LETTER: Will Loudermilk support amnesty for newest arrivals?

DEAR EDITOR:

I was recently made aware of a reported statement by Republican Congressman Barry Loudermilk to a March meeting of the Georgia Hispanic Chamber of Commerce in which he told the room he and some of his colleagues support legalization and U.S. citizenship for a group of illegal aliens.

Veteran immigration expert and writer D.A. King has the entire story on his news website — ImmigrationPoliticsGA.com — along with questions he sent to Rep. Loudermilk’s Washington office asking for information and clarification on the congressman’s position. Rep. Loudermilk did not reply to Mr. King.

If Rep. Loudermilk supports amnesty for the illegal aliens who now have Obama’s DACA program, will he also support amnesty in a few years for the children now being brought over our borders illegally by the latest batch of victims of Central American poverty?

The most recent Border Patrol apprehension stats are out. In March U.S. immigration authorities apprehended or turned back more than 103,000 migrants — including approximately 53,000 families and nearly 9,000 unaccompanied children — along the U.S.-Mexico border last month. That’s a lot of potential future amnesty demands.

Readers deserve to know if Rep. Loudermilk is telling the Georgia Hispanic Chamber of Commerce something different than he is telling his constituents and to hear a clear position on legalization for any of the millions of illegals we now deal with in our Republic. It’s easy to continually redefine the word “amnesty” but most of us consider it to be any act that removes the illegal status of any illegal aliens.

DACA recipients are still illegal aliens according to the federal government.

The Georgia Budget and Policy Institute tells us that Georgia is home to more illegal aliens than we have green card holders and DHS says we have more illegals than Arizona.

Here is hoping that the paper asks Congressman Loudermilk to explain his remarks on amnesty and we hope illegal immigration sees much more attention in the paper than it does now.

Karen Sacandy

Woodstock