‘DREAMERS’ protest immigration laws – photo, Getty Images

BuzzFeed News

October 23, 2017

So Many Father-Led Families Are Crossing The US Border That Immigration Agents Don’t Have Room To Hold Them

There’s been a spike in Central American fathers and their children crossing the US border illegally over the last seven months, BuzzFeed News has learned. An Immigration and Customs Enforcement official confirmed the increase, which human rights activists say is the unintended byproduct of the Department of Homeland Security’s successful push to stop the flow of women and children across the border.

A DHS official would not say how many father-led families have been detained since March, or how many of those families have since been released, but the official acknowledged that the department is releasing some. Activists say that’s because there isn’t space in facilities to house all the father-led families detained, so Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers are forced to let hundreds of them go each week.

“We see as many fathers with children as pregnant women or moms with kids. It used to be so rare,” said Teresa Cavendish, the operations director at Catholic Community Services of Southern Arizona, which operates short-term shelters for immigrants released by ICE.

An ICE official acknowledged the agency has seen a significant increase in fathers with children since the beginning of March, noting that 28 of the 37 families being held at the Berks Family Residential Center in Leesport, Pennsylvania, are led by fathers. Berks, which can house 96 individuals, is the only detention center in the country that accepts male-led families.

Although DHS has begun a push to expand immigration detention capacity, so far those new detention centers would only house adults…. READ MORE HERE.

Bert Roughton, senior managing editor, and senior editorial director of the liberal Atlanta Journal Constitution (AJC) newspaper. Photo: MyAJC.com

AJC managing editor is giddy with his hit piece revenge.

Email reply from Bert Roughton, 10:44 PM today

“Roughton Jr, Bert (CMG-Atlanta)” , “D.A. KING” , “Tharpe, Jim (CNI – AJC)” , “Foskett, Kenneth (CMG-Atlanta)” , “Riley, Kevin (CMG-Atlanta)” , Andre Jackson , “Waligore, Mark (CMG-Atlanta)” , “Joseph, Michael (CMG-Atlanta)”

Thanks, Mr. King.

Have a great evening!

Bert Roughton
Senior Managing Editor

__

On Oct 23, 2017, at 10:41 PM, D.A. KING wrote:

Surprise response!
BTW – You forgot to mention that AJC’s parent company, Cox Enterprises, sponsors Jerry/GALEO’s anti-enforcment work.

But, we all get it. Jeremy and Potter et al have proven many times who they are. Anti-enforcement screamers are “civil rights activists” and illegal aliens are “immigrants.” And the AJC doesn’t note corrections. You guys seem angry…

dak

__
On Oct 23, 2017, at 10:31 PM, Roughton Jr, Bert (CMG-Atlanta) wrote:

Mr. King:

That’s not the way it works. If you want to challenge the accuracy of the story, then point out your concerns to Jeremy and his editor, Susan Potter. They will determine how to address your concern.

If your concern is not of a factual error, then you may submit a letter to the editor. I believe we allow approximately 150 words for letters, but Andre can correct me.

Thanks,

Bert Roughton
Senior Managing Editor

__

On Oct 23, 2017, at 10:23 PM, D.A. KING wrote:

In 2011, my tactics were something SPLC didn’t quibble with…

With your newspaper’s assistance, it seems the SPLC is anticipating a change in “hate” criteria; About me, Heidi told the Associate Press in 2011 that “His tactics have generally not been to get up in the face of actual immigrants and threaten them,” said the law center’s Heidi Beirich. “Because he is fighting, working on his legislation through the political process, that is not something we can quibble with, whether we like the law or not.”

AP: “The Montgomery, Ala.-based Southern Poverty Law Center hasn’t put King’s organization on its list of hate groups.

But the center lists him as a “nativist” and has expressed concern about his tendency to call illegal immigrants “invaders” and his contact with other more extreme activists.

“His tactics have generally not been to get up in the face of actual immigrants and threaten them,” said the law center’s Heidi Beirich. “Because he is fighting, working on his legislation through the political process, that is not something we can quibble with, whether we like the law or not.”

Activist key to immigration bill (Associated Press) 
Posted: Tuesday, July 05, 2011
By KATE BRUMBACK
“ATLANTA – With the fate of a proposal to crack down on illegal immigration still unknown in the frenetic final days of Georgia’s legislative session, the bill’s author was spotted several times huddled in hushed discussions in the Capitol hallways with D.A. King….”

‘DREAMERS’ protest immigration laws – photo, Getty Images

“Legislators opposed to immigration reform bills worry that they come at the cost of securing the border, but Dominguez said that should not be an issue.” HERE.

photo: DIS – added October 20 – 1:12 PM

Below are the contents of an email received from AJC immigration reporter Jeremy Redmon yesterday, October 18, 2017 at 3:43 PM along with my written responses to the questions he asked me for a coming AJC news item. I am sending Redmon a link to this post as my reply. *I don’t know how to attach the spreadsheet he sent but most of the complaints are posted on our badly out-dated website HERE.

Note: This is the same AJC immigration reporter who has blocked me on Twitter and who refers to Soros-funded radicals who protest and work to stop enforcement of American immigration laws as “civil rights activists.” I received this list of questions from the AJC later in the same day that I posted and distributed this revealing criticism of that struggling, liberal newspaper to which I subscribe.

—

From Jeremy Redmon

Subject: AJC reporting on HB87/Immigration Enforcement Review Board 

Greetings Mr. King,

I’m writing about the Immigration Enforcement Review Board and seeking comments from you for my article. Could you be available for a phone interview this week? My questions:

1. Since the board was created in 2011 it has received 20 complaints. All but one have come from you. (*See the attached spreadsheet I obtained from the board through the Open Records Act.) What do you think about this development?

Response: The IERB was a creation of the Association County Commissioners of Georgia and the Georgia Municipal Association’s lawyers and lobbyists in an attempt to insure that those group’s members were not sanctioned for violating state laws focused on immigration and protecting jobs, benefits and services from the crime of illegal immigration. There would be far more complaints if everyday Georgians understood the law or that that compliance with those laws is widely regarded as optional. Most Georgians have no idea the IERB even exists. Built into the board’s regulations is the ability to give any official or entity found to be in violation thirty days to correct those violations so as escape punishment. Common Georgia citizens should be so lucky as to have that privilege in their daily lives.

The General assembly should look into changing the constraints on the IERB – but because of a dedicated lack of media coverage, even many legislators are unaware of its existence. And ACCG/GMA has a very powerful lobbying presence under the Gold Dome, which ironically is funded with taxpayer money. Your readers may have an interest in the dues paid by their counties and municipal governments’ to ACCG/GMA which are then used to fund lobbyists who work  against illegal immigration bills in the Georgia Capitol.

2. Only one of the 20 complaints the board has received has resulted in a sanction: Atlanta paid the board a $1,000 fine in August. Two other complaints resulted in Atlanta and DeKalb County taking corrective action. Four complaints have either been dismissed or were withdrawn. Thirteen – most of them deal with access to adult education and date back to January and February of this year – are still pending. What’s your reaction to these results and the amount of time it is taking the board to resolve complaints?

Response: The Immigration Enforcement Review Board has a new chairman and I hope and expect that fact will produce more focused and timely hearings and action on valid complaints. Early in its history, the former IERB chair dismissed out-of-hand one valid complaint while saying the board lacked the resources or time to handle the volume of violations it contained. He could have easily been referred to as the “establishment’s firewall chairman.” In the past, I have been critical of the board’s operation, but applaud the majority of members who strive for timely service to the Georgia taxpayers and I am encouraged by recent changes. But there is *still a need for remedial legislative work on the entire process. (*I corrected ‘stipend’ here to “still a need” – 12:12 Oct 20)

A double-digit page complaint was dismissed when I was told six months after filing that the list of complaints against each agency on which I had clear evidence of violation taken from state records had to be filed separately. I lack the time and resources for doing the job of investigating and revealing all the violations of the state law that official law enforcement agencies are charged with enforcing on immigration related matters.

I once withdrew a complaint from the board after being told by the AG’s office that they would take no action while it was pending at the board. The withdrawal maneuver produced no action from the AG’s office that I was ever made aware of.

HB 87 explicitly states that the board’s action or lack of action has no effect on the AG’s office carrying out their enforcement duties. I will soon be filing separate complaints with enforcement agencies outside the IERB to be forwarded to the AG. It remains to be seen what will happen, if anything, to school districts that are providing adult education without any effort to obey state law in place to insure non-mandated tax dollars and public benefits do not go to illegal aliens.

3. You have been quoted as saying you helped write House Bill 87, which created the Immigration Enforcement Review Board:
https://patch.com/georgia/kennesaw/voices-cobbs-da-king-applauds-hb-87 Could you confirm what role you had with HB 87?

Response: The heart of HB 87 was the E-Verify component. It clearly needs to be improved, but that fact is is ignored by virtually all candidates for state office, including governor. I was proud to have been consulted when HB 87 was being drafted and to have been invited to testify as an expert witness several times in its committee process. The IERB is nothing close to what I would have asked for if I had that ability.

Although operating on a shoestring budget, in an effort to counter the daily falsehoods cranked out by the usual well-funded anti-enforcement suspects which included the Georgia and Metro Atlanta Chambers of Commerce, the Ag industry lobbyists and the corporate-funded ethnic hustlers like GALEO, the Dustin Inman Society provided a basic education to lawmakers and members of the public and press who asked for information and references to federal law. I have been told that educational input we provided was helpful on HB 87. We pray that it soon sees actual enforcement and that it helps prevent other families from going through the hell-on-Earth that the parents of Dustin Inman  have endured since 2000 when an illegal aliens killed their only child.

4. You are president of the Dustin Inman Society. The Southern Poverty Law Center has labeled the Dustin Inman Society a “nativist extremist group.” 
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2017/once-again-number-nativist-extremist-groups-falls
What is your response to the SPLC’s statement?

Response: Yes, and they also able Christian groups who advocate for biblical marriage as hate groups. The discredited and agenda-driven SPLC has millions stashed in tax-haven off-shore accounts and seen by many as a far-left, hate mongering gang of hucksters whose real business is fundraising and shutting down free speech. In many conservative’s opinion, including my own, the entire SPLC enterprise is no better than the morals of its co-founder, Morris Dees. On Dees and the SPLC, we agree with one of Dees’ former partners, celebrated anti-death penalty lawyer Millard Farmer. “He’s the Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker of the civil rights movement, though I don’t mean to malign Jim and Tammy Faye” said Farmer.

With the SPLC’s anti-enforcement agenda on immigration, along with the immigrant and minority members of the DIS board of advisors, I take any criticism from the SPLC as an indicator that our pro-enforcement efforts are having an effect. I understand that the hate spewed from the SPLC says much more about them than it does about our work on sustainable, reasonable and legal immigration. We also note that vindictive liberal newspapers often use the discredited SPLC when on a mission to smear stubborn political enemies and critics. And we note the AJC’s past supportive editorial position on open borders seems to match up with the SPLC agenda.

5. The Dustin Inman Society is soliciting donations through U.S. Inc.
http://www.thedustininmansociety.org/info/donate.html U.S. Inc was founded by John Tanton. The SPLC has called him the “racist architect of the modern anti-immigrant movement.” https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/john-tanton What’s your response to the SPLC’s statement?

6. How much in donations has the Dustin Inman Society received from U.S. Inc. in all?

7. How would you describe the Dustin Inman Society’s relationship with U.S. Inc. today?

Response to questions 5,6 and 7: For the SPLC, pretty much everyone who opposes their political agenda is attacked as “racists” or “haters.” That smear campaign isn’t fooling many thinking Americans. The sanity-in-immigration patriots at U.S. Inc. have been kind enough to sometimes act as an administrative assistant of sorts in a small part of our limited efforts at fundraising. Given the facts, most Americans do not regard traditional levels of immigration that benefits the USA as “anti-immigrant.”

With our meager revenue, in accordance with federal law, the Dustin Inman Society files the IRS “postcard” form 990–N.

In addition to liberal media outlets, in our pro-American educational efforts, we stand up against race-baiting, anti-enforcement immigration groups that are openly funded by corporations such as Cox Enterprises, Coca-Cola, Georgia Power and State Farm Insurance Company. This is in addition to the various open-borders organizations funding received from many well-heeled immigration lawyers.

Much of our Barbara Jordan-inspired work is aimed at protecting American workers by fighting against a repeat of the immigration amnesty of 1986 and promoting official English, which is counter to the agenda of these business interests and we are grateful for the administrative help from U.S. Inc. All contributions received by U.S. Inc. designated for DIS are forwarded, on behalf of the donor, as a service to our pro-enforcement Society.

To battle the powerful anti-borders forces, we depend on donations from the mainstream public, most of which come in small amounts. In case your readers have a desire to donate to our cause, donations can also be accepted at GoFundMe and Paypal.

I guess I would consider taking the time to research and total up our meager contributions sometime in the future. Maybe after the AJC provides us a report of their revenues and salaries of all employees. And the amount of employee time and AJC money spent to act as Chair organization for the 2004 Atlanta MALDEF fundraiser that DIS protested – a rally that was covered by CNN but not by the AJC.

8. Could you email me a copy of the Dustin Inman Society’s most recent 990 Form or point me to where I could fine it online? I can’t find anything more recent than your 2008 990.

Response: The 2016 Form 990-N is posted HERE.

Could you respond by Friday morning? Please email me or call me at 770-627-3491.

Thank you,

Jeremy Redmon
Reporter
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Office:770-627-3491
Fax:404-526-5746
jredmon@ajc.com
Twitter: @jeremylredmon
Facebook: @journalistjeremyredmon
Skype: jredmonajc
www.myajc.com/staff/jeremy-redmon/

990-N 2106

“Redmon graduated from George Mason University in 1994 and 1997 with undergraduate and graduate degrees in English. In 2013, he completed a fellowship with The New York Times Institute on Immigration Reporting at the University of California Berkeley’s Graduate School of Journalism. And in 2012, he completed fellowships at the Institute for Justice and Journalism on Immigration Reporting at the University of Oklahoma’s Gaylord College of Journalism and Mass Communication and at the Journalist Law School at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.” HERE.

Screen shot, October 18, 2017 10:22 PM

photo: DDS

How much money does Georgia spend on issuing drivers licenses to illegal aliens?

The United States vs Texas legal case involving DAPA and expanding DACA that went all the way to the Supreme Court (pro-enforcement Americans won) largely focused on the cost of issuing drivers licenses to the illegal aliens with DACA and DAPA. Georgia was part of that lawsuit which included 25 states.

In short, only a fraction of the expense of issuing a drivers license is covered by the application fee paid by the applicant.

From the Wall Street Journal:

“Texas charges $24 for a license, but says it costs nearly $200 to process each application. Because immigrants with temporary status can ask for licenses, “Texas therefore would lose millions of dollars if even a small fraction of DAPA-eligible aliens applied for driver’s licenses,” the state said in a legal brief.”

We are curious how much Georgia taxpayers are paying to issue drivers licenses to about 50,000 illegal aliens. The last we heard DDS does not track that cost. Anybody else curious? If so, please ask your state legislator. And if they tell you Georgia isn’t issuing drivers licenses to any illegal aliens, send them this.

photo: AJC

There they go again. The editors at the AJC routinely post online news articles with inaccurate “facts.” Then, if they are challenged, change the copy without any notation or admission of error. And it happens a lot.

The latest case we know of comes in a story about DACA recipients, how hard life is for victims of borders and how they tell their story by painting the outside of a liquor store on Buford Highway. In it, an AJC education reporter, Vanessa McCray, mentions that Georgia is home to “about 24,000” illegal aliens (she used “undocumented immigrants” – but it is just too ridiculous to label these illegals ‘undocumented’ when they have been given work permits, valid Social Security Numbers and drivers licenses).

McCray’s news report came just days after one from AJC immigration reporter Jeremy Redmon who cited a report from USCIS that put the number of DACA winners at 21,600.

I noted the difference, and sent McCray a note asking about her source for the 24,000.

In the meantime, as part of a separate conversation on DACA statistics and legal status (attention AJC editors), I also asked the USCIS spokesperson, Pamela Wilson, about the differing numbers and if she had seen the AJC stories. Wilson was kind enough to get back to me quickly and explained the obvious – that the 21,600 figure was from September and the 24,000 figure was from June. Apparently 2400-ish DACA “children” left the state since June – which is also puzzling…

Yesterday I was surprised to get a call from AJC reporter McCray who explained that the 24,000 number she used was old and from June. She then informed me that the figure had been changed to reflect the September report from USCIS. She seemed nice.

This is a simple and easy to understand oversight. Especially for reporter on a story mostly off her beat. It is heartening – and unusual – that an AJC reporter called here in response to an email question to say a stat was corrected. All cool.

But the AJC editors refuse to acknowledge mistakes like this. They simply edit the story – in this case after it was online for at least four days – and never note the update or correction for readers. I don’t know if McCray’s piece was in the hard copy newspaper, but the online version also features a video that apparently cannot be updated as it still has the 24,000 number.

More?

Here is another example of editing and correcting without a notation. This one is from the AJC Political Insider blog during the 2017 Georgia General Assembly. We are pretty sure Jim Galloway wrote the story which was critical of a House bill involving regulations protecting sand dunes on the coast.

They headlined it “How to make a sand dune on the Georgia coast disappear.”

But it turned out that the blog was as much about how to make a false statement disappear in the AJC.

The original version of the story, which can still be read on the invaluable Way Back machine website, contained a statement telling readers that “the bill would cut in half the strip of beach that falls under the shadow of the state Shore Protection Act, from 50 to 25 feet” (my emphasis). It was the fourth paragraph.

It was quickly revealed in the Capitol that the statement was not true. So…poof. It was excised from the story and you cannot see it on the revised version. As usual, there is no note to readers of the deletion edit or that the story was corrected or changed. Or wrong.

I pointed this out to a gang of senior AJC management when it happened. I never heard back from any of them.

At the “Credible. Compelling. Complete” AJC, this happens a lot.

dak

update: “Sentence with “Then” in first paragraph corrected Oct. 20, 1:07PM

photo; DDS

Part of the mystery around DDS and the number of drivers licenses issued to illegal aliens with DACA has been solved.

I wrote here last week that the number of illegals living in Georgia with DACA status was wildly different than what DDS told state Senator Josh McKoon had been issued a Georgia drivers license.

USCIS put out a report on September 4, 2017 saying there are 21,600 DACA recipients in Georgia. DDS responded to a question from senator McKoon that they had issued more than 48,000 drivers licenses to DACA winners.

As I also wrote here and here, the intention was to create some interest in the disparity (and the fact that DACA illegal aliens are issued the same drivers license as legal immigrants).

To my knowledge, neither the Georgia news media or most in state government was curious enough to pursue this one. So we did.

Bottom line: DDS answered a question that was not asked.

The question from senator McKoon: “How many drivers licenses were issued to aliens with DACA since July 1, 2012 as of July 31, 2017? How many ID Cards, same time frame?”

The answer from DDS: “a query of our main frame on August 7-8, based on your request, reflects that DDS has issued 48,935 drivers licenses and 8,705 Georgia ID cards tons-citizenswho are under DACA status where the SAVE response code was 188 (DACA -Employment Authorized).”

Seems pretty clear here. But it’s not. When nobody else did, we asked Susan Sports, DDS Public Information Officer about the difference.

Her October 13 reply:

“The numbers reported were in response to a very specific request. Our numbers include the number of issuances over a span of five years to DACA recipients which also includes multiple issuances to individuals who may have sought renewals, address changes, or replacement for lost licenses. Therefore our numbers would naturally differ from USCIS because we have measured our numbers by issuance events. I hope this is helpful.”

It is helpful. But the DDS original answer was to a question that was not asked and the cause of the confusion.

The question of why the Republican-controlled state legislature does not change the fact that DDS gives the same drivers license to illegal aliens with DACA that it issues to legal immigrants and guest workers is still a mystery to most Georgians.

Andrew “Art” Arthur serves as Resident Fellow in Law and Policy for the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington, DC-based research institute that examines the impact of immigration on American society.

He began his legal career through the Attorney General’s Honors Program as a clerk to Administrative Law Judge Joseph E. McGuire in the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer at the United States Department of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration Review. After a two-year clerkship with Judge McGuire, he received a second Honors Program appointment as a Trial Attorney in the San Francisco District Counsel’s Office, and later the Baltimore District Counsel’s Office, of the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS).

In 1999, he was promoted to the INS’s General Counsel’s Office in Washington DC, first as an Associate General Counsel, and later as an Assistant General Counsel and Acting Chief of the INS National Security Law Division. In the General Counsel’s Office, Mr. Arthur supervised attorneys handling cases involving espionage, terrorism, and persecutors. He also advised the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, and INS Commissioner on issues relating to national security.

In July 2001, Mr. Arthur left the INS to become a Counsel on the House Judiciary Committee, where he performed oversight of immigration issues. After five years at House Judiciary, he was appointed to the immigration bench, serving for eight years as an Immigration Judge at the York Immigration Court in York, Pennsylvania.

At the beginning of the 114th Congress, Judge Arthur left the bench and came back to Capitol Hill, where he served as Staff Director of the National Security Subcommittee at House Oversight and Government Reform before taking retirement from federal service in September 2016.

He is a graduate of the University of Virginia (BA 1988), and of the George Washington University School of Law (JD 1992).

Center for Immigration Studies blog

photo: CIS.org

DACA and REAL ID, a Contradiction in Terms?

By Andrew R. Arthur on October 16, 2017

Much has been said and written in recent days about DACA, or “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.” Interestingly, by its terms, that program appears to contradict the REAL ID Act on the issue of whether the aliens covered by that program have “lawful status.” In reality, however, it does not.

As you’re likely aware, this “executive action” was put into place by Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano on June 15, 2012. In the memorandum setting forth how that program was to be applied, Secretary Napolitano explained: “This memorandum confers no substantive right, immigration status or pathway to citizenship. Only the Congress, acting through its legislative authority, can confer these rights.” [Emphasis added.]

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) was given the responsibility to implement this program. On the agency’s web site, responding to the question “What is DACA?” the agency explains:

On June 15, 2012, the Secretary of Homeland Security announced that certain people who came to the United States as children and meet several guidelines may request consideration of deferred action for a period of two years, subject to renewal. They are also eligible for work authorization. Deferred action is a use of prosecutorial discretion to defer removal action against an individual for a certain period of time. Deferred action does not provide lawful status. [Emphasis added.]

In a “Frequently Asked Questions” page on DACA, USCIS, in response that question “What is deferred action?”, states:

Deferred action is a discretionary determination to defer a removal action of an individual as an act of prosecutorial discretion. For purposes of future inadmissibility based upon unlawful presence, an individual whose case has been deferred is not considered to be unlawfully present during the period in which deferred action is in effect. An individual who has received deferred action is authorized by DHS to be present in the United States, and is therefore considered by DHS to be lawfully present during the period deferred action is in effect. However, deferred action does not confer lawful status upon an individual, nor does it excuse any previous or subsequent periods of unlawful presence. [Emphasis added.]

Similarly, in a legal opinion from the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) captioned “The Department of Homeland Security’s Authority to Prioritize Removal of Certain Aliens Unlawfully Present in the United States and to Defer Removal of Others,” OLC stated:

As has historically been true of deferred action, these proposed deferred action programs [DACA and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA)] would not “legalize” any aliens who are unlawfully present in the United States: Deferred action does not confer any lawful immigration status, nor does it provide a path to obtaining permanent residence or citizenship. Grants of deferred action under the proposed programs would, rather, represent DHS’s decision not to seek an alien’s removal for a prescribed period of time.

Each of these authorities is clear as it applies to DACA that “deferred action” for purposes of that program does not constitute “lawful immigration status” or “lawful status” under the immigration laws.

What about the REAL ID Act? First, as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) describes it, the REAL ID Act, which was: Passed by Congress in 2005, enacted the 9/11 Commission’s recommendation that the Federal Government “set standards for the issuance of sources of identification, such as driver’s licenses.” The Act established minimum security standards for state-issued driver’s licenses and identification cards and prohibits Federal agencies from accepting for official purposes licenses and identification cards from states that do not meet these standards. READ THE REST HERE and see the linked information.

S