(To be released and sent on July 8 )

Georgia Immigration Enforcement Coalition
Blackshear, Georgia
(Website under construction)
Founders: Kay Godwin, Pat Tippett, D.A. King
Contact coalition spokesman D.A. King

NOTICE TO ALL GEORGIA REPUBLICANS IN THE U.S. HOUSE: WE REMEMBER 1986

Due to our experience with being repeatedly lied to on immigration enforcement and watching our conservative votes taken for granted, we, the undersigned Georgia voters, urge you to sign the pledge below. Our jobs, language, our nation and entire way of life are at stake and the future we will leave generations to come will no longer be the America that we have known and loved with another amnesty.

We don’t need more immigration. We need more jobs! We are depending on you to stand up for America and real immigration enforcement. We are making our own pledge and promise:

Until at least ten years after real, visible and effective workplace, border and visa enforcement, we are making a commitment to find and support primary opponents for any and all GOP U.S. House members who vote in favor of any legislation or conference committee report that would allow any legalization of any illegal aliens. We will not tolerate legalization for future Democrat voters.

A partial reminder of broken immigration promises that Americans have endured from the U.S. Congress:

1986 – Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act, which prohibited the employment of illegal aliens. The promised enforcement never really happened. In 2004, only 3 employers in the entire nation were fined for hiring illegal aliens. The low estimate is that 7- 8 million illegal immigrants continue to hold jobs. Today, the Wall St. Journal reports that “even if the rate of hiring doubled, it would take more than three years to get employment back to its prerecession level, after adjusting for population growth, according to estimates from the Brookings Institution’s Hamilton Project.” (WSJ June 24, 2013)

1996 – In the wake of the first World Trade Center bombing, Congress passed another wide-ranging enforcement law, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. Among its provisions was a requirement to develop an automated check-in/check-out system for foreign visitors, so the government could identify those who stayed past the time they were supposed to depart. Congress mandated such a system five more times, including after the horror of 9/11, in the USA Patriot Act, (which required a biometric system), in line with the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. No such system yet exists.

2005 – The REAL ID Act required that state driver’s licenses meet certain minimum standards to be acceptable for federal purposes, such as boarding airplanes. The standards included requiring proof of legal presence in the United States before issuing a license; this is an important immigration enforcement objective, because the driver’s license is essential to illegal aliens seeking to embed themselves in American society. The original deadline for state compliance was 2008, later postponed to 2011, then 2013, and now 2017. It seems likely the deadline will be extended yet again, permitting more states to continue issuing licenses to illegal aliens. Terrorists notice and take advantage of these broken promises.

2006 – The Secure Fence Act of 2006 required “at least 2 layers of reinforced fencing” along a total of roughly 650 miles of specifically designated stretches of the Mexican border. So far, less than 40 miles of such double-layered fencing have been built. The remainder is a mix of single-layer “pedestrian” fencing and vehicle barriers, which are low fences intended only to prevent trucks from driving across the border. Border Patrol Agents report that illegal crossings have tripled since the latest amnesty talks began.

We are urging you, the Republican members of the United States House of Representitives to sign the pledge below.

“I pledge that I will oppose and vote against any legislation or conference committee report that provides for any legalization of illegal aliens in the United States and I
also remember the broken promises of 1986.”

Below is a list of groups that have signed on to the “NO to legalization” pledge letter as of Sunday, July 7, 2013

Georgia Conservatives in Action
The Dustin Inman Society
Calling All Moms
Capitol Coalition of Conservative Leaders
Atlanta Tea Party Patriots
Citizens Helping America Restore Government Ethics (C.H.A.R.G.E.)
Valdosta Tea Party
South Georgia Tea Party Alliance
North Georgia 912, Georgia State Director 9/12 Project
Vidalia Tea Party
Cherokee Tea Party Patriots
Carroll County Tea Party Association (CTTPA)
Conservative Republican Women of North Atlanta
The Gwinnett Tea Party
Society for American Sovereignty – Atlanta-
North Fulton & Friends TEA Party
Georgia Citizen Action Project
Canton T.E.A. Party
Bainbridge Tea Party Group, Inc.
State of Georgia Tea Party, LLC
Glynn County Republican Party
Dr. William Greene – President of RightMarch.com
Pickens County GA Tea Party
Northwest Georgia 912 Project
South Georgia Tea Party
Forsyth County TEA PARTY PATRIOT ALLIANCE
Tea Party Immigration Coalition
Sabrina Smith- Chairman, Gwinnett Citizens for Responsible Government
Camden County Republican Party
Camden County Tea Party
Golden Isles Tea Party
Savannah Tea Party
Charlton County Republican Party
National Association of Former Border Control Officers – Robert Trent , Secretary
Jenny Beth Martin, Tea Party Patriots, Co-Founder
John Gentry – Chair Founders Faith Patriots
Milledgeville Area Patriots
Dunwoody GA Tea Party
Liberty Group Tea Party
Forsyth County Tea Party
Georgia 400 Tea Party Patriots – Lumpkin County/Dahlonega, GA
Albany Area Tea Party Patriots
Coweta Republican Party Chairman
Ware County Republican Party
Dahlonega Tea Party
Senoia Tea Party
Bartow Tea Party
Fannin Tea Party
Pickens County GA Tea Party
Clayton County 9-12 Tea Party
Liberty Group Tea Party-Ellijay

When we get time, we will add the growing list of individual voters who have asked to have their names included on the letter.

We are out of money and spread very thin. For news, go to The Dustin Inman Society on Facebook, @DAKDIS on Twitter & www.AmericanPatrol.com – for more info go to www.NumbersUSA.com and www.CIS.org

Marietta Daily Journal

Thursday, June 20, 2013
OPINION

D.A. King

Georgia Senators should vote ‘no’ on final cloture

U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, the Democrat Senate Majority Leader, is apparently getting uncomfortable about the amnesty bill’s polling results. As this is written Wednesday morning, it looked like Reid would call for a final floor vote sometime very soon. He said he might keep the Senate working all weekend.

Why? Speed and timing are important to all hustles.

In simple terms, the deal is this: The Democrats will pretend they would actually plan do something to secure American borders and some of the Republicans will ignore 1986 and pretend that legalizing immigration crime will somehow prevent more illegal activity. And that they will win the White House in 2016 as a result. And that we can solve our unemployment crisis by importing millions of additional foreign workers.

The more the pro-enforcement Americans learn about what National Review correctly calls “Rubio’s Folly,” the more pressure they are putting on their senators to put the entire 1,000 pages into a shredder. The “Vote no!” calls and emails are now flooding into Senate offices.

To deter possible senatorial trickery, it is important to understand how the Senate voting procedure works. Before the body begins debate on any bill, it must vote to pass a “motion to proceed.” That has been done and required 60 votes. Then, to end debate, a motion called “final cloture” must also collect at least 60 votes. Only then can a final floor vote occur in which a simple majority can pass the bill (for the Obama-voter readers: there are 100 Senate seats, making 51 a majority).

Why is this notable? Because in this system, senators who want to help a bill pass, but don’t want their fingerprints on it, can vote “yes” on final cloture, thereby allowing 51 of their colleagues to vote “yes” on the actual legislation. While they then vote “no.”

“Yes” on final cloture and “no” on the actual legislation is how Georgia’s Senator Johnny Isakson voted on the unrelated gun bill earlier this year.

National Review also quantifies the replacement worker figures in the bill with this comparison: “the 2007 Bush-Kennedy proposal was rejected in part because it would have added 125,000 new guest workers. The Gang of Eight bill would add 1.6 million in the first year, and about 600,000 a year after that: That’s the population of Philadelphia in year one and the population of Boston each year after” the conservative editors warned this week.

That is in addition to the 33 million permanent immigrants the Obama-directed legislation would help add to the U.S. population in the next 10 years.

You read that correctly — “Obama-directed.” A senior White House official recently told the New Yorker magazine that “no decisions are being made without talking to us about it … this does not fly if we’re not O.K. with it.”

Example of something that “does not fly?” for Obama? Try this: On Tuesday, the Senate considered two amendments that would have required the federal government to enforce security laws already in place before granting the illegal aliens another amnesty.

One, from Sen. John Thune (R- S.D.), required the federal government to complete 350 miles of reinforced, double-layered fencing along the southwest border with Mexico before illegal aliens could be legalized. The amendment would have also required another 350 miles of fencing to be constructed before they could obtain green cards. The fencing requirement was already mandated in the Secure Fence Act of 2006. The amendment failed 39-to-54.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who claims to support a border fence, voted “no” along with the Gang of Eight Republicans.

Another amendment, from Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), would have required the federal government to complete the biometric entry/exit system at all ports of entry — including land crossings — before amnesty. Congress already mandated such a system in 1996. And five times since. Including in 2002, following the horror of 9/11. At least six of the 9/11 terrorists overstayed their visas.

The amendment failed 36-to-58.

“I-wanna-be-president” Marco Rubio said just last week that the tracking system was the “lynchpin to the whole bill.” In May, he told several news outlets he supported such a monitoring system. On Tuesday, however, along with John McCain, Lindsey Graham and the Obama Democrats, Rubio voted against the visa tracking amendment.

Got that?

Please direct all “does anybody remember 1986 or 9/11 or the American worker?” questions to both of Georgia’s Republican Senators.

They should vote “no” on allowing a final floor vote.

HERE

D.A. King is president of the Cobb-based Dustin Inman Society and a nationally recognized authority on immigration. He is not a member of any political party.

Daily Caller:

Former New York lieutenant governor Betsy McCaughey bets “you can’t find five members of Congress who have read” the Senate “Gang of Eight” immigration bill.

The former Democrat is experienced at reading large bills the Congress seems inclined to pass without reading, such as Obamacare. She tabs them, underlines them and tries to see the big picture of what will happen if the provisions of the bill are implemented.

In an interview with The Daily Caller’s Ginni Thomas, McCaughey brought her dog-eared immigration bill with her and pointed to it repeatedly…

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/09/six-big-problems-with-the-immigration-bill-from-someone-who-has-actually-read-it/#ixzz2WUYCQm4T



A RESOLUTION IN OPPOSITION TO S 744 AMNESTY

Glynn County Republican Committee

June 6, 2013

Executive Summary:

IT IS RESOLVED BY THE GLYNN COUNTY REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE (“GCRC”) that –
(1) The GCRC expresses no confidence in the federal government to competently implement or enforce the provisions of S. 744, and
(2) The GCRC demands that both Georgia Senators, Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson adhere to the core principles of the Republican Party and vote in opposition to whatever version of S. 744 is finally presented on the floor of the United States Senate.

WHEREAS the members of the Glynn County Republican Party are offended by the
inaccuracies and the apparent intentional obfuscation in the various promises
and commitments made by the “Gang of Eight” and specifically, by Marco
Rubio and others, and

WHEREAS the members of the Glynn County Republican Committee, based on a
unanimous vote of its membership, expresses NO CONFIDENCE in the United
States Government and its ability to fulfill and satisfy ANY commitment regarding the immigration situation in this country, based on a long history of failure and of unfulfilled promises, and

WHEREAS on May 21, 2013, Rebecca Gambler, Director of Homeland Security and
Justice Issues for the Government Accountability Office, testified in a hearing before a House Subcommittee that, after two years of searching, the Department of Homeland Security, with more than 240,000 employees and an annual budget of more than $ 60 BILLION, could not locate almost 300 illegal overstays “who could pose national security or public safety concerns”, and

WHEREAS the Simpson Mazzoli amnesty was passed in 1986 and the United States
Congress promised the American people that the borders would be secured. In
fact, one of the principal architects of that amnesty, Senator Ted Kennedy was
quoted as follows :

This amnesty will give citizenship to only 1.1 to 1.3 million illegal aliens. We will
secure the borders henceforth. We will never again bring forward another
amnesty bill like this. (emphasis added)

WHEREAS almost seven years have passed since President Bush signed a border
security law calling for the creation of an almost 700 mile physical barrier to be constructed on the southern border of the United States, and now the “Gang of Eight” promises ONLY that the “high risk” areas will be subjected to “effective control”, with such control to be determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security, and

WHEREAS various studies have estimated that as high as forty (40 %) of the illegal
aliens in this country are a direct result of previously legal immigrants over
staying the time granted under their respective visa, and

WHEREAS the law requiring an entrance and exit system for the purpose of tracking all
foreign travelers is known as the U.S. VISIT program and has existed since
immediately after the attacks of 2001, and
RESOLUTION – Opposition to S. 744
Glynn County Republican Committee
Page two

WHEREAS S. 744 does not address the national security weakness that has been the
direct result of the failure of the President of the United States to enforce the exit
portion of the U.S. VISIT law and S. 744 does not require a biometric exit system at all land, air and sea ports of entry to track aliens who enter and leave the U.S. per current law, and

WHEREAS S. 744 does not secure the border or strengthen national security. Instead,
the bill rewards law breaking and encourages more illegal immigration, and

WHEREAS S. 744 allows DHS to grant legal status (Registered Provision Immigrant, or
RPI status) in 6 months, before any measure to secure the border has been taken, and

WHEREAS S. 744 does not require any additional border fencing or completion of
current border fence requirements. Instead, it requires DHS to submit to
Congress a fencing strategy in which DHS recommends what additional fencing
is needed along the U.S. – Mexico border, if any, and

WHEREAS S. 744 does not improve immigration enforcement or public safety. Instead,
the bill undermines immigration enforcement and is riddled with waivers and loopholes, such as allowing DHS to waive a broad array of unlawful behavior for the purpose of determining whether illegal aliens are admissible, including :
› Gang related crimes and gang membership;
› Three or more drunk driving offenses;
› Domestic violence, stalking, child abuse, and violation of protective orders;
› Committing crimes or moral turpitude;
› Violating federal or state drug laws;
› Trafficking in passports;
› Providing fraudulent immigration services;
› Trafficking immigration documents, including document fraud;
› Prostitution;
› Misrepresenting a material fact to procure visas or other immigration benefits;
› Violating student visas;
› Falsely claiming citizenship;
› Illegally re-entering the U.S. after deportation (which is a felony);
› All other grounds NOT SPECIFICALLY LISTED IN THE BILL. (emphasis
added)

RESOLUTION – Opposition to S. 744
Glynn County Republican Committee
Page three

WHEREAS S. 744 delays implementation of E-Verify to appease big business and
illegal workers. The bill provides that mandatory E-Verify won’t go into effect for all employers until four years after DHS issues regulations implementing the mandatory program. That means (based on the amnesty timeframe) it could be at least a decade before E-Verify becomes mandatory for large companies and 14 years before all employers are phased into the program, and

WHEREAS S. 744 voids state and local E-Verify laws, and

WHEREAS S. 744 does not require the deportation of a single illegal alien. DHS is
never required to deport an alien whose RPI application is denied – for any reason, and

WHEREAS S. 744 allows immigration judges to ignore U.S. immigration law, and

WHEREAS S. 744 allows the Secretary of DHS to ignore U.S. immigration law, and

WHEREAS S. 744 does not prioritize the American worker at a time when 22 million
Americans are unemployed or underemployed, and

WHEREAS S. 744 triples the number of so-called skilled (H-1B) guest workers who
may enter the U.S. Annually, and

WHEREAS the Bureau of Labor Statistics (“BLS”) projects job openings in the Science,
Technology, Engineering and Math (“STEM”) fields for the period of 2010 to 2020 to approximate 2,540,000, while the National Science Foundation and the Department of Education has projected the number of STEM degrees to be awarded during the same time frame to approximate 3,900,000, clearly demonstrating that the huge increase in the H-1B workers under S. 744 is NOT NECESSARY, and

WHEREAS S. 744 increases the number of guest workers by 50 percent over the
decade after enactment, and

WHEREAS S. 744 creates a new unskilled guest worker program, through a new W
visa, to bring in up to 200,000 additional workers each year, and

WHEREAS S. 744 does not prevent American taxpayers from being forced to subsidize
illegal immigration, and

WHEREAS S. 744 allows DHS to grant legal status (RPI) in 6 months, and
RESOLUTION – Opposition to S. 744
Glynn County Republican Committee
Page four

WHEREAS the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) has acknowledged
that “many states frequently extend family benefits to anyone who is ‘lawfully
present’ in the United States”, and

WHEREAS the United States is technically insolvent, with a stated debt of almost $ 17
TRILLION, and an unfunded liability in excess of $ 100 TRILLION, and

WHEREAS the Heritage Foundation has estimated that S. 744 will increase the stated
debt of the United States by more than $ 6.3 TRILLION, and

WHEREAS the Glynn County Republican Committee believes that it is unconscionable
that any elected Republican would vote to INCREASE the debt of the United States, and

WHEREAS S. 744 exacerbates the chronic problem of “Chain Migration”, which could
possibly result in an influx of as many as 15 million workers granted amnesty under the provisions of the bill, and another 35 to 40 million relatives and extended family members of those being granted legal status (RPI), and

WHEREAS S. 744 does not address the problem of “anchor babies”, which for a proper
understanding, one must refer back to the Fourteenth Amendment which was originally enacted to ensure the civil rights of newly freed slaves after the Civil War. The author of the phrase “…subject to the jurisdiction thereof…”, which gives rise to the current practice of granting citizenship to babies born in this country, was Senator Jacob Merritt Howard of Michigan, and Senator Howard noted that the jurisdiction requirement is “simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already.” Senator Howard continued and wrote “…this will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.” In light of the statements made by the originators of the Fourteenth Amendment, it appears clear that the authors intended ONLY to grant citizenship to persons born here who were also “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. The Supreme Court has never decided the issue, and therefore, it remains up to Congress to clarify the Fourteenth Amendment.
RESOLUTION – Opposition to S. 744
Glynn County Republican Committee
Page five

WHEREAS the Glynn County Republican Committee believes that the United States
immigration policy should be based on the following priorities :
1. America’s immigration system must be a national strength and not a strategic vulnerability, and absolute border security is essential.
2. The rule of law requires the fair, firm, and consistent enforcement of the law, and immigration is no exception.
3. Amnesty is NOT the answer. Those who enter, remain in, and work in the
country illegally are committing an ongoing violation of our immigration laws.
4. Each nation has the responsibility and obligation to determine its own conditions for immigration, naturalization, and citizenship, and the federal government must complete the following :
a. Provide for the common language;
b. Clarify birthright citizenship;
c. Protect the integrity of the legal immigration process
d. Implement the US-VISIT program.
5. Immigration policy should be a fiscal and economic benefit not only for
immigrants, but also for the nation as a whole.
6. Any temporary worker program must be, by definition, temporary, market
oriented and feasible.
7. Any proposal that subjects this country to an enormous unfunded liability should be rejected irrespective of ANY other consideration.

WHEREAS the federal government has, for at least the past 27 years, demonstrated
that it is NOT CAPABLE of enforcing the existing immigration laws of this country, and therefore,

IT IS RESOLVED BY THE GLYNN COUNTY REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE (“GCRC”) that –
(1) The GCRC expresses no confidence in the federal government to competently implement or enforce the provisions of S. 744, and
(2) The GCRC demands that both Georgia Senators, Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson adhere to the core principles of the Republican Party and vote in opposition to whatever version of S. 744 is finally presented on the floor of the United States Senate.

Marietta Daily Journal
June 13, 2013

Opinion

Will GOP Senators vote for a bill that is “A Mackerel in The Sun?”

“It’s going to be like that mackerel in the sunshine — the longer it’s out there the worse it smells.” — U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), on the Senate’s Schumer-Rubio amnesty legislation.

In an effort to avoid the mistakes of the thwarted amnesty attempt of 2007 (too many facts escaped), the wealthy special interests who actually wrote the current 1,000-plus page deceitful Gang of Eight “immigration reform” bill are not going to leave it out in the sun very long.

The goal is to get it passed by American Independence Day (July 4). It cannot pass without Republican votes.

There is much more to the amnesty legislation than just amnesty-again. And whether it becomes law or not, the angry leftist “Stop the Deportations!” marches will never end.

The United States already naturalizes more than a million people each year, more than any other nation on the planet. Last year we issued nearly 700,000 guest-worker visas. But business groups claim the U.S. doesn’t issue enough guest-worker visas, specifically low-skill worker visas.

A labor shortage? Really? Why aren’t wages going up?

If the Rubio bill were to pass, “there could be an eight-fold jump in the number of blue-collar foreign workers in the U.S. over the next five years” warns Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who is a self-described socialist.

Tuesday, the U.S. Senate voted to advance the amnesty bill, to ignore current immigration laws and to add 33 million permanent, new legal immigrants over a decade. This, while 20 million Americans can’t find full-time jobs.

Both of Georgia’s Republican Senators voted “Yes.”

The increasingly odiferous Senate bill does not have a single word that puts immigration or workplace enforcement — or border security — first.

Absent much honest American media coverage, American voters should listen to Marco Rubio when he is on foreign language television: “First comes the legalization. Then comes the measures to secure the border,” Rubio boasted to Univision last week. Somebody send up a flare if you see this in the Atlanta newspapers.

The amnesty-again scam does contain a special path to citizenship for illegal aliens.

It would allow people now here illegally to keep the job they obtained illegally and remain in the USA while waiting to be rewarded with green cards. Which happens: A) after bill’s 10-year waiting period ends, or B) when they can scream “injustice” in American streets loud enough (again) to make the Republicans try to out-Democrat the Democrats (again) and reward the victims of borders even sooner. Put your money on choice “B” if the con were to pass.

Easily duped conservative voters — and U.S. Senators who have never read the bill — should stop believing the ridiculous whoppers contained in the endless radio ads sponsored by billionaire-for-open-borders Facebook founder Mark Zuckerburg. And they should rest secure in the knowledge that the agenda-driven “PolitiFact’ opinion column will never do an inspection on any part of that brazen pack of lies.

Habla this: Nobody has to learn English before or after the legalization. We wonder when Marco Rubio will teach us how to say “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it” in Republican?

But, the largely low-wage (that’s the reason they are here) newly legalized aliens would immediately become eligible for the massive welfare benefit called the Earned Income Tax Credit. For Obama-voter readers, this means that the federal government takes money from enterprising Americans and gives it to people who don’t pay any income tax. Cool, eh?

The amnesty bill has more exceptions per page than the much-loved ObamaCare.

Writing in the Washington Examiner, senior editorial editor Phillip Klein notes that because of ObamaCare the “reform” bill would encourage employers to hire newly legalized aliens over American citizens. “Starting in January, businesses with 50 or more employees who don’t offer workers health insurance that the federal government deems acceptable must pay a penalty if at least one of their workers obtains insurance on a new government-run exchange. The penalty is up to $3,000 per worker.”

Because the amnestied workers would not qualify for ObamaCare benefits, some employers could effectively face incentives of hundreds of thousands of dollars to hire newly legalized immigrants over those pesky Americans.

While this travesty is accurately described as “Schumer-Rubio” now, if it becomes law, it would forever be regarded by the newly legalized future Democrat voters as the “Obama-saved-us-amnestia.”

Count this long-time American as envious of the people represented by Sen. Jeff Sessions and the fact that he fights relentlessly to reveal the complete larceny of the Senate’s mackerel amnesty bill.

D.A. King is president of the Cobb-based Dustin Inman Society @DAKDIS on Twitter.

Read more: The Marietta Daily Journal – Will GOP senators vote for immigration bill that s a mackerel in the sun

Cherokee Tribune

June 5, 2013

OPINION

D.A. King
columnist

Will Georgia’s U.S. senators vote ‘yes’ on amnesty-again?

U.S. Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) says he is not hearing from many Georgians regarding the Senate amnesty bill.

This sad fact is easily explained. Most GOP voters simply make the assumption that both of Georgia’s Republican senators are automatic “Nay” votes on the now 1,000-page monster legalization scam.

Trusting conservatives assume that because New York Sen. Chuck Schumer is the bill’s sponsor (then-Congressman Schumer was key in the 1986 amnesty debacle) and because it is being pushed by the Alinskyite Community Organizer-in-Chief Barack Obama, there is no need for concern about how the two GOP senators will vote.

This is a very unsafe assumption.

Isakson and Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) had a hand in writing the last amnesty try in 2007. They dropped it because of withering negative public pressure. The Wall Street Journal reports that Isakson was receiving 2,000 calls a day then but only about 100 calls a day on amnesty so far this year.

From reading past press releases and statements from Isakson and Chambliss, there is good reason for the “of-course-they-will-vote-no” assumptions. And believing they will continue the struggle to protect American workers.

Example? Here is one from a February 2010 joint press release (“Isakson, Chambliss: Improving Immigration Laws Will Help Unemployment”) illustrating both senators’ recognition of immigration’s direct relation to American unemployment. It includes a letter to the president of the Senate urging enforcement of immigration laws. “Isakson and Chambliss believe the millions of workers who are in the United States illegally are only exacerbating the unfair competition American workers currently face as they struggle to find jobs” they wrote in that election year.

A November 2009 missive to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano strongly criticized her comments then that legalizing millions of undocumented individuals would somehow benefit the American economy. The Isakson-Chambliss letter said: “With all due respect, legalizing those who have no legal right to be in the United States will not be a “boon” to American workers. Rather, it would only exacerbate the unfair competition American workers currently face as they struggle to find jobs.”

In the spring of 2008, the Democrats tried to include legalization for some illegal aliens in an unrelated bill. Both senators spoke loudly against what they recognized as amnesty with another public statement: (“Isakson, Chambliss Praise Senate’s Rejection of Amnesty Provision in Emergency War Supplemental Bill” May, 2008) “U.S. Sens. Johnny Isakson and Saxby Chambliss today praised the Senate’s refusal to include an amnesty provision in the emergency war supplemental bill. Language that would have granted legal status to over 1 million illegal agriculture workers and their families was stripped … from the spending bill for troops … Isakson and Chambliss earlier this week had urged the Democratic leader to remove the amnesty provision from the bill.”

But last month Politico described Chambliss and Isakson as Republican senators “who could be swayed” to a yes vote on the Schumer Rubio amnesty. It quotes both Georgia senators. Chambliss said the bill includes “some good basic principles” and “not deal killers I see, right now.” Isakson revealed he was open to the bill. “There’s not a red flag but not a green one either,” Isakson said.

Are we seeing immigration “evolution”?

“The key is (Sen. Marco) Rubio,” said the executive director of the Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles. “Without Rubio, this bill would not get anywhere with Republicans. He gives them the cover.”

On his Senate website, Isakson makes clear his official position on amnesty: “As I have stated in the past, when it comes to illegal immigration, it is absolutely critical to our state and to this nation that we first secure the borders, honor those who have come here legally by not offering amnesty, and restore credibility to our broken immigration system.”

Despite the hype, the ruse being promoted by Rubio does none of the above.

Georgians who care about the American worker, and value any pretext of ever seeing real border security and immigration enforcement should contact both Georgia senators to ask about today’s position on Schumer’s amnesty legislation.

And, they should remember the broken promises of the 1986 amnesty.

D.A. King is president of the Georgia-based Dustin Inman Society and a nationally recognized authority on illegal immigration. On the Web: www.TheDustinInmanSociety.org. Twitter: @DAKDIS

Read more: Cherokee Tribune –

Mr. King,
Rules for a rally in Cobb County for tomorrow

It was nice to talk to you today. I hope you’ll have a successful but uneventful exercise of your 1st Amendment Rights. As we discussed, I’ve attached a list of laws that I’ve used as a guide for protestors and for Officers. This list is by no means exhaustive, it merely lists the most common concerns we have faced.
Again, please be safe and enjoy your visit to Cobb. My office number is below.

Drive Safely,

Capt. Hawk Hagebak
Cobb Police, Precinct III

Sec. 86-2. – Disorderly conduct.
(a)No person shall remain, loiter or prowl in a place, at a time, or in a manner not usual for law abiding individuals under circumstances that warrant a justifiable and reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity, after having been ordered to clear such place by the county police.
(b)No person shall act in a violent or tumultuous manner toward another whereby any other person is placed in fear of safety of his life, limb or health, or whereby the property of another is placed in danger of being destroyed or damaged.
(c)No person shall endanger the lawful pursuits of another by acts of violence, angry threats or abusive conduct.
(d)No person shall cause, provoke or engage in any fight, brawl or riotous conduct so as to endanger the life, limb, health or property of another.
(e)No person shall assembly or congregate with another or others for the purpose of causing, provoking or engaging in any fight or brawl.
(f)No person shall jostle, roughly crowd or push any person in any public place.
(g)No person shall use “fighting words,” or loud and boisterous language, directed towards another so as to create a breach of the peace potentially dangerous to the safety of persons or property.
(h)No person shall congregate with another or others in or on any public way or place so as to halt or impede the flow of vehicular or pedestrian traffic after having been directed to clear such public way or place when ordered by the county police.

Sec. 50-257. – Enumeration of prohibited noises.
The following acts are declared to be loud, disturbing and unnecessary noises in violation of this article; but this enumeration shall not be deemed to be exclusive:
(1)Horns, signaling devices. The sounding of any horn or signaling device on any automobile, motorcycle or other vehicle on any street or public place in the unincorporated areas of the county, except as a danger warning; the creation of any unreasonably loud or harsh sound by means of any signaling device and the sounding of any device for an unnecessary and unreasonable period of time; the use of any signaling device except one operated by hand or electricity; the use of any horn, whistle or other device operated by engine exhaust and the use of any signaling device when traffic is for any reason held up.
(2)Radios, phonographs, musical instruments. The using, operating or permitting to be played, used or operated of any radio receiving set, musical instrument, phonograph or other machine or device for the producing or reproducing of sound in a manner as to disturb the peace, quiet and comfort of the neighboring inhabitants or at any time with a volume louder than necessary for the convenient hearing of a person, not hearing impaired, who is within 40 feet of the device if outdoors, or in the room, vehicle or chamber in which the machine or device is operated, and who is a voluntary listener thereto. The operation of any set, instrument, phonograph, machine or device between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. in a manner as to be plainly audible at a distance of 50 feet from the device if outdoors, or 50 feet from the building, structure or vehicle in which it is located shall be prima facie evidence of a violation of this article.
(3)Loudspeakers, amplifiers for advertising. The using, operating or permitting to be played, used or operated of any radio receiving set, musical instrument, phonograph, loudspeaker, sound amplifier or other machine or device for the producing or reproducing of sound which is cast upon the public streets for the purpose of commercial advertising or attracting the attention of the public to any building or structure. Announcements over loudspeakers can only be made by the announcer in person and without the aid of any mechanical device.
(4)Yelling, shouting, etc. Yelling, shouting, hooting, whistling or singing on the public streets, particularly between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., or at any time or place, so as to annoy or disturb the quiet, comfort or repose of persons in any office, dwelling, hotel or other type of residence or of any persons in the vicinity.
(5)Animals, birds. The keeping of any animal or bird which by causing frequent or long continued noise shall disturb the comfort or repose of any persons in the vicinity. This section shall not apply to horses, livestock, poultry or other farm animals, provided they are maintained in accordance with county zoning regulations or ordinances.
(6)Exhausts. The discharge into the open air of the exhaust of any steam engine, internal-combustion engine or motorboat except through a muffler or other device which will effectively prevent loud or explosive noises therefrom.
(7)Defect in vehicle or load. The use of any automobile, motorcycle or vehicle so out of repair, so loaded, or in such manner as to create loud and unnecessary grating, grinding, rattling or other noise.
(8)Construction or repair of buildings. The erection (including excavation), demolition, alteration or repair of any building, as well as the operation of any pile driver, steam shovel, pneumatic hammer, derrick, steam or electric hoist, electric saws, drills or any other equipment attended by loud or unusual noise, other than between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday.
(9)Streets adjacent to schools, courts, churches, hospitals. The creation of any excessive noise on any street adjacent to any school, institution of learning, church or court while in use, or adjacent to any hospital, which unreasonably interferes with the normal operation of that institution, or which disturbs or unduly annoys patients in the hospitals, provided that conspicuous signs are displayed in those streets indicating a school, hospital or court street.
(10)Hawkers, peddlers, vendors. The shouting and crying of peddlers, hawkers and vendors which disturb the peace and quiet of the neighborhood.
(11)Noises to attract attention. The use of any drum or other instrument or device for the purpose of attracting attention by creation of noise to any performance, show or sale.
(12)Blowers. The operation of any noise-creating blower or power fan or any internal-combustion engine, the operation of which causes noise due to the explosion of operating gases or fluids, unless the noise from the blower or fan is muffled and the engine is equipped with a muffler device sufficient to deaden the noise.
(13)Sound trucks. The use of mechanical loudspeakers or amplifiers on trucks or other moving or standing vehicles during hours and in places and with such volume as would constitute this use as a public nuisance; provided, that the provisions of this section shall not apply to or be enforced against:
a.
Any vehicle in the unincorporated areas of the county while engaged in necessary public business.
b.
Excavations or repairs of streets by or on behalf of the city, county or state at night when public welfare and convenience renders it impossible to perform such work during the day.
c.
The reasonable use of amplifiers or loudspeakers in the course of public addresses which are noncommercial in character.
(14)
Motorcycles, go-carts and other motor vehicles. The operation of a motorcycle, motorized scooter, go-cart or other motorized vehicle in a manner which creates excessive noise, including the continuous riding of any such vehicle past, around or near an inhabited dwelling place so as to disturb or unduly annoy its inhabitants.
(Ord. of 10-12-82, § 2(b); Code 1977, § 3-18.5-3; Ord. of 9-10-02; Ord. of 7-27-04)
§ 16-11-30. Riot

(a) Any two or more persons who shall do an unlawful act of violence or any other act in a violent and tumultuous manner commit the offense of riot.

(b) Any persons who violate subsection (a) of this Code section are guilty of a misdemeanor.

§ 16-11-31. Inciting to riot

(a) A person who with intent to riot does an act or engages in conduct which urges, counsels, or advises others to riot, at a time and place and under circumstances which produce a clear and present danger of a riot, commits the offense of inciting to riot.

(b) Any person who violates subsection (a) of this Code section is guilty of a misdemeanor.

§ 16-11-34. Preventing or disrupting lawful meetings, gatherings, or processions

(a) A person who recklessly or knowingly commits any act which may reasonably be expected to prevent or disrupt a lawful meeting, gathering, or procession is guilty of a misdemeanor.

(b) This Code section shall not be construed to affect the powers delegated to counties or to municipal corporations to pass laws to punish disorderly conduct within their respective limits.
§ 16-11-33. Unlawful assembly

A person who knowingly participates in either of the following acts or occurrences is guilty of a misdemeanor:

(1) The assembly of two or more persons for the purpose of committing an unlawful act and the failure to withdraw from the assembly on being lawfully commanded to do so by a peace officer and before any member of the assembly has inflicted injury to the person or property of another; or

(2) The assembly of two or more persons, without authority of law, for the purpose of doing violence to the person or property of one supposed by the accused to have been guilty of a violation of the law, or for the purpose of exercising correctional or regulative powers over any person by violence; provided, however, that it shall be an affirmative defense to a prosecution under this paragraph that the accused withdrew from the assembly on being lawfully commanded to do so by a peace officer or before any member of the assembly had inflicted injury to the person or property of another.

§ 16-11-39. Disorderly conduct

(a) A person commits the offense of disorderly conduct when such person commits any of the following:

(1) Acts in a violent or tumultuous manner toward another person whereby such person is placed in reasonable fear of the safety of such person’s life, limb, or health;

(2) Acts in a violent or tumultuous manner toward another person whereby the property of such person is placed in danger of being damaged or destroyed;

(3) Without provocation, uses to or of another person in such other person’s presence, opprobrious or abusive words which by their very utterance tend to incite to an immediate breach of the peace, that is to say, words which as a matter of common knowledge and under ordinary circumstances will, when used to or of another person in such other person’s presence, naturally tend to provoke violent resentment, that is, words commonly called “fighting words”; or

(4) Without provocation, uses obscene and vulgar or profane language in the presence of or by telephone to a person under the age of 14 years which threatens an immediate breach of the peace.

(b) Any person who commits the offense of disorderly conduct shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

(c) This Code section shall not be deemed or construed to affect or limit the powers of counties or municipal corporations to adopt ordinances or resolutions prohibiting disorderly conduct within their respective limits.
§ 16-11-43. Obstructing highways, streets, sidewalks, or other public passages

A person who, without authority of law, purposely or recklessly obstructs any highway, street, sidewalk, or other public passage in such a way as to render it impassable without unreasonable inconvenience or hazard and fails or refuses to remove the obstruction after receiving a reasonable official request or the order of a peace officer that he do so, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

§ 16-7-21. Criminal trespass

(a) A person commits the offense of criminal trespass when he or she intentionally damages any property of another without consent of that other person and the damage thereto is $500.00 or less or knowingly and maliciously interferes with the possession or use of the property of another person without consent of that person.

(b) A person commits the offense of criminal trespass when he or she knowingly and without authority:

(1) Enters upon the land or premises of another person or into any part of any vehicle, railroad car, aircraft, or watercraft of another person for an unlawful purpose;

(2) Enters upon the land or premises of another person or into any part of any vehicle, railroad car, aircraft, or watercraft of another person after receiving, prior to such entry, notice from the owner, rightful occupant, or, upon proper identification, an authorized representative of the owner or rightful occupant that such entry is forbidden; or

(3) Remains upon the land or premises of another person or within the vehicle, railroad car, aircraft, or watercraft of another person after receiving notice from the owner, rightful occupant, or, upon proper identification, an authorized representative of the owner or rightful occupant to depart.

(c) For the purposes of subsection (b) of this Code section, permission to enter or invitation to enter given by a minor who is or is not present on or in the property of the minor’s parent or guardian is not sufficient to allow lawful entry of another person upon the land, premises, vehicle, railroad car, aircraft, or watercraft owned or rightfully occupied by such minor’s parent or guardian if such parent or guardian has previously given notice that such entry is forbidden or notice to depart.

(d) A person who commits the offense of criminal trespass shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

(e) A person commits the offense of criminal trespass when he or she intentionally defaces, mutilates, or defiles any grave marker, monument, or memorial to one or more deceased persons who served in the military service of this state, the United States of America or any of the states thereof, or the Confederate States of America or any of the states thereof, or a monument, plaque, marker, or memorial which is dedicated to, honors, or recounts the military service of any past or present military personnel of this state, the United States of America or any of the states thereof, or the Confederate States of America or any of the states thereof if such grave marker, monument, memorial, plaque, or marker is privately owned or located on land which is privately owned.

The below letter was made public yesterday. We congratulate and thank state Representitive Ed Lindsey for his educated courage.

An Open Letter to Senators Chambliss and Isakson — Oppose the Proposed Immigration Bill in the Senate

Dear Senators Chambliss and Isakson:

I urge you to vote “no” on the proposed immigration bill currently being considered in the United States Senate.

I was a co-sponsor of Georgia’s tough anti-illegal immigration bill (HB 87), and as Georgia House Majority Whip worked hard for its successful passage in 2011. With this experience, I recognize numerous flaws with the new federal proposal, but the four most prominent in my mind are as follows:

1.The start of real conservative reform on immigration is very simple — Secure the Border!The remedies offered in the proposed bill are inadequate to assure that our borders will be truly sealed and protected from unlawful entry. Amendments offered in the Senate Judiciary Committee to provide for such security were regrettably voted down. No nation can long survive and guarantee the safety of its people without properly regulating who enters its territory. Therefore, without accomplishing this, there is no basis to move forward on other related issues;

2.We should oppose a pathway to citizenship for anyone who willingly and knowingly comes into our country illegally. Amnesty is contrary to the rule of law, fundamentally unfair to those who play by the rules and wait to immigrate legally, and will only encourage more illegal immigration. We tried amnesty in 1986 to fix the concern at that time when we had fewer than an estimated 3 million illegal immigrants eligible. The result? Today we have over 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States and Georgia now ranks 6th in the nation in the number of illegal immigrants;

3.We have seen no cost estimate on how great a financial burden this bill will place on the State of Georgia and local governments in terms of the increased burden on state and local services. Even Los Angeles County officials in California are expressing concern over additional burdens being placed on its local services as a result of the proposed new law. In Georgia, we do not have a printing press to print money and our state and local governments are required to balance our budgets. Therefore, additional burdens on public health care, our education system, and other state and local services will only aggravate already precarious budget issues in our state; and

4.Immigration problems are in reality a series of very different, complex, and difficult issues which require more than simply voting up or down on someone else’s pre-packaged formula. After several years in state legislative leadership, I have grown increasingly skeptical of so called “comprehensive” solutions that in reality lump very different issues together into one hodgepodge bill. Border security, illegal entry, migrant farm workers, student visa applications, foreign high tech specialists’ work visas, and other immigration issues each carry their own intricate and complex challenges and concerns, and each should be addressed individually according to the best interest of our American society.

In conclusion, I respectfully ask that you vote against this proposed immigration bill as it is not in the best interest of the people of Georgia. We need to stand firm on border security and then roll up our sleeves and tackle the remaining issues one step and one issue at a time according to our long term national interests. That is how things should be done.

State Representative Edward Lindsey
Georgia House Majority Whip &
Conservative for Congress