Transcription by Rev.com from Hannity’s podcast Jan 29, 2019
When I heard this on the radio today while driving, it sounded a lot like there was an effort to separate a path to citizenship from “amnesty.” I may be way too cynical and burned-out suspicious after hearing the insulting word games on this since 2005.
Make up your own mind.
“… asking for an opportunity to fix it themselves. I’m willing to compromise, as he has shown throughout this process. I’m willing to meet with anybody about a potential compromise, that’d be TPA and, and DACA Dreamers, whatever. As long as it doesn’t entail a path to citizenship and it doesn’t entail amnesty, and the president gets his money, I think he’d take any of those deals. And … But if he goes the national emergency route, well then Democrats get nothing. Anyway, joining us now Pollsters, John McLaughlin, McLaughlin and Associates, and Doug Schoen-…”
*UPDATED: Again, transcription Rev.com this AM. (expanded context, longer out take)
“Well, I think the president, if you look at it, is winning on the issue. The issue of protection our borders, you know is a, a issue. The issue of the shutdown, when it starts impact air travel, when it starts impacting … you keep hearing about TSA going out on the blue flue, meaning that they just … they’re going to make a statement. Air traffic control is going to make a statement. The president said, “All right, I’ve pushed that strategy as far as I can, these guys are asking for an opportunity to fix it themselves, I’m willing to compromise,” as he has shown throughout this process. “I’m willing to meet with anybody about a potential compromise,” that be TPA and, and docker, dreamers, whatever, as long as it doesn’t entail a path to citizenship, and it doesn’t entail amnesty, and the president gets his money, I think he’d take any of those deals.”
And … but, if he goes the national emergency route, will then Democrats get nothing. Anyway, joining us now Polster’s John McLaughlin, McLaughlin and associates. And Doug [inaudible 00:01:00]
Path to citizenship…amnesty…
I think some people may be confused on the context here. Hanity was speaking in hypothetical in the president’s voice. Below (on top) is a longer version of the outtake. UPDATED Jan 30, 8:00 AM.
In reading your response, I followed back up with our construction folks. First, I need to correct what I said with regard to the 30-day window between submissions and award. There is an approximately 10-day window between the bid submission deadline and bid review. If at the time of bid review, a contractor does not have its affidavit, the bid will not even be considered as part of the bid review.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 24, 2019, at 3:18 PM, D.A. King wrote:
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Natalie,
Thank you for your speedy reply.
I see that the hearing I watched on senate archive video was in fact not Sen Gooch explaining an amendment, but as you note, he was explaining the bill for the first time with the language in question already in the bill. My mistake. But it does not change the fact that SB445 serves to exclude GDOT and its potential contractors from the language of 13-10-91 in its requirement that bids on projects be considered only if they include a signed E-Verify affidavit.
The language of Section 3 of SB445 changes that process to “prior to award of any contract” – which would allow bids to be made and accepted for consideration without the mandated E-Verify affidavit. Two entirely different schedules. Your response “to make clear, NO project can be awarded, NO contract can be signed, NO work can be event started without the sworn affidavit under the language in SB 445” does not address that fact.
There was no constructive reason to add Section 3, as the law already required and carefully described the mandated affidavit process with the intent of not allowing bids from contractors who were not already E-Verify users.
I only referenced Day 40 in the context of the final passage of SB445 – not an amendment.
Thanks again for your timely reply.
D.A. King
On Jan 24, 2019, at 1:02 PM, Dale, Natalie wrote:
The language referenced in your questions was part of the original bill (verbatim) numbered as Section 2 (see hyperlink for original version http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/20172018/173852.pdf) as introduced by Senator Gooch. The Day 40 amendment you referenced dealt with the ability of certain municipalities to restrict truck weights on certain corridors.
With respect to the language with which you are concerned. That section did not change OCGA 13-10-91 but clarified in Title 32 when the signed, notarized affidavit had to be received by the Department. Those affidavits are physical documents while all other bid documents are electronically submitted. To make clear, NO project can be awarded, NO contract can be signed, NO work can be event started without the sworn affidavit under the language in SB 445. The language in the bill only accounts for a potential delay between the one document being sent in the mail and the others be submitting electronically. There is generally a 30-day period between bid submissions and bid awards. Any contract who fails to provide the signed affidavit will still be disqualified from being awarded the project.
From: D.A. King
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2019 8:50 PM
To: Dale, Natalie
Subject: Resend/Re: Repeat address error apology. The previous media request Re; SB445 (2018) .
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Natalie,
You may remember me from your time in the senate offices. I have worked on immigration-related bills under the Gold Dome since 2005. OCGA 13-10-91 is code that I helped produce and upgrade several times.
I am writing a piece for Insider Advantage Georgia that will highlight SB445, which passed the General Assembly last year on day 40. That bill was amended in the Senate Transportation Committee by Senator Steve Gooch, in part, with the addition of Section 3. In his remarks before presenting the amendment Senator Gooch told the room that “this is a department bill.” He also remarked that it was “a housekeeping bill.”
Section 3 inserted that day removes the requirement for GDOT in OCGA 13-10-91 that contractors must submit a sworn affidavit attesting to use of E-Verify before their bids may be considered by public employers.
Q: Was SB445 indeed the work of the GDOT?
Q: Was the Gooch amendment done at the direction of GDOT liaisons or management?
Q: Does the Commissioner fully understand the ramifications concerning illegal labor of changing the law to give GDOT a carve-out on the pre-bid E-Verify requirements in the contracting process?
My write-up will explain in detail the result of the Gooch amendment (Section 3) and allowing potential GDOT contractors to bid, win bids – and hire workers for a job – before they swear to use of E-Verify and the connection to the potential for use of illegal labor on GDOT contracts.
Q: Does GDOT have any comment on that potential, please? Will you please outline the reasoning for the Section 3 amendment if indeed it was a GDOT-pushed amendment?
My deadline is Friday, noon-ish. I expect the piece to run Monday or Tuesday.
Thank you in advance for your response.
D.A. King
404-316-6712
OCGA 13-10-91
(b) (1) A public employer shall not enter into a contract for the physical performance of services unless the contractor registers and participates in the federal work authorization program. Before a bid for any such service is considered by a public employer, the bid shall include a signed, notarized affidavit from the contractor attesting to the following:
(A) The affiant has registered with, is authorized to use, and uses the federal work authorization program;
(B) The user identification number and date of authorization for the affiant;
(C) The affiant will continue to use the federal work authorization program throughout the contract period; and
(D) The affiant will contract for the physical performance of services in satisfaction of such contract only with subcontractors who present an affidavit to the contractor with the same information required by subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of this paragraph.
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 23, 2019, at 6:57 PM, Dale, Natalie wrote:
I never received an email requesting information . Please resend .
Thank you !
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 23, 2019, at 6:10 PM, D.A. King wrote:
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Georgia’s Unnoticed, Rarely Used Immigration Review Board
The Peach State has had an immigration enforcement panel since 2011, staffed by volunteers with limited immigration expertise.
ATLANTA — Georgia has a state immigration board that, in almost a decade of existence, has only served two people.
The story begins in 2011, when Georgia lawmakers passed HB 87, one of the strictest laws in the U.S. aimed at curbing illegal immigration. But a provision in the law created something unique to the state: the Immigration Enforcement Review Board (IERB), tasked with investigating complaints about municipalities not enforcing immigration laws.
[ READ: Number of Immigrants in U.S. Illegally Hits Lowest Level Since 2004 ]
The seven-member board, made up of volunteers with little immigration or legal expertise, has the power to recommend sanctions against municipalities that they judge to not be following the law. Sanctions can include removal from Georgia’s list of qualified local governments, fines of $1,000 to $5,000, and loss of state funding, according to the IERB’s rules. Members are appointed for two-year terms by the governor, lieutenant governor and speaker of the House of Representatives. The annual budget is $20,000.
People on both sides of the immigration debate do not support the board in its current iteration.
Georgia’s board is a “curious way” to ensure legal compliance, says Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington, D.C.-based research organization that advocates for limited immigration. Usually, states give authority to ensure legal compliance to the attorney general or another state agency.
“I don’t think it’s had much effect at all on compliance with the law,” Vaughan says. “It was pretty much set up to fail.”
Azadeh Shahshahani, legal and advocacy director for Project South, a social justice organization based in Atlanta, says the board should not exist.
“From the start, (we’ve) had concerns about due process and fairness issues and really the fact that any vigilante member of the public can go ahead and file a complaint before this body,” she says. “The body has enormous power in terms of being able to subpoena people and documents and fine localities.”
James Balli – the IERB’s chairman – declined to comment, as did board member Rey Martinez. Read the rest here.
While the language of SB445 did not change the law on E-Verify and the bidding process for public contractors, it did create a carve out for GDOT in that the required affidavits attesting to use of E-Verify no longer need to be submitted before a bid is considered. Relevant language highlighted below. Note: This was not an accident and does have consequences. Only someone with in-depth knowledge of the system and the law could make tis wet change.
OCGA 13-10-91
“Before a bid for any such service is considered by a public employer, the bid shall include a signed, notarized affidavit from the contractor attesting to the following:
(A) The affiant has registered with, is authorized to use, and uses the federal work authorization program;
(B) The user identification number and date of authorization for the affiant;
(C) The affiant will continue to use the federal work authorization program throughout the contract period; and
(D) The affiant will contract for the physical performance of services in satisfaction of such contract only with subcontractors who present an affidavit to the contractor with the same information required by subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of this paragraph.”
2018’s SB445
“SECTION 3.
Said title is further amended in Code Section 32-2-69, relating to bidding process and award of contract, by adding a new subsection to read as follows:
“(f) The signed, notarized affidavit required in subsection (b) of Code Section 13-10-91 shall be submitted to the department prior to the award of any contract.”
SB445 2017-2018 Regular Session Department of Transportation; standards for contracts; contract bidding process and award procedure; provide
Sponsor: Senator Steve Gooch.
Second signer, Senator Brandon Beach, (3) Senator Butch Miller, (4) Senator Frank Ginn, (5) Senator Mike Dugan.
Transcription:
Begin after opening prayer.
Chairman Brandon Beach: Thank you, Senator. All right. We’re going to, um, we’ve got quite a bit of business to take care of. And, I know, Mr. Waller you need to go somewhere else, so we’re going to hear Senator Gooch’s bill first, um, it’s a SB-445 LC391852, and it’s a DOT bill, Senator. It’s a committee sub.
[inaudible 00:00:35] the bill out.
Okay. Okay wait- wait a second. It’s LC398-1877ERS.
All right. [inaudible 00:00:58].
Senator Steve Gooch: Okay. Yeah you too. All right, this is the annual housekeeping bill. We do one every year practically. We can go section by section of the bill. If y’all wanna question something stop me. Otherwise I’m gonna move through it pretty quick.
Section one, um, line 14, 15 simply strikes a reference to federal way highway contracting and applying to all contracts. This is dealing with- with bidding, um. So it has less to do with just federal highways but we were just bidding federal highway projects. We didn’t have enough money to do the other so now we’re applying this to every project in the, uh, in the DOT. It’s just in the- the, um, line requirements and so forth in that session.
Section two lines 45 through 50 simply clarifies that posting waiting advertisements on the department’s website also fulfills the notice requirement. Currently we’ve been putting the ads in the local papers when they do local weddings. Now we can notify the public by way of websites and that seems to be the more modern approach. It’s working better.
* Section three lines 54 and 55 makes clear that the deadline for a bidder to supply their sign notarized e-verify affidavit is prior to contract award as opposed to the bid submission. This has caused a problem with some of the contractors that submitted their e-verify affidavits but they didn’t reach to the department either by mail or by other means of delivery in time for the bid, um, deadlines and therefore they were disqualified from bidding on the work. Now essentially requires ’em to submit those e-verifies prior to the contracts being awarded.
Section four was developed at the request of the coordination of department of public safety to make sure that camping or temporary habitation on…end of audio provided to Rev.com
Atlanta Journal Constitution
OPINION
January, 11 2018
READERS WRITE
Weakness on illegal immigration mars legacy
The AJC story on the new portrait of Governor and Mrs. Deal focused largely on his accomplishments as Georgia’s chief executive. Although he campaigned heavily on the issue of illegal immigration in 2010, we note Deal’s silence on the fact that today’s Georgia is home to more illegal aliens than green card holders — more than border state Arizona. Deal now brushes off inquiries on the issue with “it’s a federal issue.”
Illegal employment is the main attraction for “undocumented workers.” One of the heavy burdens everyday Georgians must bear for Deal’s boast that “Georgia is number one for business” is his refusal to enforce the many state laws put in place to protect us from the crime of illegal immigration.
Deal should be remembered for turning his back on the rule of law and campaign promises that fooled gullible Republican voters.We deserve better and pray the incoming governor has a different value system.
On December 5, 2018 you filed an open records request for documents relating to the appointment and reappointment of James Balli to the Immigration Enforcement Review Board. On December 7, 2018, we provided you with a copy of a letter from Speaker Ralston documenting his original appointment. This was the only document we had available at that time. Chairman Balli has subsequently located a reappointment letter dated September 11, 2015. Therefore, we wanted to pass this on to you as well.
The attached document includes a copy of the original appointment and 2015 reappointment letter.
In response to your open records request dated December 5, 2018, I respectfully submit the attached letter from 2014 that appoints Mr. Balli to the Immigration Enforcement Review Board. Neither Chairman Balli nor I have a copy of the letter that reappointed him to the Board. The official records for appointments are maintained by the Clerk of the House.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Respectfully,
Carol Schwinne
—-Original Message—–
From: D.A. King <Dking1952@comcast.net>
Sent: Wednesday, December 5, 2018 5:39 PM
To: Carol Schwinne <Schwinne@audits.ga.gov>
Subject: open records request
To whom it may concern at the Dept. of Audits and Accounts,
Please regard this email as my official open records request under Georgia’s public records laws.
Please forward to me copies of any and all documents or emails related to the appointment and reappointment of James Balli to the state Immigration Enforcement Review Board.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions.
I would appreciate it if you could get me a detailed response to the letter I have attached by the end of the week.
Best Regards,
Josh McKoon
_____
Ashley,
Thanks again for sending along the reply letter dated October 23, 2018 today to my inquiry of September 5, 2018. I have forwarded the information you sent to the Georgia citizen, D.A. King, who was unable to get an answer from your office to the questions I sent to the Chancellor.
While it was not part of my inquiry, I am surprised and troubled to learn that GSU has had more problems with verification and has awarded illegal aliens instate tuition as the Chancellor’s letter describes. I am hopeful that the newest plan to properly separate students who lack legal status from U.S. citizens and non-citizens who obeyed our immigration laws in the registration and tuition determination process is finally successful.
The Chancellor reports that in May, 2018 it became known that GSU had applied an incorrect designation to “a few students” and these students were able to pay instate tuition. Please tell me exactly how many students were involved in this misclassification, how long they were allowed to pay instate tuition and if there is an effort to reclaim the underpaid amount of tuition.
Were any other USG schools found to have misclassified the immigration status of students or applicants in addition to GSU?
Also, while I am grateful to the Chancellor for his detailed response, I am still not clear on answers to my previous questions. Please see these inquiries again below and provide me answers to all questions in this letter before Friday?
*Is there any merit-based tuition reduction waiver that would or has applied to illegal aliens in the USG system as the NBC News piece that I cited reports?
*Does the USG system use the federal SAVE program to verify the immigration status of student applicants?
*If the SAVE system is used at USG admissions or elsewhere, please provide my office with the exact code and response to a USG query for applicants who are recipients of the federal DACA amnesty program.
