Gus from Little Green Footballs found documents showing O’Sullivan was on the board of the “Lexington Research Institute Limited,” aka the VDARE Foundation, from 2006-2010. During that time, VDARE helped found nativist site “Alternative Right” with a $35,000 grant. Alternative Right is edited by Richard B. Spencer, yet another racist/racialist white nationalist.

O’Sullivan was demoted from editorship by National Review ouster-in-chief William F. Buckley during a 1997 purge of Peter Brimelow, a virulent anti-immigration writer (and English immigrant) O’Sullivan championed who went on to found VDARE. VDARE has published a wide variety of extremist white nationalists, like Jared Taylor and Sam Francis.

O’Sullivan is still on the masthead at the National Review, and he was published defending Derbyshire at length at NRO a few days ago.

O’Sullivan says Derbyshire’s “satire” of “anti-white racism” sadly went a bit too far:

It therefore strengthens the anti-white racism it is meant to satirize which, as it happens, is a growing problem in the U.S. — not in the suburbs or backwoods but in the corporate executive suites, the media elites, the courts, the bureaucracy, and of course the entire industry of sensitivity training which used to go under the more honest title of “Political Reeducation” in the gulag.

Yes, “anti-white racism” is obviously a huge and growing threat in our corporate executive suites, as any glance at the Fortune 500 will demonstrate.

Having allowed that Derbyshire’s piece was sloppy and a bit racist, O’Sullivan goes on to defend each point anyway. Sure, Derbyshire believes that black people are innately criminal and stupid, but is that really a fireable offense? He might be right!

After half-purging O’Sullivan more than a decade ago, what possible reason is there to keep him around to embarrassingly defend his more explicitly awful colleagues? Especially while he’s working with the wackos at VDARE.

With Washington unlikely to take up immigration reform any time soon, some immigrants, like activists in the Occupy and LGBT movements, are turning to more confrontational tactics. Young undocumented immigrants across the country have come out as “undocumented and unafraid” in the most conspicuous of places: in front of the Alabama Capitol; in Maricopa County, Ariz., home of Sheriff Joe Arpaio; in front of federal immigration courts; and even inside ICE offices, processing centers, and detention centers. While they sometimes have specific causes, such as Orellana’s release, they also had a larger demand: that the civil and human rights of all undocumented immigrants be recognized and respected.

This is a marked change in goals and tactics from just one or two years ago, when the DREAM Act, which would have given some young undocumented immigrants a path to securing legal status, was the main immigration issue. Young activists, including many potential beneficiaries who are known as DREAMers, organized, rallied, held sit-ins, and undertook hunger strikes. A small group even marched from Florida to Washington, D.C., to press for its enactment. But it failed in Congress. Since then, students like Chairez and Lee are dreaming bigger and bolder. They aren’t just arguing that DREAMers like themselves — college students with clean records whose parents brought them to the U.S. when they were children — should be given a path to citizenship. They are helping to break down the artificial divisions — including those made by people who consider themselves immigrant advocates — between “model” immigrants (i.e., DREAMers) and others. Activists are forcing ICE to live up to its word that it is focusing its efforts on deporting “dangerous” criminals and not DREAMers. “We believe that regardless of [Miguel’s] immigration status, he should be treated as a human being,” Chairez shouted into a megaphone while seated in the street during the demonstration. “We have human rights.”

Youth-led immigrants-rights groups have organized in support of such efforts. The National Immigrant Youth Alliance has published an online “Coming Out Guide” and sponsored a “Coming Out of the Shadows” week this month. The movement has caught the attention of traditional immigrants-rights groups. National Council of La Raza is cautiously on board, stressing that coming out is an individual choice. “For many of the students this is their way of moving their advocacy forward,” says Laura Vazquez, a legislative analyst at NCLR. “We think it has been tremendously helpful for individual students who take that choice and make that decision.” However, some groups, like the American Immigration Council, see the tactic as too dangerous. “[The AIC] would never recommend to anyone that they put themselves at risk,” says communications director Wendy Sefsaf.

Yet, increasingly, young undocumented immigrants are doing just that and insisting that they will no longer remain silent. So far, according to activists, none of the recent acts of civil disobedience have resulted in deportation, but the threat remains very real as the Obama administration continues to deport young undocumented immigrants, including those whose cases have received considerable publicity. Young activists are well aware that any kind of legislative reform in the short-term, and especially before this fall’s elections, is highly unlikely. 

They’re using their actions, however, to raise awareness and funding in support of their cause. In Philadelphia, within hours of Chairez and Lee’s arrest other DREAMers kicked off a well-orchestrated publicity campaign. Emails were sent from Chairez and Lee’s accounts stating, “If you are reading this email I have been arrested in a planned act of civil disobedience.” Dream Activist Pennsylvania, an organization of which both are members, sent out messages to followers on Twitter and posted videos of their arrest, as well as video messages Chairez and Lee recorded prior to the action. The organization also sent out messages soliciting donations for their bail. News of the arrests spread via television, radio and English- and Spanish-language print media outlets.

By engaging in direct confrontations and being more open about their undocumented status, these activists hope to pave the way for broader changes than the ones the DREAM Act would have achieved.

Here’s how it works. The EB-5 immigration program allows citizens of foreign countries who do not qualify for admission to the U.S. under any other immigration category (such as relatives of U.S. citizens or guest workers) to buy the right to live and work here by investing at least half a million dollars in the U.S. in a government-approved investment. If the investment lasts for two years, green cards authorizing legal permanent resident status are issued to the investors and their families. Up to 10,000 people a year can be admitted to the U.S. under the EB-5 program.

In a devastating new critique of this program published at the National Interest, David North, a former assistant to the U.S. secretary of labor, argues convincingly that the EB-5 inspector program is a terrible idea.

As North notes, the amount of money is an insignificant fraction of the amount of foreign investment in the U.S: “Another way to look at the scale is through the eyes of a serious venture capitalist, who would laugh at the prospect of seeking capital in tranches of half a million dollars.”

The approved investment is supposed to create at least 10 jobs, but as North observes, there is no plausible methodology for determining whether it does or not. And even if there were, federal immigration bureaucrats lack the skills or resources to determine what is a genuine investment and what is a scam designed to get an otherwise unqualified immigrant a visa.

Already the program has generated enough corruption to merit an expose in the New York Times: According to the Times, “developers and state officials [in New York] are stretching the rules to qualify projects for this foreign financing.”

These developers are often relying on gerrymandering techniques to create development zones that are supposedly in areas of high unemployment — and thus eligible for special concessions — but actually are in prosperous ones, according to federal and state records.

One of the more prominent projects is a 34-story glass tower in Manhattan that is to cost $750 million, one-fifth of which is to come from foreign investors seeking green cards. Called the International Gem Tower, it is rising near Fifth Avenue in the diamond district of Manhattan, one of the wealthiest areas in the country.

Yet through the selective use of census statistics, state officials have classified the area as one plagued by high unemployment, the federal and state records show. As a result, the developer has increased the project’s chances of attracting foreigners who will accept little, if any, return on their investment in the project if it means they can secure American visas for their families.

A cash-for-visas program that serves the interests of New York landlords, the politicians they own and foreign plutocrats who want to buy U.S. citizenship by way of green cards for themselves and their kin — as they might say in Manhattan, what’s not to like?

Allowing these “investors” and their relatives into the country reduces the number of slots for deserving immigrants whose energy and skills could offer a lot to America but don’t have half a million dollars to spare. North writes: “My sense is that the United States needs bright people more than relatively small chunks of short-term investments.”

Nobody would object to a program to encourage the kinds of immigrants who have contributed so much to the American economy in the past, including inventors like Alexander Graham Bell and Andrew Carnegie. But neither Bell nor Carnegie could have come up with the equivalent of half a million dollars when they first came to the U.S. The EB-5 is not a program for people who might make fortunes in America in the future on the basis of their own hard work and creativity. It is for foreign nationals who are already rich.

Where does the half-million dollars apiece of EB-5 investors come from, anyway? Ill-gotten wealth is not unknown in the U.S.; in large parts of the world, it is the norm. Should American visas be for sale to people who obtained their wealth abroad, not by hard individual work, but by inheritance, political connections or bribes? How does our republic benefit from giving first visas and then citizenship to Middle Eastern princelings, Latin American landlords and Russian oligarchs?

It is a sad reflection on the decline of the American republic that this squalid program for indirectly selling citizenship has bipartisan support. The Obama administration is even trying to streamline approval procedures to make it easier for foreign plutocrats to buy visas.

Here’s a project that the government ought to consider approving, as a vehicle for the EB-5 foreign investors program: removing the bronze plaque from the base of the Statue of Liberty that bears Emma Lazarus’ famous poem, “The New  Colossus.”

“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips.  “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

The torch held up by Miss Liberty could be replaced by a flashing neon sign, paid for by a Russian oilman, Mexican oligarch or Saudi prince who wants to buy a handful of green cards for himself and his family:

AMERICAN VISAS FOR SALE
$500,000 MINIMUM

The business card he handed me during the sheriffs meeting identified Sikes as the director of the Border Security Operations Center (BSOC) – which is a type of fusion center for border-security operations in Texas. It’s a project of the Texas Rangers Division, which in turn is a branch of the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS).

However, Mac Sikes is neither a Texas Ranger nor a DPS employee. Like most of the other key figures behind the Lone Star State’s border security campaign, Sikes is a contract employee.

A “senior operational analyst” at Abrams Learning & Information Systems (ALIS), Sikes became director of BSOC as part of the firm’s $3-5 million annual contracts with DPS since 2006. The recent DPS decision — in response to a public records request — to release the ALIS contract revealed the true identity of Sikes.

The Border Security Operations Center is the nexus of the Texas’ own border security initiatives, collectively known as Operation Border Star. ALIS, a homeland-security consulting firm with offices in Arlington, Virginia, was founded in 2004 by Ret. Army Gen. John Abrams to cash in on the billions of dollars in new government contracting funds that started to flow after the creation of the Department of Homeland Security in 2003.

Since 2006 ALIS functioned as the hidden force behind virtually all non-federal border-security operations in Texas. Whether it’s strategy formulation, border crime-mapping, operations management or public relations, ALIS and its team of consultants have been closely involved in creating what Governor Rick Perry calls the “Texas model of border security.”

ALIS, which has received $22.7 million from DPS and the Governor’s Office for border-security operations in FY 2007-FY 2011, describes its mission in Texas as follows:

ALIS was commissioned to improve border security strategy and operations along the U.S. – Mexico border through the development of an epicenter for security operations. The objective of the operational center is to plan, coordinate, implement, and evaluate interagency border security operations to counter the threat of organized crime, terrorism, and the flow of contraband and human trafficking to foster a secure border region.

Gov. Rick Perry has boasted to both President Obama and DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano that Texas has created a new model for border security. In a letter to the president, Perry hailed his state’s “proven and successful multi-agency border security strategy,” while the governor invited Napolitano to visit the Texas border to see the “Texas model of border security.” DPS Director Steven McCraw, who was appointed by Perry and also served as the governor’s homeland security director from 2003 to early 2012, says that Texas is creating its own “paradigm” of border security.

Perry and McCraw support an aggressive, militarized border security strategy. They claim that Operation Border Star – their name for the Texas model or paradigm – is succeeding in securing the Texas border whereas the Obama administration’s border-security operations are, they charge, a manifest failure.

That’s a claim that was highlighted in a September 2011 report on border security commissioned by the Texas Department of Agriculture. The report, “Texas Border Security: A Strategic Military Assessment,” was written by Gen. Robert Scales (ret.) and Gen. Barry McCaffrey, who have their own Washington Beltway consulting firms, Colgen and BR McCaffrey Associates.

In their highly alarmist and unabashedly militaristic report, the retired generals describe the border as a “war zone” and contend that purported success of Operation Border Star and the Texas Rangers “should serve as a template for the future” of border security operations nationwide. Such a model, they argued, should be “based on proven joint military operations” and the type of “layered ‘defense-in-depth’” strategies employed by the Rangers and Operation Border Star.

But the generals failed to offer any evidence, other than anecdotal testimonies collected by Texas Commission of Agriculture Todd Staples to document the achievements of the Texas model. That’s not surprising, given that after nearly seven years Perry and McCraw have also failed to offer any substantial documentation to back their claims about the success of the Texas model of border security.

The “made-in-Texas” boasts about the state’s model of border security and the “can-do” braggadocio about “Texans protecting Texans” don’t stand up to close scrutiny.

Border Star operations and programs are funded by a combination of DHS grants, Justice Department criminal-justice assistance and economic-stimulus funding, and Texas general revenues.

The first funding for Operation Border Star came from the Obama administration’s border-security programs to aid local and state law enforcement. Although the state legislature, starting in 2007, started appropriating about $100 million annually for BSOC and other Border Star operations, federal funding has been the main stay of the Texas model. It’s also an operation that has been almost wholly outsourced to Washington Beltway consultants.

Outsourcing Texas Border Security

The Public Safety Commission has repeatedly approved DPS contracts with ALIS without any public discussion and without any evaluation. The commission, whose director is a major donor to Perry’s election campaigns, have allowed Perry and McCraw to run Operation Border Star without any oversight or review. ALIS contracts – including emergency contracts – have been routinely approved without any evaluation of its cost and impact.

With no discussion, the Texas Public Safety Commission at its Aug. 12, 2010 meeting in Austin approved an “emergency contract for providing strategies and plans to support the management of the Texas Border Security Operations Center (Abrams Learning & Information Systems).”

The commission also extended another DPS outsourcing contract held by APPRISS for another information and technology-driven project called the Texas Data Exchange (TDEx). DPS has paid APPRISS $30.9 million in FYs 2008-2012 for information systems of dubious worth.

Meanwhile, DPS in 2010-2011 repeatedly rejected requests by the Center for International Policy for the various strategy statements, operations plans, and performance reports that ALIS was contracted to produce, arguing that the information was “law enforcement sensitive.” DPS has contended that the release of the classified documents to a nonprofit education organization would place law enforcement officials at risk.

However, these same documents that were denied CIP were apparently accessed by the for-profit security consultants contracted by Texas Ag Commissioner Staples.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has upheld the DPS rejection of the public records requests for documents that would shed light on the structure, operations, and achievements of Operation Border Star and the role of ALIS. The only documents that DPS did release to the Center for International Policy were the ALIS contracts themselves.

The DPS contract with ALIS, which was signed Aug. 31, 2010, delegated not only the inner-workings of Operation Border Star to the Beltway contractor but also gave the contractor the responsibility for formulating border-security and homeland-security strategy statements, running public-relations operations, and directing law-enforcement operations.

Questions about the value of Operation Border Star and about its political character have been repeatedly raised over the past few years by several Texas media outlets and by the Texas American Civil Liberties Union. Texas border communities that have been adversely affected by the redirection of state and local law-enforcement agencies into border-security campaigns and away from public-safety missions have also criticized the cost and focus of the Perry administration’s border-security programs.

Gross Mismanagement in Texas of Federal Homeland and Border Security Funds

The Texas State Auditor recently raised new questions and concerns about the unprofessional DPS management of federal funds and about the agency’s dubious contracting practices under the stewardship of Steven McCraw.

The independent report, which was commissioned by the state auditor and released in February 2012, found, among other violations, cases of stunning material weaknesses in DPS accounting, a pattern of noncompliance in following federal procedures, and an array of alarming deficiencies in reporting and monitoring federal funds.

The report highlights a pervasive and systemic mismanagement of federal funds by DPS, including eight duplicate payments to contractors, sloppy accounting, failure to open contracts to competitive bidding (while in at least one other case bypassing low bidder for a preferred one), routine reliance on emergency contracts to avoid contract renewal and bidding processes, and a persistent failure to communicate accounting and reporting guidelines to subrecipients of more than federal funds managed by DPS. (In 2010 DPS administered $397 million in federal revenues for subgrants and contracts.)

The audit reviewed a representative selection of cases among the $265.9 million in federal grants and subgrants to DPS — in the areas of homeland security, border security, emergency management and law enforcement interoperability.

Among the findings of negligence and incompetence were these startling instances:

•  A draw-down of $755,509 in federal funds to issue a duplicate payment to one subgrantee.
•  Five of the six procurements (83 percent) examined by the auditor in the cluster of federal grants for homeland and border security were not bid competitively as required.
• DPS categorized four of the five procurements examined by the auditor as “emergency procurements,” and in three of those four DPS was unable to document why they were processed as “emergency” contracts.
• DPS has no system to track, administer, monitor federal subgrants – as federal guidelines require, leading to routine occurrences of duplicate payments, dipping into one federal fund to pay for unrelated programs, and failure to submit required reports and audits.
• Complete failure to track interest rates on unused federal funds and to remit those funds, as required by federal grant guidelines.
• Access to law-enforcement databases by contract programmers who lacked proper authorization or clearance.

Texas officials, including the governor, DPS chief, attorney general and agriculture commissioner, frequently charge that the federal government has failed in its responsibility to control the Texas-Mexico border.

It is rarely acknowledged, however, by these same critics how dependent Texas law enforcement and criminal justice agencies – including state’s homeland security department, DPS, governor’s criminal justice division, border sheriffs, agriculture department and state prosecutors and courts – are on the continuing flow of federal funds into Texas.

In fiscal year 2011 Texas received $57.5 billion in federal funding. That same year DPS relied on federal funding for approximately half its annual budget — down from the 60% funding in 2010 when federal stimulus funds were still flowing. The audit did not include the names of the private and local government recipients of DPS contracting and subgranting funds that were reviewed in the audit.

However, DHS and DOJ funding for homeland security, border security, and law enforcement interoperability have all been used to prop up the Texas model of border security – and to pay for the outsourcing of the building of the model and its implementation. It’s likely that the DPS contracts with ALIS, being one of the top-ranking DPS contractors, came under the scrutiny of the auditor.

The audit, which occurred during 2010, underscored problems with the type of DPS emergency contracting that benefited ALIS. The audit and its alarming findings have contributed to mounting cynicism and criticism about the Texas border security model and its outsourcing.

The audit raises fresh questions about McCraw’s ability to manage the large state agency. The shocking findings of DPS management of DHS and DOJ funding to support Texas homeland and border security programs also underscores rising skepticism about the “go-it-alone” and “can-do” boasting of the Texas border hawks critical of the Obama administration.

Outsourcing Strategy and Propaganda

It would be hard to exaggerate the degree to which Governor Perry and DPS Chief McCraw have outsourced state border-security, homeland-security and public-safety programs to Washington Beltway contractors.

ALIS, according to the August 2010 “emergency contract,” was, among other things, hired to do everything from formulating strategy to running operations to managing public relations – not only for Operation Border Start but also for the Texas Rangers and DPS itself.

The “emergency” contract for $1.5 million ALIS services, which was signed by McCraw and ALIS Chief Operating Officer on August 31, 2010, underscored the central role of ALIS in shaping and directing border security operations in Texas.

Echoing the expansive scope of the language used in earlier contracts, DPS once again hired ALIS to:

Develop and refine border-wide security strategies and plans for seamless integration of interagency law enforcement border security operations in the State of Texas.

With a staff of at least 17 analysts and information specialists — many with military backgrounds –ALIS was contracted to provide the vision and the structural foundation for Operation Border Star. Initially, Border Star had been little more a commitment by the Perry administration to support the newly formed Texas Border Sheriffs Coalition and its Operation Linebacker, using federal criminal-justice funds controlled by the governor’s office, along with an occasional show of force by DPS police in Texas border counties.

Over the years, with each successive contract, the extent of responsibility outsourced to ALIS expanded dramatically. One of the first contracts gave ALIS the task of developing a computerized crime-mapping system for the greater Texas border region, which is known as TexMap. By late 2010, however, DPS was paying ALIS to, among other things:

• “Define and write a Border Security Strategic Vision.”
• “Manage and operate the Border Security Operations Center (BSOC).”
• “Develop border-wide strategies and plans to support interagency effectiveness.”
• “Refine and update Operation Border Star 2012-2013.”
• “Develop plans for border-related Mass Migration contingencies.”
• Develop plans for “Texas Ranger operations,” and develop standard operating procedures for “Ranger Renaissance Teams” (including the new gunboat operations).
• “Facilitate creation of the Border Operations Planning Group.”
• “Develop a Border Security media/public information outreach strategy.”
• “Provide sufficient manpower to provide leadership, subject-matter expertise, and quality assurance/control in areas of border security planning and operations.”
•  “Support and sustain the six Joint Operations Intelligence Centers (JOICs),” which are situated along the Texas border and Gulf Coast.
•  “Conceptualize a Sensor Master Plan for the border region,” as part of the “web-based” electronic surveillance systems created by the governor’s officer and   DPS.
•  “Develop and refine DPS Agency Strategic Plans,” including the DPS Strategic Plan 2011-2015.
•  “Facilitate development of a DPS policy document outlining roles, responsibilities, and authorities of Regional Commanders, Ranger Captains, DPS Divisions, and JOICs with regard to countering crime and terrorism in the border region.”

The Aug. 31, 2010 emergency contract with ALIS built on earlier contracts, which steadily reinforced the centrality of the homeland security contractor not only to execute assigned tasks but also to formulate strategy and direct operations. An earlier contract had empowered ALIS to formulate the drafts of the Texas Border Security Campaign Plan, the governor’s 2010-2015 Homeland Security Strategy Plan, and the DPS Agency Strategy Plan 2010. That’s worth repeating. This little-known, upstart consulting agency from the Washington Beltway had been hired by the state’s public safety and homeland security director to: write the campaign plan for the governor’s border security campaign, conceptualize and write the state’s strategy statement for homeland security, and produce the strategy plan for DPS itself.

One of the most striking and disturbing components of the August 2010 contract was the new public relations and outreach role given ALIS contractors. According to the contract, ALIS would assume a new role that would combine public relations, communications and policy-advocacy functions.

Instead of merely being a hired gun contracted for predetermined border-security operations in Texas, ALIS contractors were expected to develop strategies, gather information to support these strategies, and then work to shape public opinion and public policy about border security threats and responses. The only border experience that ALIS brought to the table when it was hired was that its founder General Abrams had in the late 1980s commanded a regiment that was responsible for protecting the German “inner-border” prior to German reunification.

Specific tasks outsourced to ALIS included producing “reports, briefings, studies and recommendations” for “Texas leadership.” ALIS was also tasked to “orient senior government leaders on border security issues,” with possible options including “public affairs strategy and plans, fact sheets, talking points, speeches, presentations and testimony.”

The stipulated goal of the “Border Security media/public information outreach strategy” was, according to the DPS contract, to “build support for border security” among the public, media and policy community in Texas. As noted in the contract, ALIS would at times also be expected to leverage its BSOC fusion center staff “to surge for 24/7 information operations.”

Rather than gathering intelligence and analyzing information, DPS tasked ALIS to provide DPS and the Texas Rangers with “the necessary information to assist the ongoing operations.” Its BSOC staff were expected to “discipline the information operations process by serving the state information operations ‘net control’ station for border security.”

The BSOC and the JOICs would be tasked, according to the contract, to “provide needed information products as required by Texas Rangers” and to produce “effective information products.”

In review, in the interests of border security and homeland security, ALIS was contracted by DPS – with the approval of the Public Safety Commission and the governor – to manufacture “information products.” What is more, DPS wanted ALIS to ensure that the information was “effective” as well as “necessary” for ongoing operations. There has been absolutely no review by policy makers or by the public of DPS outsourcing of border-security strategy and operations.

It’s likely, though, that if there were ever such transparency and accountability, at least a few policymakers and concerned citizens would caution that structuring information as an instrument may replicate the information- and psychological-ops of the military and intelligence agencies but may not be an appropriate way to consider information gathering and dissemination on the home front. The term propaganda might arise in any public review this type of outsourcing.

Similarly, the concept that a private contractor should participate in information surges that would parallel operational surges by law enforcement officers and state troops might also have sparked discussion about the proper use of state and federal funds.

As is, it seems that the directors of Operation Border Star – Governor Perry and DPS Director McCraw – view information and intelligence as fungible commodities that can be created, manipulated and shaped to serve the greater good of the nation and Texas border security.

Yet soon after Arizona’s law passed, similar anti-immigrant legislation began appearing in legislatures across the nation. Partially coordinated by the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative advocacy group funded in part by private prisons, states from coast to coast initiated their own crackdowns.

In Georgia, Republican Gov. Nathan Deal signed a copycat bill into law in 2011, making his state the third to give police such wide powers to investigate the immigration status of suspected undocumented immigrants. “This legislation I believe is a responsible step forward in the absence of federal action,” said Deal.

The Arizona-like law had a decidedly detrimental effect on the state’s economy. One survey conducted during the summer of 2011 found that there was a shortage of at least 11,000 farmworkers in Georgia. The Georgia Agribusiness Council said that the state’s farms were left “with 30 percent fewer workers on average.” “We don’t need to stall the largest economic engine in this state and we don’t need to scare off our workforce,” warned Zippy Duvall of the Georgia Farm Bureau.

Yet Georgia went much further than many other red states in making the lives of undocumented immigrants uncomfortable. In 2010, the state’s major public universities were ordered to do an audit of all their students to identify undocumented immigrants. Then in October, the state’s board of regents voted 14-2 to effectively ban undocumented immigrants from attending Georgia’s five major public universities, citing concerns about space not being available for documented students. This policy was enacted on top of the fact that Georgia already barred undocumented students from getting in-state tuition.

The policy ended up harming one of the state’s treasured institutions — college football — in a way that the board of regents likely did not expect. Last month, high school football star Chester Brown of Hinesville, Ga., had a rude awakening. For months, he was courted by the University of Georgia football team to join its legendary football program. He even got a UGA tattoo on his left forearm. But the October 2010 vote made it so that the Samoan-born athlete would automatically be denied admission to UGA. Now Brown is likely to be recruited by big-name schools out of state.

A group of five professors at the University of Georgia decided that they weren’t going to take part in the state’s process of immiserating the lives of undocumented students. Shortly after the closed-door policy began, they started what they called “Freedom University,” where they secretly offered these students courses. “This is not a substitute for letting these students into UGA, Georgia State or the other schools,” said Pam Voekel, a history professor. “It is designed for people who, right now, don’t have another option.”

Some of Georgia’s far-right lawmaker want to go even further. Senate Majority Leader Chip Rogers is sponsoring a bill, S.B. 458, that would ban undocumented immigrants from attending all public Georgia colleges and universities.

In one sense, the bill is itself targeting a supposed problem — undocumented immigrants taking up space in classrooms that legal residents can’t have — that really doesn’t exist. According to an audit conducted by the University System of Georgia, which oversees the state’s public universities, there are only 300 undocumented students out of the system’s 318,000 total population. And there is little evidence that allowing undocumented immigrants to go to college would be a drain on taxpayers. After all, college graduates earn more money than non-graduates, and thus are much more likely to contribute more in taxes and be a boon, not a burden, to the public treasury.

That’s why looking at S.B. 458 as a flawed policy solution would be a mistake. The state Legislature has already proved that it has little concern with guaranteeing equity in education to Georgia’s residents. In early 2011 it enacted a series of major cuts to the state’s widely praised tuition subsidy program. The result has been a dramatic reduction in public aid to students across the state, with African-American students facing some of the worst cutbacks.

S.B. 458 does not seek to improve higher education in Georgia but rather to deflect attention from those who seek to harm it. By attacking undocumented immigrants and falsely portraying them as a drain on the system and taking the slots that legal residents deserve, the state Legislature is trying to distract the public from looking at the real culprits of Georgia’s educational and social welfare woes: politicians who have been gutting education spending.

On Wednesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed S.B. 458, and it will now move on to the full Senate. It is still unclear as to whether the radical legislation will make it into law. Deal is signaling that he is undecided about the bill.

The day after the bill was passed out of committee, the Georgia Latino Elected Officials organization sought out civil rights legend Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., to comment about the bill GALEO is calling the “Anti-DREAM” Act. Lewis, of course, is no stranger to the politics of hate and political distraction that are underlying the push for the bill.

“I would say to the students and to all of the young people, not to give up,” replied Lewis. “Another generation of young people, another generation of young people stood up. We created a mass movement … I think it’s a shame and a disgrace for the state of Georgia to move down that road.”

If Georgians don’t want to continue to see their state’s undocumented population turned into political punching bags, with even students simply seeking a decent education being stripped of their rights and liberties, it may be time for them to take Lewis’ advice, and, as he put it, “make some trouble. Good trouble.”