The below transcript is taken from the March 14, 2024 meeting of the House Regulated Industries subcommittee on occupational and professional licensing . Video here (start at 13:26). Audio below.

Note: In early February I had a lengthy email thread/exchange with Sen. Walker about the consequences of his bill on the existing immigration check for applicants for occupational licenses. After the murder of Laken Riley, Sen. Walker did not explain to the subcommittee that ending the occupational licensing requirement for workers covered in his bill also ends the verification of lawful presence immigration check mandated in OCGA 50-36-1.

• To be clear: If SB 354 becomes law, applicants for jobs covered in the bill will no longer be required to file this affidavit.

I also note that after Sen. Walker saw his bill passed out of the House subcommittee, I twice informed the full committee chairman. Rep Alan Powell (R- Hartwell) of the fact that eliminating the occupational licensing process also eliminates the immigration verification of lawful presence. One of those communications is linked here. The other one was handed to him.

He passed the legislation out anyway – and said nothing to his committee members about the immigration component.

dak

• Transcription by Rev.com. My cost: $28.00 and about two hours of my time.

 

Subcommittee chairman Rep Jason Ridley

Number 0689, is that correct?

Sen. Larry Walker on SB 354:

Yes, sir.

Subcommittee chairman

All right.

Sen. Larry Walker on SB 354:

That’s what I have.

Subcommittee chairman

Take it away.

Sen. Larry Walker on SB 354:

Uh, and as you mentioned in your intro, um, I’ve been kind of on a little mini crusade, individual crusade to try to cut red tape, streamline license and reveal licenses, that kind of thing. Um, we’ve got some of the most onerous license requirements in the country, we’ve got a workforce shortage, uh, we need to eliminate barriers to work wherever we can I feel like. And in the cosmetology field, which I know this has been attempted several times, uh, when I, when I dropped the cosmetology Bill, former Senator P.K. Martin called me and just laughed. And, uh, he, he had a, uh, bad experience, got, I think, killed over one. But this is very, very narrow. And what we’re attempting to do, I’ve got all these talking points, but I’m better at just trying to talk to you, um, like a conversation. Um, what we’re attempting to do is we’re trying to carve out shampoo, people that only do shampooing and styling of hair, and people that only apply makeup and not require them to have the $17,000 cosmetology course and the 1500 hours of apprenticeship to be able to do those things.

Um, and I feel like it’s a way for especially lower income people that can’t afford the cosmetology school to enter the field, and hopefully, you know, start earning a decent wage and possibly, possibly go to cosmetology school, uh, and get their full license if they want to. But this is a, we, we are seeing uh, and representative A. Hart can probably tell you that I think they’re called dry bars. I think that might be a brand name. But there are, uh, facilities or businesses that have popped up that, that all they do is shampoo and style hair, and it’s become a popular thing, especially with wedding parties and I guess, uh, you know, special occasions where people like, women in particular like to get together and kind of make a party of getting their hair done. Um, and I just don’t see why they would need to have all of that expensive, uh, training and uh, or course work, and the 1500 hours to be able to establish that type of business.

Um, we did have some pushback, but, but quite frankly the pushback was from people that have a vested interest and are making money by either educating with the course work, charging for the course work, or getting basically free or cheap labor for that 1500 hours. We, I had no real, uh, evidence that the states that have relaxed this in these areas, there’s no evidence that the public safety has been, you know, put at risk. There was a court case that kind of peaked my interest, uh, I think it was last year, it went all the way to the Georgia Supreme Court, it was Jackson versus Raffensperger, and I was here when we passed the lactation specialist license, and I think I voted for it, frankly.

I mean, it was a, kind of a heartwarming, one of those things on the, you know, on the floor, I think I probably voted for it. But anyway, that, the, it was challenged in court that that was a barrier to entry, and the, the state did not have a compelling interest to require a license for that. And when, and the, the court did rule in favor of the plaintiff that, “No, the state does not have, unless there’s a compelling interest of the state to, for public safety or welfare, then the state cannot under the Georgia Constitution, uh, charge you to, to work.” I mean, charge you a tax to work.

Uh, and so, this is a case where I feel like it fits right in, in that. And we, I’m happy to, to kind of try to go through the bill line by line, it’s very prescriptive what you can and cannot do, uh, and I think it’s a, you know, very, I guess I would say limited in what we’re trying to allow. And one other note is makeup artists currently have an exemption for the, if they’re working in the film industry, or if they’re working at a retail makeup counter. And I would argue that a retail makeup counter is probably more susceptible to, to germs and, and, you know, problems where you have all the public coming in and out like they do than, uh, than in a standalone salon. So to me that, that’s a no-brainer. I mean, and these are things people commonly do at their home, uh, they can buy the products over the counter, they can, you know, do their neighbor’s hair if they wanted to, and, and a license of course is not required for that.

Subcommittee chairman

All right. I tend to agree with you, sort of, kind of working construction, you don’t have to go get a general contractor license to start. You know what I mean? First thing you do, you start carrying plywood, you know, up on the roof and learn that trade-

Sen. Larry Walker on SB 354:

(laughs).

Subcommittee chairman

… And then you move on, and so I agree with you that, uh, that I think that may be a reason we’re getting a bit of shortage is, is people may, you know, you try to go through the school, you may figure out you don’t even like it before you get there, but you got this way of starting figure out, you know, exactly where you wanted [inaudible 00:05:53].

Sen. Larry Walker on SB 354:

Yes. So we heard testimony from two young African-American women that talked about what a struggle it was. One of them has now opened a salon, and I think she said she had six employees. But the student debt she had and the struggle to, to get in the field, and this is a, I think hopefully a easier pathway for folks.

Subcommittee chairman

All right, got a couple questions for you, uh, number 23.

Rep Ginny Ehrhart

Thank you so much for bringing the bill. We appreciate it. You answered one of my questions already, um, which was, um, I was gonna ask you to clarify under what circumstances we currently in the state allow for the washing and blow drying of hair and the application of makeup. And you said it’s in those commercial, like an Ulta or something, uh, where customers come in and, uh, they have makeup applied, correct?

Sen. Larry Walker on SB 354:

Yes, ma’am.

Unidentified committee member

Um, I don’t see anything in the bill, and I, I’ve read it a couple of times previously, um, ’cause I know we’ve heard a lot in the past when folks come to testify, um, about burning skin, or acid, or things that can cause harmful reactions to the skin. I don’t see anything in the bill that, um, makes reference to the use of any of these sorts of chemicals. Uh, I think of things like when people get perms, those, those uh, harsh chemicals, or when they get, uh, acid peels or things of that. Looks to me like everything included in this bill would be products that as you said can be purchased over the counter. Um-

Sen. Larry Walker on SB 354:

Yes ma’am, if you… I’ll refer you to line 36 for, for part of that, it’s, um, this would, it, the blow dry styling would exclude cutting hair, the application of dyes, bleach, reactive chemicals, Keratin treatments or other preparations to color or alter the structure of hair. Such practices are distinct from those performed by barber, hair designer, or cosmetologist. But we’re making it clear in that, that language that that is not included or contemplated in what we’re calling blow dry styling.

Unidentified committee member

Okay, thank you for that.

Subcommittee chairman

[inaudible 00:08:11].

Rep Dale Washburn

Uh, thank you uh, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Chairman Walker, I wanna thank you for bringing this bill, and commend you for doing this. Um, I think it’s an excellent bill, it’s simple, it’s to the point. And I appreciate you bringing it, and also appreciate your commentary about licensing in general in Georgia. I’ve been given a lot of thought to this, and, uh, I’ve been in a heavy regulated in- industry for a long time, been in the real estate brokerage business and I’m not suggesting we don’t need to license real estate practitioners. But I do think we need to be looking at the whole licensure structure in our state. And your comment that we need to be making it easy for people to go to work, be able to work, and earn a living, and feed their families and pay taxes in the process is sound thinking.

Sen. Larry Walker on SB 354:

[inaudible 00:09:00].

Rep Dale Washburn

And I appreciate you doing this. And frankly I’m giving some thought to some things that might be done in the future in some other arenas, and I’d be honored to have the opportunity to work with you on some of that if that’s your thought on the senate side.

Sen. Larry Walker on SB 354:

Yeah, I would love, would welcome that.

Rep Dale Washburn

Yeah. So, thank you for the bill.

Sen. Larry Walker on SB 354:

Thank you, sir.

Subcommittee chairman

All right, I got some people who wanna speak on the bill. Um, I think everybody says they’re for the bill. Y’all wanna speak or y’all… Y’all good? Okay. All right, so what’s the will of the committee?

Committee:

[inaudible 00:09:33].

Subcommittee chairman

All right, gotta move, two pass in a second. All in favor, say aye.

Committee:

Aye.

Aye.

Subcommittee chairman

Good…

End of consideration of SB 354.

 

Pro-enforcement immigration advocates push for veto of Sen Walker bill – SB 354

D.A. King

Guest columnist

Taking a pro-enforcement position on illegal immigration in Georgia, we think the Republicans made a grave mistake in passing Sen. Larry Walker’s bill, SB 354. We have organized an effort to convince Gov. Kemp to veto that legislation. Here, we offer an education readers will not see on “the news.”

The Republican-controlled General Assembly passed a nationally covered bill aimed at illegal immigration in the session just ended. HB 1105, “The Georgia Criminal Alien Track and Report Act” is essentially an effort at forcing compliance with laws against “sanctuary city” policies put in place in 2006 when Sonny Perdue was in his first term as governor. It’s a law that says we should enforce the law.

According to federal authorities Georgia is home to more illegal aliens than live in Arizona. The leftist Georgia Budget and Policy Institute says more illegals call the Peach State home than do “green card” holders. How many illegals? Somewhere around 400,000 – 500,000 is a common, expert estimate.

 Since 2006, Georgia’s Republican elected officials have put more than forty state laws in place aimed at discouraging more “undocumented workers” from migrating into our state. The proven effective method for that commonsense task is to deny jobs, benefits, and services to foreigners here illegally.

Which brings us to another 2006 law, OCGA 50-36-1, “Verification of Lawful Presence within the United States.” The short explanation is that to prevent illegal aliens from accessing public benefits, applicants are checked for immigration status. The system requires an applicant for occupational licenses to essentially swear on an affidavit that they are not here illegally. False swearing is a felony. Then that information is run through a federal verification system known as “SAVE.” It’s all carefully designed to be part of the occupational and professional licensing process.

If the licensing process goes away, the immigration verification goes too. The chances of stopping illegals from accessing our jobs, benefits, and services decrease significantly.

Believe it or not, Senate Bill 354 from Sen. Larry Walker (R-Perry) removes the requirement for having an occupational license for low-skilled personnel in the barbering/cosmetology industry. To repeat the explanation above: This will end the immigration check built into the existing licensing procedure for covered workers. It is an open invitation to “the undocumented.”

Pushed by powerful special interest groups, the stated goal of Sen. Walker’s bill is to make it easier to go to work in Georgia. Indeed.

SB 354 is a product of ‘Senate Study Committee on Occupational Licensing,’ created by a resolution (SR 85) sponsored by Sen. Walker in 2023. According to Senator Walker, who also served as committee chairman, “…this state has some of the country’s more burdensome occupational licensing laws” and has “onerous occupational licensing requirements.”

Apparently eliminating the immigration verification makes the process much less “burdensome and onerous.” We don’t agree. And we recall that Gov Kemp voted in favor of creating the above-described verification process as state Senator in 2006.

We hope to convince Gov. Kemp to veto Sen. Walker’s bill. Readers who agree with our mission can help fight illegal immigration in Georgia by calling Gov. Kemp’s office (404-656-1776) to leave a message with a nice young staffer to ask him to veto SB 354.

We think it’s commonsense.

Created in 2005, the 501 c 4 non-profit Dustin Inman Society advocates for enforcement of immigration laws. Mr. King has assisted Georgia legislators with immigration related matters for two decades under the Gold Dome. He is also proprietor of ImmigrationPoliticsGA.com .

• The Houston Home Journal is the Legal Organ for Perry, Warner Robins and Centerville, Ga, over 152 years.

 

“The recent outbreaks of measles are from the illegal alien community, which has spiked in cities like Chicago in 2024.”

Chicago City Wire

April 8, 2024

The City of Chicago Public Health Department says it has identified 57 “confirmed cases” of measles brought to Chicago by illegal aliens, now living in shelters across the city.

In a weekly “Measles Update,” the department said “the majority” of cases are from an illegal alien shelter in Pilsen, on Halsted Street.

The dashboard reported that 33 of the measles cases are children 0-4 years old, seven are children 5-17 years old, 16 are adults 18-49 years old and one is an adult over 50 years old.

It also reported public “exposure locations” where illegal aliens with measles were confirmed to have been.

They include the Halsted #8 CTA Bus on March 4, March 5 and March 11, The CTA Orange Line on March 22, Pace Bus 379 between Midway Airport and Orland Park on March 22, the Walmart Supercenter in Bedford Park on March 22, The Cook County Health Professional Building on Polk & Damen on March 7, Midwest Express Clinic on Damen on March 23, Hubbard High School on March 18 and March 19, Peter Cooper Elementary Dual Language Academy on March 6, and Armour Elementary School on March 4 and March 5.

According to the CDC, there were at total of 113 active measles cases reported nationally as of April 4, 2024. Last April, there was one case reported.

Measles was officially eliminated from the U.S. in 2000, meaning “doesn’t continuously spread within the country for more than 12 months at a time and new cases are only found when someone contracts measles abroad and returns to the country,” according to the CDC. The recent outbreaks of measles are from the illegal alien community, which has spiked in cities like Chicago in 2024.

Here.