history of the Fourteenth Amendment support such a construction. Instead, use of the phrase “within its jurisdiction” confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State’s territory. Pp. 210-216….
Arizona Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting — When the U.S. Chamber of Commerce teamed up with the ACLU and La Raza to kill the Arizona E-Verify law designed to protect jobs and wages from illegal aliens
Wikipedia: “Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting was a United States Supreme Court case which dealt with the question of whether the Legal Arizona Workers Act was invalid under federal statutes, in particular the Immigration Reform and Control Act. On May 26, 2011, the Supreme Court ruled, in a 5-3 decision, that The Legal Arizona Workers Act was not preempted by federal legislation. Justices Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Alito and Thomas formed the majority opinion, while Justices Breyer, Ginsburg and Sotomayor formed the minority opinion (with Sotomayor filling her own dissenting opinion); Justice Kagan was recused in the case, because of having a prior role in the case because of her former role as the U.S. Solicitor General…”
- “Illegal alien was used three (3) times. Once by Justice Sonia Sotomayor
Arizona v. United States (2012)
* “Illegal alien” is used either ten (10) or eleven (11) times and seven or eight are uttered by Sotomayor.
Note from D.A. King in a MDJ column from 2012:
“Considering the ongoing, inflammatory and shameless race-baiting struggle by the illegal alien lobby to stop the use of the legally correct and far-too-accurate term “illegal alien” to describe illegal aliens, pro-enforcement Americans are finding it quite difficult to disguise their smirks at the fact that in last week’s (2012) 1-hour, 20-minute Supreme Court hearing on the Obama/Mexico/ACLU/La Raza suit against Arizona’s 2010 illegal immigration/public safety law, the term “illegal alien” was used 11 times. And each of those uses was by one of the justices. And using it seven or eight times was the self-described “wise Latina” Justice, Sonia Sotomayor.”
Example: “Because we keep talking about whether the APA-type definition of licensing is what Congress intended or not, but you don’t disagree that Congress at least intended that if someone violated the Federal law and hired * illegal aliens of Hispanic — undocumented aliens and was found to have violated it, that the State can revoke their license, correct, to do business?” Justice Sonia Sotomayor.”
Marietta Daily Journal
February 22, 2015
GOP listening to big biz, not voters
“If we continue to allow illegal immigrants access to all these services, we will be flooded.” — Future Republican Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle on driver’s licenses and other public benefits going to illegal aliens in Georgia, at a March 2004 Georgia Chamber of Commerce “Eggs and Issues” Breakfast speech.
Welcome to the Establishment Republicans’ “New Georgia” — brought to us by what can only be described as “party uber alles” sycophants who would rather ensure a welcome at the next GOP barbecue, breakfast or produce boil than risk being ostracized for noting the obvious.
Not for the first time — or the last — we note that control of the Georgia government has been sold to Big Business led by the Georgia Chamber of Commerce and Big Ag with the complicit news suppression of Big Media. Anyone who doubts that fact needs to actually spend some time under the Gold Dome during the legislative session.
Far too many modern-day Republican faithful need to look up the term “useful idiots.”
The GOP has now had control of the Peach State for more than a decade since Cagle — who plans on being Gov. Cagle — offered his “trust me, I’m a conservative” quote on being “flooded.” In that time several state laws intended to deter illegal immigration have been implemented and then ignored by Georgia’s elected leaders — with the lack of enforcement then ignored by the “watchdog” press.
These days, only the bravest in government voluntarily mention the crime of illegal immigration or protecting our jobs, driver’s licenses and other public benefits from illegal aliens.
While the Dunwoody-based Atlanta newspaper and the NPR/GPTV crowd (apologies for my repetition) have done a stunningly efficient job of keeping a lid on “too much information,” Georgia has issued driver’s licenses and public benefits to about 15,000 “victims of borders” since 2012.
The bold effort from Attorney General Sam Olens’ office in joining the Texas-originated, 26-state lawsuit challenging Obama’s latest executive amnesty decree offers the chance to stop at least 170,000 more illegals from legally getting in the “me too” benefit line.
More? In November, when Obama announced his latest amnesty, GOP Gov. Nathan Deal remarked for the record that he had “reservations.” It is up to the reader to decide if that language is stronger that being “miffed.”
By now, many readers may have heard about Columbus state Sen. Josh McKoon’s legislation (SB 6) that would at least stop all illegals from accessing a Georgia driver’s license. On orders from the real bosses in Georgia, the game of “kill this bill — and do it quietly!” by GOP Senate leadership goes like this: either smother the bill in the Public Safety Committee or bottle it up in the GOP-led Rules Committee until after Day 30 so that it cannot possibly see a floor vote by the full Senate this year.
When asked about his bill by McKoon, the Cagle-appointed GOP Chairman of the Public Service Committee, where Cagle assigned SB 6, reportedly explained that its future didn’t look too good. It seems many of his south Georgia campaign funders are growers who have illegal aliens working as foremen — and they need driver’s licenses to get to their illegally obtained jobs. Get it?
Because of the danger of voter memory of the exercise, a public, recorded, full-Senate vote on SB 6 would result in passage by a large margin. As president of the Senate, Cagle will not allow that to happen unless he is forced into submission by public pressure and seeing more than half the Republican caucus publicly support the bill by actually signing on as co-sponsors.
And that is as close as we are likely to get to seeing which Republican state Senators are really pro-enforcement and which are more worried about the Chamber of Commerce donors than the voters they swore to protect.
As I write this, the 12 co-signers on McKoon’s bill are Sens. Mike Crane, Steve Gooch, William Ligon, Bill Heath, PK Martin, Greg Kirk, Bruce Thompson, Marty Harbin, Frank Ginn, Michael Williams, Judson Hill and Hunter Hill (the latter two of Cobb). There are 38 Republican state Senators.
For the curious: There are no bills to stop illegal aliens from getting a driver’s license in the GOP-majority state House.
D.A. King is president of the Cobb-based Dustin Inman Society. He is not member of any political party. Twitter: @DAKDIS
Read more: The Marietta Daily Journal – GOP listening to big biz not voters
Marietta Daily Journal
Bill would alter driver’s license provision in Ga.
by Ricky Leroux
February 22, 2015
ATLANTA — Supporters of a bill in the Georgia Senate say it would prevent those who have entered the country illegally from gaining a driver’s license, while opponents call the bill discriminatory.
Sen. Josh McKoon (R-Columbus) said he filed Senate Bill 6 to clarify residency requirements to get a driver’s license.
“What made me want to file it is I learned that under current Georgia law that illegal immigrants are entitled to receiving a Georgia driver’s license,” McKoon said. “I was shocked and dismayed that our law would allow for that and felt that we needed to make a change, particularly in light of the president’s most recent deferred action, which from the estimates that I’ve seen — conservative estimates — would place an additional 100,000 illegal immigrants in an eligibility status for a Georgia driver’s license.”
McKoon is referring to President Barack Obama’s executive actions to shield certain immigrants from deportation, which the president issued in November. Those executive actions were temporarily blocked by a federal judge in Texas this week, but the White House has said it will appeal the judge’s ruling.
The judge’s decision does not change McKoon’s resolve to pass his bill.
“I think it is incredibly important for us to move forward because the federal judge has given us some breathing room,” McKoon said. “He’s given us time to get this law in place, but there’s no guarantee that that decision’s not going to be reversed in days, weeks or months to come. Now is the time to act. We need to stand up for the people of this state and make it clear that we’re not issuing benefits to those who have broken our laws and are here illegally.”
McKoon said the bill would change residency requirements to get a driver’s license from “lawfully present” to “lawful status,” which he said would not allow those who entered the country illegally from getting licenses even if the executive actions are implemented.
“Georgia law currently says that you must be lawfully present — you have to have a lawful presence in the state to qualify for a driver’s license. Most of what Senate Bill 6 does has to do with changing lawful presence to lawful status,” McKoon said. “That would fix the problem because even if the president orders deferred action, that does not confer lawful status upon individuals who are in the country illegally.”
The bill is in the Senate Public Safety Committee, chaired by Sen. Tyler Harper (R-Ocilla).
“We requested a hearing several weeks ago, and we have not been granted a hearing,” McKoon said. “But we continue to be hopeful that Chairman Harper will schedule it for a hearing.”
At a hearing, supporters of the bill would provide evidence and testimony on why the bill is necessary. Then, the committee would need to vote to move the bill forward, McKoon said. The bill would then go before the Senate Rules Committee, he said, which decides what bills go to the Senate floor for a full vote.
McKoon said he hasn’t been given a reason why a hearing has not taken place.
“I really have not heard anything. We submitted a letter requesting a hearing. We have made repeated requests for a hearing,” he said.
Still, McKoon is hopeful, saying 12 other Republican senators have signed on to the bill.
“I learned a long time ago you don’t make predictions, but I certainly continue to be hopeful that we’ll get the opportunity to make our case,” he said.
Sen. Bruce Thompson (R-White), who represents a portion of north Cobb between interstates 75 and 575, is one of the co-sponsors of the bill. Thompson said the bill simply defines “who can actually get licenses within our state because once you get a driver’s license, that opens you up to so many other benefits.”
Thompson said the bill is necessary because of the uncertainty surrounding Obama’s executive actions on immigration.
“Right now, with the action that our federal government is taking granting certain segments of the population immigration status here, if we don’t define within our state what it takes to be able to get a driver’s license, then we’ve opened Pandora’s box,” he said. “It’s not seeking to restrict as much as it’s seeking to define who’s qualified within our state to be able to get a driver’s license and be on the roads.”
Sen. Hunter Hill (R-Smyrna), who represents Smyrna, Cumberland and Vinings, said he has some issues with the bill, but supports the concept.
Hill said portions of the bill would also apply “to current foreigners getting a temporary license that are here legally. And a lot of them are contributing members of our society in terms of business executives with Mercedes and UPS and Coca-Cola and other companies, and we wouldn’t want to burden everybody when we’re trying to just make it so the vast majority of illegals don’t get a driver’s license.”
Hill said if those changes are made, he would vote to pass the bill.
“I think everybody’s on the same page for not making the law cumbersome for legal residents, but also not allowing illegal residents, those here illegally, to have a government document that suggests that they are here legally.”
State Sen. Horacena Tate (D-Atlanta), who represents the Mableton area in south Cobb, said she would not vote for the bill.
“We spend too much time trying to be discriminatory to people,” Tate said. “It’s an attack on deferred immigration status for people who are here, supporting our economy.”
Tate said the bill hurts people who are in the country trying to work and contribute.
“If we allow them to have driver’s licenses, then that means they’re paying insurance. They can get jobs, can get to work. And they can be contributing members of our community — which is what we want — and spend their money here. So let’s not be discriminatory in what we do.”
The bill is not good for Georgia, Tate concluded.
“Once again, we’re going about discriminating and causing economic hardship on some of our Georgia citizens,” she said. “Once again, it goes back to — which is what I’ve been saying — we keep doing things for the select few and not what’s good for all of Georgia. I look at this bill in its present status as being one that does that. In its present status, I would not support the bill.”
Read more: The Marietta Daily Journal – Bill would alter driver s license provision in Ga http://mdjonline.com/view/full_story/26483785/article-Bill-would-alter-driver-s-license-provision-in-Ga-?instance=home_top_bullets&sp-tk=62B35016937073DDFEB2144FB950C7F8A447A3CED1EEB26C4903127F80BA27785CDDD25C6DBF0BE0CE1228B3F2918E20E05E9BC64F467C554246D39B27B655B8595A4A125B51C6C08E81A97BA2CF839FB46E9FEE9203AAEAE503415D469D71C80A9E8EDF5B9815442857B81419C561305CD714AE28538FEFC67EE08CF7C80039E487EAE74A257D8DF1DE4C7483207A16205804A3C55B4591DE74E27BBB0321E31337A90F
February 18, 2015
AJC “news” item HERE
The recent front-page news report on a federal judge in Texas delaying Obama’s executive amnesty has a glaring inaccuracy and a direct contradiction of previous promises on legitimate use of terms and descriptions from the AJC regarding immigration reporting.
Readers were repeatedly told that “immigrants” are the targets of Obama’s now delayed amnesty and are “seeking relief” from deportation.
A graduate of New York Times Institute on Immigration Reporting and the UC Berkeley’s school of “Justice and Journalism,” the AJC immigration reporter should know that real immigrants, by federal definition, do not require amnesty, or defacto legalization by illegal executive actions from Obama.
Only illegal aliens have a need for that reward. Not that the Obama regime is deporting many “everyday” illegally present victims of borders anyway.
Immigrants should not be smeared and mixed up with screaming and defiant illegals, especially in a news report designed to drive public opinion. We ask for a correction.
President, the Dustin Inman Society
Jeremy Redmon, the AJC immigration reporter:”… graduated from George Mason University in 1994 and 1997 with undergraduate and graduate degrees in English. In 2013, he completed a fellowship with The New York Times Institute on Immigration Reporting at the University of California Berkeley’s Graduate School of Journalism. And in 2012, he completed fellowships at the Institute for Justice and Journalism on Immigration Reporting at the University of Oklahoma’s Gaylord College of Journalism and Mass Communication and at the Journalist Law School at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.” Get it?
February 16, 2015
The Daily Caller
Georgia Poll Shows Huge Opposition To Obama’s Amnesty
16 February 2015
Registered voters in Georgia overwhelmingly oppose amnesty when asked about immigration’s impact on American jobs, according to a new poll.
Ninety percent of Republicans and 70 percent of Democrats said that Americans “should get the future jobs in Georgia” prior to the hiring of foreign workers.
Only 5.3 percent of Republicans say jobs should go to the cheapest workers, either Americans or foreign. This compares to 12.8 percent of Democrats and 16.2 percent of independents who say the same.
Those answers contradict the conventional media portrayal of GOP voters as anti-worker, and highlight the growing GOP focus on the lower-income workers who strongly oppose wage-cutting immigration. That populist trend helped businessman David Purdue win his Senate seat in 2014, despite his conflict with the state’s Chamber of Commerce.
The poll of 743 registered voters in Georgia was conducted Feb. 10 and 11 by Rosetta Stone Communications for the Atlanta-based Dustin Inman Society, which favors reduced immigration.
17 Republicans That Are Actually Celebrities
19 Controversies and Counting: The Most Scandalous Duggar Moments
What Does Your Last Name Say About You
by TaboolaSponsored Links
“We asked clear, straightforward questions on the topic of jobs, immigration and enforcement,” said D.A. King, founder of the society, in a statement.
The answers showed “the majority of Georgians comprehend the connection of employment and wages to the importation of large numbers of foreign workers and incrementally deferring to legally dubious [November] executive amnesty decrees from Barack Obama,” King said.
The poll also showed lopsided support for a pending state bill that prevent illegals in Georgia from getting drivers’ licenses.
Several recent polls on immigration and jobs have shown strong public support for the pro-American demand that companies hire Americans before hiring new immigrants.
But progressive and business pollsters showcase rival pro-immigration responses in polls that highlight America’s tradition of immigration. Most of those polls, however, also show strong opposition to illegal immigration among white, black and Latino voters.
The new Georgia poll was released as Democrats and the media pressure GOP legislators to accept Obama’s unpopular decision to change immigration enforcement.
Under his November amnesty, Obama’s deputies would end enforcement of immigration law for nearly all 12 million illegal immigrants, and also give work permits, tax bonuses, Social Security numbers, plus a quick path to citizenship, to four million of the illegals.
The GOP-drafted 2015 budget for the Department of Homeland Security bars any spending to implement Obama’s amnesty.
So far, all 46 Democratic senators have blocked any debate on the budget bill
Democrats and the media are trying to blame the standoff on the GOP’s opposition to the unpopular and arguably illegal amnesty, which may be blocked this week by a pending lawsuit in Texas. For example, a New York Times Feb. 16 article said the GOP bill would “revoke legal protections for millions of unauthorized immigrants, including children, and put them at risk of deportation.”
Partly because of pro-business priorities, GOP leaders in the Senate have been reluctant to push back against the Democratic effort to import more foreign workers.
Since 2009, Democratic immigration policies have flooded the U.S. labor market with roughly 11 million extra foreign workers, despite high U.S unemployment. Since 2000, the federal government has added two foreign workers for every new job in the economy.
That’s had a huge impact on the labor market and on Americans’ middle-class wages.
In November 2014, one in every five U.S. jobs was held by a foreign-born worker, up from one-in-six jobs in January 2010, according to federal data highlighted by the Center for Immigration Studies.
Each year, four million young Americans begin competing for jobs against at least 10 million unemployed Americans, against roughly 2 million annual new immigrants and against a resident pool of roughly two million guest-workers.
However, GOP leaders and 2016 presidential candidates are reluctant to engage in the battle over immigration and work.
That’s partly because major business donors strongly support increased immigration of of government-subsidized foreign customers and workers.
The Georgia poll showed that Americans overwhelmingly favor tougher enforcement of immigration laws.
Only 20 percent of respondents favored legalization of illegals, while 62 percent favored their repatriation.
The poll showed 65 percent of respondents believe the government is not doing enough to enforce immigration laws. Only 10 percent of respondents said the federal government is doing too much, while 12 percent said the government is enforcing the laws “just right.”
The Georgia poll was partly intended to show public support for a bill that would end the practice of giving drivers’ licenses to illegals.
This practice has the support of business groups, because they allow the lower-wage illegals to compete for jobs sought by Americans, and progressive groups, because they help increase the illegal immigration of government-dependent clients into American communities.
The pending bill is being pushed by Republican state Sen. Joshua McKoon.
The poll showed that 63.6 percent of voters, including 80 percent of Republicans and 68.5 percent of independents — but only 37.4 percent of Democrats – support legislation that would stop the state’s practice of giving drivers’ licenses to illegals.
The drivers’ license reform is opposed by only 15 percent of Republicans and independents apiece, as well as 33.7 percent of Democrats.
A similar push was successful in Oregon last November, when 66 percent of voters in the Democratic-leaning state passed an amendment reversing a state law granting licenses to illegals. “All you have to look at is what happened in Oregon… I think that’s the sentiment of the American people,” Sen. Johnny Isakson said Nov. 18, according to the Marietta Daily Journal.
But “many GOP state senators are doing almost comical verbal contortions trying to excuse their refusal to co-sponsor the [license] legislation,” King told The Daily Caller.
The poll can help bypass the local media’s ideological alliance with local business interests, King said. The established media “in Republican-ruled Georgia is treating the entire mess with a cone of silence… No one here will be surprised if this poll goes unreported,” he said.
“The Georgia Chamber of Commerce, the Atlanta Metro Area Chamber of Commerce, Big Ag and the ACLU coalition are pretty sure they can prevent a floor vote by silently smothering the bill in the committee process,” he told TheDC.
The state GOP is also trying to ignore the issue, he said. “Georgia has more illegal aliens than Arizona,and ranks number seven in the nation in that population… [and] we are watching the Republican leadership defer to Obama on amnesty,” he said.
‘We have taken to calling them the Obama wing of the Georgia Republican Party,” he added.
However, new media are helping the public recognize the costs of large-scale illegal immigration, he said.
Georgians are “learning that illegal aliens are getting drivers licenses and other public benefits,” King said.
HERE Follow Neil on Twitter
Tags: amnesty, Barack Obama, Immigration
February 15, 2015
Next Page »
15 February 2015
JOBS AND IMMIGRATION – MOST GEORGIANS PRO- ENFORCEMENT
New opinion survey: The statewide outlook from Georgia voters
The Dustin Inman Society (DIS)
3595 Canton Rd. A-9/337
Marietta, Ga. 30066
Contact D.A. King
The Dustin Inman Society today released the results a survey of Georgia general election voters on the subject of jobs and immigration. The survey, conducted on February 10-11, 2015 for the Dustin Inman Society by Rosetta Stone Communications, sampled 743 Georgia registered voters and has been weighted for age, gender & race.
“We asked clear, straightforward questions on the topic of jobs, immigration and enforcement that reflect the real world and offered genuine, commonsense choices. While likely not surprising to most working Americans, the margins in the responses should be regarded as guidance to elected officials that most of the people can’t be fooled most of the time. The majority of Georgians comprehend the connection of employment and wages to the importation of large numbers of foreign workers and incrementally deferring to legally dubious executive amnesty decrees from Barack Obama” said D.A. King, president of the DIS.
A combined 71% of Georgia voters rated the job market in the United States “fair” or “poor.” Republican voters were the most pessimistic about the job market in our survey. Almost 50% of the Republican voters sampled rated the job market as “poor.”
When asked specifically about future jobs in their home state of Georgia, 80% of the voters preferred Americans or legal immigrant residents were hired verses 10% who preferred that illegal aliens or new legal immigrants get the jobs. Georgia voters also preferred by a margin of 62%-20% enforcement of current immigration laws to legalizing illegals. The practice of allowing illegal aliens to obtain a valid Georgia Drivers’ license and/or identification card was also asked in the survey. By a margin of 64%-21%, voters approved of proposed legislation (SB 6) that would end the practice of issuing these forms of official ID from the State of Georgia to residents without legal status.
“While the state delegation in Washington is notably inaudible on the relationship of jobs to immigration, the Republican-controlled Georgia legislature is allowing driver’s licenses to go to illegal aliens – a practice that does not happen in Mexico. Because of a lack of space and funding, we did not ask voters if they would have voted last November for a state candidate who made a campaign promise to insure that process continues – or if they would re-elect a politician who declined to help end the practice.” King added.
This survey has a margin of error of 3.5% – crosstabs can be viewed here