An open letter to Georgia’s Immigration Enforcement Review Board

D.A. King

Special to The Telegraph June 22, 2017

D.A. King

“And Deal spokesman Brian Robinson said Deal intended his appointees to the board to take a hard line on immigration.”

“Gov. Deal signed this piece of legislation (HB 87) into law not so that it could be neutered and used as window dressing,” Robinson said.

“This immigration law is meant to have teeth. We want it to be enforced.” — 2011

Dear members of the Immigration Enforcement Review Board:

After no little trouble on my part, nearly a year ago, I filed a valid complaint against the city of Atlanta because it refused to protect public benefits according to state law which received much national news coverage when it was created in 2006 and international media attention the last time it was modified (2011).

OCGA 50-36-1 clearly requires all agencies that administer public benefits — including business licenses/occupational tax certificates — to follow simple and standardized procedures to help insure that applicants are eligible and are not illegal aliens. The city of Atlanta acknowledged their Business License Office was not following the state law, but defiantly defended themselves by saying they were in compliance with their own city ordinance on the process.

The IERB made a unanimous decision that my complaint is accurate and that city of Atlanta was in violation and sent me this letter to that effect. The IERB “requested” that Atlanta take remedial action to correct the estimated 6,000 violations that occurred over the course of five years.

While I awaited a meaningful sanction from the board on which you serve, apparently a procedural error was discovered which caused the entire hearing process on my complaint to be repeated from the beginning.

The original finding of violation had zero effect on the defense from the city of Atlanta in the second version of your proceedings. Their lawyer brought in the same witness to make the same “Ground Hog Day” claim: “We are in compliance with city law…and since state law doesn’t mention non-profit businesses, we think the law is ambiguous and difficult to obey or understand…”

I have received a second letter from the IERB with the same finding of violation and the same “request” that Atlanta obey the law. We should all be so lucky in our own business and daily responsibilities under the law.

Window dressing indeed.

I write today to make it clear that it is my assumption that the current delay in further IERB action and a meaningful punishment is intended to allow the city of Atlanta time to now begin compliance and escape any sanctions by simply stating they have stopped their violations. State law allows the IERB to impose punishments that will deter other agencies from future violations.

Having had similar experience with the IERB since its inception, I offer the request that if there is no intention of real use of authority in investigation of further violations or any real sanctions for clear violations of the law over which you have authority, the board members admit there is no reason for it to exist and to explain that premise to the General Assembly and the people of Georgia.

The pervasive official attitude across the state is that 2011’s HB 87 and all laws aimed at the crime of illegal immigration can easily be treated as optional in Georgia. The IERB and so far, the Attorney General’s office have done nothing to change that perception. I am aware that state law allows the AG’s office to prosecute violations of the three laws over which the IERB has preview totally separately and in addition to whatever action the board takes — or does not take.

As you know, I have more than 10 additional complaints pending with the board. I have little confidence in fair resolution. I am now beginning the process of seeking assistance for a remedy in the court system, where adjudication of violations of state law have a better chance of seeing real, wholehearted attention and justice. I am not going to ignore the board’s inaction despite the fact that the governor, the Legislature and Atlanta’s media does exactly that.

While I am aware some board members sincerely strive for an equal application of the law, I hope that you will all make recommendations to the General Assembly to disband the IERB and allow a workable, enthusiastic justice system that actually uses investigative authority to take over.

I also note here that I have a great deal of trouble recalling more than one meeting or hearing since the board’s creation in 2011 that saw attendance by the entire board membership.

Including in the “watch-dog media,” to my experienced knowledge, I am the only person in Georgia who pays attention to compliance on the illegal immigration legislation passed by the General Assembly and signed into law by Gov. Deal or investigates obvious violations.

Photo: Bensbiltong.com

UPDATED May 13, 2019. Governor Kemp signed this bill yesterday. The IERB is officially abolished. Good riddance!

The bill (HB553) that repeals the law that created the IERB received zero “NAY” votes. We are confident the governor will allow this bill to become law. Did we say “WHOPPEE?” Please see here for a little more insight on our joy. See here for more info from Decaturish.com

DIS archive of IERB here.

HB 553

PART XVII
318 SECTION 17-1.

319 Title 50 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to state government, is amended
320 by repealing Code Section 50-36-3, relating to the Immigration Enforcement Review Board,
321 membership, duties, sanctions, and civil actions, and designating said Code section as
322 reserved.

323 SECTION 17-2.
324 Any assets of the Immigration Enforcement Review Board existing as of June 30, 2019, shall
325 devolve by operation of law and without further action to the State of Georgia on July 1,
326 2019. Any liabilities and obligations of the Immigration Enforcement Review Board existing
327 as of June 30, 2019, shall be transferred to and assumed by the State of Georgia, by such
328 instruments as may be required to maintain the same.

IERB – Immigration Enforcement Review Board

Photo: Bensbiltong.com

OCGA 50-36-3

Positions on the IERB are not lifetime appointments and are limited by the language of the state law establishing the board

“(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.”

The General Assembly established the limits on terms to be served by members after they were appointed and reappointed. With use of the common English word, “an” additional term – the limit is two terms of two years each term.

The second part of the *sentence, “…and shall continue to hold such position until their successors are duly appointed and qualified” doesn’t mean members can legally serve an unlimited period of time, it merely add suspenders to the language that serves as the belt that regulates term limits.

→The language in the sentence does not say “or shall continue to hold such position until their successors are duly appointed and qualified” – it says “and.” The wording simply lays out the protection of member’s positions from any unforeseen future objection to their qualifications to be board members.

It may be redundant, but it does not a serve as disqualifier to the other part of the sentence or the intent of the law on term limits. The legislature did not pass language to designate limit terms only to reverse that intent or language in the same sentence of the code section.

The 2015 Balli/Clark reappointment letter from Speaker David Ralston is written using “…or until a successor is duly appointed.” State Rep David Ralston does not have the legal authority to appoint a member to serve beyond the limits of the regulating law.

If the respondent’s claim that they not only can, but must serve on the IERB until the appointing official replaces them by appointing a replacement, it serves to transfer the power of term limits – or endless terms – to the Governor, Lt. Governor and the Speaker of the House – which is not the intention or language of the law put into place by the legislature.

Using James Balli’s defense, once appointed, members could serve virtually lifetime terms if the appointing officials decide not to appoint replacements.

Photo: Bensbiltong.com

U.S. News & World Report
Jan 21, 2019

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.

Photo: Bensbiltong.com

Decaturish blog

January 8, 2019

Decaturish: State Immigration Board Settles Casey Cagle’s Complaint against Decatur

Here. 

Photo: Bensbiltong.com

Good Afternoon Mr. King,

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.

Respectively,

Carol Schwinne

From: Carol Schwinne
Sent: Friday, December 7, 2018 11:23 AM
To: D.A. King <dking1952@comcast.net>
Cc: James Balli <jballi@slhb-law.com>; Josiah Heidt <jheidt@law.ga.gov>
Subject: RE: Open Records Request

Good Morning Mr. King,

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.

Thank you,

D.A. King

Marietta, Ga.

(2) Letters in email:

Click on page below to read full document: