LJWorld.com / Court denies hearing on immigration tuition law

Archive for Monday, June 30, 2008

June 30, 2008

Topeka — The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear a lawsuit that challenges a Kansas law that allows some illegal immigrants to pay lower in-state tuition for higher education.

The action essentially ends the case, but the attorney who filed the lawsuit said Monday that the challenge may continue.

"At this point, we are trying to decide what to do," said Kris Kobach. "We're considering all of our options," he said.

At issue was a law approved in 2004 that allows children of some undocumented workers to pay the in-state tuition rate if the student lived in Kansas for at least three years, graduated from a Kansas high school, and sought or promised to seek legal status.

Last year, about 240 students benefited from the law, with most attending community colleges.

After the law was enacted, the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which seeks to limit immigration, filed a lawsuit in federal court.

The plaintiffs, who were classified as out-of-state students and had to pay the higher tuition to attend Kansas schools, argued that the law violated their constitutional rights of equal protection by granting illegal immigrants a benefit that they couldn't receive.

But a federal court in Topeka and later the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver said the plaintiffs didn't have legal standing to challenge the law because they couldn't show they would have been affected even if the law was struck down.

Without comment last week, the Supreme Court denied a request by FAIR to re-consider those rulings.

But Kobach, who also is chairman of the Kansas Republican Party, said he could challenge the law again with plaintiffs who are in a different situation, or file a new lawsuit in state court with the same kind of plaintiffs.

He said the courts have ruled only on the issue of legal standing, and not on the actual merits of the challenge to the law.

But Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, who signed the law, said she was confident it would be upheld by the courts.

"Gov. Sebelius has always been confident in this law which makes college accessible," said her spokeswoman Nicole Corcoran. "Those eligible for in-state tuition must prove they're pursuing citizenship and must pay their own way and are not eligible for state or federal financial aid," she said.

Discussion

LJWorld.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.
Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

30 June 2008
at 6:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Keith (Anonymous) says…

“At this point, we are trying to decide what to do,” said Kris Kobach.

That's pretty much every day with Kris.
30 June 2008
at 6:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Godot (Anonymous) says…

“After the law was enacted, the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which seeks to limit immigration, filed a lawsuit in federal court.”

Correction: if telling the true story is the point of this article (which is doubtful) the phrase should be worded, “which seeks to limit illegal immigration.”

Caught ya, Rothschild. Naughty, naughty, naughty…..
30 June 2008
at 6:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Valkyrie_of_Reason (Kathy Getto) says…

Au contraire. This from their website:

FAIR seeks to improve border security, to stop illegal immigration, and to promote immigration levels consistent with the national interest-more traditional rates of about 300,000 a year.

FAIR advocates a temporary moratorium on all immigration except spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens and a limited number of refugees. A moratorium would allow us to hold a national debate and devise a comprehensive immigration reform strategy. A workable immigration policy is one that would allow us time to regain control of our borders and reduce overall levels of immigration to more traditional levels of about 300,000 a year.

Caught 'ya, Godot. Naughty, naughty, naughty….. :-)
30 June 2008
at 8:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

RobertMarble (Anonymous) says…

That sounds like a good idea….a bit overly generous, perhaps…
30 June 2008
at 9:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Godot (Anonymous) says…

Valkyrie wrote: “FAIR seeks to improve border security, to stop illegal immigration,”

'nuf said.
30 June 2008
at 9:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

RiverCityConservative (Anonymous) says…

Those were tough, principled votes taken by state legislators in 2004, and it has been sad to see so much time wasted by mostly out-of-state groups seeking to politicize an issue of basic states' rights, human dignity and fairness. There are also still a few outlying legislators trying to whip up the rhetorical fight on immigrant tuition, but their numbers keep fading, kind of like “one-trick ponies.” The more Kobach beats the drum on immigration, the more credence it gives to the impression that Republicans are mean-spirited, which works to the advantage of Democrats and may well deliver that party both a senatorship and our state's electoral votes for president this year. Immigrants have kept many small towns and school districts across the state viable over the past five to ten years, accruing to the benefit of all Kansans. It's laudable that Kansas was able to win the fight against out-of-state xenophobes without much of any organized effort. Up north in Nebraska, there is a group http://www.neappleseed.org/ which really works hard to protect the human rights of immigrants in that state, against much harsher competition. On a more local scale, in Kansas City, is http://www.elcentroinc.com , whose former director of research and advocacy, Melinda Lewis, gave important testimony at Topeka to help educate legislators on the benefits of the immigrant tuition bill. A local Lawrence Republican and senior legislator, Tom Sloan, was also a key voice of reason during those debates.
30 June 2008
at 9:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

What?

Commit a crime by illegally entering the USA and you get the same benefits as a natural born citizen?

Pandering; purely and simply.

Right.
30 June 2008
at 9:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…

Tom Sloan is an idiot and is selling his state, country and constituentcy out. Ilelgal aleins must GO, and illegal aliens supporters need to be flexhed out and proxecuted under the laws, like environmental violators, like other criminals.

Laws is laws!
30 June 2008
at 10:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

KS (Anonymous) says…

Get legal standing and go for it. You will eventually win, Kris!
30 June 2008
at 11:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

toe (Anonymous) says…

Maybe illegals have no standing in any court on any issue.
1 July 2008
at 12:15 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

not_holroyd (Anonymous) says…

US Supremes said Kobach's ideas=unconstitutional, wrong.
FAIR=right wing
GODOT= right wing, idiotic.

I support a balanced US Supreme Court. Not the people like GODOT and FAIR who want to politicize the process.
1 July 2008
at 6:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

max1 (Anonymous) says…

Kansas is so desperate for growth it is in no position to deter immigration, legal or otherwise.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2…
Births, not immigration, now account for most of the growth in the nation's Hispanic population, a distinct reversal of trends of the past 30 years.
This natural increase - more births than deaths - is accelerating among Hispanics in the USA because they are younger than the U.S. population as a whole. Their median age is 27.4, compared with 37.9 overall, 40.8 for whites, 35.4 for Asians and 31.1 for blacks.
For declining counties, many in the Great Plains, the growth in young Hispanics may be the only way out of a population spiral. “Demographically, they can't recover unless something like this happens,” Johnson says. “There's no way older white populations can replace themselves.”

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2…
Saline County, Kan., is a vivid example of the impact new Hispanic residents can have on a community.
The population of the county north of Wichita has grown less than 2% this decade to 54,583, but its Hispanic population has jumped 28%. A majority of that growth came not from immigration but a greater number of births than deaths.
'County officials say employers at manufacturing plants in the county need workers. Often, Hispanic immigrants fit the bill. They work at the Tony's Pizza frozen-foods plant or the Exide Technologies battery plant or the Philips Lighting plant. “A lot of local companies either wouldn't be here or wouldn't have expanded the way they have,” says Don Merriman, county clerk and elections officer. “Philips Lighting would've gone overseas.
Young Saline County natives don't usually stick around. “The majority are going off to school someplace, and we don't see them come back,” Merriman says. In some of the rural towns around the county seat of Salina, “there's nothing for the kids to come back to. Those little towns are drying up and becoming ghost towns.”
1 July 2008
at 6:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

max1 (Anonymous) says…

Kansas Population, census 2000: 2,688,418
Kansas Population, 2006 estimate: 2,764,075
Total Change: 75,657
Change for White persons not Hispanic: +8,668
Change for Hispanic or Latino origin: +49,458

http://www.ipsr.ku.edu/ksdata/census/…
Kansas Census 1990
Total population: 2,477,574
Non-Hispanic White: 2,193,881 (88.5%)
Hispanic origin: 90,289 (3.6%)

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/stat…
Kansas Census 2006
Kansas Population, 2006 estimate: 2,764,075
White persons not Hispanic: 2,242,665 (81.1%)
Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin: 237,710 (8.6%)

http://www.kslib.info/sdc/documents/H…
The median age of Hispanic persons in Kansas: 24.8
1 July 2008
at 7:08 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Who said that crime does not pay?
1 July 2008
at 8:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Hepburn (Anonymous) says…

Asbestos…Now there you go again…anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot and unAmerican.

“Selling out his constituency”? We'll see if Tom Sloan gets reelected.

Do you live in Lawrence? Douglas County? or even Kansas? You're probably an “out-of-stater”. You never answered that question before. I bet you live in Texas.
1 July 2008
at 8:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bd (Anonymous) says…

So these illegals get in-state tuition and legal out of staters have to pay more????
Something is not right!

My State tax $ at work!
1 July 2008
at 10:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

penguin (Anonymous) says…

just one point is that these students have to graduate from a Kansas High school and have spent at least 3 years in the state of Kansas. The out of state students come here to go to school and their high tuition allows a university to keep tuition lower for in state students. There are other qualifications that you must meet:

A Kansas law that took effect on July 1, 2004 makes eligible for in-state tuition at Kansas public colleges anyone who (1) attends an accredited high school in the state for at least three years, (2) graduates or earns a general education development (GED) certificate in Kansas, and (3) is admitted to or enrolls in a Kansas college. If the person is “without lawful immigration status” that is, an undocumented alien, he must also have filed an affidavit with the college stating that he or his parents have applied to legalize his immigration status or will do so as soon as he is eligible.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/rpt/2005-R…

Also they get the in state rate, but are not eligible for Pell Grants or Stafford Loans. So these students are not getting a free ride in the form of dollar, but simply pay a reduced rate. Below is a link to all the qualifications one must meet for Federal Financial Aid.

http://www.fafsa.ed.gov/faq003.htm

So even if they wanted to hop the border and run to Kansas for in state tuition it would not occur. This issue sounds more simple than it really is. I guess that is why so few have actually qualified under the program. I know there have been stories done on it that say between 100-200 per year in all of the BOR institutions, but I can't seem to find the articles.
1 July 2008
at 10:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

penguin (Anonymous) says…

ok just read the article again and they say 240 students and mostly at community colleges. Some of these CCs do not even have a different rate for out of state residents as long as you agree to live in Kansas for 6 months after you start at the CC.
1 July 2008
at 11:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Satirical (Anonymous) says…

I would rather have illegal aliens have an education than not, but doesn't it seem contradictory that we don't give in-state tuition to citizen of this country simply because their primary residence is in another STATE, however we give it to people who are here illegally from another NATION?
1 July 2008
at 11:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

invictus (Anonymous) says…

In 20-30 years this immigration wave will be reconised for what it is, one of the biggest thefts in the history of the world. When you government takes money from you to educate criminals and their children, it is time for a revolution.
1 July 2008
at 11:43 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bd (Anonymous) says…

Viva la Revolution!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1 July 2008
at 11:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

max1 (Anonymous) says…

invictus,
In the 1950s, the US birth rate was twice as high as it is currently.
The non-Hispanic Caucasian race in the US has been slowly going extinct since the 1970s.
A fertility rate of 2.1 children per woman is required to maintain a steady population, but the current fertility rate for non-Hispanic Caucasians in the US is only 1.9, whereas the fertility rate for US Hispanics is 3.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?…
1 July 2008
at 12:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

max1 (Anonymous) says…

“doesn't it seem contradictory that we don't give in-state tuition to citizen of this country simply because their primary residence is in another STATE, however we give it to people who are here illegally from another NATION?” -satirical

What percentage of illegal immigrant children do you think can even afford in-state tuition?
1 July 2008
at 12:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Satirical (Anonymous) says…

max1…
“What percentage of illegal immigrant children do you think can even afford in-state tuition?”

How does that have anything to do with my quote? It is still contradictory even if illegal aliens can or cannot afford in-state tuition.
1 July 2008
at 12:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jafs (Anonymous) says…

These laws are patently absurd.

We should deport illegal immigrants.

Also, I think we should change the laws that make any children born in the US citizens - this might reduce the practice of illegal immigrants coming here and giving birth to “anchor babies”.
1 July 2008
at 12:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

geekin_topekan (Anonymous) says…

So these illegals get in-state tuition and legal out of staters have to pay more????
+++
“legal” out-of-staters would have to pay more regardless of who they are sitting next to.
1 July 2008
at 1 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Satirical (Anonymous) says…

geekin…
“regardless of who they are sitting next to.”

What????
1 July 2008
at 1:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

invictus (Anonymous) says…

Many illegals in the drug trade can afford in state tuition more than your average citizen.
1 July 2008
at 1:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

invictus (Anonymous) says…

Don't count out caucasians, 1.9 is still a good birth rate, and there are about 200 million of us. We aren't going extint any time soon. There is plenty of room to create our own country inside the U.S. And hispanics can have thier “azland” or what ever they want to call the third world country they are creating in the US.
1 July 2008
at 1:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

max1 (Anonymous) says…

“Don't count out caucasians, 1.9 is still a good birth rate, and there are about 200 million of us. We aren't going extint any time soon.” -invictus

Nonetheless, a 1.9 fertility rate is slow extinction, and the median age of our Caucasian population is getting older by the minute.

October 27, 2006
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/oct…
The state's expected to add 251,666 people between 2000 and 2030. Only about 15,000 of those people are expected to be people younger than 64
1 July 2008
at 1:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

max1 (Anonymous) says…

' “legal” out-of-staters would have to pay more regardless of who they are sitting next to. ' -geekin_topekan

That's correct, and if the children of our illegal immigrants have lived in Kansas for more than three years and have graduated from a Kansas high school, then it is not “contradictory” that they should receive in-state tuition. The purpose of attracting out-of-state students is to make money, and we shouldn't be trying to make money off of those who can least afford it.
KU's campaign to attract out-of-staters has been failing anyway, and I suspect it is because the tuition is already too high. It remains to be seen If KU's basketball & football “fame” will result in a higher out-of-state enrollment this coming semester.
Overall enrollment on the KU campus here in Lawrence has been declining steadily for the past several years (1000 fewer since 2000), and as minorities (whose families have less income) represent a larger percentage of our high school graduates, the cost of in-state tuition (coupled with the high cost of living here in Lawrence) might cause the Lawrence campus to shrink even more. Minorities represented 14.6 % of our 2001-02 Kansas high school graduates, and are projected to represent 26% by 2013-14.

August 14, 2004
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2004/aug…
undergraduate students from Kansas pay tuition rates equal to 37 percent of what it costs to provide them an education. Nonresident undergraduates' tuition is equal to 129 percent of their education.
KU's admissions office wants to slightly increase the proportion of nonresident students during the next 12 years. A 100-student increase in nonresident enrollment, for example, would mean an additional $600,000 for KU.

September 23, 2004
http://www.kansan.com/stories/2004/se…
The number of non-resident students actually dropped by 158 students from Fall 2003.

Fall 2005
http://www.kansasregents.org/download…
KU Total, Change in Non-Resident enrollment from from Fall 04 to Fall 05: -174
KU: -215
KUMC: +41

Spring 2006
http://www.kansasregents.org/download…
KU Total, Change in Non-Residents Spring 05 to Spring 06: -27

Fall 2007
http://www.kansasregents.org/download…
KU Total, Change in Non-Resident enrollment from from Fall 06 to Fall 07: -141
KU: -94
KUMC: -47
1 July 2008
at 2:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

invictus (Anonymous) says…

We (causasians) might just decide to leave if the US become unlivable, we left greece, and rome, and every other great civilization before it fell. We create the civilizations and others tear them down, it is a cycle we have gotten used to. So were next? Canda? Russia? It is exciting to think about.
1 July 2008
at 2:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

invictus (Anonymous) says…

Max1
Fertility rates change and populations stablize.
1 July 2008
at 2:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

brujablanco (Anonymous) says…

Wow, invictus, burn crosses much?
1 July 2008
at 2:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

invictus (Anonymous) says…

I have never burnt a cross. I don't believe in the Klan's philosophy.
1 July 2008
at 2:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

brujablanco (Anonymous) says…

Pardon me, swastika much?
1 July 2008
at 2:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

invictus (Anonymous) says…

Htiler is responsible for ….”perverting … and making for ever accursed, that noble northern spirit”
-JRR Tolkein

You trying to accuse me of racism for wanting my race to merely survive… is ironic. Doesn't that make you the racist?
1 July 2008
at 3:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

max1 (Anonymous) says…

“Max1, Fertility rates change and populations stablize.” -invictus

Yeah, the condition of the Kansas population is “stabilizing” in rest homes.
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/oct…
Kansas likely to be 'giant retirement community'
1 July 2008
at 3:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

invictus (Anonymous) says…

You're right, the settlers of Kansas will soon be extinct. Do see a perversion in celibrating this as some kind of victory? Isn't this a kind of ethnic cleansing? And all the while acusing those facing extintion of racism?
1 July 2008
at 3:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…

Are people really this slow?

I love all the cries of “WHAT?!?! you can't get in-state tuition if you are from another state, but you can get it if you're from another nation??!?!?!??”

Nevermind the fact that in-state tuition is not dependant upon your country of origin, but rather, your physical residence for the required time period to become eligible.

Nevermind the fact that these out-of-staters that are filing suit over this would have the same right to in-state tuition if they would submit to the same guidelines (live in Kansas for 3 years, graduate from a Kansas highschool).

I'm so baffled by this lawsuit that I don't even know where to start. 1st, unless the plaintiffs are restricted from attaining the benefits in the same way as any other person, they have no basis for an unequal protection suit. Seeing as how ANYONE—legal or not—can earn this benefit by meeting the criteria, there is no basis.

2nd, the only result that would allow the plaintiffs to pay in-state tuition would involve throwing out the concept of in-state tuition differential altogether. As the court stated, an out-of-state resident has no legal standing to challenge for the right to pay in-state tuition. That defies the very concept of in-state tuition.

If Kobach and the rest of the mental midgets in the KRP would think about it for 5 seconds, they might realize that the ONLY group that has any legal standing to challenge unfair implementation of the in-state tuition law are people who are actually eligible for in-state tuition. And even then only people who are being denied the in-state benefit in favor of illegal immigrants could actually make a case that the law is unfair. Seeing as how those people don't exist, it might be a difficult thing to do, hence the pointlessness of this suit.

When ideology trumps common sense, it is an ugly thing.
1 July 2008
at 3:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…

“Also, I think we should change the laws that make any children born in the US citizens”

––––––

Well, thank you for self-identifying as an extremist.

You are so absorbed with the immigration issue that you are willing to deny natural born U.S. citizens their inherent rights.

Plus, if a person born on U.S. soil isn't a U.S. citizen, then do tell, how would you define it.

Xenophobic doesn't even begin to describe your viewpoint.
1 July 2008
at 3:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

max1 (Anonymous) says…

“Do see a perversion in celibrating this as some kind of victory? Isn't this a kind of ethnic cleansing?” -invictus

Reporting demographic statistics is not “celebrating” the extinction of the Caucasian race, no matter how you and Kris “K” Kobach try to twist the meaning of those reports.
1 July 2008
at 3:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

invictus (Anonymous) says…

Logic sound
“Also, I think we should change the laws that make any children born in the US citizens”

That is not an “extremeist” approach, many industrialized countries have laws that do not give citizenship to border jumpers who have babies in their country.
1 July 2008
at 4:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…

Sorry, if you think a person born on U.S. soil is not a citizen, then you are an extremist, no matter how many other extremists share your view.

Would you mind citing some of those industrialized nations, for argument's sake?

I'm curious to know how they determine who gets to be a citizen and who doesn't.
1 July 2008
at 4:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

invictus (Anonymous) says…

Germany for one
1 July 2008
at 4:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ASBESTOS (Anonymous) says…

“Would you mind citing some of those industrialized nations, for argument's sake?”

Spain, France, Germany, Canada, Great Britian, Japan, China, South Korea, on and on.

Mexico does not recognise children born on their soil as “citizens” either, and they sure as heck don't concern themselves too much about fairness to “other country's” ilelgal aliens in Mexico.

And NO, a baby born here is NOT a citizen, the baby's parents must be “under the jurisdiction of the United States”, and an illelgal entrant is not under that jurisdiction. A Visa holder, or a visitor (legal entrant) would however.

With 330 million and climbing, our population and the economy will foster a very virulent anti illegal alien sensibility. It is no longer acceptable to a **majority of American Citizens** to be an illegal entrant in the United States.

Any politician that holds out the “amnesty” pledge will lose their elections, as have 37 of the last 40 senators, most are Republicans.
1 July 2008
at 4:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

invictus (Anonymous) says…

¢ Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the country
without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. (Article 118)
1 July 2008
at 4:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

invictus (Anonymous) says…

logic sound looks like you don't have a leg to stand on!!
You are the extremeist, extremely dumb.
1 July 2008
at 5:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

konzahawk (Anonymous) says…

invictus, you rock!! Keep up the good work.
1 July 2008
at 5:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ebyrdstarr (Anonymous) says…

Asbestos, that is not a correct reading of the 14th amendment. The amendment's language is that the person born must be subject to the jurisdiction of the US, not the parents.

While the US Supreme Court has never explicitly distinguished between non-citizens who are here legally and those who are not who give birth in the US, they have clearly interpreted this section to grant birthright citizenship to the children of all non-citizens. The Court has at least suggested the US born children of illegal immigrants are citizens.

As of right now, the only recognized exceptions to birthright citizenship are the children of diplomats and those born to enemy forces in hostile occupation.
1 July 2008
at 7:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

brujablanco (Anonymous) says…

invictus says:

“You trying to accuse me of racism for wanting my race to merely survive: is ironic. Doesn't that make you the racist?”
_____________________________________________

Feeling the need for YOUR race to survive makes it very clear to me who is the racist.
1 July 2008
at 9:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

max1 (Anonymous) says…

“Any politician that holds out the “amnesty” pledge will lose their elections, as have 37 of the last 40 senators, most are Republicans.” -asbestos

Yeah, that anti-illegal immigrant campaign worked real well for Ryun.
I want all you true Republicans to take notice of asbestos' warning, and vote Bob Barr for President!

June 3, 2006
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/jun…
U.S. Rep. Jim Ryun, a Republican from Lawrence, on Friday filed to seek re-election for a sixth term and said illegal immigration was the top issue on voters' minds.
“The No. 1 and No. 2 issues are immigration and immigration,” said Ryun

June 30, 2008
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/im…
O.C. anti-illegal immigration activists prefer Ron Paul, Bob Barr
The T-shirt said it all. Costa Mesa resident John Powelson, a lifelong Republican, displayed his political sentiments across his chest at an anti-illegal immigration meeting last week: “Is John McCain the Manchurian candidate?”

June 30, 2008
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lapla…
McCain stressed his commitment to comprehensive immigration reform — and enforcement — at a conference of the National Assn. of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO), covered by Los Angeles Times reporter Richard Simon.
On the same day, Democrats released a video called McCain vs. McCain: Immigration Reform that purports to show McCain flip-flopping on whether enforcement should come first, or whether Congress should try for broad reform that gives some legal status to the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants now in the U.S.
1 July 2008
at 11:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

RiverCityConservative (Anonymous) says…

We are a nation of immigrants and always have been. Following the logic of those who think we ought to distinguish between those born on U.S. soil whose parents are citizens and those born on U.S. soil whose parents are not citizens, 99 percent of the individuals currently residing in the country would have to give up citizenship rights because for any one of us you can trace lineage back to a U.S. born child of an immigrant. Also, imagine the infinite number of blood tests and DNA analyses that would be required to be absolutely certain each newborn was actually genetically related to his or her father and not the result of a secret dalliance before granting citizenship by birth. This immigration issue is the biggest political and rhetorical boondoggle I've ever seen. If you have a local or personal problem or challenge, the answer is not to try to find a scapegoat—that's the coward's approach. Make an effort to improve things at home, in your community, in your
work or your art of living—do something constructive instead of trying to tear others down as if you were addicted to hatred. Being born in America is not enough: there is a positive, can-do spirit that comes with this birthright and we have a responsibility take advantage of greater awareness today and avoid the nativist, xenophobic mindset of earlier generations. What parent would really want their descendants to safeguard an attitude as illogical and worthless as racism? You might as well raise and educate your children in an actual prison.
3 July 2008
at 3:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

invictus (Anonymous) says…

WE are a nation of immigrants?
True however there are some major difference between current debate and the country our ancestors immigrated to.

1) There is a big difference between legal and illegal immigration. “Most were born from an immigrant” true but they immigrated legaly.
2) Most current citizens ancestors did not immigrate to a wellfare state. This was created in the early 20th century. There were no entitlement programs to take atvantage of no national education system, no medicaid, no subsidized housing (All funded by taxpayer money). Were we show a barren unproductive wilderness and told if you make it productive you get portion of it.

I find it interesting that the left is aways raving about western european countries and thier wellfare states. They want to introduce similar policies in the US, but they will not enact similar immigration standards. We are at a point in our nation's history that we should be cherry picking the very best of world when it comes to immigration policy. Just like the Yankees in Baseball. Not importing masses of uneducated cheap labor. The wealth of modern nations depends on capital investment, and a relatively small population. A vote for uncontrolled immigration is a vote for a third world america.
9 July 2008
at 2:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

RiverCityConservative (Anonymous) says…

What more perfect example of a welfare state than giving away land for free? And do you really believe that every one of your ancestors waited in line at Ellis Island to enter in an orderly fashion? I used the word “immigrant” because certain extremist groups (not you I'm sure) on the right are always trying to win pity points and rhetorical victories by assuming that they are on the legal side of a distinction between documented and undocumented immigrants, all the way back to their original immigrant ancestors. Culture is neutral—each one is different but none is better than any other. For several hundred years, new arrivals in America have been people who appreciate the opportunities and freedoms here. That is as true as ever of our most recent new immigrants as well, They continue to be the most patriotic and optimistic Americans. I have no idea what you mean by “third world” America, but I assume you are not making a racist statement. Each new generation of immigrants has suffered rejection and discrimination and worse: it is this ugly aspect of American society that we ought to be able to overcome through education and awareness. I sincerely believe that it is possible to see immigration from a more enlightened perspective and to be grateful to those who have improved America's future prospects by going through the tough experience of immigrating to a new country. “Land of the free and home of the brave.” Let's work to keep our minds free of racism, prejudice, and intolerance!”