Email exchange Fox5 reporter Randy Travis & retired senior immigration enforcement officer Robert Trent July 27, 2022

Screenshot, Fox Five investigative reporter Randy Travis story tease on Facebook, July 25, 2022

From: Bob <roberttrent>
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2022 12:50 PM
To: Travis, Randy <Randy.Travis@ — FOX.COM>
Subject: Illegal aliens criminals get cover from GA sheriffs?

Mr. Travis,

While I can well understand Georgia sheriff’s wanting to avoid complicating their lives, they do have a duty to protect their citizens. It seems to me the best way to deal with criminal aliens is to remove them from America, once they have paid their debt to our society. This duty begins with the booking process at our county jails. This is the first opportunity to identify who are foreign nationals.

Under existing Georgia law OC GA 42-4-14 Sheriff’s are required to seek out the immigration status of those they book. Certainly the federal government (ICE) would assist in this determination. Of course the contact with ICE begins with the sheriff.

My understanding is that some, if not many of our Georgia sheriff’s are ignoring this law, thus accommodating deportable criminal aliens.

I would think the American media/press would be investigating this lack of concern by our elected law enforcement officials. Americans should be afforded all legal protections.

Robert Trent
Saint Mary’s, GA

This message and its attachments may contain legally privileged or confidential information. It is intended solely for the named addressee(s). If you are not an addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to an addressee), you may not copy or deliver this message or its attachments to anyone. Rather, you should permanently delete this message and its attachments and kindly notify the sender by reply e-mail. Any content of this message and its attachments that does not relate to the official business of Fox Corporation, or its subsidiaries must be taken not to have been sent or endorsed by any of them. No representation is made that this email or its attachments are without defect.

______

From: Bob <roberttrent>
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2022 1:24 PM
To: Travis, Randy <Randy.Travis@ – – – FOX.COM>
Subject: Re: Illegal aliens criminals get cover from GA sheriffs?

Sure Randy thanks for the response.

You might try taking a look at : NCFIRE.info

After you take a look ask yourself if this crime problem with illegals is isolated to just North Carolina. Might also inquire about how NCFIRE can assemble this information, and we can’t. Heck the sheriff should be publishing their own list!

Don’t we want to rid our state of these people?

On Jul 27, 2022, at 12:57 PM, Travis, Randy <Randy.Travis@FOX.COM> wrote:

Hi Bob,

Sheriffs are pretty powerful people in our state. Some clearly think it makes their communities safer to ignore this law rather than enforce it. If someone can convince a judge to order them to follow the law, we’ll do that story.

However, without current examples of harm caused against their citizens by this lack of action, it’s difficult for me to justify a story.

I’ve asked for recent examples from critics of the Gwinnett sheriff and received none.

Thanks,

Randy

Randy Travis

FOX 5 I-Team reporter

Facebook: @RandyTravisFOX5

Twitter: @RandyTravisFOX5

Instagram: randytravisfox5

FOX 5 Atlanta

1551 Briarcliff Road

Atlanta, GA 30306

_______

Begin forwarded message:

From: “Travis, Randy” <Randy.Travis – – – -@FOX.COM>

Subject: Re: Illegal aliens criminals get cover from GA sheriffs?

Date: July 27, 2022 at 1:47:33 PM EDT

To: Bob <roberttrent*****

It’s not that clear cut, at least not in the area I’m covering.

The sheriff here in Gwinnett tells me he’s making the community safer because the immigrant community — illegal or not — now feels more comfortable providing evidence about gangs, drug dealing, etc.

He has made a bunch of arrests in that arena. They’re not all here illegally.

There were predictions after he took over that people here would die because of that decision to ignore the reporting law. I’ve been keeping my ears open for that type of consequence but haven’t heard anything.

So it’s hard to say who’s right.

Thanks,

Randy

Randy Travis

FOX 5 I-Team reporter

Facebook: @RandyTravisFOX5

Twitter: @RandyTravisFOX5

Instagram: randytravisfox5

FOX 5 Atlanta

1551 Briarcliff Road

Atlanta, GA 30306

Center for Immigration Studies

DREAMers’ are just the bait; “citizenship for all 11 million, or however many” illegal aliens there are here is the hoo

By Andrew R. Arthur on November 17, 2022

On November 16, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) held a press conference in front of the Capitol in which he called for amnesty for “DREAMers”, aliens brought illegally to the United States as children. As he did so, however, he pulled back the curtain on his end game – to “get a path to citizenship for all 11 million, or however many undocumented, there are here”. The DREAMers are the bait, while a full and total amnesty is the hook.

DREAMers, In Brief. Amnesty legislation for aliens who arrived in their youth has a long, but not particularly successful pedigree. Here’s a brief recap.

In August 2001, then-Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) introduced a bipartisan “DREAM Act”, which included 18 cosponsors. That bill would have granted amnesty to aliens unlawfully present for five years who entered under the age of 21, and who met certain work and educational requirements.

The timing of that bill could not have been worse, because less than six weeks later, the September 11 attacks showed how foolhardy such blanket amnesties were. Nonetheless, similar “DREAM Acts” were subsequently introduced in later Congresses.

One bears special note. In March 2009, Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) offered up the “DREAM Act of 2009” during the 111th Congress.

At that time, Barack Obama was president, Democrats held an overwhelming majority in the House, and from September 24, 2009 (when Democrat Paul Kirk was appointed to fill the seat of the late Democratic Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy) through February 4, 2010 (when Republican Scott Brown was elected to fill Kennedy’s seat), Democrats held a filibuster-proof majority of 60 seats in the Senate.

Obama’s fellow Democrats could have passed any bill they wanted – including and in particular the DREAM Act of 2009 – without any Republican votes at all. But that bill went nowhere. Cosponsor and then-Senate Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) did not even bring it up for a vote in committee.

That said, two Republican senators – Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) and Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) – were cosponsors of the DREAM Act of 2009, so they probably would have blocked a filibuster even during the months Democrats only controlled a measly 59 seats in the upper chamber.

Obama blamed Republicans for the failure to pass a DREAM Act, but the fault really lies with him and congressional Democrats alone – DREAM Act legislation simply was not a priority for a party that held a hammerlock on the legislative process.

The popularity of legislation to “protect” the DACA population has been a key talking point for years (I was the punching boy for Democrats at a House hearing on the issue in March 2019), but let’s face it – if it really were all that popular, it would have been a shoo-in in the 111th Congress.

DACA. The failure of DREAM Act legislation led to a program called “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals” or DACA. It grants quasi-legal status to aliens who entered the United States while under the age of 16 before June 15, 2007, who are currently under the age of 41, who meet certain educational standards, and have not been convicted of certain crimes.

DACA was not created by Congress, or even by executive order or executive action (for what that is worth). It’s the product of a memo issued by then-DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano on June 15, 2012. In my considered legal opinion, Napolitano lacked the authority to create DACA (the Fifth Circuit ruled in October that the program is unlawful, but the Supreme Court has yet to weigh in), but in any event, it sets a bad precedent.

Want proof? Here’s what the editorial board of the Washington Post had to say when President Obama was considering expanding DACA to include parents of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents in 2014:

The president should think twice. Some of the same Democrats and pro-immigrant advocates urging him to protect millions of undocumented immigrants from deportation would be outraged if a Republican president took a similarly selective approach to enforcing the laws — say, those that guarantee voting rights or prohibit employment discrimination.

Obama ignored the Post editorial board and created something called Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA). DAPA proved to be a bridge too far for Texas and several other states, who successfully sued to block its implementation.

Despite all of this, DACA continues, and the Biden administration recently issued a new rule, effective October 31, “to preserve and fortify” the decade-old program.

A Sympathetic Population. The DACA population is admittedly sympathetic. The vast majority of the approximately 650,000 current DACA beneficiaries were removable a decade ago, but in the intervening years they have been living in a quasi-legal status thanks to some questionable administrative actions.

Even President Trump, in his 2018 State of the Union address, offered up a plan to legalize not just DACA recipients but also a total of 1.8 million “DACA-eligible” aliens – more or less the same individuals covered by the DREAM Act…. please read the rest here at the CIS website.