News on what is not in "the news" - January 2021 email to Marietta Daily Journal publisher Otis Brumby lll- 287(g) OCGA 42-4-14

Note: The below email was intended to insure the publisher of the Marietta Daily Journal was aware of the existence of state law that requires all jailers to use reasonable effort to determine immigration status of incoming prisoners and to report illegal aliens to U.S. DHS. To our knowledge the MDJ has not run any news item informing readers of the existence of this law or the fact that the Cobb County Sheriff is in violation. Similar emails were sent to most other news outlets in Georgia.

We do not know of any news stories on this topic. More here and here and here.

Related: MDJ (and MDJ-owned Rome Tribune) did run a story on Cobb Sheriff inviting a mariachi band to the celebration event in which he announced he was ending the lifesaving 287(g) agreement in the Cobb jail. The liberal Atlanta Journal Constitution ran a story on both Cobb & Gwinnett sheriffs ending the 287 (g) program and the AJC ran a celebratory story a year later explaining that neither sheriff was reporting illegal aliens to the feds.

_______________________

From: “D.A. King” <D**********>

Subject: Heads up – you need to know Re; 287(g)

Date: January 20, 2021 at 6:17:03 PM EST

To: otis3@mdjonline ****

Otis,

Due to first-hand, educated contempt, I have not been involved in Cobb politics in a long while and have not seen your paper in years because of my near total absence of respect for your editors. Those feelings do not apply to you.

Heads up: You need to understand that the new sheriff knows very well (I have made sure of it, personally) that long standing state law requires all jailers to report illegal immigration status to DHS, – 287(g) or no 287(g).

A friend has sent me a pasted version of a news article for the MDJ “Bold, necessary, and overdue”: Sheriff Owens declares end to 287(g) immigration enforcement” that lacks any form of balance, topic knowledge or coverage of the law I describe above. I am proud to have worked on this law with Chip Rogers in 2006 and several times after that including 2011 on HB 87. We put this language in the code as a ‘Plan B’. It is counter productive for the media to keep it secret. It is also counter productive to not comply.

Dustin Inman and literally thousands of other Americans have lost their lives because illegal aliens have been released from local custody and then gone on to kill or harm an innocent. The Cobb Sheriff is using talking points from the far-left that he does not understand. And he is smearing LEO brothers in the process as “profiling.”

I am taking the time to fill you in out of great anger and an effort to save some lives. The AJC refuses to educate their readers. I hope that is not the case with the MDJ. I have subscribed online to watch.

D.A. King

______

Sheriff Association guidelines here.

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.