Advertisement

Archive for Wednesday, September 15, 2010

Campaign Notebook: Kobach working on “birthright citizenship” issue

Kris Kobach, who is running for Secretary of State, said Wednesday he wants to end birthright citizenship. Kobach has been in the news nationally for advising cities and states on cracking down on illegal immigration.

September 15, 2010, 8:22 a.m. Updated September 16, 2010, 3:28 p.m.

Advertisement

— Kris Kobach, the Republican candidate for Kansas secretary of state who helped Arizona legislators approve controversial immigration law, said Wednesday he is working with those legislators on another controversial proposal -- this one aimed at denying automatic citizenship in that state to children born in the country to parents who are illegal immigrants.

Kobach said he has worked on the so-called "birthright citizenship" issue over the past month with Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce, a Republican.

Under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, children born in the U.S. are guaranteed citizenship. But Kobach said the 14th Amendment, written following the Civil War, was directed at guaranteeing citizenship to freed slaves.

Kobach said he, Pearce and others are exploring ways that states could change that law without amending the Constitution. Kobach is an attorney and former law professor.

Supporters of changing "birthright citizenship" say it would stop immigrants from coming to the U.S. illegally to have children who would be automatically U.S. citizens.

Kobach helped write Arizona's SB 1070, which requires local law enforcement to check citizenship status of people suspected of being in the country illegally. He has also represented several cities in efforts to pass local ordinances against illegal immigration.

Kobach's comments about the birthright citizenship issue came in response to questions at a news conference in which he announced that if elected secretary of state he would use the office to increase civic education.

He said he plans to do this by enhancing the secretary of state's website to include teaching tools on the U.S. and Kansas constitutions, traveling the state to speak about the constitutional issues, and holding an annual youth summit where students could observe and interact with members of the Legislature.

He also said he would enhance the secretary of state's website to be a one-stop service for people to report allegations of voter fraud. He also wants to expand the office's role in prosecuting voter fraud.

Kobach's opponent, Democratic Secretary of State Chris Biggs issued a statement, saying, "The real fraud is the continued and dishonest insistence that Kansas elections aren’t secure.  Our election process is fair and secure, and every eligible citizen who has the right to vote is able to do so.  There is no need to radically reinvent the role of the Secretary of State; this office must remain free of partisanship and focused on real issues that affect Kansans."

Comments

remember_username 4 years, 3 months ago

I have a feeling that if elected this guy's going to be the next Vern Miller. He's just too flamboyant for the job and will constantly be doing anything to stay in the news. I can just see him jumping out of a ballot box to arrest some idiot allegedly committing voter fraud.

dinglesmith 4 years, 3 months ago

Or maybe he'll try to arrest people filling out absentee ballots as they fly over the state...

Ralph Reed 4 years, 3 months ago

Actually, Kobach nothing like Vern Miller. Miller enforced the laws on the books. Kobach wants to make new laws abridging the US Constitution and to rewrite the KS Constitution to amend the duties of the KS Secretary of State; he's a solution in search of a problem. (http://politicalirony.com/2010/04/27/everything-you-think-you-know-about-immigration-reform-is-wrong/)

Even though many in Lawrence still have a bad taste in their mouth because of Vern, he did what he was "hired" to do, enforce the laws on the books. He just had a particular tactic of jumping out of car trucks during a "sting." That's what made the news. I disagree with his target and his methods.

He got elected by Western KS (Topeka & parts west) by labeling Lawrence the drug capitol of the Midwest; in actuality that should have been Junction City, but that's beside the point.

He got reelected because he was cleaning up "sin city." What got him voted out was his busting the slots in the back rooms of the Eagles, American Legions, VFWs, etc across the state. It was OK for him to "F***" with the students in Lawrence, but when he started messing with their slots, well ...

(As a note, I do remember at least two people being fed a hot load because they talked.)

trikemamma 4 years, 3 months ago

I read through the blogs here before posting this comment. It became very clear to me that most of those who posted comments probably need to do their homework. Do any of you know just what the job of Secretary of State is? Until recently I just thought the person in that position put their picture on state road maps. I have been a supporter of Chris Biggs for many years but his comments regarding voter turnouts being very low in off year elections got me thinking. It's part of the SOS's job to monitor elections, if voter turnout is so low then perhaps he (or she) hasn't been doing their job to educate the public on the importance of voting. I support Kobach's ideas for educating students about the Constitution and the history of this great country and state. Remember, those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it (paraphrased). Study up kids, do you know what the Constitution says?

mysterion 4 years, 3 months ago

This guy sounds like a second Phil Kline.

parrothead8 4 years, 3 months ago

Maybe Arizona should elect him. He seems a lot more concerned about them than about us.

anonyname 4 years, 3 months ago

How dare the voters of Kansas elect (gasp!) a female to elected office!! Scandal!! Actually, the numbers do add up: per the US Census 2009 estimates, the population of Kansas is 50.3% female.

Let's see if we can get the LJW to start interviewing your friends around the country - they must be influential sources.

anonyname 4 years, 3 months ago

I am inferring that your claim is 'extensive voter fraud' is the only reason a female can be elected in Kansas, and I am laughing at that claim.

thatonedude 4 years, 3 months ago

Two things:

1) Not all "old timers" think that way, and I volunteered during the last two election cycles with ones more open-minded than you seem willing to believe.

2) Shocking as it may sound, sometimes young people do, in fact, vote.

Steve Jacob 4 years, 3 months ago

Females seem to come up through the ranks of finance. Insurance Commissioners, Treasury, etc. so most tend to me moderate. And Kansas would never elect a liberal in a statewide election, so stopping calling them that. Liberals do not live outside of Lawrence.

onemansopinion 4 years, 3 months ago

Lawrenceguy40, Based on your conspiratorial conversations, it might be time for you to expand your circle of "friends around the county".

What "numbers" that don't add up are you referring to? What "liberal media" are you talking about? You really need to be more responsible when you post online. Yes, it's a public forum and I respect your right to free speech, but you have to come to a conversation armed with something better than some Tea Party, radical right wing talking points.

ConcernedCynic 4 years, 3 months ago

Exactly, just ignore him - skip over his posts. They are just crazy rants of a senile 40 year guy old (+) guy from Lawrence.

Jimo 4 years, 3 months ago

Bingo! Just on cue.

Yesterday, someone sent me a link to this poll: http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/09/acorn.html

Can you believe it? ACORN doesn't even exist anymore and nincompoops still (!) believe that it will "steal" elections.

I know lawrenceguy that everyone who looks like you and talks like you from your church that you have coffee with every day and sits around and eats up your b/s votes just like you and so it's impossible that Democrats might be elected anywhere because all of you brains-in-your-ass types totally agree that Obama is a third world socialist sent by Satan. It can be the only explanation - Sarah told you so.

notajayhawk 4 years, 3 months ago

"Can you believe it? ACORN doesn't even exist anymore"

And you believe that. Brilliant.

Do you know what the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment is (and was), Jimo?

Do you know what the New York Communities for Change is (and was), Jimo?

Do you know what the Affordable Housing Centers of America is (and was), Jimo?

The same employees working in the same offices doing the same jobs doesn't qualify as "gone", Jimo.

Changing your name, 're-branding', or taping a paper sign over the letters A.C.O.R.N. on the door to distance themselves from the reputation associated with their former name doesn't qualify as "gone", Jimo.

Of course you believe ACORN is gone, Jimo - Rachel Madkow told you so.

overthemoon 4 years, 3 months ago

If what you say is true, I am elated! ACORN did great work for those who need advocacy and opportunity to get the boots with straps with which they can pull themselves up.

If 'Madkow' is the only ammo you got against the smartest and increasingly respected journalist on the beat, then so be it. You ought to watch, you'd be amazed at what you'd find out about your sacred kows.

Jimo 4 years, 3 months ago

I'm sure they all fall under the manufactured controversy of the day club that the feeble minded, well documented liars of the world fall for repeatedly.

ACORN is just one of several crackpot code words for "I'm a wingnut idiot."

notajayhawk 4 years, 3 months ago

A simple "I don't know" would have sufficed, jimmie. Unless of course you wanted to add "what I'm talking about" to the end of it.

Gee, maybe you should look up what those organizations are, and who works for them, before you spout off. It might just make you look marginally less uninformed. (Very marginally.)

Here's another one you can look up: Community Organizations International. You might also look at the identity of their "Chief Organizer". Then come back and tell us all about how "ACORN doesn't even exist anymore". I can always use an afternoon laugh.

Jimo 4 years, 3 months ago

Just because you live in a fantasy world doesn't mean anyone else in interested, Alice.

notajayhawk 4 years, 3 months ago

Wow! Great comeback! Completely devoid of facts or logic, ignored any questions posed to you, and had nothing to say about the point at all. Like all your posts.

Coming from such a notable liar, Jimo, I'm surprised you didn't at least try something other than covering your ears and saying "Nuh-uh!"

Why don't you try going to COI's website, child? They still have the ACORN logo up.

Here's a question for you (that I have no doubt you'll continue to ignore): Do you even know who Wade Rathke is?

Keep that head firmly buried in the sand, Jimo. Be a good little drone and just keep believing what your masters spoonfeed. Except in your case, I suspect the cause of your ignorance is a head that's buried someplace that smells substantially worse.

Sheila Martin 4 years, 3 months ago

A pig is a pig no matter what new name you give it. Public Policy Polling, at least the one out of Hayes State, is not a scientific poll. They handpick whom they want to answer the poll. The groups most often doing polls are non profits who receive grant funding from a group who want to acheive a predetermined result. Such as Johnson and Johnson and smoking bans. They fund non profits to do their polls and amazingly end up with the exact numbers that the nicotine replacement sellers want. Do not try and tell anyone that polls are anyh use other than propaganda. I am 55 years old. I was a lifetime Dem until last March. When I realized that Obama had lied about his being a moderate and allowing lobbyists in the Cabinet, I was no longer a Dem. Now I will vote for a particular candidate, no more Party line. period. Obama lied. HE was manufactured and marketed for this job by pharma and insurance. He is not a Moderate. Sorry. If that makes me a Tea Partier then so be it. I am voting for Kobach. I may or may not vote for Holland. I still do not have satisfactory answers to my questions from him.

HMcMellon 4 years, 3 months ago

lawrenceguy40 points out why we need to make sure that we have a big turnout of rational people to vote in this election. We cannot let the theocratic socialists get into office. Letting these pseudo Republicans mess around with our government will lead to massive regulations and red tape that will take years to untangle. If Brownback and the other big govt theocrats get into office, we will all be subject to the long reach of the government into the lives of our families, children and reproductive organs. In addition, these big government robots are getting most of their campaign funds and will be owned by the mostly-foreign owned, multi-national corporations, who plan to use their pawns to rip off our tax dollars and control our lives. We need to say "NO" to these RINOs and elect people with common sense who will stand up for freedom and liberty over subjugation. We do not need to return to a situation where crackpots are forcing their narrow religious views and multi-national corporatism on those of us who believe in small government and small business and who are not into extreme religious dogmas.

CLARKKENT 4 years, 3 months ago

THOSE TWO ARE STILL A HELL OF A LOT BETTER FOR KANSAS THAN BROWNBACK.

HE HAS BEEN IN WASHINGTON LONG ENOUGH TO BE PART OF THE TROUBLE OUR COUNTRY IS IN.

BleedingheartofLawrence 4 years, 3 months ago

I guess you didn't know that Finney was pro-life, even though she was a Democrat. Because of that, I voted for Mike Hayden.

KU_cynic 4 years, 3 months ago

When Sebelius first ran for office it was against a right-wing jerk. Like many other Republicans, I voted for her then. No fraud or problem with numbers adding up, since many Republicans probably felt like I did.

I'll vote enthusiastically Republican for most offices this fall with three exceptions:

-Kris Kobach is a race-baiting xenophobe who aggressively attempts to divides us and frighten the most vulnerable among us. I wouldn't vote for him to pick up roadkill on county roads, let alone for Secretary of State.

  • Steve Fix (D) will get my vote as Attorney General. He's moderate and extremely competent, a Lawrencian, and a heck of nice guy.

  • Lynn Jenkins is a bubble-headed tool of national right wing interests. She chose to have an affair and get divorced while running for Congress the first time around over trying to preserve her marriage and family. Don't want to know her; don't want to vote for her.

whats_going_on 4 years, 3 months ago

well, I felt sorry for you from that post before, but no longer. JUST because this person is a "republican" doesn't mean they always have to vote republican, no matter what.

That is what makes me SO ANGRY about people like you. You vote for your party regardless. The candidate could be a 93 year old pedophile with multiple personalities who hasnt paid taxes in 50 years and you'd vote for him, just because of his party. It's just sickening.

KU_cynic...even though we don't share the same party, I applaud you for sticking to your morals and looking beyond party lines. Lawrenceguy40 is a moron. Way to go.

jafs 4 years, 3 months ago

So you don't believe in democracy.

monheim 4 years, 3 months ago

Weren't you just whining about voter fraud a few posts above this? Now in the next breath you're throwing a hissy fit implying someone doesn't have the right to vote because you don't like what they think? Classic!! Thanks for the laugh, you're always good for one.

texburgh 4 years, 3 months ago

You have finally outdone yourself. The fact that a woman was elected proves voter fraud? A Democrat was elected, so there must be voter fraud? A pro-choice candidate was elected? Must be voter fraud!

Or maybe, just maybe, a majority of Kansans really ARE moderate! Maybe they really would rather be represented by Democratic female pro-choice governors than homophobic, misogynist, xenophobic extremists who want to control your bedroom and your body, want to deny science, want to institute "birther purity laws" that would make the leaders of the Third Reich proud.

lounger 4 years, 3 months ago

Take a breather lawrenceguy40. Are you scared of female's?

FarneyMac 4 years, 3 months ago

This is just insane. There's no other word that fits. Just absolutely insane, and not based in reality. You REALLY think that ACORN "stole" any elections, let alone the freaking Kansas gubernatorial race? You're sexist, and likely racist too. Please die in a fire.

jafs 4 years, 3 months ago

Does that question apply equally to men?

deec 4 years, 3 months ago

Isn't it amazing how when you mention men's responsibilities in preventing unwanted pregnancies or abortions, the anti-choice people disappear?

monheim 4 years, 3 months ago

People like lawrenceguy40 have to use the terms "pro-life" and "pro-abortion" because they have no rational basis for their position, so they have to do it with by creating a false dichotomy. ie: everyone either falls into two camps: those who like life and those who like abortion. It's called framing and it's what politics is all about!

Jimo 4 years, 3 months ago

Dear Mr. Kobach,

The Kansas Secretary of State jobs is very boring and limited. Please read the job description again. If you don't want the job, please withdraw your application and find something more appropriate for your temperament (such as lion tamer).

ralphralph 4 years, 3 months ago

Was there a story in this story? I looked twice and couldn't find one.

MyName 4 years, 3 months ago

The story is to come back this afternoon with popcorn and make fun of the "conservative" who wants to rewrite the duties of the office that he's seeking to be elected to.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 3 months ago

"Anyone that supports this buffoon is a sheer idiot, and you know it."

Idiots don't generally have much self-awareness.

notajayhawk 4 years, 3 months ago

Come on, don't sugar-coat it. How do you really feel about it?

BrianR 4 years, 3 months ago

Translation: I'm going to use a public political office to further solidify my party's grip on government.

notajayhawk 4 years, 3 months ago

Um - isn't that what every politician does?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 3 months ago

My guess is that one of the "changes" will be to give the Sec. of State the power to govern the state by decree.

Bananajoe 4 years, 3 months ago

He just wants to change the job's name from Secretary of State to Supreme Ruler of the Kansas Universe

overthemoon 4 years, 3 months ago

I think what he is real double-speaking about is that he wants to institutionalize fraud so he can assure his crazy buddies always win.

verity 4 years, 3 months ago

"he wants to institutionalize fraud so he can assure his crazy buddies always win."

That was my thought.

meggers 4 years, 3 months ago

The irony here is epic.

He's drafting legislation to circumvent the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. In the next breath, he says he wants to initiate more programs to teach students about the Constitution. One is left to assume that he only means the parts he agrees with.

jafs 4 years, 3 months ago

Yes.

It seems odd - why not just repeal the 14th Amendment?

MyName 4 years, 3 months ago

Okay, so now he wants to make sure that people are "educated" about the U.S. Constitution while working to increase the number people who are denied citizenship. And all of this is somehow going to magically help cure voter fraud that doesn't exist in Kansas?

Who did this guy beat out for the Republican nomination, because this is like Ross Perot territory here.

MyName 4 years, 3 months ago

yeah, but Perot's big problem was that he didn't make sense. Other than that, I'm sure he was a fine candidate.

beatrice 4 years, 3 months ago

I've never seen Kobach's birth certificate. Have you? How do we know he is a citizen? He needs to show us the original birth certificate.

Has he helped write any legislation on immigration that hasn't been struck down by the courts for being unconstitutional?

whats_going_on 4 years, 3 months ago

"I've never seen Kobach's birth certificate. Have you? How do we know he is a citizen? He needs to show us the original birth certificate. "

I'm not sure if Uranus is technically part of the lower 48 states...so, it's doubtful.

Jimo 4 years, 3 months ago

"But Kobach said the 14th Amendment, written following the Civil War, was directed at guaranteeing citizenship to freed slaves."

Because if Rush says it often enough it's got to be true!

The 14th Amendment says what it says. It was intended to say what the carefully constructed text states.

What's really sad is that Kobach used to earn a paycheck as a constitutional scholar and knows quite well that, legally, there is no interpretation controversy at all and his bill stands no chance - ZERO - of doing more than raising campaign donations from suckers with poor reading comprehension skills.

notajayhawk 4 years, 3 months ago

"Because if Rush says it often enough it's got to be true!"

Yes, jimmie, I'm sure Kobach - who you admit is a constitutional scholar - formed that opinion by listening to Rush Limbaugh.

Then again, maybe not:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1558749

"The Citizenship Clause, designed to secure equality of citizenship for freedmen, gives Congress the corresponding power to protect the badges and incidents of citizenship."

The 14th Amendment was proposed by Congress in 1866 - nine years before the country's first laws restricting immigration. Is it your contention that the intent of the men who wrote that "carefully constructed text" was to provide citizenship for children of illegal immigrants - when there was no such thing as an illegal immigrant in 1866?

Let's see, whose opinion should I listen to on the purpose of the Reconstruction Amendments - a couple of constitutional scholars, or a blogger on a small-town newspaper's message boards? What to do, what to do ...

Jimo 4 years, 3 months ago

A. We're talking citizenship not immigration. Keep on topic. The first law dealing with such was passed by the 1st Session of the Congress in 1790 and restricted the naturalization of immigrants to "free white citizens of good moral character" - a designation that excludes 100% of today's "illegal aliens." http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=226

B. We long ago established that reading comprehension wasn't your forte so I'll limit myself to your quotation by noting that the comment is solely about the equally carefully constructed oddity of the 14th Amendment that grants to Congress the power to enforce the Amendment. The author's point is to admonish the Supreme Court that Congress doesn't just have power to enforce the Amendment on States but to even reach into and regulate private behavior and forms the basis of such laws as hate-crimes legislation and public accommodation laws (pace Rand Paul!). (That you undoubtedly reject such an 'anti-liberty' claim on adds to the ignorance of your citation. Read the damned article before snatching some out of context snippet!!!!) In short, the quote - nor the author! - appreciates your laughably inept attempt to appeal to their implied authority to flaunt your academic masterbation. http://balkin.blogspot.com/2010/02/reconstruction-power.html

C. I agree with Antonin Scalia: the beginning and end of interpreting text is the text itself, not playing amateur historian, sociologist, or anthropologist. All human beings born in the United States are citizens with the very narrow exception of those outside our legal jurisdiction: (a) Indians who weren't subject to taxation (later cured by statute) and (b) the children of diplomats. Kobach is damned because he already knows this but doesn't care (you're damned because you aren't intelligent enough to not comment on matters you haven't invested the time and effort to gain any knowledge of).

D. The Supreme Court over a hundred years ago rejected your interpretation. We are bound by their, quite correct, analysis.

So....there's me and the constitution, the courts, and the scholars and there's .... a grossly obese oxycontin addict.

notajayhawk 4 years, 3 months ago

"A. We're talking citizenship not immigration. Keep on topic."

Citizenship for the children of immigrants, dimbulb. You really don't keep up well, do you?

"B. We long ago established that reading comprehension wasn't your forte so I'll limit myself to your quotation by noting that the comment is solely about the equally carefully constructed oddity of the 14th Amendment that grants to Congress the power to enforce the Amendment."

And once again, when Jimo is proven wrong, he just makes something up that I said.

If you had the reading comprehension of a fruit fly, Jimo, and had actually read my post before making a lame attempt at replying to it, you might have noticed that I didn't say anything about "the equally carefully constructed oddity of the 14th Amendment that grants to Congress the power to enforce the Amendment". I said nothing about whether Kobach was right or wrong to interpret the meaning of the Amendment to exclude the children of illegal immigrants. I said nothing about Supreme Court decisions on the matter, or on whether I agreed with Kobach's interpretation.

Had you the capability to read and understand what you were reading, Jimo, you might have noticed that the only thing I said in my post was that you were incorrect as to Kobach's claim as to the original purpose of the Amendment. (The words "the purpose of the Reconstruction Amendments" probably should have given you a clue.) The three Reconstruction Amendments, including the 14th, were written to guarantee the rights of freed slaves. That it has been interpreted more broadly than that, that it covers more people than that, that it's validity has been upheld, all of that is irrelevant in that's it is completely non-responsive to the post to which you were weakly trying to reply. As usual, you're attempting to argue with something you made up that I said, not something I said.

Now go find your imaginary friends, tell them to pat you on the back, and lavish you with praise about how gee-whiz smart you are, having 'won' another argument - with yourself.

boltzmann 4 years, 3 months ago

I beg to differ. During the original debate on the 14th amendment the question was raised at length if the wording meant that the children of Chinese and Gypsy immigrants would be considered citizens at birth. The opponents were of the opinion that it would and that frightened them and the proponents were also of the opinion that it would grant citizenship to those children, but did not think it was a bad thing. So, yes, it was apparent during the debate that what they were doing was broader than just giving citizenship to former slaves.

Look at the debate in the Senate from the Congressional Globe for the 39th congress in May of 1866 - you can find it on-line. It is interesting reading.

notajayhawk 4 years, 3 months ago

And one more time - I did not say it wasn't broadened to include children born to parents other than freed slaves. But are you going to argue that the reason they were debating an amendment in the first place was for any other primary purpose than to protect the rights of those freed slaves, in a direct response to the Dred Scott decision? Are you going to disagree with virtually every American historian?

Jimo 4 years, 3 months ago

"Citizenship for the children of immigrants"

Everyone is the child of immigrants. Stating that the topic of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause is "about immigrants" is a lie so transparent it deserves no further comment.

"And once again, when Jimo is proven wrong, he just makes something up that I said."

Once again, when exposed, you fall back on the confusion of your own arguments to pretend that others are the truly confused ones.

The claim again is "the 14th Amendment was directed at guaranteeing citizenship to freed slaves." As I pointed out, the Amendment does not limit itself to guaranteeing citizenship to free slaves but rather draws the broadest possible construction of citizenship possible - including the topic of conversation: persons born in the U.S., all of them.

So that you cease to be confused: Do you agree that when the Amendment states that "All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States" that its purpose and accomplishment is to make all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, to be citizens of the United States? That this is not a "more broadly interpreted" error but rather the sole possible meaning of these words? That it is the sole possible meaning of these words because it is - word for word - these same words? That "freed slaves" are not referenced either directly or indirectly whatsoever?

Can we not at long last get you to stop lying and admit that 'A = A'???

notajayhawk 4 years, 3 months ago

"Everyone is the child of immigrants."

Really? Maybe you are. My parents were American citizens, both born in this country. All four of their parents were American citizens, born in this country. All eight of their parents were, yes, immigrants. All eight of them came to this country following the procedures set forth in the laws of this country, and all of them became naturalized citizens also according to the procedures set forth in the laws of this country. My grandparents, my parents, and myself were all naturally born citizens, born to citizens

"Stating that the topic of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause is "about immigrants" is a lie so transparent it deserves no further comment."

Stating that I said any such thing is a lie so transparent even your imaginary friends probably saw through it. You said "We're talking citizenship not immigration." Your post is still there if you need to refresh your memory on what you said, which seems to be a frequent problem for you. You didn't say "the topic of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause", you said "We're talking citizenship not immigration."

Really, jimmie, if you can't even understand what you say yourself, how do you expect others to?

"As I pointed out, the Amendment does not limit itself to guaranteeing citizenship to free slaves but rather draws the broadest possible construction of citizenship possible - including the topic of conversation: persons born in the U.S., all of them."

And, gee, as I pointed out - a couple of times now - I never said otherwise. You originally objected to a statement in the article reading "But Kobach said the 14th Amendment, written following the Civil War, was directed at guaranteeing citizenship to freed slaves." At least I assume that was what you were objecting to, you did quote it. Again, it would be so much easier if you could remember what you were saying. Anyway, Jimo, that indeed was the purpose of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, also known as the Reconstruction Amendments - to guarantee the rights and citizenship of the freed slaves. Congress gave themselves the power to protect those rights because they did not believe the Supreme Court would do so following the Dred Scott decision. That the Amendments encompassed a broader range of people than that is irrelevant to the question of whether that's what they were intended to do. Find me a single historian - just one - that says otherwise, jimmie.

I'll wait.

If you can stop lying through your teeth, that is, and respond to what I actually said instead of something you made up, that is.

Oh, speaking of lying through your teeth, jimmie - maybe you can show me where I ever used the word "error"?

Jimo 4 years, 3 months ago

So, you refuse to agree that when the Amendment states that "All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States" that its purpose and accomplishment is to make all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, to be citizens of the United States.

Of course you refuse. While obvious to anyone - everyone! - else, doing so would be admitting error and would require character.

notajayhawk 4 years, 3 months ago

Oh, you're quite a character, all right.

"So, you refuse to agree that when the Amendment states that "All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States" that its purpose and accomplishment is to make all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, to be citizens of the United States."

Now, child - want to show me where I said any such thing?

Oh, that's right, you're lying.

As usual.

BTW, when did anyone bring "accomplishment" into this? Oh, that's right, you changed the argument yet again. Well, I suppose with porch_person gone, someone had to take over as lead Garfinkeler.

To refresh your memory - again - the statement that you quoted, that you took umbrage with, was "Kobach said the 14th Amendment, written following the Civil War, was directed at guaranteeing citizenship to freed slaves." As a matter of fact, the article didn't even use the word "purpose", let alone "accomplishment". It says "was directed at", and on that he was absolutely correct It was also the only part of your incoherent, babbling ramblings that I contradicted you on. Despite your lame attempts to put words in my mouth so you can find something to 'prove' wrong, I never said the 14th Amendment did not include all persons born in this country, I never said that was only an interpretation, I never said that the interpretation was in error, I never said anything at all about the Amendment's "accomplishment". I never even said I agree with Kobach and have said several times on this thread that I don't. But the Congress, in the years following the Civil War, proposed three Amendments to guarantee the rights and citizenship of freed slaves. That they chose to encompass a wider portion of the populace in the writing does not change the fact that they sat down to hammer out the Amendments in the first place in order to protect the rights and citizenship of freed slaves. That was all Kobach said. That was what you disputed. And you were wrong.

Still waiting for you to come up with a historian who says otherwise, little one.

WilburM 4 years, 3 months ago

Here's the Kurrent Kobach Scorecard for the Sec. of State:

(1) eliminate voter fraud, which essentially does not exist in KS (and very little around the country) see: http://www.domeontherange.org/2010/09/kris-kobachs-big-lie.html

(2) attack illegal immigration issue (which does not come under the SOS's purview; in fact it's a federal issue.

(3) Find a way around the 14th Amendment (part of the Constitution) to change the way we define citizens.

(4) strengthen (sic) the Sec. of State's office to enforcement and education roles SO THAT

(5) Kris can run for higher offices that actually have real power.

In any other year than 2010, beyond belief. This year, who knows?

Bananajoe 4 years, 3 months ago

Mr Kobach if you mean to tell me that the Constitution dosen't means what it says maybe you are not really saying what you mean. Oh well you are probably right, Darn thing was written over 200 years ago by people that did not mean to be taken seriously. At least not by you.

notajayhawk 4 years, 3 months ago

First, let me say that I have no problem with the interpretation of the Constitution and its Amendments extending the protections and rights of citizenship to anyone that was born here. And I am not saying I agree with Mr. Kobach's attempts to change that.

However, what the article states that he said is true about the purpose of the 14th Amendment (and the 13th and 15th), that they were written to protect the rights of freed slaves. The 14th Amendment was written 144 years ago (not 200) and adopted two years later. It was written nine years before the United States had any restrictive immigration law.

To say it was the intent of the Congress to extend the right of citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants is just silly, when one considers it was written at a time when there was no such thing as an illegal immigrant.

jafs 4 years, 3 months ago

Interesting.

I actually think it would be a good idea not to grant citizenship based simply on the birth of a child in the US.

Especially given the original intent of the amendment.

notajayhawk 4 years, 3 months ago

One of the problems I see with that is: What do we do if the parent dies? Or runs off and abandons the child? Do we deport them? And to where/who? Do we let them stay but without citizenship rights?

jafs 4 years, 3 months ago

Those are good questions.

It's interesting, on this one, that I seem to be more aligned with the conservative view, and you with the liberal one, isn't it?

notajayhawk 4 years, 3 months ago

I don't see why either has to be labeled as a Conservative or a Liberal view.

jafs 4 years, 3 months ago

It's just generally the way it seems to break down on this issue.

monheim 4 years, 3 months ago

See boltzmann's reply to your "September 15, 2010 at 3:11 p.m. " comment above in which you tried to make the exact same point. I would like to hear what you have to say in response to what he's pointing out to you.

notajayhawk 4 years, 3 months ago

It does not change anything I said. The children of Chinese immigrants and gypsies were not born to illegal immigrants, were they?

Cait McKnelly 4 years, 3 months ago

The 14th Amendment is such a pesky little thing. It should go in the shredder along with the rest of the Constitution. But wait!!! If we do that what happens to our right to own GUNS?

notajayhawk 4 years, 3 months ago

Interesting that you brought that up.

"... the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Sounds pretty clear, right?

Then why did it take almost 220 years and a recent Supreme Court decision to explicitly state that it applied to private citizens for their own purposes, not just because "A well regulated militia [is] necessary to the security of a free State"? Because the people who wrote the Constitution and its Amendments could not possibly anticipate conditions or necessities or realities of the future, and we have a court system that's supposed to interpret the intent of the founders. Most people don't agree with Mr. Kobach's interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Some do. Some even think it was adopted illegally in the first place. That's the way the system works. I doubt if Mr. Kobach or the others pursuing a revision to citizenship law will be successful. But that's going to depend on the interpretation of the Amendment, not the words themselves as if they were handed to the Congress in 1866 by the hand of God on a stone tablet.

jafs 4 years, 3 months ago

The Constitution allows for change, in the form of amendments, and the repeal thereof.

As is seen by Prohibition.

Do you think that birth in the US should guarantee citizenship, even if both parents are here illegally? If so, why?

notajayhawk 4 years, 3 months ago

Yes. It wasn't the kid's idea to be born here.

jafs 4 years, 3 months ago

Why should that guarantee them citizenship?

They are, I believe, citizens of the country that the parents are from legally, aren't they?

notajayhawk 4 years, 3 months ago

Fine.

When they're born, instead of the doctor spanking them to get them breathing, from now on we'll just ask them which country they want to be citizens of.

jafs 4 years, 3 months ago

That's funny.

I really don't see why we'd necessarily want everyone born here, regardless of parentage, to automatically be a US citizen.

Do other countries all do that?

notajayhawk 4 years, 3 months ago

Most of our ancestors moved here because they didn't like the way things were done in other countries.

Keith 4 years, 3 months ago

Kris Kobach, the Orly Taitz of immigration law.

yourworstnightmare 4 years, 3 months ago

Kobach is a demagogue.

If being born here does not constitute citizenship, then what does?

How were the children of the founding fathers made citizens, as many of the founders were born in England? Or the fathers of the founding fathers. You get the point.

Any american who has an illegal immigrant as a relative (Irish, Italian, Jewish, German, Asian) is no longer an american citizen despite being born here? Wow, what a can of worms that would open up.

Who are the true american citizens? Those of English ancestry who fought the revolution, and those who went through a legal process? Let the witch hunts begin.

Where is the line drawn? This is the real point of the 14th amendment. It was inspired by slavery, but certainly the authors had a broader view of they would have said so, such as "The children of slaves born in the USA...".

notajayhawk 4 years, 3 months ago

"How were the children of the founding fathers made citizens, as many of the founders were born in England?"

They moved here. There was no law restricting immigration in this country until 1875.

yourworstnightmare 4 years, 3 months ago

You do realize that the 14th amendment was ratified in 1868, don't you?

Accepting your premise, then how about illegal immigrants in one's family after 1875, then?

Can a 5th generation american be stripped of their citizenship if it is found that their relatives immigrated illegally in 1880?

whats_going_on 4 years, 3 months ago

Can a 5th generation american be stripped of their citizenship if it is found that their relatives immigrated illegally in 1880?

....interesting. Man...just think if that happened...probably wouldn't have too many people left, I imagine. :\

Jimo 4 years, 3 months ago

""How were the children of the founding fathers made citizens, as many of the founders were born in England?"

The Constitution skips over this point but does recognize "a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution," which as a practical matter were the citizens of the original 13 States.

How a non-citizen might become a U.S. citizen was addressed in 1790 by statute restricting citizenship only to "free white persons" and thereby excluding Indians, (non-slave) Africans, Asians, and even white indentured servants.

Interestingly, the Act also restricts the inheritance of citizenship through the father - not the mother!

But your point - nightmare - is well taken: if the intention was to restriction application to "the children of slaves born in the USA" then the Amendment would have said such. It did not do so leaving us with one inescabable conclusion: it was never intended to be so limited -- a conclusion adopted by the Supreme Court when it dealt with this issue - aliens presumably barred by law - in 1898!

jafs 4 years, 3 months ago

The way things worked at the beginning, when we were a small, agricultural society, may or may not work as well now, with the many changes we've experienced as a nation.

Your comment about anyone having a relative is a vast exaggeration - we could create any number of scenarios for citizenship, including simply having to have at least one parent who is here legally. Cousins, etc. don't even enter into the equation.

Why do you think it's a good idea to let anyone born in the country, even of illegal residents, be automatically a citizen? For one thing, if the parents are caught and deported, it creates a mess for the family.

notajayhawk 4 years, 3 months ago

Maybe Kobach should "use the office to increase civic education ... by enhancing the secretary of state's website to include teaching tools on the U.S. Constitution". If you agree with those who interpret the Constitution as saying that anyone born here should be a citizen, that's fine, I have no problem with that. But anyone that claims the authors of the 14th Amendment specifically intended to include the children of illegal immigrants when they wrote it is sadly misinformed.

yourworstnightmare 4 years, 3 months ago

Cuts both ways. There were no illegal immigrants at the time, so how could they have possibly known to include them? And why didn't they specifically mention slaves if this was their intent. Why didn't they restrict it to slaves only?

yourworstnightmare 4 years, 3 months ago

I just really do not see how you can take "All persons born or naturalized..." to mean "Slaves only".

A strict constructionist must interpret what is written, not what the writers may or may not have been thinking. anything else is liberal overinterpetation.

notajayhawk 4 years, 3 months ago

"I just really do not see how you can take "All persons born or naturalized..." to mean "Slaves only"."

I never said "slaves only" and neither did Kobach. He said, and I agree, that the reason the Reconstruction Amendments (13, 14, and 15) were written was for the benefit of those freed slaves. They were a direct response to the Dred Scott decision. There are many things in the Constitution that were intended for one purpose and were later interpreted to cover a broader range of people and situations.

And I'm pretty sure those aren't the only words that form the basis for multiple interpretations. I believe there are also arguments based on the words "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

In my own personal opinion, which is only that, and not based on any particular qualifications, I think we give the founders way too much credit. Back then, like now, they were people, and people sometimes just plain old screw up. Look at, for instance, the little blunder in the healthcare reform package on 1099 reporting. One major difference between then and now, of course, is the founders had a greater capacity for brevity. The entire Constitution is what, 4000 words (7000 including the Amendments), and the healthcare plan is something close to 3000 pages?

One of the problems I see where it's open to interpretation is those may not have been the words they chose if they considered the possibility of illegal immigrants. At the time the entire concept of entering the country illegally did not exist. If it had, they might have specified different requirements. I'm not saying I agree with that line of thinking, but it's another interpretation.

Someday we're going to find out we're not alone in the universe. We may end up with a scenario like in the movie "District 9". I'm guessing we'll have all the same arguments then - those not in favor of allowing them (or their offspring) citizenship will argue it could not possibly have been the intent of the founders as they could not possibly have foreseen that scenario, and those in favor of granting citizenship will argue that if the founders meant to say "Homo Sapiens" they would have said that instead of "persons".

monheim 4 years, 3 months ago

This is the third or fourth time (at least) that you've made this "there were no illegal immigration issues then" assertion. Someone has already pointed out to you that the this was in fact addressed in the 39th Congress that debated this issue:

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=070/llcg070.db&recNum=603

notajayhawk 4 years, 3 months ago

"This is the third or fourth time (at least) that you've made this "there were no illegal immigration issues then" assertion."

And I guess I'll have to keep making it since some people still aren't getting it.

There were no laws limiting immigration before 1875. By definition nobody came to this country illegally before that time.

"Someone has already pointed out to you that the this was in fact addressed in the 39th Congress that debated this issue:"

Um, no, they didn't.

The record you linked to is talking about naturalization and citizenship. There were laws, yes, defining who could become a citizen, and how (which consisted of pretty much showing up and renouncing your citizenship of the country you left). The fact that you might not be granted citizenship didn't in any way prevent or even restrict your coming here. Nobody was breaking the law just by their very presence on American soil. The record discusses whether the children of these non-citizens should be granted citizenship. There is a pretty fundamental difference between someone whose arrival in this country consists of a crime and someone who is here legally but has not been naturalized.

citizen4honor 4 years, 3 months ago

He is 100% right on this issue. Why would any country allow children of illegals to become citizens? Hospitals in California have closed because of having to pay for illegals coming over to gain access to USA. Between 1995 and 2000 23 hospitals in CA closed. By 2005 that number went to 84. Why? Mostly due to illegals. Fact not fiction.

The constitution is the best penned document in the world. The only document that has ever produced a country as great as USA. Our founding fathers were brilliant. We are so fortunate to have that group of leaders. Divine power?

Kobach is exactly the kind of person we need in office's across the nation.
Go after it Kobach!

Cait McKnelly 4 years, 3 months ago

"Fact not fiction". Yet you give no resources for your numbers. Interesting.

Ron Holzwarth 4 years, 3 months ago

"Hospitals in California have closed because of having to pay for illegals coming over to gain access to USA. Between 1995 and 2000 23 hospitals in CA closed. By 2005 that number went to 84. Why? Mostly due to illegals. Fact not fiction."

There are 560,312 hospitals in California. 84 of them closed.

Why didn't you phrase it this way instead: "By 2005 one out of every 6,670 hospitals in California had closed, mostly due to illegals." ???

Rhetorical question, actually. I know the answer. You were trying to make the fact that 0.0015 % of the hospitals in California had closed by 2005 indicates that there is a serious problem with immigrants.

citizen4honor 4 years, 3 months ago

I see we have an Alinsky Denfender here. Make an outrageous statement that someone is a liar with nothing to back it up.

Kobach's press conference was about civic education. This article twists it into a side question - they didn't even cover what the conference was about. You should be upset that this paper is misleading you. But since 89% of media is liberal ---- that's what you get.

Civic Education. We do need that. Kobach is 100% correct on birthright the issue. It was meant for slave children - not illegals.

KU is offering a free (drop in) Black Conservatism class on Tues at 4 PM at Dole Institute. I'm sure the birthright issue will be discussed there. Attend, may learn something, unless you're afraid too.

Kobach is running on voter ID, ID at registration. Simple basic common sense. Which is exactly what we need more of in government. Go Kobach.

BrianR 4 years, 3 months ago

"89% of media is liberal "

This is one of my favorite wingnut fantasies.

citizen4honor 4 years, 3 months ago

Why don't you believe it? Have you looked at their donations? Do some reseach buddy. Show me where I'm wrong.

AlexHamilton 4 years, 3 months ago

This nation is on the verge of bankruptcy. The unfunded liabilities for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid exceed the sum total of ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD. We cannot afford to support our own legal citizens, much less the thousands of anchor babies and their families.

Kris Kobach is fighting for the sovereignty of Kansas and our nation. He enjoys the ideological support of a substantial majority of Americans who embrace LEGAL immigration and welcome those who come here to contribute their skills and knowledge to enrich our country, but vehemently oppose the assault of millions of illegals on our social welfare programs. He is to be applauded for his courage in confronting an issue that has been used by the left to paint anyone who respects the law as a racist.

I will be extremely proud to cast my vote for Kris Kobach on November 2nd.

MyName 4 years, 3 months ago

You are extremely dumb if you think changing the Kansas Sec. of State will solve any of the problems you've mentioned.

Kris Kobach is the Phill Kline of 2010 and I for one don't need four years of worthless pronouncements and mediocre job performance by someone who can't even keep the books for his own party balanced.

citizen4honor 4 years, 3 months ago

Yes he does. The press conference was about making sure people who voted were educated in civics. Imagine that crazy idea. That a person placing a vote would understand laws, issues, constitution. A man running for office who wants to provide education on voting. Gives me chills thinking that someone who goes to the polls would be well informed. Go Kobach.

MyName 4 years, 3 months ago

What I don't understand is how you want to vote for someone who doesn't want to do the job you're trying to get them elected for. How about voting for a City Manager who wants to make sure that the voting public is educated (preferably using whatever talking points he or she can slip in there)? Or a Dog Catcher who is running on the platform that, instead of catching dogs he should spend his time educating the public?

It's a worthless waste of time, but apparently it's the best he can do since he can't run on things like "competency" or "integrity" or "willingness to put aside petty politics and make sure your vote counts".

Determined 4 years, 3 months ago

I'd like to see voter fraud addressed. Some many politicians simply blow it off. There seems to be some voter fraud in the latest primary. There has been voter fraud in the past. I think Kobach can and will address this is elected.

whats_going_on 4 years, 3 months ago

Along with voter fraud, lets tackle political fraud in general. Like, take for instance...lobbyists...buying your way into Washington depending on how deep your pockets run with blood from actual working citizens.

Determined 4 years, 3 months ago

I think that is an excellent idea. Addressing areas of fraud would benefit the entire country. We are a law of nations, not of individuals. Money shouldn't speak louder than the truth.

oklahoma 4 years, 3 months ago

We just get uncomfortable using slaughter as a method of birth control, that's all.

davidsmom 4 years, 3 months ago

Removing birthright citizenship unless one parent is a citizen or a legal resident is an excellent idea and a lot of people have proposed this before. I am 100% in favor it this.

MyName 4 years, 3 months ago

I think it's great, unless you consider the fact that you're going to end up deporting a minor, who may have lived here for 10-15 years and was brought to this country by his parents all because of some insecurities about this <1% of the population who are citizens even if their parents are not.

I can think of better things to do than amending the Constitution because of this, and I'd hope our politicians could as well, but apparently not if they're Republicans.

jafs 4 years, 3 months ago

I'm not sure it would be retroactive like that.

Most changes aren't - when we enacted Prohibition, I don't think we went around and arrested all those who were drinking before it was enacted.

Ron Holzwarth 4 years, 3 months ago

jafs, you are correct. The legal term is ex post facto.

Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution, "no State shall pass any ex post facto Law.''

jumpin_catfish 4 years, 3 months ago

It's outrageous, it's a conspiracy, it's a sham-a-lam!

Bill Lee 4 years, 3 months ago

My ancestors were here before this was a country, so I guess I'm "great-great-great-great-great grandfathered in." That said, I can't imagine voting for someone like Kobach, a clear threat to logic and good sense. While not sure who his opponent is, I'd rather vote for a garden slug. Let's send Kobach to Arizona.

Sean Livingstone 4 years, 3 months ago

Removing "birthright citizenship".... let's go back to 1960s..... if anyone learn what the heck this is.... a lot of racist past.

notajayhawk 4 years, 3 months ago

Pretty sure the Constitution and related laws (and any changes thereto) apply to everyone.

bd 4 years, 3 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

sad_lawrencian 4 years, 3 months ago

How dare they try to change automatic citizenship for children born in the United States. !!! It would be a sad day if and when it changes.

lounger 4 years, 3 months ago

This man is scary. He should for sure be in Arizona and not Kansas.

Clevercowgirl 4 years, 3 months ago

"Kobach is proposing Kansas join other bigoted states......" Veiled racism, pure and simple. How pathetic, turn the Secretary of State's office into a political vehicle. Welcome to Hicksville.

BigPrune 4 years, 3 months ago

What's wrong with making people produce a driver's license or official i.d. card when they vote? Please tell me.

MyName 4 years, 3 months ago

Well first of all, they didn't have to do that in the first 225+ years of this country's existence, and elections still happened just fine, so why do we need to start now?

And second, what if you don't want to get an ID Card, are you now banned from voting, which is the most basic right of a Democracy? That just seems like bad government to me.

Sean Livingstone 4 years, 3 months ago

Nothing is wrong with that, but the very word "look like an illegal".... an illegal Polish doesn't look illegal... you know what I mean? If you apply the law, you apply to EVERYONE. I'm all for checking drivers' licence or ID cards, but there should be no laws that target a specific group of people.

jafs 4 years, 3 months ago

ID requirements wouldn't target any specific group of people.

OldEnuf2BYurDad 4 years, 3 months ago

My ancestors didn't arrive as citizens, they were here as slaves. I guess me and my malt-liquor-drinking cousins wouldn't be citizens under his plan.

BigPrune 4 years, 3 months ago

You're right, but your ancestors were considered personal property. Mexicans aren't considered personal property, though they do slave labor for a pittance that most Americans (US citizens) find "beneath them.".

notajayhawk 4 years, 3 months ago

I'm not agreeing with him, but Kobach's comment on the original intent of the Reconstruction Amendments points out a significant difference: Your ancestors didn't deliberately come here in violation of the law, they were brought here against there will at a time when there was no immigration law.

Of course, that's also the answer to the argument - the children who were brought here as fetuses didn't break any laws, nor did they come here of their own will.

eyeswideopen 4 years, 3 months ago

I have rarely seen such inane comments! (I'm sorry, did I use too big of a word for you. Inane-- hallow, empty, senseless, silly, irrational, unintellectual.) Many of the comments posted appear to have been learned at the Sol Alinsky School for Radicals. Attack the messsenger, avoid the facts! I list a few comments to make my poInt!

I can just see him jumping out of a ballot box to arrest some idiot allegedly committing voter fraud.

Or maybe he'll try to arrest people filling out absentee ballots as they fly over the state...

Show these 'clowns' the yellow brick road out of Kansas! Seems these days that GOP is full of own agenda wackos.

This guy sounds like a second Phil Kline

Maybe Arizona should elect him. He seems a lot more concerned about them than about us.

Can you believe it? ACORN doesn't even exist anymore and nincompoops still (!) believe that it will "steal" elections.

I know lawrenceguy that everyone who looks like you and talks like you from your church that you have coffee with every day and sits around and eats up your b/s votes just like you and so it's impossible that Democrats might be elected anywhere because all of you brains-in-your-ass types totally agree that Obama is a third world socialist sent by Satan. It can be the only explanation - Sarah told you so.

GUYS, PUT SOME THOUGHT BEHIND WHAT YOU WRITE. JUST BECAUSE YOU SAY SOMETHING DOESN'T MAKE IT SO! UNINTELLIGIBLE RANTS PERSUADE NO ONE! GIVE ME SOME FACTS!

090909 4 years, 3 months ago

modifying jus soli citizenship rights is crazy. this guy makes me physically ill.

jafs 4 years, 3 months ago

Why is it crazy?

Granting citizenship to children born of illegal immigrants causes a variety of problems, and I haven't heard anybody point out any justification for doing so.

Sean Livingstone 4 years, 3 months ago

Jafs, his amendments also apply to both legal and illegal immigrants. Which means, you're also now not considered an American Citizen since your first generation long time ago didn't have any citizenship to begin with. I understand the part on illegal and I'm all with you, but barring it from legal immigrants?

Also, he's using it as a political tool. That's more dangerous.

notajayhawk 4 years, 3 months ago

"Jafs, his amendments also apply to both legal and illegal immigrants."

Where did you get that from? First of all, the article states he's working with states to change the law without amending the Constitution at all. More importantly, the very first sentence says "... he is working with those legislators on another controversial proposal ... aimed at denying automatic citizenship in that state to children born in the country to parents who are illegal immigrants."

Neither Kobach, any of the other "birthright citizenship" opponents, or the article itself said anything about denying automatic citizenship to children of legal immigrants.

MyName 4 years, 3 months ago

Exactly how many of the "spawn of lawbreakers" are you having to "live with"? We are talking about amending the constitution to disenfranchise less than 1% of the population just so you can "feel better" about whatever it is that's bothering you about that 1% of US Citizens. It's just ridiculous.

Sean Livingstone 4 years, 3 months ago

You're blurring the legal and illegal immigrants.....

Sue McDaniel 4 years, 3 months ago

Making sure that people follow the laws of our country in getting to become citizens, what a crazy idea. GO KOBACH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

notajayhawk 4 years, 3 months ago

If enough of the voters of Kansas agree with his policies to put him in office, then, um, he IS working for the people of Kansas.

notajayhawk 4 years, 3 months ago

The article says "he, Pearce and others are exploring ways that states could change that law without amending the Constitution."

jafs 4 years, 3 months ago

Is that normally a function of the Secretary of State?

MyName 4 years, 3 months ago

Yeah, which is exactly what his job would be as Sec. of State of Kansas... oh wait, that's the Federal Government's job? My bad...

Bananajoe 4 years, 3 months ago

So I suppose you wouldn't want to eat the food they harvest or cook either. You must be starving!!!

DeepWheat 4 years, 3 months ago

Okay, here's the deal about voter fraud in KS. The problem as yet is fairly small in terms of frequency. However, left unchecked, it WILL become an ever-larger problem. The consequences are easily seen in other states (not to mention numerous other countries large & small where tinhorns & tyrants manipulate phony elections to suit their whims and their need for power & control...) Does ANYONE really know how many dead people vote in Chicago? Are bona-fide American citizens still a voting majority in Los Angeles?

So let's try this comparison: Tetanus is a serious disease. Once you get it, the treatment is long, extremely painful, and not always effective when the diagnosis isn't made early. However, there is a highly effective PREVENTIVE measure, in the form of long-familiar vaccines, which prevent infection in nearly all cases.

The tricky part is, YOU NEED TO GET THE VACCINE WHILE YOU ARE STILL HEALTHY. Waiting until you're already sick to treat the problem is less effective, more expensive, and very painful besides.

Why should Kansans wait until voter fraud is a serious problem, when it's easy to see what the consequences will be? The fact is that existing laws leave the door wide open for anyone who can't resist the temptation to meddle with our elections.

When the solution to the problem is as clear & easy as this [i.e., proof-of-citizenship to register, photo-ID at the polls, and regular scrubbing of felons & dead people from the voter rolls as req'd by the federal "Motor Voter Act"], it's sheer obdurate folly to "refuse the vaccine" by telling everyone "I feel fine!"

Still too complicated? Try this: When you park your car to go shopping, do you lock it up and take the keys? Why? The car isn't going to drive away by itself, is it? It'll sit still, right where you left it, until you return, right? But wait, if you leave the car unlocked with the keys in it, SOMEONE MIGHT STEAL IT! Not only that, but in some locales, YOU can be ticketed and fined for your negligence, in contributing to the delinquency of whoever had the gall to steal it!

Existing laws & regulations regarding voter registration & electoral procedure are much like the unlocked car with the keys in the ignition, just sitting there waiting for someone less honorable than yourself to come along and take our elections for a joyride! And just like when you get your car back afterwards, it's likely NOT in the same condition as before the theft.

I'm betting that most Big City progressives & Democrats lock their cars up every single time they park them (even at home!) and never give it a second thought... it's only common sense, right?

All Mr. Kobach is promoting is the electoral equivalent of locking the car and taking the keys, or getting a tetanus-vaccine, if you prefer that analogy. It's a preventive measure that's way overdue, and far less costly than waiting for the "real problem" to manifest. It's just common sense.

Cogito, ergo suffragio Kobach!

verity 4 years, 3 months ago

False analogies. In fact, you have just convinced me that it would be foolish to spend a bunch of money on preventing voter fraud when essentially there is none.

It doesn't cost me anything to lock my car. Nothing.

notajayhawk 4 years, 3 months ago

How much is it going to cost for poll workers to ask someone for their drivers' license in addition to their voter registration card?

verity 4 years, 3 months ago

You think this whole scheme is not going to cost the taxpayer money?

The point is that it's not necessary and as such, not something the SoS should be spending his/her time on.

notajayhawk 4 years, 3 months ago

"You think this whole scheme is not going to cost the taxpayer money?"

So I'll ask again: How much?

"You think this whole scheme is not going to cost the taxpayer money?"

Isn't it the SoS's job to certify the validity of an election result?

jafs 4 years, 3 months ago

Don't driver's licenses have obvious anti-fraud stuff built-in?

All they'd have to do is look at them under the light at the right angle to see the hologram, I'd think.

Sean Livingstone 4 years, 3 months ago

That's why political belief is a religion, that I never believe in.

verity 4 years, 3 months ago

"Taxpayers are held liable for the every financial need of anchor babies from womb to tomb at a cost of billions of dollars a year."

Every financial need ????? ?????

Ron Holzwarth 4 years, 3 months ago

Yes, verity, that means they have to be paid when they work.

davidsmom 4 years, 3 months ago

Absolutely - it is certainly a magnet for illegal aliens. Remove birthright citizenship and you remove one of the major incentives for illegal aliens to enter and settle in this country. Birthright citizenship should be granted to children who have at least one parent who is a citizen or a legal permanent resident. Why should American taxpayers support the needs of an ever increasing influx of illegal aliens, when we are struggling with our own needs?

notajayhawk 4 years, 3 months ago

As far as the law goes, you're correct. In practice, it's a lot harder to deport the parent of a legal citizen, particularly one much younger than 21. A lot of delays, a lot of court challenges, a lot of screaming from the ACLU and whatever church the immigrant attends, a lot of bad press. At the very least it complicates the deportation process significantly.

Bob_Keeshan 4 years, 3 months ago

notajayhawk (anonymous) replies…

If enough of the voters of Kansas agree with his policies to put him in office, then, um, he IS working for the people of Kansas.

Can't resist -- so Dennis Moore is working for the people of Kansas? Mark Parkinson? Kathleen Sebelius was working for the people of Kansas?

Barack Obama IS working for the people of the United States?

Your previous posts would indicate you don't believe any of those statements.

notajayhawk 4 years, 3 months ago

"Can't resist -- so Dennis Moore is working for the people of Kansas? Mark Parkinson? Kathleen Sebelius was working for the people of Kansas?"

I wasn't aware that Moore won a statewide election. Maybe you know different. Parkinson wasn't elected Governor. Sebelius is gone. Obama will be soon. Did you have a point?

Bob_Keeshan 4 years, 3 months ago

Yes, and you made it. In your world, only Republicans represent Kansans.

People who live in the 3rd CD are Kansans, too you know. Why do you hate real Kansans? You know, the same real Kansans who voted for Mark Parkinson when he was on the ballot in 2006.

notajayhawk 4 years, 3 months ago

[sigh]

If only you could read, bobbie, if only you could read.

Yes, the people in the 3rd district elected Moore. The rest of Kansas most decidedly did not. And yes, I know Mark Parkinson was elected, as Kathy's running mate. He wasn't elected in his own right, and he wasn't elected to the Governor's office (as I said). In the official election results from the SecState's office for the 2006 Governor's election, I don't see a single vote recorded for Parkinson:

http://www.kssos.org/elections/06elec/2006GeneralElectionOfficialResults.pdf

http://www.kssos.org/elections/06elec/ELGOV06G.xls

And you think the 3rd district is representative of Kansans, bobbie? Why do you only like rich people, bobbie? Why do you hate the poor and working class? What do you have against farmers and other people that work with their hands? I've always known you to be an elitist snob, but never had you so openly admit how much you hate the rest of Kansas.

You know - the part that's filled with Republicans.

And Obama's election almost by definition reflects the fact that it was the will of the American people, bobbie. Since you evidently haven't read a newspaper lately, they've changed their minds, and no longer believe he represents them. Which is why he'll be out of a job in another two years. Tell ya' what, bobbie - two years after Kobach's election as Sec/State, if his poll numbers have dropped off a cliff like Obama's have, then it will appear he is no longer serving the will of the people of Kansas. Come back when that happens, okay?

verity 4 years, 3 months ago

The fact that you feel the need to try to diminish people by calling them diminutives really says all I need to know about you.

notajayhawk 4 years, 3 months ago

The fact that that's all you can come up with to dispute the point speaks volumes about your estimable self.

I carry on plenty of discussions on these message boards without using any such tone. bobbie deserves no better.

notajayhawk 4 years, 3 months ago

The fact that that's all you can come up with to dispute the point speaks volumes about your estimable self.

I carry on plenty of discussions on these message boards without using any such tone. bobbie deserves no better.

jafs 4 years, 3 months ago

Those who are elected only really represent the majority of those who choose to vote.

And, when we have small margins, as we've had in our recent elections, it seems silly to me to say that someone who got 52% of voters to vote for them represents the "will of the people" regardless of which party they represent.

Bob_Keeshan 4 years, 3 months ago

notajayhawk (anonymous) replies…

If enough of the voters of Kansas agree with his policies to put him in office, then, um, he IS working for the people of Kansas.

Bob_Keeshan 4 years, 3 months ago

You don't think elected officials represent Kansans, you only think Republicans represent Kansans.

You're just a partisan hack. The discussion was whether Kris Kobach could be working for Kansans if he was off in other states doing their legal work.

Your point is that if Kansans elect him, then whatever Kobach chooses to do he is working for Kansans. That's a line of thought that you only apply to Republicans, as you clearly don't have the same view of a single elected Democrat.

For example, I will now suggest that under your logic Lynn Jenkins, Jerry Moran, and Todd Tiahrt don't represent Kansans. 3... 2... 1...

PS - until Barack Obama is defeated at the polls, Americans have not changed their mind. That's how our democracy works, I'm sorry you have so much disdain for it when it doesn't go your way.

notajayhawk 4 years, 3 months ago

It's not my fault that your comments make you look foolish, bobbie. It's not my pointing it out, it's what you said.

You listed a specific list of elected officials. After I replied, you narrowed that down to just two specific elected officials. One was not elected by "enough of the voters of Kansas" - the original claim which you were nice enough to repeat - he was elected by enough of the voters of the 3rd Congressional District. Or are you so far gone you think Dennis Moore would have been chosen by "enough of the voters of Kansas" to hold state-wide office?

The other official you mentioned was not awarded a single vote for the office he holds according to the official results available at the Secretary of State's website. He was not elected as an individual, he was elected as the running mate of another individual that "enough of the voters of Kansas" chose. And yes, Sebelius was "working for the people of Kansas" at the time of her election - but then, her views were a lot more conservative in 2002, weren't they? Now, just as I asked with Dennis Moore, do you really believe that Mark Parkinson could be elected by "enough of the voters of Kansas" to hold his current office?

It's so very amusing, not in the least because you don't even see it yourself - you think I refuse to accept the views of the handful of Kansan's that share your rather skewed political views as representing the people of Kansas - while you dismiss the choices of the majority of the voters in the majority of the state as if somehow they are NOT the people of Kansas.

"Lynn Jenkins, Jerry Moran, and Todd Tiahrt don't represent Kansans"

Neither Lynn Jenkins, Jerry Moran, nor Todd Tiahrt were elected by "enough of the voters of Kansas", bobbie. Again, thanks for quoting what I actually said. Too bad you seem to be incapable of understanding those rather simple words. Lynn Jenkins, Jerry Moran, and Todd Tiahrt represented the views of "enough of the voters" of the 2nd District, 1st District, and 4th District, respectively, at the time of their election. To make a broader statement is as ludicrous as saying "enough of the voters of Kansas" passed the sales tax for the mT, or "enough of the voters of Kansas" elected one of Larryville's school board members. Although, it certainly appears as if Moran, at least, will be able to make the claim that he represents the views of "enough of the voters of Kansas":

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/senate/ks/kansas_senate_moran_vs_johnston-1520.html

(As a matter of fact, bobbie, Tiarht had an opportunity to show whether he represented the views of "enough of the voters of Kansas" in a state-wide test - he failed.)

[continued]

notajayhawk 4 years, 3 months ago

[continued]

"PS - until Barack Obama is defeated at the polls, Americans have not changed their mind. That's how our democracy works, I'm sorry you have so much disdain for it when it doesn't go your way."

You're the one whining about not getting your way, little one. I'm fine with Kobach getting elected. And so are a majority of the people of Kansas, you know, the ones who don't think like the handful of malcontents like yourself.

And you might have had a point there, bobbie, if we held presidential elections on a daily basis. Since we don't, unlike you and your firmly-affixed blinders, I look at the polls. And the polls say the people of the United States didn't want Obamacare, don't want another stimulus, don't approve of the job he's doing, and don't believe the country is headed in the right direction. And, again, I thank you for repeating the words I actuall said: "to put him in office". Did I say 'to keep him in office until the next election'? Hmmm - didn't think so. As a matter of fact, I even said if Kobach's poll numbers drop as low as Obama's two years after the election, then it would suggest he no longer represents the views of "enough of the voters of Kansas", didn't I?

Got anything else, bobbie? Because if you're going to try to take issue with what I said, next time make it about what I said, not what you failed to understand about what I said.

Bob_Keeshan 4 years, 3 months ago

Either you believe in democracy or you don't. Nota obviously believes in something else, it appears to have a resemblance to Fox News.

notajayhawk 4 years, 3 months ago

bobbie, I know your posts are usually just unfathomable gibberish, but please explain how your suggestion that we should ignore the will of the majority and have statewide elected officials represent only those in certain areas is believing in democracy?

You never answered, bobbie. Why do you hate the poor and working people and the poor of Kansas so much? Why do you think our elected officials should represent only the affluent people of the 3rd district? How did you get to be such an elitist snob that thinks only your political views should be catered to, instead of the millions of other Kansans that disagree with your warped vision?

Bob_Keeshan 4 years, 3 months ago

Somebody is off their meds. Best you start stealing from your government-supported patients again.

notajayhawk 4 years, 3 months ago

Awwww, bobbie.

I don't know why, with the quality of your ranting of late, but somehow I expected something better from you. You asked a stupid question, compounded that by narrowing it down to the stupidest parts, tried to make me look like the bad guy by twisting what I said into what you wanted to make it sound like, then compounded that by repeating what I actually said.

You used to at least make an attempt at including something akin to facts in your posts, bobbie. Now you're just the typical whining liberal from Larryville watching the political tides shift (although not much of a shift locally, since few of the people of Kansas shared your view), wondering how you're going to make it in the world without living off someone else's money. Pretty pathetic, really.

Oh, and thanks for asking, bobbie, but I haven't worked for an agency that gets state funding for some time now. And I don' t accept government-funded insurance in private practice, either. How 'bout you - still looking? You mean employers in the private sector aren't just lining up to hire a prospect like you, that couldn't even cut it working for the state?

Commenting has been disabled for this item.