Georgia Chamber of Commerce distributing letters on House floor asking for “yes” votes on bills that appear to dismantle existing illegal immigration laws
Immigration Politics - A pro-enforcement View, Politics February 25, 2021
Written And Submitted By D.A. King
Professional licenses are public benefits in Georgia. The Georgia Chamber of Commerce is well aware of that fact as they opposed the law that created it. I was there.
The people who run Georgia are tired of any delays involved in the process of verifying the lawful immigration status of applicants for public benefits.
Georgia law (OCGA 50-36-1) put in place in 2006 and improved several times after that says that applicants for public benefits must swear they are either U.S.citizens or eligible aliens on a notarized affidavit. They are supposed to show “Secure and Verifiable ID.” Then, that lawful presence status is supposed to be checked in a federal database called SAVE (SAVE is not doing their job correctly and we will expose that fact after the session). But the state law still stands.
Professional licenses are public benefits. Contrary to the mislabeling by numerous state and local departments that administer public benefits, this is not a “citizenship affidavit” – but a verification affidavit. One need not be a U.S. citizen to qualify for public benefits but must be a lawfully present alien.
The Georgia Chamber of Commerce is asking House members to vote yes on at least two bills, HB 34 and HB 268. While we have not had time to carefully study these bills, a quick appraisal tells us they are designed to provide “reciprocity” with other states on professional licenses – and to skip the verification process described above.
Do we want to rely on California or New York for immigration verification?
If an individual who has a license to be an occupational therapist in California or New York, for example, relocates to Georgia, the plan is to eliminate much of the licensing process here to put this person to work almost instantly – and to bypass the Georgia law for immigration verification. We would be relying on liberal California, the illegal alien Capital of the world for most of our licensing process.
These bills are apparently on the Rules calendar today – which means they will likely see a vote. I have notified several members with the below-emailed information and they tell me they will now vote “no” – and that author (s) are not aware of the existing law.
This issue is not new
We have been here before under the Gold Dome, just a few weeks ago with: “Libertarian pushed Gold Dome ‘reciprocity’ bill…”) would dismantle screening process for illegal aliens accessing professional licenses.”
This sort of thing is normal procedure in the state Capitol. You may want to forward this to your state Reps to let them know what you learned here.
_
The below was sent via email to several members and to Kim in Speaker David Ralston’s office this morning:
“After a very quick look: HB 34 has no language I can see that requires compliance with OCGA 50-36-1 (verification of lawful presence for public benefits). Professional licenses are public benefits. A yes vote is a vote to dismantle existing law on illegal immigration – in a state with more illegals than AZ. The senate will take careful note of that fact. I promise. A 30 second “isn’t it true” question should wake people up? I assume the same for CofCommerce HB268. Reciprocity write-up below.
Unless I have missed it in a big hurry here they all need: “Nothing contained in this Code section shall be construed to invalidate, override, or amend any licensing compact entered into by the State of Georgia or to permit the issuance of a license without verification under Code Section 50-36-1.”
Updated – Libertarian pushed Gold Dome ‘reciprocity’ bill (HB147) would dismantle screening process for illegal aliens accessing professional licenses *UPDATED WITH ADDITION OF IDENTICAL SENATE BILL (SB45) INFO
Military spouse not automatically a legal immigrant. Wash Post story:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/this-army-veteran-served-his-country-will-his-undocumented-wife-be-deported/2017/03/29/c60429c8-09bf-11e7-a15f-a58d4a988474_story.html “ end of my email.
–
Below are two letters put on House member’s desks on the floor today.
D.A. King: Negative review of Rep Kasey Carpenter’s illegal alien instate tuition bill – HB 120
Immigration Politics - A pro-enforcement View February 24, 2021
Written And Submitted By D.A. King
Americans and legal immigrants from most other states would pay higher tuition
It was amazing to see that none of the legislators seemed to note or care that neither “DACA” nor “DACA recipient” appear anywhere in the Carpenter’s tuition amnesty bill.
State Rep Kasey Carpenter (R- Dalton) presented the latest version of his legislation to grant instate tuition to illegal aliens in the House Higher Education Committee last Friday morning. He was on Zoom from in his car parked “on the side of the road” somewhere between the Gold Dome and Oklahoma. He was retrieving flour for one of his restaurants.
It got wackier from there.
Carpenter’s opener was to assure all concerned that his legislation rewarding illegal aliens with lower tuition rates than Americans or legal immigrants from most other states pay “is not a bill about immigration.” He went on to outline HB 120 with “all right, so what this bill does, is it, it, it basically allows DACA students that are in Georgia, they graduated from a Georgia high school, to attend certain colleges and universities in the, in the college system, at an in-state tuition rate.”
‘DACA’ is the acronym for the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy put in place by then candidate for reelection, President Barack Obama. The action being deferred is deportation proceedings.
State Rep Kasey Carpenter (R- Dalton)
It was more than a little amusing to watch Carpenter pepper his online sales pitch with the terms “DACA” and “DACA recipients” as well as in the resulting Q&A with gushing Democrat committee members who had only praise for the concept in their questions. It was equally entertaining to see the long line of witnesses – one who is currently a DACA recipient and one who was – stand up in support of the bill inserting the “DACA recipient” term into their testimony.
It was amazing to see that none of the legislators seemed to note or care that neither “DACA” nor “DACA recipient” appear anywhere in the Carpenter’s tuition amnesty bill.
The entire event would only have been slightly more comical if Rep Carpenter had taken the time to hawk his bill dressed in a wide striped suit with a wink and grin from a used car lot with balloons and a megaphone.
In the current version of his proposed law, Carpenter does have wording that permits illegal aliens to pay less tuition than Americans if they meet “the eligibility criteria set by the United States Department of Homeland Security for deferred action in enforcement of federal immigration laws.” Italics mine.
But, there doesn’t seem to be set eligibility criteria for deferred action on enforcement – it is a discretionary tradition in federal law enforcement and (like DACA) not a result of congressional action. Lines 34 & 35 in HB 120 would be laughed out of a well-informed committee. ‘Journalists’ should not be running stories that report HB 120 somehow applies to “DACA recipients.” It doesn’t.
Deferred action is not DACA. Sometimes it is difficult to decide if things that are just plain screwy are a result of ignorance or intent. Deferred action on immigration enforcement is outside of DACA. How far outside? John Lennon obtained deferred action on immigration enforcement in the 1970’s.
All co-signers are not visible online, but at last check with the House clerk’s office, Carpenter’s instate tuition bill has more Democrat cosponsors than Republicans.
As is, HB120 is a hustle that is fully dependent on the oversupply of immigration ignorance on the part of most of the legislators who govern a state with more “undocumented workers” than live in Arizona. This writer started working with state lawmakers on drafting and perfecting illegal immigration legislation in 2005. HB 120 would not have been allowed a hearing in a Republican – run committee ten years ago.
We were happy to post a very critical analysis of the debut of HB120 along with facts the media is suppressing and fully expected to see changes in the bill as a result.
None of the above is intended to indicate certainty that the bill won’t be passed out of the House Higher Education Committee and onto the floor.
I got a sense of the determination to advance the bill in an early morning discussion with the committee Chairman Chuck Martin (R- Alpharetta) in his office when my request for a copy of any committee substitute language was first dodged then tacitly refused.
Read HB 120 for yourself
The Committee Substitute version presented on Feb 19, 2021 in the Higher Education Committee is not online and will not be posted on the House website unless it is passed out. I have scanned in and posted the paper version (with my scribbled notes) I was given by a friend who was able to get a copy from the Chairman’s staffers.
Here is a link to the original language. A Fiscal note for HB 120 is available here.
We have posted a link to the official video of the entire Friday hearing and a transcript of Rep Carpenter’s presentation on the Dustin Inman Society website. Contact information for Rep Carpenter here.
Space does not allow a list of all the problems with HB 120. But it should be mentioned that ‘DACA recipients’ are nevertheless illegal aliens according to the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. Even the liberal AJC reported that one.
D.A. King is president of the Dustin Inman Society