Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Georgia governor signs immigration bill (Illegal alien crackdown)
AP ^ | 4/17/2005 | None

Posted on 04/17/2006 3:02:27 PM PDT by HEMICRASHBOX

Gov. Sonny Perdue on Monday signed a sweeping immigration bill that supporters and critics say will make Georgia's laws among the toughest in the nation.

"I want to make this clear: we are not, Georgia's government is not, and this bill is not anti-immigrant," Perdue said Monday at a signing ceremony.

"We simply believe that everyone who lives in our state needs to abide by our laws."

The Georgia Security and Immigration Compliance Act will verify that adults seeking many state-administered benefits are in the country legally. It sanctions employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants and mandates that companies with state contracts check the immigration status of their employees.

The law will also require police to check the immigration status of people they arrest to see if they face deportation orders.

The measure is believed to be the first comprehensive immigration package to make it through a statehouse this session, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Many of the new law's provisions will not take effect until July 1, 2007.

Tisha Tallman, Southeast regional counsel for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, said she was studying potential legal challenges to the bill

Tallman said she was "incredibly disappointed" that Perdue signed the bill, rather than waiting for the federal government to act.

The bill drew protests at Georgia's state Capitol and prompted a daylong work stoppage by thousands of immigrants.

The new law will not affect emergency medical care and education for children in kindergarten through 12th grade, which federal courts have said must be provided regardless of immigration status. Exemptions were also added for some other services like prenatal care and the treatment communicable diseases.

The move to tighten up rules in Georgia comes as lawmakers in Washington wrestle with competing proposals to shore up controls at the border, create a guest worker program and create a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants already in the United States.

Outside the Capitol on Monday, a few hundred supporters of the legislation roared their applause when word came that Perdue was planning to sign the proposal.

The crowd waved American flags and cheered as state Rep. Melvin Everson, one of the Georgia House's two black Republicans, denounced illegal immigration as a cancer and proclaimed: "The last time I checked, America was the land of English _ not Spanish."

And they hollered as Republican state Sen. Chip Rogers, the bill's author, called it "the strongest single bill in America dealing with illegal immigration _ bar none."

But perhaps the greatest applause came when Catherine Davis, a black Republican running for Congress against U.S. Rep. Cynthia McKinney, was introduced.

If Davis is elected, she vowed, "I'd tell all the illegal aliens to go home."

At the bill signing on Monday, Rogers said he has been approached by state lawmakers from South Carolina and Colorado who were interested in crafting similar proposals for their states. And Rogers said he hoped to introduce legislation next year tackling document fraud, which he said undermines efforts to enforce immigration law.

Rogers acknowledged the bill Perdue signed on Monday is not a cure all, but said the state was acting where the federal government refused to.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; US: Georgia
KEYWORDS: aliens; ga; sonnyperdue
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-60 next last
To: Tarheel
But what about the complaints that it doesn't address document fraud, in fact intentionally ignores it, therefore all its provisions are basically unenforceable? After all, document fraud is the easiest thing in the world. Is that a valid complaint about this bill?

I notice in the above AP (read toilet journalism) article, one line towards the end says the legislature will take up document fraud at sometime in the future.

Is this law sound and fury, but no substance, meant to appear to fix the problem until an amnesty is passed?

Or am I just way too cynical?
21 posted on 04/17/2006 3:54:13 PM PDT by starbase (Understanding Written Propaganda (click "starbase" to learn 22 manipulating tricks!!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: HEMICRASHBOX
Did anyone else notice the word "hollered"?

I don't think that word would have been used if the AP were referring to anyone outside of the South.
22 posted on 04/17/2006 4:00:08 PM PDT by JRochelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JRochelle

Good point! If this had happened in Massachussettes they would have used "exhorted".

The AP is a left wing outfit, unfit for any serious analysis. Mostly 3rd rate Journey School dimwits with an axe to grind.


23 posted on 04/17/2006 4:12:07 PM PDT by navyguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Zack Nguyen
Repeating a negative is always bad.

You're right that quote is not the most eloquent, but then cruddy AP wrote this trashy article so they will always be as sour and pissy as they possibly can. (advice to Freepers, see the AP-close the browser window, I do, it's bliss)

Here's a much better quote from a short write up I read here.

“This bill makes it clear that Georgia is a welcoming state that wants to treat our guests with Southern hospitality,” Gov. Perdue said in a written statement. “But we cannot tolerate activity that distracts us from our ability to embrace those who come here legally.”

See how much nicer and more eloquent that sounds? If I were a cowardly journalist I guess I would have to assign the most unflattering dialog to my opponents to compensate for lack of intelligence on my part, too. Just as that poster in the pulled post #2 apparently did, but I didn't catch that one either (quick work Mods!).
24 posted on 04/17/2006 4:15:07 PM PDT by starbase (Understanding Written Propaganda (click "starbase" to learn 22 manipulating tricks!!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: HEMICRASHBOX

Doesn't this bill authorize the taxpayers to pay for prenatal care for illegals so that they can safely give birth to anchor babies on US soil? I do believe it does.


25 posted on 04/17/2006 4:30:09 PM PDT by Jim_Curtis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lsjogren; Zack Nguyen
By the way, I think it's wonderful how many Vietnamese Americans stand up for the pro-borders cause.

My vietnamese girlfriend is certainly for enforcement of the borders. I've heard many stories of how Vietnamese immigrants have to spend years in the philipines while mexicans just walk across the border.

26 posted on 04/17/2006 4:34:48 PM PDT by JeffAtlanta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Jim_Curtis
Doesn't this bill authorize the taxpayers to pay for prenatal care for illegals so that they can safely give birth to anchor babies on US soil? I do believe it does.

From an AJC article...

The law requires government agencies to verify the legal status of any adult applying for taxpayer-provided benefits. But the bill exempts things like prenatal care and treatment for communicable diseases.

And the new law did not even attempt to deal with what are estimated to be the largest costs: emergency medical care for illegal immigrants or the ability of their children to attend public schools. Those taxpayer-supported services have been guaranteed by the federal courts.


27 posted on 04/17/2006 4:37:30 PM PDT by JeffAtlanta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: JeffAtlanta
The law requires government agencies to verify the legal status of any adult applying for taxpayer-provided benefits. But the bill exempts things like prenatal care...

And as soon as the taxpayer-provided anchor baby birth occurs, the parents status changes to legal and they then get all of the other taxpayer-provided benefits.

Georgia is advertising for invader families with nine months pregnant soon-to-be mothers to move to Georgia. If they time it just right they can get benefits the next day.

28 posted on 04/17/2006 4:50:55 PM PDT by Jim_Curtis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Jim_Curtis
And as soon as the taxpayer-provided anchor baby birth occurs, the parents status changes to legal and they then get all of the other taxpayer-provided benefits.

I'm not sure if you're interpreting that correctly...

The status of the parent doesn't change to "legal" - it's just that the government is less likely to deport the child's parents. (It's not like the government deports anyone anyway). The Georgia law doesn't make this situation any worse, it just doesn't address it. As far as I know, no other state checks either so it's not clear why anyone would target GA.

The anchor baby might be eligible for social services but the parents would not be under the new law. If anything pregnant illegals will want to steer clear of Georgia.

29 posted on 04/17/2006 5:03:55 PM PDT by JeffAtlanta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: HiJinx

ping


30 posted on 04/17/2006 5:06:37 PM PDT by DumpsterDiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HEMICRASHBOX

Thank you, Governor Perdue. You did not let me down, which is becoming increasingly more rare for Republicans these days.


31 posted on 04/17/2006 5:10:36 PM PDT by Hoodat ( Silly Dems, AYBABTU.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hoodat
Thank you, Governor Perdue. You did not let me down, which is becoming increasingly more rare for Republicans these days.

The republican legislature deserves the credit. Perdue was actually hesitant in signing it. A week or so ago he wasn't even sure if he would sign it.

Perdue's the first Republican governor since reconstruction in Georgia but he's not that sharp.

32 posted on 04/17/2006 5:17:18 PM PDT by JeffAtlanta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: HEMICRASHBOX

Thank you Georgia for not waiting on the feds to act.


33 posted on 04/17/2006 5:23:01 PM PDT by RightWinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: starbase
...complaints that it doesn't address document fraud, in fact intentionally ignores it, therefore.

I was unaware of the lack of document fraud provisions--that is a serious oversight. Nonetheless, the law may be flawed but it is at least a start and the legislature is at least 'acting' as though they are listening to their constituents.

34 posted on 04/17/2006 5:25:12 PM PDT by Tarheel (from what was North Carolina and is now North Mexolina)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: HEMICRASHBOX

As one state cracks down the illegals will just move to more friendlier states. Hopefully that'll encourage the rest of them to do the same as Georgia's doing since the Feds refuse to act.


35 posted on 04/17/2006 5:39:09 PM PDT by Reaganwuzthebest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HEMICRASHBOX
Are you listening Senator? Are you listening Senator? Are you listening Senator? Are you listening Senator? Are you listening Senator? Are you listening Senator? Are you listening Senator? Are you listening Senator? Are you listening Senator? Are you listening Senator? Are you listening Senator? Are you listening Senator? Are you listening Senator? Are you listening Senator? Are you listening Senator? Are you listening Senator? Are you listening Senator? Are you listening Senator? Are you listening Senator? Are you listening Senator? Are you listening Senator? Are you listening Senator? Are you listening Senator? Are you listening Senator? Are you listening Senator? Are you listening Senator? Are you listening Senator? Are you listening Senator? Are you listening Senator? Are you listening Senator? Are you listening Senator? Are you listening Senator? Are you listening Senator? Are you listening Senator? Are you listening Senator? Are you listening Senator? Are you listening Senator? Are you listening Senator? Are you listening Senator? Are you listening Senator? Are you listening Senator? Are you listening Senator? Are you listening Senator? Are you listening Senator? Are you listening Senator? Are you listening Senator? Are you listening Senator? Are you listening Senator? Are you listening Senator? Are you listening Senator? Are you listening Senator? Are you listening Senator? Are you listening Senator? Are you listening Senator? Are you listening Senator? Are you listening Senator?

Are you listening Mr. Congressman and Ms. Congresswoman? Are you listening Mr. Congressman and Ms. Congresswoman? Are you listening Mr. Congressman and Ms. Congresswoman? Are you listening Mr. Congressman and Ms. Congresswoman? Are you listening Mr. Congressman and Ms. Congresswoman? Are you listening Mr. Congressman and Ms. Congresswoman? Are you listening Mr. Congressman and Ms. Congresswoman? Are you listening Mr. Congressman and Ms. Congresswoman? Are you listening Mr. Congressman and Ms. Congresswoman? Are you listening Mr. Congressman and Ms. Congresswoman? Are you listening Mr. Congressman and Ms. Congresswoman? Are you listening Mr. Congressman and Ms. Congresswoman? Are you listening Mr. Congressman and Ms. Congresswoman? Are you listening Mr. Congressman and Ms. Congresswoman? Are you listening Mr. Congressman and Ms. Congresswoman? Are you listening Mr. Congressman and Ms. Congresswoman? Are you listening Mr. Congressman and Ms. Congresswoman? Are you listening Mr. Congressman and Ms. Congresswoman? Are you listening Mr. Congressman and Ms. Congresswoman? Are you listening Mr. Congressman and Ms. Congresswoman? Are you listening Mr. Congressman and Ms. Congresswoman? Are you listening Mr. Congressman and Ms. Congresswoman? Are you listening Mr. Congressman and Ms. Congresswoman? Are you listening Mr. Congressman and Ms. Congresswoman? Are you listening Mr. Congressman and Ms. Congresswoman? Are you listening Mr. Congressman and Ms. Congresswoman? Are you listening Mr. Congressman and Ms. Congresswoman? Are you listening Mr. Congressman and Ms. Congresswoman? Are you listening Mr. Congressman and Ms. Congresswoman? Are you listening Mr. Congressman and Ms. Congresswoman? Are you listening Mr. Congressman and Ms. Congresswoman? Are you listening Mr. Congressman and Ms. Congresswoman? Are you listening Mr. Congressman and Ms. Congresswoman? Are you listening Mr. Congressman and Ms. Congresswoman? Are you listening Mr. Congressman and Ms. Congresswoman?

Mr. Presidente, Can you hear us? Mr. Presidente, Can you hear us? Mr. Presidente, Can you hear us? Mr. Presidente, Can you hear us? Mr. Presidente, Can you hear us? Mr. Presidente, Can you hear us? Mr. Presidente, Can you hear us? Mr. Presidente, Can you hear us? Mr. Presidente, Can you hear us? Mr. Presidente, Can you hear us? Mr. Presidente, Can you hear us? Mr. Presidente, Can you hear us? Mr. Presidente, Can you hear us? Mr. Presidente, Can you hear us? Mr. Presidente, Can you hear us? Mr. Presidente, Can you hear us? Mr. Presidente, Can you hear us? Mr. Presidente, Can you hear us? Mr. Presidente, Can you hear us? Mr. Presidente, Can you hear us? Mr. Presidente, Can you hear us? Mr. Presidente, Can you hear us? Mr. Presidente, Can you hear us? Mr. Presidente, Can you hear us? Mr. Presidente, Can you hear us? Mr. Presidente, Can you hear us? Mr. Presidente, Can you hear us? Mr. Presidente, Can you hear us? Mr. Presidente, Can you hear us? Mr. Presidente, Can you hear us? Mr. Presidente, Can you hear us? Mr. Presidente, Can you hear us? Mr. Presidente, Can you hear us? Mr. Presidente, Can you hear us? Mr. Presidente, Can you hear us? Mr. Presidente, Can you hear us? Mr. Presidente, Can you hear us? Mr. Presidente, Can you hear us? Mr. Presidente, Can you hear us? Mr. Presidente, Can you hear us? Mr. Presidente, Can you hear us? Mr. Presidente, Can you hear us? Mr. Presidente, Can you hear us? Mr. Presidente, Can you hear us?

Do we need to start shouting that we want the laws enforced? Do we need to start shouting that we want you to follow your Oath of Office? Do we need to start shouting that we want the laws enforced? Do we need to start shouting that we want you to follow your Oath of Office? Do we need to start shouting that we want the laws enforced? Do we need to start shouting that we want you to follow your Oath of Office? Do we need to start shouting that we want the laws enforced? Do we need to start shouting that we want you to follow your Oath of Office? Do we need to start shouting that we want the laws enforced? Do we need to start shouting that we want you to follow your Oath of Office? Do we need to start shouting that we want the laws enforced? Do we need to start shouting that we want you to follow your Oath of Office? Do we need to start shouting that we want the laws enforced? Do we need to start shouting that we want you to follow your Oath of Office? Do we need to start shouting that we want the laws enforced? Do we need to start shouting that we want you to follow your Oath of Office? Do we need to start shouting that we want the laws enforced? Do we need to start shouting that we want you to follow your Oath of Office? Do we need to start shouting that we want the laws enforced? Do we need to start shouting that we want you to follow your Oath of Office?

36 posted on 04/17/2006 5:40:01 PM PDT by B4Ranch (Immigration Control and Border Security -The jobs George W. Bush doesn't want to do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tarheel
Nonetheless, the law may be flawed but it is at least a start and the legislature is at least 'acting' as though they are listening to their constituents.

Well, I guess it's better than a stick in the eye!
37 posted on 04/17/2006 5:41:49 PM PDT by starbase (Understanding Written Propaganda (click "starbase" to learn 22 manipulating tricks!!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: JeffAtlanta
I'm not sure if you're interpreting that correctly...

The status of the parent doesn't change to "legal" - it's just that the government is less likely to deport the child's parents. (It's not like the government deports anyone anyway).

I suppose, but it sure doesn't look like this new law is very "tough on illegals". I hadn't even realized that illegals were getting any taxpayer benefits before all of a sudden it became the definition of "tough on illegals" to "cut off some welfare benefits".

Appears to me to be an empty law meant to give the perception that they are doing something.

38 posted on 04/17/2006 6:11:23 PM PDT by Jim_Curtis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: DumpsterDiver; 1_Inch_Group; 2sheep; 2Trievers; 3AngelaD; 3pools; 3rdcanyon; 4Freedom; ...

Lotsa stuff today. Thanks for the ping, DD.

First, hooray for Georgia! The Feds won't do it, the States and individual citizens are going to pick up the slack.

There won't be any other pings to the list for today. I'm having fun with the Virginia Corporation Commission, and need to get some ducks lined up.

To see what's been posted, use the keyword 'aliens'. Most of our actively involved FReepers will index appropriate articles with that word, and they become easy to find.

Thanks to all, and I'll try to hit it again tomorrow!


39 posted on 04/17/2006 6:38:49 PM PDT by HiJinx (Secure Our Borders ~ Now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: HEMICRASHBOX

FINALLY!!!! I was getting worried.


40 posted on 04/17/2006 6:40:18 PM PDT by Protect the Bill of Rights (GOP, The Other France)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-60 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson