D.A. King, Author at New Dustin Inman Society

“School choice” in Georgia: GOP Senate passed SB 233 with no requirement that “parents” have legal immigration status

March 8, 2023 By D.A. King

Senate Education and Youth committee hearing on SB 233, Feb 28, 2023

A line-by-line look at the role of parents in the proposed new state “Promise Scholarship” grant

Creation of a new state grant to be known as a “Promise scholarship” for which parents must apply for student’s access to state funds.

___

There is no requirement that “parents” be U.S. citizens or have legal immigration status.

Lines 32 & 33: “Parents” can also be a legal guardian, custodian, or other person with legal authority to act on behalf of a student.”

Lines 66 & 67: A student shall qualify for a promise scholarship account under this chapter if: The student’s parent or parents currently reside within Georgia;

Lines 78-81: It is the “parent” who begins the process of accessing the new “Promise scholarship” state grant for the student (and thereby the family) by submitting an application to the state – “The student’s parent submits an application for an account to the commission no later than the deadline established by the commission.”

Lines 101-104: “Parents” are the recipient of the state funds for the “Promise scholarship” and student account funds are a result of the choice of the parent.

“Any account funds directed to a participating school or service provider are so directed on behalf of the participating student’s parent, the recognized recipient of such participating student’s account funds, and wholly as a result of the genuine and independent private choice of the parent.”

Republican state Senator Greg Dolezal, lead sponsor SB 233.

The “parent” signs an “agreement” promising to do and not do certain things in relation to the student’s education.

Related: “School choice” and illegal immigration in Georgia: A pro-enforcement look at SB 233 (read the update on top).

Lines 105-108: The parent of each student participating in the program shall comply fully with the participating school or service provider’s rules and policies. Any parent who fails to comply with the provisions of this chapter and commission regulations relating to the program shall forfeit the account and all account funds therein. (If there is monitoring and then enforcement).

Lines 156 -159: “The commission shall develop a system for parents to direct account funds to participating schools and service providers by electronic funds transfer, automated clearing-house transfer, or another system that the commission finds to be commercially viable, cost-effective, and easy for parents of participating students to use.

The new state grant would set up a system of reimbursements for out-of-pocket expenditures for…parents.

Lines 160 – 163: (The) commission shall not adopt a system that relies solely on reimbursing parents for out-of-pocket expenses, but may determine certain qualified education expenses that must require reimbursement or preapproval for purchase (italics mine). The commission is authorized to qualify private financial management firms to manage the payment system.

“Parents” will be appointed by the state to serve on an oversight committee that makes decisions on eligible/qualified expenses.

Lines 186 – 192 “To assist in the determination of whether certain expenses meet the requirements to be considered a qualified education expense under this chapter, a parent review committee shall be established. The committee shall be composed of eight parents of eligible students. Four of the parents shall reside in local school systems with student enrollment greater than 10,000, and four of the parents shall reside in local school systems with student enrollment less than 10,000.”

There is no requirement that “parents” be U.S. citizens or have legal immigration status.

___

We have a solution: Only U.S. citizens and green card holders should be allowed to apply for or benefit from “Promise scholarship” benefits.

SB 233 amend LC 49 1388S

March 6, 2023 By D.A. King

RUSHED: Strikes and new language (red) SB 233 LC 49 1388S

LG, et al:

Lines 24 & 25 ‘Account’ or ‘promise scholarship account’ means a consumer directed state grant creating an account established pursuant to this chapter and composed of state funds deposited on behalf of

Lines 31 & 32 ‘Parent’ means a biological parent, legal guardian, custodian, or other person with legal authority to act on behalf of a student and who is a U.S. citizen or has legal immigration status according to the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act.

Lines 36 & 37 ‘Participating student’ means a student who is a U.S. citizen or has legal immigration status according to the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act for whom an account has been established pursuant to this chapter.

Lines 65 – 69 (a) A student shall qualify for a promise scholarship state grant account under this chapter if: (1) The student’s parent or parents are residents of Georgia as defined in OCGA 40-5-1 (15) (B) ~~currently reside within Georgia~~ and ; (2) The student is an eligible student as defined in Code Section 20-2A-1 and does not meet any of the ineligibility criteria provided for in subsection (b) of Code Section 20-3-519.1 .

Lines 77 & 78 The student’s parent who submits an application shall be known as “applicant” submits an application for an account to the commission no later

than the deadline established by the commission; provided, however, that the commission.

What will happen to immigrants admitted through Biden’s illegal parole program?

March 5, 2023 By D.A. King

If Georgia state Senator Greg Dolezal and the cosponsors of SB 233 prevail, Biden’s illegally paroled aliens can come here for a new state benefit (a “Promise Scholarship”) that would provide private school tuition.

Washington Examiner

Conn Carroll

March 3, 2023

President Joe Biden created the current border crisis by ending the previous administration’s Remain in Mexico program and creating loopholes in Title 42 enforcement. From that moment, the flood of immigrants arrested for illegally crossing the southern border has become so large that Border Patrol agents literally could not process them fast enough into the U.S.

At first, Border Patrol would spend two hours with each immigrant family, interviewing them, fingerprinting them, and issuing them a “notice to appear” in court that begins their deportation process. It is during these proceedings that most immigrants assert asylum as a defense against deportation. Almost all of them lose their asylum case, or abandon their asylum claim, but unless they commit a violent crime, Biden won’t deport them anyway.

THE BIDEN BORDER CRISIS EXPLAINED

Two hours was simply far too long to spend with all the immigrants who answered Biden’s call of “you should come,” so the Biden administration shortened the review process to just 30 minutes and instead of a “notice to appear” in court, immigrants were given a “notice to report” to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement field office near their final destination. These ICE field offices would then interview immigrants and start the deportation process. Problem is, ICE field offices were not, and are not, equipped to process all the immigrants sent their way.

One way Biden managed to deal with the overflow of immigrants arrested for illegally crossing the southern border was to just grant them “parole.” Immigration law has included a parole power for decades, but in 1996, Congress specifically acted to limit this parole power.

“In recent years … parole has been used increasingly to admit entire categories of aliens who do not qualify for admission under any other category in immigration law, with the intent that they will remain permanently in the United States,” the House committee wrote at the time. “This contravenes the intent of [current law].”

The new law narrowed the parole power to “only on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons.”

Biden has driven a Mack truck through this loophole, releasing almost a million immigrants into the U.S. through the parole power alone. This is clearly illegal, and 20 states have sued Biden to end the program.

Biden’s abuse of the parole power is so egregious that even some usually friendly reporters have begun to question just what is supposed to happen to all those immigrants who have been released through Biden’s parole program.

“Biden has made unprecedented use of a discretionary immigration tool called parole to respond to migration crises,” Axios’s Stef Kight writes. “The protection comes for many with an ominous two-year expiration date. The looming uncertainty faced by these people isn’t all that different from DACA recipients — undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children whose protection under former President Obama’s program is now in question.”

The DACA analogy is a good one because that was also an illegal abuse of presidential power.

So, what will happen to immigrants granted parole by Biden after their two years are up? Well, if Biden is still president, he’ll simply grant them parole again. And again. And if another Democrat is elected president, again.

If a Republican is elected,… Please read the rest here.

Why I was not allowed to speak in committee Feb 28, 2023 – State grant, Public benefit, Promise scholarship #SchoolChoice #SB233

March 1, 2023 By D.A. King

“Parents” who apply for the proposed state grant in SB 233 and serve on the oversight committee are not required to be U.S. citizens or green card holders. There is no mention of OCGA 50-36-1 in the bill.

Background:

After posting this column yesterday and sending it to the Republican members of the Senate and House, I learned there was a (surprise!) 2:30 PM hearing on the below bill (SB 233). I hurried to Downtown Atlanta and made it to the hearing room before the Senate Education and Youth committee meeting began.

I was the first person to sign up to speak on the bill. The chairman of the committee is Senator Clint Dixon, Republican, Buford. Knowing that I would spill the beans on the bill, Dixon began calling names to speak from the bottom of the list.

When he got to number two on the list, Dixon told the room “the audience isn’t going to like this, but comments are over.” I was prevented from speaking and offering an experienced and educated analysis of the phony immigration part of the legislation. I was cancelled by the Chamber of Commerce Republicans. Dixon is a shameless coward. The Republicans passed out the bill. Senator Ed Setzler made the motion “do pass.” It should be noted that Dolezal was careful to avoid any mention illegal immigration in his presentation.

Why I was not allowed to speak in committee. The proposed “Promise scholarship” seems to be a “State grant” and therefore a public benefit. They want to pass the bill before TMI gets out.

There is zero in the bill (SB233) that even mentions the “parent” having any legal immigration status, but the “parent” is the one making the application for the “Promise scholarship.” I submit that this is a public benefit under existing law. If so, there is an admin requirement designed to prevent illegal aliens from accessing the State grant/public benefit.

Further, the bill refers to Title IX student eligibility categories that includes (humanitarian/immigration) parolees as being eligible for the “Promise scholarship” grant. Since state law requires verification of lawful presence of the applicant, it is difficult to imagine that the intent and effect of the law does not require that the student (the final beneficiary and user of the grant) also have lawful presence, even if student is too young to be the applicant for that public benefit.

______

OCGA 50-36-1

Verification of Lawful Presence within the United States

(3) “Applicant” means any natural person, 18 years of age or older, who has made application for access to public benefits on behalf of an individual, business, corporation, partnership, or other private entity.

(4) “Public benefit”‘ means a federal, a state, or local benefit which shall include the following:

(K) Grants;

(V) State grant or loan; 

(b) Except as provided in subsection (d) of this Code section or where exempted by federal law, every agency or political subdivision shall verify the lawful presence in the United States under federal immigration law of any applicant for public benefits.”

______

In examples of “State grants” there is a long list of grants for scholarships. “Promise Scholarship” isn’t on the list yet because it isn’t in law yet. But it seems to indeed be a grant and should fall under the verification requirements in OCGA 50-36-1.

In the “school choice” bill for the “Promise Scholarship,” it is the “parent” who makes the application for the (Promise Scholarship) grant:

SB 233 “(1) ‘Account’ or ‘promise scholarship account’ means a consumer directed account

established pursuant to this chapter and composed of state funds deposited on behalf of

a participating student and which may be used for qualified education expenses.”

“(4) The student’s parent submits an application for an account to the commission no later

than the deadline established by the commission; provided, however, that the commission

shall provide quarterly application periods that correspond with quarterly funding dates

pursuant to subsection (b) of Code Section 20-2B-5.”

____

Definition of “grant.” (different than “state grant.”)

“Grant” itself must be understood according to its ordinary meaning in the context in which it is used. O.C.G.A. § 1-3-1 (b). Consequently, in partial response to your question, in defining “grant” as it does, FOGA does not indicate that all expenditures from appropriations for “per diem, fees, and contracts” are regulated. FOGA regulates only those expenditures which conform to the ordinary meaning of grant, i.e. those which are in the nature of a gift or aid for a particular purpose. See Webster’s 3d New International Dictionary 1398 (1961).”