Just when it seemed that Georgia was coming to grips with the damage caused by HB 87, the state's Arizona-inspired anti-immigrant law, some lawmakers are again attempting to rush through new measures that would further marginalize and exclude immigrants from our community.
SB 458 is moving quickly through the state legislature and includes two especially troubling provisions. One would ban undocumented students from all public universities and colleges in Georgia, even though they are paying out of state tuition. The stakes are high in that many of these exemplary youth will either be forced out of the state to pursue schooling elsewhere or abandon their dreams altogether.
The second provision buried in the bill may seem technical in nature, but is actually quite insidious and broad sweeping. Lawmakers now aim to prohibit state and local governments from accepting many foreign passports as proof of identification. In effect, both immigrants and foreign tourists would be unable to prove their identity in a wide range of interactions, denying them entrance to certain government buildings, taking away services as essential as water and sewage, and even thwarting their ability to marry -- a fundamental constitutional right. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals blocked provisions with similar effect in Alabama earlier this month.
Why is the legislature messing with foreign passports? HB 87 required the Attorney General (AG) to publish a list of "secure and verifiable documents" and outlawed the acceptance of any other identity documents by state and local governments. The AG was hardly going out on a limb when he placed foreign passports on his list. After all, passports are accepted by the federal Transportation Security Administration for airplane travel, where security is tantamount.
Apparently, some Georgia legislators think they know better by striking foreign passports from the AG's list of "secure and verifiable documents" unless the passport is submitted with "a valid United States Homeland Security Form I-94 or I-94A or other federal document specifying an alien's lawful immigration status."
But this seemingly technical change would not just affect undocumented immigrants. Foreign visitors from countries participating in the Visa Waiver Program do not have the forms required by the bill. What do the politicians supporting this bill have against British, Swedish, and Japanese tourists? Does Georgia really want to discourage foreign tourism from thirty-six of the world's wealthiest countries by sending a message to travelers that they better watch out because their passports are no good as ID in Georgia?
Some reforms in SB 458 sensibly relieve unnecessary burdens HB 87 imposes on the state's residents and government agencies. However, the student ban and foreign passport provisions push Georgia in the complete opposite direction, injecting new controversy, litigation, and reputational harm.
The disastrous impact of HB 87 on Georgia's economy and reputation has been felt by many across the state. Georgia Legislators and Governor Deal should resoundingly reject any further attempts at making Georgia an unwelcome state for immigrants.
Azadeh Shahshahani is National Security/Immigrants' Rights Project Director at the ACLU of Georgia. Jonathan Blazer is Advocacy and Policy Counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union.
A version of this article first ran in The Fulton County Daily Report.
HB87 was beneficial to the state, bringing down their unemployment rate by almost a full point in a few months. The party that may have been harmed is Mexico because many of their people they depended on to send remittances had to leave. Farm labor is always going to take a hit because they pay sub-standard wages for hard labor. They recover as soon as they speak English and pay decent wages.
HB458 is a good bill. The parents put their children at a disadvantage and if they did go to college, where are they going to work? It is unlawful for them to work here and most states won't licence an illegal foreigner to do anything. Sorry, but the US doesn't owe them or their parents any reward for having the nerve to ignore our laws.
As for the passport matter, they are resolving that to accept most foreign passports. The real question was the acceptance of the Consular Matricula issued by Mexico. It is no proof of legal presence in the US and should not be accepted. One county mistakenly told their people to accept it and they are correcting that.
Not to worry though. Through LaRaza, LULAC and MALDEF, Mexico will be quick to the scene along with the USDOJ and the ACLU to sue for the right of all the world's people to share all the rights of American citizens (at our expense of course!).
Deliberately vague and completely misleading. The legislation addresses things like applying for social services - things that illegal immigrants (the "illegal" part is conveniently absent from the quote) and foreign tourists have no business doing. Legal immigrants, on the other hand, DO have the requisite I-94 card and other supporting documentation. I fail to see what all the fuss is about.
Did you ever notice--they always cite the example of migrant labor -- the worst paid job in America and some of the hardest work. If you quit your minimum wage job in a convenience store and pick crops and you will take a pay cut. It's not full time work, but you can't take full time work. You travel on your own dime, live in a hovel, and have to wait until the crop is ready. The job is way underpaid and that is why Americans won't take it.
Americans will work hard. Americans work in steel mills where it is so hot the workers must not only gulp water by the gallons, but take salt pills to restore lost minerals. Americans collect garbage: better to pick edible fruit than pick up stinky garbage.
But those jobs pay middle class salaries and benefits. The combination of exceptionally low pay and hard work won't work. Without the illegal immigrants¬, farmers would have to pay more. Just like your economics professor drew it up on the board.
If you gave these illegal workers a green card, they wouldn't do it either. They'd go somewhere where they'd earn more by doing easier work.
You are conflating smart kids and migrant laborers working for below market wages. While I do honor their work ethic and desperation I don't expect the people picking cucumbers for $10,000 per year or less to go to Gorgia Tech and split the atom. If someone wants to go to Emory based on their SATs and scholarship to study bioengineering, they are eligible for a student (F) visa.
Just calling people racists because you have nothing else is a form of intellectually asymmetrical warfare. Do you have anything better?
Whenever anyone comes here legally, they are issued documents that shows that they are legally admitted and under what conditions.
Thus, being here without documents is the gold standard of proof that the person is illegally. And there is no right to break the law.
So they must first leave, return home, establish a residence that they do not intend to abandon, and convince a U.S. consular officer that they qualify for an F visa (meaning that they have a residence abroad that they will return to after their studies). If the consular officer thinks that the visa application is an attempt to sneak into the U.S. and stay, the visa may be denied.
Only in reverse. They want to outlaw everyone who does not look like them.
But, their ignorance is embarrassing. Europeans for the most part look like them.
This is the castle doctrine turning into a castle bubble.
Let Georgia build a fence around itself,
let it be self-sufficient unto itself.
I've never been to Georgia, nor any of the other paranoid states.
And I never will, as I am not blonde and blue-eyed.
Nor will I spend a cent to help their economy. Ever.
For the record, I'm a seventy-year-old middle-class white woman. But you never know! Better stay in a civilized city.