kris kobach: Page 1
Mel Martinez: Romney won't support attrition as president ("self deport", Jeb Bush, Kobach) - 08/28/12
The video below (cached) shows Mel Martinez - a member of Mitt Romney's Hispanic Steering Committee - commenting on Romney's immigration position if he becomes president.
Asked if Romney will stay with his last-known position in support of attrition - aka "self-deport" - Martinez says:
First the good news about the newly-passed GOP platform. From :
The official party position now reads that "State efforts to reduce illegal immigration must be encouraged, not attacked," and says the Department of Justice should immediately drop its lawsuits against controversial state immigration laws in Arizona, Alabama, South Carolina and Utah.
Mitt Romney has discussed the possibility of imposing a nationwide crackdown on undocumented aliens, a move that his leading immigration adviser believes could force more than a million people to quit the country every year.
Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, a Democrat, plans to dig into Mitt Romney in a speech on immigration reform Wednesday, when he will call the candidate's rhetoric and anti-immigrant endorsers "beyond the pale."
A group of House members  have introduce the "Legal Workforce Act" ("LFA"), which would require the use of eVerify by most workers nationwide. That would presumably make it difficult for companies to employ illegal aliens.
A California law lets illegal aliens get in-state tuition rates which, as described on the DREAM Act page, allows illegal aliens to deprive some citizens of college or get a better rate on college than some citizens. The US Supreme Court earlier today refused to hear a challenge to California's law .
Illegal aliens can get in-state college tuition, California Supreme Court says (ACLU, MALDEF) - 11/16/10
Yesterday the California Supreme Court ruled  that illegal aliens and others can receive the in-state tuition rate at California colleges provided that they've attended California high schools for three or more years. They thus upheld AB 540, also known as the "California DREAM Act".
Both of those are anti-American bills that allow illegal aliens to take college educations away from U.S. citizens. They're bad policy for other reasons too: they encourage illegal immigration and braindrain foreign countries. See the last link for the details.
All of this could have been prevented if people would do things in smart ways and use leverage. The only reason why there's an AB540 and a DREAM Act is because politicians feel free to support such anti-American bills. The way to get all (or all but the extremists) to drop support for such bills is to challenge them on video at their public appearances with the impacts of those bills; see the question at the last link. I've been trying to get people to ask that question for over three years with no help from major rightwing bloggers and the like. Instead, they simply encourage the tea parties types to wave signs and throw tantrums about less popular and less salient issues.
Regarding the suit, the attorney for the plaintiffs Kris Kobach says he'll appeal the decision. On the other side, the American Civil Liberties Union, MALDEF, and school administrators cheered the decision. (quotes to follow)
 From courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S167791.PDF
The main legal issue is this: [8 U.S.C. S 1623, link] provides that an alien not lawfully present in this country shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a state for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of this country is eligible for that benefit. In general, nonresidents of California who attend the state?s colleges and universities must pay nonresident tuition. (Ed. Code, S 68050.) But section 68130.5, subdivision (a), exempts from this requirement students — including those not lawfully in this country — who meet certain requirements, primarily that they have attended high school in California for at least three years. The question is whether this exemption is based on residence within California in violation of section 1623.
Because the exemption is given to all who have attended high school in California for at least three years (and meet the other requirements), and not all who have done so qualify as California residents for purposes of in-state tuition, and further because not all unlawful aliens who would qualify as residents but for their unlawful status are eligible for the exemption, we conclude the exemption is not based on residence in California. Rather, it is based on other criteria. Accordingly, section 68130.5 does not violate section 1623.
In the 2010 elections, Republicans who were backed by the tea parties ("TP") won several races but some of the major TP candidates lost. The GOP landslide was very large on both the national and state levels, and apparently exit polls showed 4 in 10 voters expressing support for the TP movement. However, those who voted skewed older; more younger people voted in 2008.
Below is a list of some of the races, followed by a discussion of what to do.
* Mark Kirk won in the most important race in the U.S., considering who was kept out of the Senate. Needless to say, the TP "patriots" largely ignored that race and couldn't make the grown-up choice.
* Sharron Angle lost in a clear repudiation of the TP philosophy and also of her fringe ideas. If - as I repeatedly suggested to her and her advisors via Twitter (example: twitpic.com/2rytur ) - had dropped the libertarian lunacy and had concentrated on things like the anti-American DREAM Act she could have won.
* Carly Fiorina lost, in part due to outsourcing.
* Christine ODonnell lost in Delaware. While she has some good features, her libertarian-leaning economic lunacy isn't one of them. In the same state, TP favorite Glen Urqhart lost a House race.
* Marco Rubio won. While he's fairly good on at least illegal immigration, he strongly supports legal immigration. And, he's at least an associate of the Jeb Bush/George W Bush circle. Expect the GOP to use him as a token and to push massive immigration in coming years.
* Pat Toomey - formerly with the Club for Growth - beat Joe Sestak in Pennsylvania. Toomey is from the "Profits at Any Price" school; expect him to support massive immigration, outsourcing, and free trade no matter the cost to Pennsylvanians.
* In addition to Rubio, Florida is apparently all red. Billionaire Rick Scott - a TP favorite - is their new governor.
* TP nut Joe Miller appears to be losing to Lisa Murkowski. Erich Honecker could not be reached for comment.
* Another TP nut, Rich Iott, is losing to Marcy Kaptur with 41% of the vote.
* Yet another TP nut, Carl Paladino, lost the New York State governor's race.
* A TP nut, Allen West, did win despite affiliation with an alleged criminal biker gang.
* TP favorite Linda McMahon lost to illegal immigration supporter Richard Blumenthal.
* Rep. Raul Grijalva is barely leading Ruth McClung in Arizona. If she didn't have TP-style fringe economic ideas and simply concentrated on how Grijalva encouraged a boycott of his own state and more or less represents the interests of the Mexican government she'd probably be doing a lot better.
WHAT TO DO:
As should be obvious by now, I'm not a tea parties fan. That's not going to change, and I'm not going to pretend to be one either. Not all of the Republicans listed above are associated with the TP movement, but those who are steeped in that movement should be opposed as with the movement itself.
And, the way to do that really isn't that difficult: simply make a good argument against libertarianism, whether the full version or the lite version espoused by the teapartiers. And, encourage the Democrats to make real arguments instead of playing the race card and thinking that calling people names is an argument.
That said, the vast majority of Americans are reasonable and aren't anywhere near as insane as some of the TP candidates listed above. Things will shake out and even out as they see just how badly the TP candidates govern. A majority of people might say they prefer a smaller government with fewer services, but we'll find out how little that means the first time a TP candidate tries to touch their entitlement programs. At that point in time, adults might step in to save the day.
UPDATE: Per MSNBC - thus a note of caution - just 32% of those they identified a Teaparty candidates won (link). That might sound high for a third party, until you realize that all or almost all of those were running as Republicans. In a year with such a broad win for the Republicans, you'd expect much more than a third of their candidates of a certain type to win, unless, of course, that type is "teapartier".
And, from this:
Of all the possible changes to come out of the election, the biggest potential shift in immigration policy will probably come from which party controls the House. Now that change is official: Republicans will lead the House, meaning immigration legislation will be in the hands of likely Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), who will chair the immigration subcommittee.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds, in fact, that 59% of Likely U.S. Voters think it is at least somewhat likely that most voters will be disappointed with Republicans in Congress before the next national elections. That includes 38% who say it is Very Likely.
11/4/10 UPDATE: Sen. Patty Murray (of Obama's day care centers fame) has won re-election in Washington (link). She beat Dino Rossi who was endorsed by TP groups but who at least part of the time didn't return the favor.
Obama administration considers suing Arizona over immigration law; preemption (+Kornblut, Markon wrong) - 04/28/10
Officials in the Obama administration are urging the extraordinary step of suing Arizona over its new immigration law, and the Justice Department is considering such an action to block the legislation from taking effect, government officials said Wednesday.
A key legal ground being considered, officials said, is the doctrine of "preemption" -- arguing that the state's law illegally intrudes on immigration enforcement, which is a federal responsibility...
The prospect of federal lawyers marching into court to challenge a state law would be most unusual, legal specialists said. Typically, the government files briefs or seeks to intervene in lawsuits filed by others against state statutes; federal officials said that could still happen in the Arizona case...
...Kris Kobach, who helped draft the legislation, said similar preemption arguments failed when Arizona passed a 2007 law that sanctioned employers for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants. "They tried this on for size already, and it failed," said Kobach, a senior Justice Department official in the George W. Bush administration who is now a constitutional law professor at the University of Missouri at Kansas City.
Needless to say, this would set off a political firestorm of a sort, pitting the illegal immigration-supporting establishment against the will of around 70% of a state. The great majority of conservatives and Republicans would be enraged as would a good portion of Democrats. The only ones on the Obama administration's side would be the usual suspects: those who seek to profit from illegal activity in one way or another. It's more likely that, instead of a full frontal assault, they'd help behind the scenes, such as providing assistance to the Mexican government-linked American Civil Liberties Union or the like.
Note also that Kornblut and Markon either lied or got wrong part of the Arizona law:
The Arizona law criminalizes illegal immigration by defining it as trespassing... The measure makes Arizona the first state to criminalize illegal immigration by defining it as trespassing, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
In fact, that trespassing provision was struck from the bill as signed into law, and even the New York Times has already corrected a similarly false Linda Greenhouse OpEd.
Arpaio deputies to get private training in enforcing immigration law; ACLU outraged (Kobach) - 02/10/10
According to this, all Maricopa County Sheriff's deputies will receive private training "on the authority of local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration law". Previously, just 100 of their deputies had received training from the Department of Homeland Security, but the DHS dropped that last year. Law professor and candidate for Attorney General of Kansas Kris Kobach will be providing the training (with his costs self-funded or paid by an unknown group), causing a meltdown among the supporters of illegal activity:
Alessandra Soler Meetze, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona, said Kobach is not qualified to offer the training... "He's a private individual, he's not a law-enforcement officer, he's not certified to represent the federal government or to train law enforcement officers on how to enforce immigration law," she said.
"I do not know what qualifies him to train law enforcement offices, he is not one of them."
"I am providing some legal expertise what the rules are according to the courts of the United States on questioning individuals," said Kobach via satellite Wednesday... The Sheriff's office will pay Kobach for his expertise from a fund of money seized from criminals. Sheriff Joe says the professor was only in Phoenix very briefly and made a video they'll use for training.
University of Nebraska sued for giving in-state tuition to illegal aliens (Kobach; again) - 01/25/10
(Attorney Kris Kobach) filed a lawsuit Monday challenging the validity of a 2006 Nebraska law that allows some illegal immigrants to pay in-state college tuition... The lawsuit names the University of Nebraska Board of Regents and other state college boards as defendants.
...[His earlier] attempt to challenge Kansas' in-state immigration tuition law in federal court fell flat, when the court determined that the plaintiffs - a group of students paying higher out-of-state tuition - hadn't proven they were harmed by the law.
In the Nebraska case, Kobach argues that residents' taxes are being used to support the state's immigration tuition law in violation of federal law.
The latter is similar to a case he's pursuing in California which was dismissed by a lower court but after appeal it was reinstated is now pending before the California Supreme Court.
While it would be great if he succeeds, the way to block laws like this right now is to discredit politicians over the fact that they're willing to take college educations away from U.S. citizens in order to give them to foreign citizens who are here illegally. See the DREAM Act summary for a question you can ask. If even just a few people asked questions like that on video in an attempt to have an impact on the careers of politicians, it would send a very strong message.