A list of friends of GALEO in a link to their original website.
Open records request Carroll County, E-Verify MOU – Re: OCGA 13-10-91
Sent Saturday, AM, Oct. 22, 2022.
Ms. Hyde,.
Please send me a copy of the E-Verify user agreement (MOU) between Carroll County and the U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security. Please include copies of all pages of that document.
Thank you,
D.A. King
_______
“13-10-91. Verification of new employee eligibility; applicability; rules and regulations.
(a) Every public employer, including, but not limited to, every municipality and county, shall register and participate in the federal work authorization program to verify employment eligibility of all newly hired employees. Upon federal authorization, a public employer shall permanently post the employer’s federally issued user identification number and date of authorization, as established by the agreement for authorization, on the employer’s website; provided, however, that if a local public employer does not maintain a website, then the local government shall submit such information to the Carl Vinson Institute of Government of the University of Georgia to be posted by the institute on the website created for local government audit and budget reporting. The Carl Vinson Institute of Government of the University of Georgia shall maintain the information submitted and provide instructions and submission guidelines for local governments. State departments, agencies, or instrumentalities may satisfy the requirement of this Code section by posting information required by this Code section on one website maintained and operated by the state.”
_______
Open records request Re; OCGA 13-10-91 Carroll County (2nd request) – updated with response and follow up
My follow up email:Ms. Hyde,
Please forgive me for a follow up email, but I want to be clear about my request. I am asking for the affidavit in use on Oct 4, 2022 by Carroll County as required by OCGA 13-10-91. I have emphasized the relevant language in the law below. Please let me know if your response is intended to fit my request – I want to exclude any possibility of misunderstanding or error on my part.Thank you,D.A. King13-10-91. Verification of new employee eligibility; applicability; rules and regulations.
(a) Every public employer, including, but not limited to, every municipality and county, shall register and participate in the federal work authorization program to verify employment eligibility of all newly hired employees. Upon federal authorization, a public employer shall permanently post the employer’s federally issued user identification number and date of authorization, as established by the agreement for authorization, on the employer’s website; provided, however, that if a local public employer does not maintain a website, then the local government shall submit such information to the Carl Vinson Institute of Government of the University of Georgia to be posted by the institute on the website created for local government audit and budget reporting. The Carl Vinson Institute of Government of the University of Georgia shall maintain the information submitted and provide instructions and submission guidelines for local governments. State departments, agencies, or instrumentalities may satisfy the requirement of this Code section by posting information required by this Code section on one website maintained and operated by the state.(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;(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.An affidavit required by this subsection shall be considered an open public record once a public employer has entered into a contract for physical performance of services; provided, however, that any information protected from public disclosure by federal law or by Article 4 of Chapter 18 of Title 50 shall be redacted. Affidavits shall be maintained by the public employer for five years from the date of receipt.(2) A contractor shall not enter into any contract with a public employer for the physical performance of services unless the contractor registers and participates in the federal work authorization program.(3) A subcontractor shall not enter into any contract with a contractor unless such subcontractor registers and participates in the federal work authorization program. A subcontractor shall submit, at the time of such contract, an affidavit to the contractor in the same manner and with the same information required in paragraph (1) of this subsection. It shall be the duty of any subcontractor receiving an affidavit from a sub-subcontractor to forward notice to the contractor of the receipt, within five business days of receipt, of such affidavit. It shall be the duty of a subcontractor receiving notice of receipt of an affidavit from any sub-subcontractor that has contracted with a sub-subcontractor to forward, within five business days of receipt, a copy of such notice to the contractor.(4) A sub-subcontractor shall not enter into any contract with a subcontractor or sub-subcontractor unless such sub-subcontractor registers and participates in the federal work authorization program. A sub-subcontractor shall submit, at the time of such contract, an affidavit to the subcontractor or sub-subcontractor with whom such sub-subcontractor has privity of contract, in the same manner and with the same information required in paragraph (1) of this subsection. It shall be the duty of any sub-subcontractor to forward notice of receipt of any affidavit from a sub-subcontractor to the subcontractor or sub-subcontractor with whom such receiving sub-subcontractor has privity of contract.(5) In lieu of the affidavit required by this subsection, a contractor, subcontractor, or sub-subcontractor who has no employees and does not hire or intend to hire employees for purposes of satisfying or completing the terms and conditions of any part or all of the original contract with the public employer shall instead provide a copy of the state issued driver’s license or state issued identification card of such contracting party and a copy of the state issued driver’s license or identification card of each independent contractor utilized in the satisfaction of part or all of the original contract with a public employer. A driver’s license or identification card shall only be accepted in lieu of an affidavit if it is issued by a state within the United States and such state verifies lawful immigration status prior to issuing a driver’s license or identification card. For purposes of satisfying the requirements of this subsection, copies of such driver’s license or identification card shall be forwarded to the public employer, contractor, subcontractor, or sub-subcontractor in the same manner as an affidavit and notice of receipt of an affidavit as required by paragraphs (1), (3), and (4) of this subsection. Not later than July 1, 2011, the Attorney General shall provide a list of the states that verify immigration status prior to the issuance of a driver’s license or identification card and that only issue licenses or identification cards to persons lawfully present in the United States. The list of verified state drivers’ licenses and identification cards shall be posted on the website of the State Law Department and updated annually thereafter. In the event that a contractor, subcontractor, or sub-subcontractor later determines that he or she will need to hire employees to satisfy or complete the physical performance of services under an applicable contract, then he or she shall first be required to comply with the affidavit requirements of this subsection.(6) It shall be the duty of the contractor to submit copies of all affidavits, drivers’ licenses, and identification cards required pursuant to this subsection to the public employer within five business days of receipt. No later than August 1, 2011, the Departments of Audits and Accounts shall create and post on its website form affidavits for the federal work authorization program. The affidavits shall require fields for the following information: the name of the project, the name of the contractor, subcontractor, or sub-subcontractor, the name of the public employer, and the employment eligibility information required pursuant to this subsection.(A) Public employers 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. Subject to available funding, the state auditor shall conduct annual compliance audits on a minimum of at least one-half of the reporting agencies and publish the results of such audits annually on the Department of Audits and Accounts’ website on or before September 30.(B) If the state auditor finds a political subdivision to be in violation of this subsection, such political subdivision shall be provided 30 days to demonstrate to the state auditor that such political subdivision has corrected all deficiencies and is in compliance with this subsection. If, after 30 days, the political subdivision has failed to correct all deficiencies, such political subdivision shall be excluded from the list of qualified local governments under Chapter 8 of Title 50 until such time as the political subdivision demonstrates to the state auditor that such political subdivision has corrected all deficiencies and is in compliance with this subsection.(C)
(i) At any time after the state auditor finds a political subdivision to be in violation of this subsection, such political subdivision may seek administrative relief through the Office of State Administrative Hearings. If a political subdivision seeks administrative relief, the time for correcting deficiencies shall be tolled, and any action to exclude the political subdivision from the list of qualified governments under Chapter 8 of Title 50 shall be suspended until such time as a final ruling upholding the findings of the state auditor is issued.(D) If the state auditor finds any political subdivision which is a state department or agency to be in violation of the provisions of this subsection twice in a five-year period, the funds appropriated to such state department or agency for the fiscal year following the year in which the agency was found to be in violation for the second time shall be not greater than 90 percent of the amount so appropriated in the second year of such noncompliance. Any political subdivision found to be in violation of the provisions of this subsection shall be listed on www.open.georgia.gov or another official state website with an indication and explanation of each violation.(8) Contingent upon appropriation or approval of necessary funding and in order to verify compliance with the provisions of this subsection, each year the Commissioner shall conduct no fewer than 100 random audits of public employers and contractors or may conduct such an audit upon reasonable grounds to suspect a violation of this subsection. The results of the audits shall be published on the www.open.georgia.gov website and on the Georgia Department of Labor’s website no later than December 31 of each year. The Georgia Department of Labor shall seek funding from the United States Secretary of Labor to the extent such funding is available.(9) Any person who knowingly and willfully makes a false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement in an affidavit submitted pursuant to this subsection shall be guilty of a violation of Code Section 16-10-20 and, upon conviction, shall be punished as provided in such Code section. Contractors, subcontractors, sub-subcontractors, and any person convicted for false statements based on a violation of this subsection shall be prohibited from bidding on or entering into any public contract for 12 months following such conviction. A contractor, subcontractor, or sub-subcontractor that has been found by the Commissioner to have violated this subsection shall be listed by the Department of Labor on www.open.georgia.gov or other official website of the state with public information regarding such violation, including the identity of the violator, the nature of the contract, and the date of conviction. A public employee, contractor, subcontractor, or sub-subcontractor shall not be held civilly liable or criminally responsible for unknowingly or unintentionally accepting a bid from or contracting with a contractor, subcontractor, or sub-subcontractor acting in violation of this subsection. Any contractor, subcontractor, or sub-subcontractor found by the Commissioner to have violated this subsection shall, on a second or subsequent violations, be prohibited from bidding on or entering into any public contract for 12 months following the date of such finding.(10) There shall be a rebuttable presumption that a public employer, contractor, subcontractor, or sub-subcontractor receiving and acting upon an affidavit conforming to the content requirements of this subsection does so in good faith, and such public employer, contractor, subcontractor, or sub-subcontractor may rely upon such affidavit as being true and correct. The affidavit shall be admissible in any court of law for the purpose of establishing such presumption.(c) This Code section shall be enforced without regard to race, religion, gender, ethnicity, or national origin.(d) Except as provided in subsection (e) of this Code section, the Commissioner shall prescribe forms and promulgate rules and regulations deemed necessary in order to administer and effectuate this Code section and publish such rules and regulations on the Georgia Department of Labor’s website.(e) The commissioner of the Georgia Department of Transportation shall prescribe all forms and promulgate rules and regulations deemed necessary for the application of this Code section to any contract or agreement relating to public transportation and shall publish such rules and regulations on the Georgia Department of Transportation’s website.(f) No employer or agency or political subdivision, as such term is defined in Code Section 50-36-1, shall be subject to lawsuit or liability arising from any act to comply with the requirements of this Code section._________Response: (the attached affidavits are not related to OCGA 13-10-91. I have them pasted on the below)On Oct 21, 2022, at 12:24 PM, Janet Hyde <jhyde@carrollcountyga. com> wrote:This was indeed an oversight. I was out of the office the remainder of that week and overlooked it when I returned to the office. The documents you requested are attached to this email. You may also copy Taffeny Johnson, our office manager, at tjohnson@carrollcountyga. com for future open records requests.Sincerely,Janet Hyde, County PlannerCarroll County Community Development423 College Street
Carrollton, GA 30117(770)830-5861 Ext 2051<image001.jpg>NOTE: Zoning and variance cases are not guaranteed. A development discussion is not an assurance of issuance of a building permit, business license (OTC), or assurance of possible zoning change. The plan review process requires review and acceptance by multiple reviewers before approval.
October 21, noon-ish
Ms. Hyde,
I have not received any response to the open records request I sent on Oct. 4, 2022. I assume this is an oversight at your office.
Please send me the copies requested using the documents in place as of the Oct. 4? I(f) there are/were no documents that fit my description and date, please reply with that message?
Thank you,
D.A. King
Begin forwarded message:From: “D.A. King” <Dking1952@comcast.net>Subject: Open records request Affidavit forms (Contractor, Subcontractor & Sub-subcontractor) as required by OCGA 13-10-91Date: October 4, 2022 at 11:34:20 AM EDTTo: Janet Hyde <jhyde@carrollcountyga.com>
Ms. Hyde,
Please send me a copy of the Contractor’s Affidavit currently used (as of today’s date) by Carroll County as required by OCGA 13-10-91.Please send me the same for the Subcontractor Affidavit and the Sub-subcontractor affidavit.Thank you,D.A. King____
The “U Visa” is a dangerous scam
“Unfortunately, a sheriff, police chief, prosecutor, or judge can certify any alien for a U visa for any reason they want to. There is no oversight or control; they can sell certifications if they want to.”
From Jessica Vaughan at CIS.org:
October 17, 2022
Texas Sheriff Hands Out U Visa Certifications to Aid Prosecution in Florida Migrant Transport Case
In a new twist in the case of the illegal border-crossers transported to Martha’s Vineyard, the sheriff of Bexar County, Texas, Javier Salazar, reportedly has certified several of the aliens as crime victims, enabling them to apply for U visas. This is an outrageous, but sadly common abuse of the loosely regulated U visa, and points to why Congress needs to overhaul this program at the earliest opportunity.
The U visa was created by Congress to help law enforcement agencies gain cooperation from illegal-alien victims of serious crimes in order to facilitate prosecution of the offenders. Law enforcement agencies who are investigating or prosecuting certain crimes, such as domestic violence, felonious or sexual assault, FGM, or human trafficking, may issue a certification for an illegal-alien victim who has agreed to assist in the investigation or prosecution.
In this case, it is not clear that a crime has even occurred, much less a crime that is serious enough to qualify for a U visa for these illegal migrants. It appears more as if the sheriff and the migrants’ lawyers are trying to concoct a criminal investigation to reward the migrants and embarrass Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, whose administration transported the migrants from Texas to Martha’s Vineyard, avoiding the option for them to settle in Florida, as a large share of new illegal arrivals have done.
Reportedly, the sheriff is considering bringing charges of unlawful restraint, although it’s unclear that there was ever any restraint of the migrants at any point in their journey from San Antonio to Martha’s Vineyard. DeSantis has insisted that the migrants were not coerced. Judging by the migrants’ statements reported in the media, at worst the migrants possibly were misled by the individual hired to recruit them for the plane trip. Equally likely, they were simply confused about where they were going and disappointed they were not taken to a place where they could begin working right away. One immigration lawyer maintains that since the migrants were given an informational brochure that may have mentioned the word “refugee”, a status that does not apply to the illegal migrants, that information was egregiously misleading and should be considered a form of human trafficking.
This would be laughable if it were not so damaging to what very little integrity exists in the U visa program. Unfortunately, a sheriff, police chief, prosecutor, or judge can certify any alien for a U visa for any reason they want to. There is no oversight or control; they can sell certifications if they want to. The important question is: Will USCIS approve the visas in this case? Said one of my retired federal law enforcement contacts:
Wow, that is going to be interesting to see how unlawful restraint is interpreted. This is insanity. It has to change. I saw agencies try to use unlawful restraint because they knew that a crime of smuggling was not an option [to qualify for a U visa], because the aliens were of course co-conspirators. They negotiated for that trip, like one would for buying drugs or any product or service. Where the area goes gray is, did the alien complete the deal and then was still restrained? Is that in furtherance of a crime (smuggling) they agreed to, or is it unlawful restraint?
We won’t find out for many years to come. That’s because… please read the entire post here at CIS.
Appeals Court: DACA is Unlawful – illegal aliens: “DACA is not enough”
From the Center for Immigration Studies
The new DACA regulation is subject to the same legal defects as the original program
“The creation and maintenance of the DACA program is one of the strongest pull factors that have ignited modern border crisis.”
On October 5, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program is unlawful, but remanded the case to the lower district court to reconsider the legal challenge as it applies to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) new DACA regulation.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision finding that the original program, which was created by a DHS memorandum in 2012, violated both procedural and substantive law, stating that “Congress determined which aliens can receive these benefits, and it did not include DACA recipients among them. We agree with the district court’s reasoning and its conclusions that the DACA Memorandum contravenes comprehensive statutory schemes for removal, allocation of lawful presence, and allocation of work authorization.”
The decision allows current DACA recipients to maintain and renew their DACA status and work authorization while the case is pending resolution in the district court. DHS, however, is prohibited from approving new (or “initial”) DACA applications. Despite this order, USCIS has decided to continue to accept initial applications, but will only process renewals while the court order is in effect. The final DACA regulation does not go into effect until October 31, 2022.
Background. By way of background, DACA provides immigration benefits, including lawful presence, employment authorization, and forbearance from deportation to certain aliens who are in the United States illegally. In addition to other eligibility criteria, these aliens must have been under the age of 31 on or before June 15, 2012 and have entered United States prior to 2007, thus making the eligible population between the ages of 26 to 42 years old.
In July 2021, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas ruled that DACA’s creation in 2012 via a three-page policy memorandum violated the notice-and-comment requirement under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The ruling went further, however, to hold that the program is also substantively invalid because DACA “is an unreasonable interpretation of the law because it usurps the power of Congress to dictate a national scheme of immigration laws and is contrary to the INA.” The court explained, “While the law certainly grants some discretionary authority to the agency, it does not extend to include the power to institute a program that gives deferred action and lawful presence, and in turn, work authorization and multiple other benefits to 1.5 million individuals who are in the country illegally.”
While appealing this decision, DHS codified DACA by issuing a final regulation as an attempt to legitimize the program and strengthen the agency’s legal posturing. (The White referred to this as “preserving and fortifying” DACA.) Despite being bound by the district court’s ruling, DHS reached the incredible (and unlawful) conclusion that it can continue with rulemaking because it disagrees with the court. DHS acknowledged the full extent of district court ruling in a footnote in the proposed DACA regulation, writing “The district court in Texas II also concluded that ‘DACA is an unreasonable interpretation of the law because it usurps the power of Congress to dictate a national scheme of immigration laws and is contrary to the INA.’” Brazenly, DHS responded by stating, “The Department respectfully disagrees” and went on to reiterate the same view of DACA that the federal district court rejected in litigation.
The DACA Regulation Is Unlikely to Survive District Court’s Review. In its July 2021 decision, the district court signaled that a regulation codifying the program would not survive legal scrutiny so long as it continued to directly conflict with numerous federal statutes. The court explained that, “Against the background of Congress’ ‘careful plan,’ DHS may not award lawful presence and work authorization to approximately 1.5 million aliens for whom Congress has made no provision.” The district court determined that Congress has expressly not authorized DACA.
DACA is more than, as DHS purported in litigation, an exercise of prosecutorial discretion resulting from limited agency resources. Like the original program, DHS’s new DACA regulation ignores statutorily mandated removal proceedings and goes further to provide immigration benefits to aliens with no lawful access. Because the regulation leaves intact nearly all of the original program’s benefits and features, it is still subject to the same legal issues.
Furthermore, the new DACA regulation does nothing to fix the legal issues the district court found the program created by allowing DACA recipients to receive advance parole. Advance parole is a privilege that allows aliens to leave the United States and then lawfully re-enter the country without being turned away at a port of entry. It is designed to be awarded only on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit.
As explained in detail by the district court, by allowing DACA recipients to receive advance parole, the program (and now regulation) directly contradicts Congress’ scheme to restrict green card eligibility from aliens who have not been “lawfully admitted or paroled into the United States” and subverts the three- and 10- year bars Congress inserted into the Immigration and Nationality Act to prohibit aliens who have been unlawfully present in the United States for 180 days or 365 days, respectively, from reentering the country for three or 10 years. Because the district court recognized this conflict when analyzing the 2012 DACA memorandum, there is little reason to believe that the district court will find that the regulation, which expressly permits this practice, is valid.
DACA Is Bad Immigration Policy. The creation and maintenance of the DACA program is one of the strongest pull factors that have ignited modern border crisis… Please read the rest here at CIS.
- « Previous Page
- 1
- …
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- …
- 95
- Next Page »
You must be logged in to post a comment.