Click on page to view 4 page document.

ForWeb.com

Attachment to complaint against the City of Atlanta – D.A. King

The IERB has already found the City of Atlanta to be in violation of OCGA 50-36-1 in that Atlanta illegally processed and renewed business licenses without offering or collecting the required SAVE affidavits. These violations were estimated to number about 1400 each year for a period of at least five years – (2012-2016) – depending on when the 2017 business license renewals were processed.

1) Additional violation: False annual compliance report

OCGA 50-36-1 also requires that each agency administering public benefits file an annual compliance report. Assuming that the City of Atlanta filed such a report each of the years in question, those reports would be false. There is also a violation if such reports of compliance were not filed.

(OCGA 50-36-1 – “(k) It shall be unlawful for any agency or political subdivision to provide or administer any public benefit in violation of this Code section. Agencies and political subdivisions subject to the requirements of this subsection shall provide an annual report to the Department of Audits and Accounts pursuant to Code Section 50-36-4 as proof of compliance with this subsection. Any agency or political subdivision failing to provide a report as required by this subsection shall not be entitled to any financial assistance, funds, or grants from the Department of Community Affairs.”

2) Request for remedial action and investigation of settlement of prior complaint against the city of Atlanta: Re; Business license/occupational tax certificate for La Amistad, Inc. located at 3434 Roswell Road, NW Atlanta, GA.

La Amistad Inc. is operating in the city of Atlanta and was apparently one of the businesses from which Atlanta had not collected a SAVE affidavit as described above. A reply to an open records request (attached, marked “A”) reveals that the city of Atlanta does not have a SAVE affidavit (or an E-Verify affidavit) on file from La Amistad as of October 18, 2017. This is despite the pledge from Atlanta to rectify the violation for which the IERB has fined Atlanta.

I hereby request that the board investigate the original date of any business license issued to La Amistad Inc. so as to confirm that business was part of the list of non-profits excluded from the affidavit requirement of OCGA 50-36-1 by Atlanta.

Regardless of the original date of licensing, I also request that the board use its investigative authority and budget to learn why Atlanta has not collected the required SAVE affidavit from La Amistad. Operating a lawful administration of public benefits was a condition of the settlement of the prior complaint and sanction of $1000.00.

Washington Examiner

5 million immigrants enter under ‘diversity visa,’ 345% more than promised

Nov 6, 2017
Paul Bedard

The number of immigrants let into the U.S. under the “diversity visa” program pushed by Sen. Chuck Schumer and blamed in last week’s New York City terror attack is expected to reach nearly 5 million, more than 300 percent higher than promised, according to a new report.

While some 1.1 million since 1994 have or are slated to receive the visa in a lottery at a rate of about 50,000 a year, a loophole in the system allows them to bring in family members and that “chain migration” average is 3.45 additional immigrants per lottery winner, said the Center for Immigration Studies.

As a result, another 3,803,187 have or are expected to arrive, bringing the total let in under the special visa to 4.9 million.

“When accounting for chain migration, the visa lottery may have brought in more than 3.8 million people in total since 1994. Despite its supporters’ assurances that the visa lottery is responsible for only 50,000 immigrants in any given year, chain migration means that the program actually accounts for perhaps 165,000 new immigrants per year because of earlier lottery winners sponsoring their relatives,” said the report. HERE

AP/Breitbart

Breitbart News
Feds Charge Somalis With Visa-Lottery, Chain Migration Fraud

Neil Munro

Nov 6, 2017

The federal government is charging four Somalis with fraudulently obtaining green cards via the visa lottery and chain migration, and will deport them if they are found guilty.
“We cannot tolerate fraud, deception, and abuse of our legal immigration system,” said a November 6 statement from Elaine Duke, the acting head of the Department of Homeland Security. “Fraudulently obtained citizenship is an affront to our American values, the rule of law, and all those who honestly attained their immigration status.”

“Deterring, detecting, and investigating U.S. passport and U.S. visa fraud are essential to protecting the integrity of consular processes and safeguarding our national security,” said Carl Risch, and assistant secretary of state.

Officials did not state if the four people have used their alleged fraud to sponsor other migrants. But prior government reports suggest that fraud was nearly universal among Somalis seeking to bring supposed family members into the United States… Much more HERE.

photo: CDN History.com

One of Georgia’s U.S. Senators just informed me that DACA was created by executive order. It wasn’t.

Note: The below just arrived via email. I inserted an educational link. All Executive Orders are numbered. I link HERE Obama’s Executive Orders. Please let us know if you find DACA? For the 10000000000th time, it wasn’t an EO.

A response from Johnny Isakson

Thank you for contacting me regarding the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. I appreciate hearing from you and am glad to have the opportunity to respond.

In June 2012, the Obama administration created the “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals” (DACA) program by executive order. The program allowed those who came to the United States before the age of 16 to obtain a temporary stay of deportation and a work permit for two years on a renewable basis as long as they met specific criteria. Recipients were required to have arrived before June 2007; be attending school, have graduated or earned a GED, or have served in the military; and have not committed a serious crime or posed a threat to national security.

On September 5, 2017, the Trump administration announced that the Department of Homeland Security will no longer accept new applications for relief under DACA but will honor existing work permits until they expire. If an existing work permit expires before March 5, 2018, the holder can apply for a new two-year extension by October 5, 2017. Applications that are currently pending will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

I believe Congress should protect the young people who received status under DACA while working towards stronger measures to secure our borders and enforce our immigration laws going forward. Those who come to our country legally should be welcomed to share in the pursuit of the American dream. However, securing our borders and ending the opportunity for illegal entry is critical to the defense of our nation. It is crucial to our state and to our nation that we secure our borders, reject amnesty, and restore credibility to our immigration system.

Thank you again for contacting me. If I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me again.

Sincerely,
Johnny Isakson
United States Senator

For future correspondence with my office, please visit my web site at http://www.isakson.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/email-me. You can also click here to sign up for the eNewsletter

Georgia law on Immigration Enforcement Review Board HERE 

Decatur anti-enforcement immigration policy HERE

Georgia state law on sanctuary cities HERE.

 Bonus # 1: Federal sanctuary city law HERE.

Bonus # 2 Sanctuary Cities and Immigration detainers: A Primer HERE.

Bonus # 3 HERE.

CBS 46 news video added November 7, 2:38PM HERE

GEORGIA CODE
Copyright 2017 by The State of Georgia
All rights reserved.

*** Current through the 2017 Regular Session of the General Assembly. ***

TITLE 50. STATE GOVERNMENT
CHAPTER 36. VERIFICATION OF LAWFUL PRESENCE WITHIN UNITED STATES

O.C.G.A. § 50-36-3 (2017)

§ 50-36-3. Immigration Enforcement Review Board; membership; duties; sanctions; civil actions

(a) As used in this Code section, the term:

(1) “Board” means the Immigration Enforcement Review Board.

(2) “Public agency or employee” means any government, department, commission, committee, authority, board, or bureau of this state or any political subdivision of this state and any employee or official, whether appointed, elected, or otherwise employed by such a governmental entity.

(3) “Served” or “service” means delivery by certified mail or statutory overnight delivery, return receipt requested.

(b) The Immigration Enforcement Review Board is established and shall consist of seven members. Three members shall be appointed by the Governor, two members shall be appointed by the Lieutenant Governor, and two members shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives. A chairperson shall be selected by a majority vote of the members. All matters before the board shall be determined by a majority vote of qualified board members. Members shall be appointed for terms of two years and shall continue to hold such position until their successors are duly appointed and qualified. A member may be reappointed to an additional term. If a vacancy occurs in the membership of the board, the appropriate appointing party shall appoint a successor for the remainder of the unexpired term and until a successor is appointed and qualified.

(c) The board shall be attached to the Department of Audits and Accounting for administrative purposes. The members of the board shall receive no compensation for their services but shall be reimbursed for any expenses incurred in connection with the investigation and review of complaints from funds of the board appropriated to the Department of Audits and Accounting for such purposes.

(d) The Immigration Enforcement Review Board shall have the following duties:

(1) To conduct a review or investigation of any complaint properly filed with the board;

(2) To take such remedial action deemed appropriate in response to complaints filed with the board, including holding hearings and considering evidence;

(3) To make and adopt rules and regulations consistent with the provisions of this Code section; and

(4) To subpoena relevant documents and witnesses and to place witnesses under oath for the provision of testimony in matters before the board.

(e) The board shall have the authority to investigate and review any complaint with respect to all actions of a public agency or employee alleged to have violated or failed to properly enforce the provisions of Code Section 13-10-91, 36-80-23, or 50-36-1 with which such public agency or employee was required to comply. Complaints may be received from any legal resident of this state as defined by Code Section 40-2-1 who is also a legally registered voter. The method and grounds for filing a complaint shall be posted on the Department of Audits and Accounting’s website.

(f) The board shall meet at a minimum of once every three months and shall send a notice to all interested parties of the places and times of its meetings. The board shall issue a written report of its findings in all complaints which shall include such evaluations, judgments, and recommendations as it deems appropriate.

(g) The initial review or hearing may, as determined by the board, be conducted by the full board or by one or more board members. Such review panel or members shall make findings and issue an initial decision. The initial decision shall be served upon the complaining party and the applicable public agency or employee that is the subject of a complaint within 60 calendar days. If the findings are adverse to the public agency or employee, or both, such party shall have 30 days to take the necessary remedial action, if any, and show cause why sanctions should not be imposed.

(h) In the event that the remedial action does not occur to the satisfaction of the review panel or members, the reviewing panel or members shall make a recommendation specifying an appropriate sanction. Sanctions may include revocation of qualified local government status, loss of state appropriated funds, and a monetary fine of not less than $1,000.00 or more than $5,000.00. Sanctions shall only be imposed against an individual employee or official where there is a finding supported by a preponderance of the evidence that such individual knowingly and willfully violated or failed to abide by the provisions of Code Section 13-10-91, 36-80-23, or 50-36-1.

(i) The initial decision or recommendation for sanctions, or both, shall be served upon the complaining party and the applicable public agency or employee that is the subject of a complaint. Where an initial decision is made by fewer than the entire board, the decision may be appealed to the full board. Appeals shall be filed with the board not later than 30 days following the recommendation for sanctions, or 30 days following the initial decision, if no adverse findings were made. Appeals may be made by the complainant or sanctioned public agency or employee. The full board shall by majority vote affirm, overturn, or modify the initial decision. The board may conduct a further hearing on the matter, or make a final decision based on the record from any previously held hearing by the original reviewing panel or members, or determine that no action is necessary based on the information before the board. Where the initial decision or recommendation is made by the full board, such decision shall be the final decision of the board following 30 days after service on the public agency or employee, unless further action is taken by the board prior to the expiration of the 30 day period.

(j) When a public agency or employee fails to take the specified remedial action, the Attorney General shall be authorized to bring a civil mandamus action against such public agency or employee to enforce compliance with applicable law and the sanctions recommended by the board. Nothing contained in this Code section shall prohibit the Attorney General from seeking any other remedy available by law.

HISTORY: Code 1981, § 50-36-3, enacted by Ga. L. 2011, p. 794, § 20/HB 87.

We like page 45 and the topic that begins on line 25.

hearing-4-11-17-FULL

HERE