Sent to Creative Loafing, December 5, 2016

Re; “State board that hears immigration complaints rules against Atlanta”
Atlanta could face potential fines, sanctions related to vocal immigration critic’s complaint

Regina Willis, December 1, 2016

Dear editors,

I was pleasantly surprised to read your balanced coverage 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.

Allow me to clarify and correct a few details.

Your report tells readers that the respected Washington DC group ‘Pro-English’ is “anti-immigration.” 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…pro-English. They advance the commonsense concept that national unity can be greatly increased with English as our common and official language.

I urge you and your readers to take a look at the “About” page of the Pro-English website.

Your report says, “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.”

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’s administration has attempted to use a “loophole” that does not exist in reality.

Regarding Georgia’s 2011 “Illegal Immigration Reform and Enforcement Act” (H.B. 87), your report has it wrong when you tell readers “several sections of the law were eventually overturned by the courts…” 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 “overturned.”

It should be noted that I have also filed similar valid complaints with the state Attorney General, who has full responsibility to prosecute Mayor Reed and his administrators for the violations of Georgia law designed to protect us all from illegal immigration. No matter what the IERB does or does not do.

I have not received any notification from the AG that makes me believe these complaints are being processed.

Maybe your readers will see a “part two” to your coverage?

D.A. King
Marietta
President, The Dustin Inman Society