Creative Loafing

State board that hears immigration complaints rules against Atlanta

Atlanta could face potential fines, sanctions related to vocal immigration critic’s complaint

REGINA WILLIS DEC. 1, 2016

Atlanta could face potential fines, sanctions related to vocal immigration critic’s complaintThe City of Atlanta could soon have a lot of paperwork on its hands thanks to a recent ruling by an obscure state panel that makes sure Georgia governments and agencies comply with the state’s immigration laws.

The Immigrant Enforcement Review Board, or IERB, is tasked with investigating and sanctioning government agencies, from state departments to local municipalities, for violating any of three laws passed as part of

House Bill 87, Georgia’s comprehensive and controversial immigration legislation which lawmakers approved in 2011.

The seven-person board holds meetings, can subpoena documents and witnesses, and is composed of political appointees, including a one-time lobbyist for anti-immigration group ProEnglish. In May 2014, the IERB threatened to fine DeKalb County $5,000 for not using an online program that checks immigration status for a summer program.

Under Georgia’s immigration law, cities are supposed to verify that business licenses are only given to citizens or residents who are “lawfully present” 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. Atlanta has never gone back to groups that applied with the city before the law went into effect in 2011 to obtain the relevant documents.

Angela Hinton, the city’s chief counsel,argued Atlanta’s case before the board at the Gold Dome on Nov. 10. She said nonprofits do not apply for their business license annually, so “there’s not an application. There’s not a requirement to resubmit yourself to the government.”

Without an application, Hinton argued, Atlanta has no legal reason to request the citizenship verification documents from a nonprofit applicant. New nonprofits would have to submit SAVE, eVerify, and secure and verifiable ID — the documents required to prove citizenship or immigration status — but older nonprofits have never gone through this process, Hinton said.

The board, however, disagreed with the city’s interpretation of the law. The crux of the debate is how city codes should be interpreted under state law and when a nonprofit is an “applicant for a public benefit.”

“What I see happening is, if we can redefine the word ‘application’ and thereby ‘applicant,’ that pretty much any entity in this state can somehow get out of compliance with a law whose intention was simply to protect taxpayer dollars and ensure that Georgia is not a comfortable place for people who are here illegally,” D.A. King, who filed the complaint, told the board on Nov. 10. His argument received vocal support from several members.

King leads the Dustin Inman Society, one of Georgia’s most vocal advocates for stronger immigration laws. He told Creative Loafing by email, “My hope is that the IERB will use all of its power to send a message to the other officials who are allowed to scoff at the law. Best case? Mayor Reed takes a heavy personal fine as the final authority in charge of what are admitted violations.”

King has filed seven of the eight complaints the board has received since it was created, including one against more than 1,200 local governments and agencies in Georgia, extending from the Abbeville Housing Authority to the City of Young Harris. The board did not take up that complaint, instead asking King to narrow down his complaint to one or two municipalities.

King was one of the key advocates for the passage of HB 87 and has faced criticism from organizations, including the Anti-Defamation League, for his role in Georgia’s immigration debate and the language he’s used. The ADL in 2014 said “King has demonized immigrants through his bigoted statements” but “he continues to be a major player in the immigration debate in Georgia.”

“In the limited bubble-world of totalitarian progressives, borders, immigration laws, and advocates for an equal application of the law are attacked with the liberal goop of racism,” King said in response to critics. “Thanks to years of this race-baiting and these baseless attacks, the American people woke up, took a stand, and elected Donald Trump president.”

Modeled after Arizona’s controversial measure and sponsored by state Rep. Matt Ramsey, R-Peachtree City, Georgia’s immigration law allowed police officers to question some people about their immigration status and set fines for people who assist undocumented immigrants, among other provisions.

Several sections of the law were eventually overturned by the courts, but the IERB, a late addition to the legislation that dominated the 2011 legislative session, and the rules they enforce, stuck around. Chuck Kuck, an Atlanta immigration lawyer and former president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association who vocally opposed HB 87, says the IERB is “the only part of [the law] that’s really functioned at all.”

The IERB will send the city a letter with its official ruling, and Atlanta officials might be looking at updating quite a bit of paperwork if they want to avoid potential sanctions. According to IERB Chair Ben Vinson, the city has 30 days to appeal or “alter their process to avoid any consequence.” The IERB would hear the appeal. If it disagrees and continues as usual, a sanction hearing would be held. A Reed spokeswoman said the city had not been served with a written decision from the board. “Once we receive a decision, we will consider all options and make a determination at that time,” she said.

NOTE: After this story went to press, Vinson sent the city a letter asking it to take “remedial action” and that includes “obtaining SAVE documentation from those nonprofit entities originally licensed” after the 2011 immigration law took effect. It’s also asking the city to provide information about the “total number of nonprofits” that might be included in that group so the IERB “might further consider all ramifications and remedial actions.”  HERE