Sent to Creative Loafing, December 5, 2016<\/p>\n
Re; “State board that hears immigration complaints rules against Atlanta” <\/strong> Regina Willis, December 1, 2016<\/p>\n Dear editors,<\/p>\n I was pleasantly surprised to read your balanced coverage<\/a> of my complaints against the City of Atlanta to the Immigration Enforcement Review Board regarding clear violations of state law on safeguarding public benefits. Thank you for covering what the AJC, WSB and literally all of the other Atlanta news outlets have pointedly ignored.<\/p>\n Allow me to clarify and correct a few details.<\/p>\n Your report tells readers that the respected Washington DC group \u2018Pro-English\u2019 is \u201canti-immigration.\u201d This is demonstrably false. Because I have been a pro-enforcement immigration activist for more than a decade, I know that Pro-English is exactly that\u2026pro-English. They advance the commonsense concept that national unity can be greatly increased with English as our common and official language.<\/p>\n I urge you and your readers to take a look at the \u201cAbout\u201d page of the Pro-English website<\/a>.<\/p>\n Your report says, \u201cunder Georgia\u2019s immigration law, cities are supposed to verify that business licenses are only given to citizens or residents who are \u201clawfully present\u201d in the United States. For-profit businesses must submit the necessary documents every year, but nonprofits need only do so the first time they apply.\u201d<\/p>\n This is not even close. State law does not create any special treatment for non-profit businesses in any part of the code aimed at screening applicants for new or renewal business licenses. I urge you and interested readers to see OCGA 50-36-1. Mayor Reed\u2019s administration has attempted to use a \u201cloophole\u201d that does not exist in reality.<\/p>\n Regarding Georgia\u2019s 2011 \u201cIllegal Immigration Reform and Enforcement Act\u201d (H.B. 87), your report has it wrong when you tell readers \u201cseveral sections of the law were eventually overturned by the courts\u2026\u201d While a federal judge initially put a stay on two sections (Sections 7 & 8) of the twenty-three-section legislation, an appeals court later upheld Section 8. The fact is that only one section was \u201coverturned<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n
\nAtlanta could face potential fines, sanctions related to vocal immigration critic\u2019s complaint<\/strong><\/p>\n