Archive for Thursday, August 23, 2012

Kobach sues Obama administration over immigration amnesty plan

August 23, 2012, 1:43 p.m. Updated August 24, 2012, 12:21 a.m.

Advertisement

— Kris Kobach is representing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement employees suing the Obama administration over its plan to stop deporting many young illegal immigrants and grant them work permits.

Kris Kobach, the Kansas secretary of state and an adviser to Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, filed the lawsuit on behalf of 10 ICE employees Thursday in federal court in Dallas. The 22-page filing contends that the Obama administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals plan violates federal law and forces ICE employees to break the law by not arresting certain illegal immigrants. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and ICE Director John Morton are named as defendants.

“It places ICE agents in an untenable position where their political superiors are ordering them to violate federal law,” Kobach said. “If they follow federal law, they will be disciplined by their superiors.”

Kobach, who also advised Arizona lawmakers on the state’s controversial immigration bill, said he is representing the employees as a private lawyer and not in his capacity as a Kansas state official. He wrote in the lawsuit that ICE agents have been ordered not to arrest illegal immigrants who claim to be eligible for the administration’s new deportation policy.

The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Napolitano has previously defended the plan.

In June, Napolitano and President Barack Obama said that some illegal immigrants could avoid deportation and be granted a work permit for up to two years. Under the program, immigrants who can prove that they arrived in the United States before they turned 16, have been in the country for at least five years, are 30 or younger, are in school or have graduated, or have served in the military may be eligible. They cannot have a criminal record or otherwise be considered a threat to public safety or national security.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services started accepting applications for the program on Aug. 15. Immigrants have to pay a $465 paperwork fee for the program.

DHS officials have not said how many people might be eligible under the program, though the Pew Hispanic Center and others have estimated that about 1.7 million people could be covered.

An internal DHS document obtained by The Associated Press shows that the government estimated receiving about 1.04 million applications in the program’s first year, with about 890,000 being immediately eligible.

The document estimated that the program could cost between $467.7 million and $585.4 million. The department anticipated collecting about $484.2 million in fees.

Comments

autie 3 years, 5 months ago

I guess Kris does have a job...and it is not in Kansas.

Just a hint guys, all this anti immigration crap is all show and tell to incite emotion on the far right....truth is the big corps down to the locals really don't want to lose all of their cheap and reliable labor pool and the gov't kind of likes all the taxes and fica being paid on them that will never go back out to the payers....word up America, it is all a lie.

verity 3 years, 5 months ago

You got that one right, autie.

I doubt that Kobach has any guiding principles except to go where the money and power is.

cheerio 3 years, 5 months ago

Verity - You just described 99% of politicians, not just Kobach.

beatrice 3 years, 5 months ago

For overseeing twice as many deportations than occurred in the Bush II administration?

Well, that can't be it, so I can only imagine it is for all the terrorists attacks happening in America.

squawkhawk 3 years, 5 months ago

Kobach is a joke and someone else's tool. He's just posturing himself for future political opportunities. He's an embarrassment to all Kansans.

Talia Jael 3 years, 5 months ago

...what you Lawrence Libs don't realize is that you are a very small minority in Kansas."

Which is why Kansas is screwed.

beatrice 3 years, 5 months ago

man hater?

Stupid statement, even for you.

chootspa 3 years, 5 months ago

"Has been accused" is not the same thing as "did."

beatrice 3 years, 5 months ago

I didn't call you a name, I said your statement was stupid. I stand by that comment, so there is no reason for me to apologize.

Glad to know you now believe all accusations. This is a very different stand than the accusations than the several accusations made earlier in the year about Herman Cain, even when payments were involved.

The lesson learned from Tucson is that sometimes even children get killed because of the lax gun distribution in our country. What lesson did you learn?

parrothead8 3 years, 5 months ago

Is "man hater" supposed to be a derogatory term? Depending on the person, aren't we all man haters at some point in our lives?

Maddy Griffin 3 years, 5 months ago

Unless it was the Bush/Cheney regime. You really do getmore spiteful and bitter with each reincarnation,huh.

Shelley Bock 3 years, 5 months ago

Wasn't this "gun running" program that you speak of an idea initiated during the Bush Administration?

parrothead8 3 years, 5 months ago

You're using the word "communists" incorrectly.

Kendall Simmons 3 years, 5 months ago

Frank Davis (who died when Obama was 26) was as much Obama's "pal" as my father's best friend down the street was mine.

I've often wondered why some people want to make mountains out of holes in the ground. Perhaps you could tell me?

voevoda 3 years, 5 months ago

SageonPage, Since when does having a grandfather who was a communist make the grandchild a communist, too? It's not inherited like DNA, SageonPage, and by making this claim, you are undercutting everything you say. How can anyone believe anything you say, when you enunciate such ridiculous ideas? And parrothead8 is correct; Obama and his advisors are not communists. He doesn't have communist inclinations under any circumstances, but particularly in regard to immigration. Communist governments do not permit illegals to remain within the borders of their countries.

voevoda 3 years, 5 months ago

The site you cite as your source, SageonPage, is not reliable. It's an overtly-biased blog by self-proclaimed libertarians from New Zealand--hardly experts on anything on this side of the Pacific. I've read about Obama's circle from reliable sources. Liberals, yes. Progressives, yes. Communists, no.

Liberty275 3 years, 5 months ago

"Obama and his advisors are not communists. He doesn't have communist inclinations under any circumstances"

They aren't communists as The Constitution won't allow communism in America. However, the current administration does adhere to a larger extent than other administrations to Marxist ideals, and to a lesser degree ideology.

When people like obama or that majority leader are called "communists", the word is being used as a pejorative pointing out the similarities between them and communists proper.

voevoda 3 years, 5 months ago

Actually, there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits Communism. A ban on Communist organizations or political ideas would violate the Constitution.
Obama and his allies have less in common with Communism than contemporary American "Libertarians" do. That's because many "Libertarians" are really anarcho-capitalists, who, like Communists, 1) claim that the economic structure of society dictates its political system; 2) set up dubious propositions concerning how the economy operates as eternal natural laws; 3) trust that adherence to a chosen economic system will bring about a utopia, in which people will enjoy unimagined prosperity and only friendly competition; 4) advocate materialism, thinking that all that matters in human existence is material—things that people can have for their use; 5) see government as the source of oppression and hope for its disappearance; 6) see some people as deserving of wealth and attribute all virtue to them, while deriding others as parasites who deserve nothing; 7)advocate depriving persons from “bad” economic groups (that is, those who have taken government subsidies in the past) of their civil rights; and 9) often reject belief in a higher power, deriding religion as something for stupid people. Obama doesn't agree with any of these propositions. But I've gathered from your earlier posts, Liberty, that you do.

chootspa 3 years, 5 months ago

I've thought it odd that libertarians haven't recognized the Marxist influences in Randian Objectivism, but then, there are Marxist influences in just about every modern materialist philosophy. Most libertarians I've encountered haven't analyzed it much and are either pot smokers or radical populists in favor of laissez-faire capitalism and restrictive laws to enforce their religious views.

Cait McKnelly 3 years, 5 months ago

Then you must not be much of a Christian since Jesus was a communist.

kansanbygrace 3 years, 5 months ago

You're flailing again, kid. Jesus told the rich young ruler to sell everything he had and give it to the poor and the guy could then follow him. This is absolutely consistent with the entire New Testament accounts and discussion of his life and his teachings. Jesus NEVER justified hoarding material (including money).

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 5 months ago

"And who is even talking about hoarding?"

That would be the whole basis for your petty and small-minded ideology (and, apparently, theology.)

voevoda 3 years, 5 months ago

Are you so sure that you have correctly understood Jesus' message, SageonPage? Look at these passages; they aren't ambiguous. Jesus said, " You received without paying, give without pay." (Matt 10:8) "For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you did not cloth me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me... Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these [people] you did it not to me. Ans they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life. (Matt 25:42-46) "Businessmen and merchants will not enter the places of my father. " (Thom. 64) "If you have money, do not lend it at interest, but give it to one from whom you will not get it back. (Thom. 95)

jhawkinsf 3 years, 5 months ago

Well, I'm sure as heck not going to hire that Jesus fellow as my financial planner.

Cait McKnelly 3 years, 5 months ago

I really think you need to take out your Bible and, you know, actually READ it and not rely on some guy in a pulpit to read it for you.

Crazy_Larry 3 years, 5 months ago

Pick and choose which laws to enforce? That is the standard everywhere today. See the Olin incident for just one small example. Don't like it? Do something about it.

gccs14r 3 years, 5 months ago

Hopefully Brownback is docking Kobach's pay for all the hours he's spending on other than State business. And hopefully the people of Kansas remember all this nonsense when Kobach runs for office again and send him back to the private sector.

dncinnanc 3 years, 5 months ago

This makes me so angry... Stop wasting my tax dollars on this BS, Kobach!!!

jonas_opines 3 years, 5 months ago

Birthright citizenship is an entitlement. One based only on the actions or characteristics of one's parents, and nothing that one is or has done oneself.

If you are against entitlements, then you should be against it.

Liberty275 3 years, 5 months ago

"Birthright citizenship is an entitlement"

No. It is mandated by the constitution. They can stop sending your welfare check tomorrow and it will be constitutional. They cannot deprive a person born of an American parent his citizenship nor the rights that go along with it.

jonas_opines 3 years, 5 months ago

You act as if something in the constitution is automatically exempted from being an entitlement.

backyardwino 3 years, 5 months ago

How do you think you got your citizenship. What a thoughtless comment.

bevy 3 years, 5 months ago

Love the 5 o'clock shadow, squinting at the horizon, Manly Man photo. Kris - get your butt back to work! You know, at your JOB - the one we PAY you for! When I was a state employee I sure couldn't run all over the country working a second job. Notice his status as an adviser to Mitt Romney got top billing over his position as our Secretary of State.

Steve Jacob 3 years, 5 months ago

Jamie Shew for S of S 2014. Let Kobach do junk like this on his own time and dime.

voevoda 3 years, 5 months ago

I don't see any evidence at all of "middle eastern terrorists streaming over our borders," SageonPage. The primary innovation in the Obama administration's policy has been in regard to suspending deportation proceedings against individuals who were brought to the US illegally when they were children and have grown up here and committed no crimes. Other than that, the Obama administration's policies have pretty much followed those of his Republican predecessors. So if you're going to slam Obama on this score, you'll need to slam George W. Bush, too. Finally, you need to rethink whether illegal immigrants are really a problem. Historically, a lot of people arrived on this continent illegally, and most turned out to be good contributors to American society. Not to mention their grandchildren, SageonPage.

voevoda 3 years, 5 months ago

Fox News isn't a reliable source for information about terrorists, SageonPage. Try using security reports available through KU.

voevoda 3 years, 5 months ago

That's your problem, SageonPage; you pull the first thing you spot on the internet and assume that it's reliable--at least if it agrees with what you already think. I prefer to form my opinion after reading materials--usually, not available openly on the internet--and consulting experts.
You are confusing "terror cells" and illegal immigrants, SageonPage. The 9/11 terrorists were all in the US legally. Tracking down the illegal immigrants concerned here--those who were brought to the US as children--just takes away from the manpower available to go after real terrorist. Think about it, SageonPage; would you rather have the ICE agents searching for teenagers and young adults who have grown up here and who consider this to be their homeland, or have them instead search for terrorists?

Curtis Martell 3 years, 5 months ago

Um are you serious? Terrorists streaming over our borders? That is just not true. I read 10-12 newspapers and news outlets a day and I've never heard of this happening. Where are they?

leonardpike 3 years, 5 months ago

Sageon - I was particularly impressed when Obama sent Navy SEALs in to sit down for tea with Osama bin Laden and give him a plane ticket to Chicago so he can join the stream of terrorists coming to Lawrence to blow up Mass street on Wednesdays. I mean, I wish Obama said to the SEAL team "if you see Osama, put a bullet in his head." That would have been much better. OH WAIT.

bevy 3 years, 5 months ago

Oh Sage, never mind that the people of Kansas elected Mr. Kobach to do a job HERE. Never mind that he is accepting a salary, paid for by our tax dollars, to do that job. My statement contained nothing about whether I agree or disagree with what he is doing in Arizona or elsewhere. He is entitled to pursue whatever agenda he feels is appropriate. What he is NOT entitled to do, as an employee of our state, is to accept a salary for doing a job that he is clearly not doing! My statement said, quite clearly, that I do not think he can both "handle his job and serve the nation." I'm glad to be a former state employee too. I loved my work for the state, and I did a great job, EARNING every dollar of my salary. Unfortunately, it was no longer economically feasible for me to stay in an environment where no one's stellar work could be rewarded by even so much as a cost of living raise. I'm glad to be in the private sector where I can be paid what I am worth. Sorry can't chat further, gotta go to work now!

msezdsit 3 years, 5 months ago

Cowbach continues his assault on american taxpayers. One right wing conspiracy begats the next one while cowbach smiles all the way to the bank and back to the court house for more. He has created a perpetual money machine at the expense of the tax payer.

msezdsit 3 years, 5 months ago

"Reading and comprehension" I hope your being sarcastic because otherwise it is laughable that you would bring those two words up in one of your posts of many different names.

voevoda 3 years, 5 months ago

Do you assume, SageonPage, that by hurling abuse at contributors to this forum whose opinions differ from you that somehow you are advancing your own position? If so, you are sadly mistaken. Every time you put down other people, you spur readers to doubt your good sense. People who have good arguments don't need to resort to snide comments.

msezdsit 3 years, 5 months ago

"some posters on here are simply partisans who espouse party-line nonsense " sageon on sageonpage .Just keep on trolling.

voevoda 3 years, 5 months ago

Unfortunately, SageonPage, by emulating their behavior, you, too, end up sounding as though you are spouting party-line nonsense and baloney. Invective doesn't encourage critical thinking; it just causes people to reject out of hand everything that you happen to say. It's your choice if you wish to continue to use vituperation, and since often I disagree with you, I suppose that I should be happy when you fail to make your case through such obvious missteps in argumentation. But I would rather encourage a high level of civility and the productive interchange of ideas.

msezdsit 3 years, 5 months ago

"Unfortunately, SageonPage, by emulating their behavior, you, too, end up sounding as though you are spouting party-line nonsense and baloney."voe

If you want to waste time trying to talk sense to sage then don't insult me in so doing. Kobach has made a fortune off tax payers by assisting in inventing and perpetuating republican party line problems that don't exist. Kobach and the republicans have manufactured draconian laws against illegal immigration when it and crime associated with illegal immigration are at the lowest level in 30 years and add to that that Obama has deported more illegal immigrants than any other president including the bushs and reagon. That is not party line baloney, that is fact. Kobach and the republican party line invented voter voter fraud that doesn't exist so they could invent voter ID, predominantly in swing states, with the real intention of disenfranchising voters that may not vote republican. That is fact, not party line baloney.

This latest law suit is just another extraction from republican party line baloney that Kobach continues to belong to and benefit financially from.

Sageon is in fact,spouting party-line nonsense and baloney.

voevoda 3 years, 5 months ago

msezdit, I agree with you completely in your characterization of what the Obama administration is doing. In addition to published sources that confirm it, I have heard the same from a high-ranking employee of the Department of Homeland Security in Arizona, who is charged with deporting illegal aliens. I agree, too, that SageonPage has been spouting party-line nonsense and baloney. But I disagree with the incivility with which you surround your otherwise cogent statements. Do our side a favor, msezdit, express yourself in a classy way.

msezdsit 3 years, 5 months ago

"Do our side a favor, msezdit, express yourself in a classy way." Well I certainly represent our "side" in an appropriate and factual manner. Sometimes you have to get to the point in a manner that represents the situation and those involved. My comment was completely accurate and to the point. I am not serving cookies and milk. There are time when direect talk is appropriate.

msezdsit 3 years, 5 months ago

Get lost, oh, I forgot, you will be disappeared again but its never soon enough. Your just a troll spewing complete baseless tripe.

Liberty275 3 years, 5 months ago

I'd be happy just to see him impeached, except that drunken clown of a VP he chose would be as bad and dumber.

voevoda 3 years, 5 months ago

The University of Chicago is an elite private institution, not a public school, bigtoe. Quite conservative in many ways, actually.

Joe Franco 3 years, 5 months ago

Kris:

So what exactly have you done in your "elected" capacity for the State of Kansas. Either prove your worth or I think the word "impeachment" needs to applied to you. Resignation would work as well and save taxpayer dollars.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 5 months ago

He's done his best to eliminate as many qualified voters from participating in elections as possible.

oldbaldguy 3 years, 5 months ago

those guys can kiss their jobs goodbuy. Never a good idea to sue your employer. Morale in ICE was down under the Bush administration too, what's new?

Liberty275 3 years, 5 months ago

Why come back? The fishing there is great.

globehead 3 years, 5 months ago

If you renounce your US citizenship, you probably won't be flying down to Mexico because you will no longer have a valid passport. Perhaps you could sneak into Mexico illegally, then hire the coyote to sneak you back. If you really need help in the Obama economy, then you probably cannot afford the plane ticket and/or the coyote. If you can afford them, you probably don't need help in the Obama economy or the 4 year college education. This is all so very complicated.

globehead 3 years, 5 months ago

Mexico wouldn't have to enforce them. You wouldn't be getting on the plane here without it (passport). International flight passengers must hold a valid passport (in addition to any other required documentation) to enter or depart the United States .If you don't have your valid travel documents for the destination country and/or transit points, you won't be able to travel. Of course, you could take a bus. El Conejo runs a good service. You could possible renounce your citizenship and fly into Milwaukee or some other city or state, but I'm pretty sure Mexico or any other foreign country is just out of the question.

Liberty275 3 years, 5 months ago

He'll need to find an etoyoc to take him down to mexico. The Mexicans would just deport him back here.

Orwell 3 years, 5 months ago

What did we ever do to Mexico to deserve that?

Oh… right. Never mind.

leonardpike 3 years, 5 months ago

You wont get a college education unless you graduate from a state High School and intend to be a US citizen and the only help you get is in state tuition. But hey, if you come in to the US illegally, you will get a job from the Koch brothers - one of the largest employers of undocumented workers - in the "Obama economy." Koch loves Obama because he is so on their side when it comes to illegals. I mean, have you seen all of those ads Koch runs supporting Obama and the dems? SARCASM INTENDED. But hey, I wont bother you with the facts. You already have your mind made up. Good for you.

beatrice 3 years, 5 months ago

rc, for a second there I thought you were asking about Romney's grandfather. You know, the one who went to Mexico to start a commune because he wasn't allowed enough wives in America. The commune on which Mitt's father was born.

Liberty275 3 years, 5 months ago

Do you have a problem with polygamy? Who are you to tell people they can and can't marry?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 5 months ago

I bet Mitt Romney says that he's against it. (Mainstream Mormons aren't allowed to have any other opinion on the matter.)

beatrice 3 years, 5 months ago

How is this religious bigotry? I'll bet Mitt Romney would be against it and it is against mainstream Mormonism. Not all agree, however. Just ask Warren Jeffs.

beatrice 3 years, 5 months ago

I'm not "America" and I wasn't around when Romney's grandfather was running off to Mexico to start a polygamist commune.

And to answer the question, yes, I have a problem with polygamy. In practice, it is too often the abuse of under age girls. See Warren Jeffs if you don't believe me.

tbaker 3 years, 5 months ago

Granting amnesty to illegal aliens just encourages more people to break the law and makes the problem worse. By doing so, the President also broke the promise he made when he took the oath to support and defend the constitution.

Liberty275 3 years, 5 months ago

That's obviously true. It rewards illegal activity. But what are you going to do? Do you want to pick tomatoes? I don't, and I don't want to pay $5 for one either (unless it's really a $5 tomato).

I think the end result is going to be an open border like the one in Canada with ez-2-renu visas. If that's the case, then we might as well let them trickle in and give some a break from the law until we nullify the current law and replace it with one that isn't dumb. Those people are our neighbors, and mostly good neighbors, at least as a state. Let's be a little nicer to them and stop treating them like inferiors. Most of them try really hard to be what we got by luck.

We need better laws regarding immigration, and I think we can do without the grandstanding on garbage legislation while we figure out better laws that won't be broken because their will be none but rare reasons for breaking them.

tbaker 3 years, 5 months ago

Between 400-450K people break the law and enter the country illegally every year. That tells me our labor market has that ammount of demand becuase they wouldn't come here in those numbers if they were unable to find a job and make a better life for themselves. We should recognize this and build an INS that is designed to produce that number of new citizens each year with a process measured in weeks, not years. Skip the Green Card BS. I say the one's hear now illegally are made to pay a fine and do some community service for breaking the law, then swear them in as well. You end up with all the people our country obvisouly needs and you make the path to citizenship straight forward and fast such that the only one's trying to sneak in are the criminals that would never pass the legitimate process. These frees up the Border Patrol to focus on these people instead of the vast majority who are just honest folks trying to make a better life for themselves.

repaste 3 years, 5 months ago

Shush. This is not the place for reason or logic.

Alexander Smith 3 years, 5 months ago

LOL.. once again the GOP shows how double standards they are. What is kind of ironic about all this is timing issue before campaign. Also, all those big ranch people and farms in the south that support the fight against Obama... humm lets go look at who they hire out and how far the go into seeing that all the workers are legal. I am guessing the don't sine they care more about the dollar.

guess_again 3 years, 5 months ago

I sure hope Palin shows up for Ronda to support.

:)

Kate Rogge 3 years, 5 months ago

Brownback's not going anywhere. I'd thought he was being groomed for the presidency, but the Kochs own Paul Ryan too, and I think they'll run him instead of old squinty-eyed Sam.

Richard Heckler 3 years, 5 months ago

kobach is a sensationalist that is abusing his position and he should resign

Flap Doodle 3 years, 5 months ago

What will the amnesty do the current lousy unemployment rate?

jonas_opines 3 years, 5 months ago

Perhaps it would help legitimize and accurately report jobs that are currently covert and under the table.

Richard Benson 3 years, 5 months ago

I believe the position of Kansas Secretary of State is a considered a full-time job, especially at election time.

How much time can Kobach actually spend in the Secretary of State's Office working on Kansas Secretary of State Office business?

How much Kansas taxpayer money has Kobach spent so far on behalf of the 10 litigious government employees in Texas?

How much of the entire 2012 Kansas Secretary of State's budget remains unspent, and in reserve for the business of Kansans?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 5 months ago

The people who actually cast ballots for folks like Kobach have no idea what the Sec. of State does, and even less idea of whether Kobach is doing a good job at it.

But they may see headlines of his crusading against Evil Evildoers (with evil brown skin and evil accents) all over the country, and that's all they need to know.

jhawkinsf 3 years, 5 months ago

"The people who actually cast ballots for folks like Kobach have no idea what the Sec. of State does ... " You're not advocating for something like a literacy test, are you?

Richard Benson 3 years, 5 months ago

Decades ago I saw a poll of (I believe it was) Ohio voters. By a wide margin, they believed their Secretary of State was Ohio's Ambassador to the United Nations.

deec 3 years, 5 months ago

You're absolutely right. I live 6 miles from a ham factory. The little town of 7000 next to the plant has about 10 or 12 bodegas. The population is now abut 35% Hispanic and 2 1/2% Asian. Before the meat plant got rid of the union and dropped wages, the town was pretty much all of Czech descent. The town also had a dead downtown aside from a few shops that catered to the small college crowd that attends school there. The town had a 15 1/2% increase in population thanks to the immigrants. Everybody around here gripes about them, but nobody around here wants to work at the meat factory for the pestilent wages they now pay. I've heard rumors that there are signs at the border placed by the corporation who owns the plant advising immigrants to come. If the immigrants left, the town would go back to being a dying little town full of elderly people and college kids who'd rather drive 20 miles to Lincoln to spend their money.

deec 3 years, 5 months ago

Actually, they dropped the wages first and then the immigration began. Corporate America,, particularly agribusiness, LOVES the illegals. It''s their answer for jobs that can't be sent to Asia. If an illegal worker is injured on the job or grumbles about wages, the company can call INS and take care of the problem. Is it the last of the season's harvest? Call INS and you won't have to pay the last paycheck.

Kendall Simmons 3 years, 5 months ago

Do you truly not realize that taxes are withheld from their paychecks...and, unlike us, the illegals never get any tax refunds? They never collect Medicare or Social Security?

And, if a boss is gonna pay illegals under the table, you can be sure he's paying American workers the same way.

Kendall Simmons 3 years, 5 months ago

How's that working for Sheriff Joe? Oh...that's right. It's not.

salinalawrence 3 years, 5 months ago

dude taught law at Harvard for a decade, but yeah, I'm sure Kobach is going to catch him misusing the Clause of Supremacy. You hate Mexicans, we get it already, Kansas, jesus.

salinalawrence 3 years, 5 months ago

Barrack Obama... the only dude in this context that taught at Harvard. Why did you put quotes around "dude"? Use "of" punctuation fail.

Lally 3 years, 5 months ago

I would be fired from my job if I did what Kobach does as a "hobby."

Jennifer Alexander 3 years, 5 months ago

I am absolutely ashamed to have this man as our Secretary of State.

Carol Bowen 3 years, 5 months ago

I'm not sure a federal employee can sue his boss. If the ICE employees did not not follow proper procedures, this whole show will get thrown out of court.

Paul Wilson 3 years, 5 months ago

Who then keeps the Fed in check? The Fed? It's State lawmakers, Governors, and employees of them. It is about time a state led the way to the massive problem that is Illegal immigration. Not 'undocumented workers' as the LJW so incorrectly labels them. Illegal means illegal. They should go through the process just like so many of our relatives did...legally. As intelligent as the left would constantly have us believe they are...this issue proves just how dense they really are. Your president simply wants votes. This is not about compassion or what is good for our economy. This is about votes. Plain and simple.

Paul Wilson 3 years, 5 months ago

He does. He meets with Mexico and all other countries that contribute to the issue. Problem is...he...unlike any other President in history is encouraging them to come to cast yet more uneducated, easy votes from people with their hands out....just like his base.

Carol Bowen 3 years, 5 months ago

See http://www.mspb.gov/meritsystemsprinciples.htm

The Merit Systems Protection Board has a procedure in place to watch over fedgov. There are steps in the procedure that allow the employee to opt out and go for an attorney.

acg 3 years, 5 months ago

Oooh, brown people scare us. LOL. Kris, don't go away mad.....just go away!!

Liberty275 3 years, 5 months ago

Last I heard, there were more non-beige people here than beige people. Brown people are as scary as the beige ones.

Gareth Skarka 3 years, 5 months ago

OK, Mr. Kobach. Show us on this doll where the scary brown man touched you.

cowboy 3 years, 5 months ago

Kobach, who also advised Arizona lawmakers on the state's controversial immigration bill, said he is representing the employees as a private lawyer and not in his capacity as a Kansas state official.

Fire this moonlighting one issue loser !

WolfCreek2890 3 years, 5 months ago

He is just nuts! Where were the lawsuits when Bush was pres and iCE just let all go? I was in Russell at that time and County Sheriff picked up 15 that were riding in a van that broke down. Ice was called and they said not coming from Wichita. So the next day, the illegals were let out on the city streets and I saw some of them walking up and down the street. There were lots of breakdowns the next few nights. Kobach go and do your job. Your office can't get things straight, they make promises and then do not deliver. I'm still waiting on info I paid for at the end of June and your office said was sent out at the end of July. Geesh-----they can't get anything right and you are all over the US, not in KS. When your time is up, you must be gone.Oh, you guys grumbling about Obama-what hypocrites you are, Bush did nothing.

Orwell 3 years, 5 months ago

If you're responsible for screwing things up, you STAY responsible for it. The alternative is to lie and claim it's someone else's fault.

Ronda Miller 3 years, 5 months ago

Guess_again......hehe I didn't realize Palin was Hispanic. Me thinks I smell something of a Boson Corbett tea party scat(er) on the premises. Please check the electric fences....

Leslie Swearingen 3 years, 5 months ago

Of course she is Hispanic. She is hot, isn't she? At least Roe keeps telling us so. :-)

beatrice 3 years, 5 months ago

Palin? Who is that? I checked at the upcoming GOP convention and the name doesn't appear to be on the guest list.

yourworstnightmare 3 years, 5 months ago

Kobach is wasting time and money to oppose Obama at every turn.

"White whale" comes to mind. Put a puritan beard and artificial leg on Kobach, and there you go.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 5 months ago

"and concentrate on the economy dummies."

Only problem is that their "solutions" for the economy are good only for the 0.1%, and would result in permanent recession and a downward spiral for everyone else. And the accelerated global warming wouldn't float all boats-- it'd drown everyone who couldn't afford a 100-ft yacht.

Frederic Gutknecht IV 3 years, 5 months ago

KobAche has got a hard but skinny line and bone to pick the locks of idiots. He is all hair balls... trying to look presidentshill while hacking up his wunderbar jabs. The guy is the wurst kind and king of Hitlerian lies. The desperation of the righteous indignation party has found its master gasper. It is a ditch effort and will last, due to the idiocratic rule of zealot misbelief. Make no mistake. We are fighting for nothing but money. It is the least Christian game imaginable, creating an arrogance and ignorance for wealth. Their is so little truth to the left or right of us that we may as well buy popcorn to watch this fueling of ignorance and the theft of our children's lives. We purport to be saving...something...ridiculous, while killing those waving white flags. The purposeful failure of business... its killing and a catering to the welfare estate of oligarchs enslaving the planet...must end. Who believes that the wealthy will share anything but crumbs?

Frederic Gutknecht IV 3 years, 5 months ago

If Obama is a "do nothing president" then why are you constantly spewing vitriol about what he's done? Obama will not win Kansas, right? Who's wasting time here, DO NOTHING POSTER child of the Golden Calf Party?

Kendall Simmons 3 years, 5 months ago

So what if he's played 104 rounds of golf? Is there some Constitutional requirement that presidents can't relax?

And do you seriously think that 104 rounds of golf out of 1130+ weeks is extreme?? Playing golf a couple of times a month. OH NO!!! HOW DARE HE!!!

And what does not holding Cabinet meetings all the time really mean? Does it mean he's never meeting with Cabinet members?

Oh...and you might want to do a wee bit more fact-checking about "That's more fundraisers than Carter, Reagan, GHW Bush and Clinton combined!" I'll bet you're citing one of those websites that can't add. Or they want to compare Obama's 3.5 year total to other President's 1-year total...which is deliberate cheating on their part. (And surely you realize that times have changed...a lot.)

Stop focusing on petty stuff like round of golf. If that's the best you can do, you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel for things to complain about.

Kate Rogge 3 years, 5 months ago

I don't think he's failed. He pulled this economy back from the literal brink and kept us from desperate times. You think it would have been better with McCain? I don't. And I don't think it will be better if Romney gets into office. Someone has to speak for the majority of this county, and that someone is still President Obama.

Liberty275 3 years, 5 months ago

"And do you seriously think that 104 rounds of golf out of 1130+ weeks is extreme?? "

How many?

Leslie Swearingen 3 years, 5 months ago

Does no one realize that these illegals are humans, just like you and me? Just how do you prove that you were in this country before you were sixteen? Have been here for five years? Pay $465 for the paper work, for each child? Can the person stay in this country while all the paperwork is being done.? It cannot be humane or morally right to deny people their dignity. They work and work hard at jobs that are sometimes horrific. If they send money home to help their families what is wrong with that? How many making comments on here are willing to help their families in such a way. In Mexico the extended family is normal. They make sacrifices to help each other.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 5 months ago

Actually, the Supreme Court has stated in various opinions on this matter that it's not "illegal" to be an undocumented immigrant.

jafs 3 years, 5 months ago

Really?

If one hasn't followed the correct procedures to legally immigrate to this country, and is here without appropriate documentation, that's not illegal?

Hard to imagine how that could be true.

Katara 3 years, 5 months ago

Undocumented immigrants were legally here (usually on a visa) and overstayed the visa. They did follow the correct procedures initially. This is why they are not considered "illegal".

jafs 3 years, 5 months ago

But, the visas are issued for specific periods of time - if they overstay that period, aren't they violating the law, and hence "illegal" residents?

If not, why bother to have time specific visas in the first place?

progressive_thinker 3 years, 5 months ago

It is not a criminal violation. Rather, it is a violation of civil code. The proceeding for "removal" [that is the technical term for deportation] is entirely civil in nature. It is necessary for the proceeding to be civil rather than criminal because of the due process and evidence requirements of criminal law.

Similarly to the overstayed visa, someone brought to the US as a child did not have the capacity to commit the misdemeanor crime of "unlawful entry."

Now there are two categories of aliens that are in the criminal realm. Those who have entered the US after having been deported [unlawful reentry, a felony], and those who have entered the US by evading DHS inspection at the time of entry [unlawful entry, a misdemeanor]. I have two other posts on this topic that you may be interested in.

jafs 3 years, 5 months ago

So violations of civil codes aren't "illegal"?

progressive_thinker 3 years, 5 months ago

I did not raise as a concern the use of the term "illegal". I simply pointed out that being in the United States without authorization is in and of itself not a criminal matter.

jafs 3 years, 5 months ago

So, it is illegal to violate civil codes?

Bozo claimed it wasn't.

progressive_thinker 3 years, 5 months ago

I hesitate to criticize someone for "correct grammar", however, since you asked, I will respond. Immigration is not that simple. From a purely technical standpoint, I suppose the term "illegal" could be used, however, it is extremely misleading at best. First off, we will not know if a person is unauthorized to be in the US until they get to a removal hearing and find out whether or not they fall into one of the categories where they might be granted a waiver, relief from removal, deferral of removal, or any of the other available status assignments that are at the discretion of the hearing judge. Moreover, the status of an alien can change quickly based on a number of factors.

The second problem is that "illegal" is not meaningful in terms of describing a persons immigration status ["illegal alien" does not appear anywhere in the law].

The term is an oversimplification that paints all persons with an immigration status issue as being equal. Nothing could be further from the truth. The insinuation is that removal [deportation] for all who bear this label is the solution. Again, nothing could be further from the truth.

jafs 3 years, 5 months ago

Wow - a lot of dancing about there.

I'd say somebody who breaks the law is committing an illegal act.

And that those who want to make it more complicated and dance about are the ones who are misleading people.

The fact that there are waivers, etc. doesn't change the fact that being here without proper authorization is against the law, it just means that we don't stringently uphold those laws.

jafs 3 years, 5 months ago

Also, I tend to think that removal is the best response to illegal status.

In addition, if there are other problems with our immigration system, we should fix them.

progressive_thinker 3 years, 5 months ago

Well then just feel free to contact your congress person and demand that they get a contingent of ICE officers to go out to Garden City and inspect the IBP plant and a few of the feedlots. Then they can start moving east and inspecting roofing crews and other similar operations that make use of immigrant labor to provide us with cheap stuff. The short answer is that they will not have the political will to even think about starting that. My prediction is that on November 7, this issue will pretty much drop off of the radar screen.

jafs 3 years, 5 months ago

I agree with your prediction, but I fail to see your point there.

Politicians don't have the political will to do a lot of things they should be doing, in my view.

I'd be glad for them to enforce our immigration policies, personally.

progressive_thinker 3 years, 5 months ago

There are two points here: 1. The current drama is political theater, from both sides of the aisle; and 2. insisting on a a one size fits all approach to dealing with persons who have a questionable immigration status will prevent us from ever developing a workable, practical and rational approach to the issue. Our current policies cause more problems than they solve.

Some good reading regarding this issue is available at the Mexican Migration Project [MMP], Princeton University.

Cait McKnelly 3 years, 5 months ago

Word up, Kansans. Just because Obama may have given illegals deferred action doesn't mean radical right wing states won't do their best to gum up the works. Just like their TRAP laws, if they don't like they will figure out some other way to screw people.
Jan Brewer has decided that people under deferred immigration amnesty will not be allowed to have driver's licenses. Think about that. If you can't get to your job or school, what's the point of amnesty? Other states are following suit and you can just about bet Brownback will do exactly the same.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/jan-brewer-denies-deferred-action-recipients-drivers-licenses-164837285.html

beatrice 3 years, 5 months ago

I believe the GOP is just doubling down on crazy at this point.

verity 3 years, 5 months ago

Yep, I'd say so. Kinda entertaining in a morbid sort of way.

voevoda 3 years, 5 months ago

It's a matter of resources, WristTwister. There aren't enough personnel to enforce the existing laws and find and deport all the illegals. Surely you wouldn't want to pay for the huge expansion of government that it would take to do this. So the question is which illegal immigrants to focus on catching and deporting. Obama, like his predecessors, has decided to focus on arresting and deporting those illegals who are a danger to our country--primarily those who have committed violent crimes or are planning to do so. Other than that, the Obama administration is going after the businesses that knowingly and routinely hire illegals. This is an innovation of his administration, but one, ironically enough, that Kris Kobach himself proposed during the Bush era in one of his law review articles. Why has Kobach rejected his earlier position? Perhaps because the "end"--defeating Obama's reelection campaign--justifies the means--that is, misconstruing what his administration is actually doing.

Kendall Simmons 3 years, 5 months ago

Why would anyone want to illegally enter a third world country???

voevoda 3 years, 5 months ago

WristTwister, Sealing the border would not solve the problem. The vast majority of the illegals entered the US legally, on a tourist visa, or a student visa, or a family visit visa, or a work visa, etc., and then overstayed its termination date. And we agree that the financial penalties for a pattern of employing illegals ought to be severe. The Obama administration has made the penalties a lot stronger, WristTwister, and levied them more often. But the forensic accountants and investigators necessary to track illegals--well, the government would need to expand their ranks a lot in order to crack down the way you want, and I gather that you are strongly opposed to the expansion of government. Not to mention how many wealthy business people, most of whom back Republican candidates, would lose their businesses as the result of a real crackdown.
I did not respond to your assertions that Obama derelict in his duties as president because I do not share your opinion. Every governmental executive decides which laws to give priority to in enforcing, and which one can and should be ignored. Governor Brownback is currently refusing to enforce any number of Kansas state laws that are on the books. Although he set up an "office of the repealer" in order to identify laws that have outlived their usefulness--or perhaps never were useful to begin with--he hasn't been enforcing them regardless of the fact that he took an oath to do so. And properly so; most of them haven't been enforced in years, even decades, by either Republican or Democratic governors. Once again, it's a matter of priorities. The police don't pull over everybody who goes 2 miles per hour above the speed limit, or even 10 miles per hour above the speed limit. It doesn't bother me that Obama isn't enforcing the law when the targets are individuals who aren't detrimental to American life.
As for Obama's "unscrupulous campaign tactics," I would have to say that I have seen a lot more unscrupulous campaign tactics from the Republican side than from the Democratic side, not only in this presidential election but in past ones. The "swiftboating" of John Kerry, which maligned a hero of the Vietnam War as a coward? The "birther" nonsense coming out of the mouths of leading Republicans? Sarah Palin's bogus "death panels"? Compared to that, Obama's issuing of a policy that will appeal to a specific sizable voting pool, Hispanic Americans, hardly counts as unscrupulous. As for the Alinsky connection, you and your sources have imagined it. So Obama read Alinsky--what of it? So a few of Obama's ideas match Alinsky's--what of it? So do a few of Mitt Romney's. And Paul Ryan's. Obama is more beholden to the ideas of Martin Luther King and Jesus than Alinsky.

Kendall Simmons 3 years, 5 months ago

Uh...why don't you do some reading about the SBVT and see how pretty much everything they claimed was debunked?

He was swiftboated by people who, almost to a person, didn't even know him. Didn't serve with him...just served at the same time but in different locations.

In the meanwhile, 99% of the veterans who served under or alongside Kerry actually supported him.

Then there were the very few people who knew him, praised him during his service, and even nominated him for the Silver Star...but who admitted that what they didn't like was what he had to say about the war after he got out of the service. They were ticked off about *that"...and admitted it.

NO eyewitnesses said Kerry was a coward. NONE. Perhaps you ought to do some fact-checking first? Because, like it or not, your opinions simply aren't facts.

Katara 3 years, 5 months ago

You cast doubts on FactCheck.org but cite World Net Daily as a legitimate source?

Kate Rogge 3 years, 5 months ago

His administration has deported more illegal aliens than any other previous administration. Too bad that's not good enough for you.

Orwell 3 years, 5 months ago

I love the random use of quotation marks, FHNC. Please keep it up. It's always entertaining, sorta like a true-false punctuation quiz for psychotics.

Carol Bowen 3 years, 5 months ago

It makes more sense for congress to address the issue than the KS Secretary of State.

Carol Bowen 3 years, 5 months ago

And? If there's a legitimate complaint, suing states would not slow down the process.

voevoda 3 years, 5 months ago

Obama certainly hasn't committed Nos. 2 or 3. As for No. 1, he hasn't done anything more outside of constitutional bounds than his predecessor. The use of impeachment charges, on the few times they have been raised, has always been politically motivated, directed against a president whose actions angered his opponents in Congress. The actions that motivated the Congressional vote to impeach were far different from the actions on which charges were brought, which were paltry. Could a second-term Obama be subjected to impeachment proceedings? Quite possibly, if the House of Representatives remains in the control of right-wing Republicans who hate him. That would be a bad thing for the US, though. The authors of the Constitution specified "high crimes and misdemeanors" as the justification for impeachment, and nothing Obama has done comes close to rising to that standard. Indeed, it's quite doubtful that he violated the Constitution at all. I worry about the precedent of impeaching a president on flimsy, trumped up grounds in order to undo the results of a legitimate election. You should, too. If it happens to Obama, it could happen to the next Republican president, too. And the president after him/her, too. And the next, and the next.

voevoda 3 years, 5 months ago

Considered it and rejected it, after seeking informed legal opinion.

progressive_thinker 3 years, 5 months ago

Here is a memo authored by 6 immigration attorneys that was authored during the run up to the issuance of the executive order.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9078024/Memo_exec_branch_authority.pdf

Actually, if you go to the DHS website, you will find that the executive order did not drastically change what they were doing anyway. They were already focusing their efforts on high risk cases, and had been doing so for some time. All of this recent drama is nothing more than political posturing, on both sides of the aisle.

Flap Doodle 3 years, 5 months ago

Yup, this thread is about what I'd have expected.....

CLARKKENT 3 years, 5 months ago

WOW, IF KOBACH IS AN ADVISOR FOR THE PRESIDENT WANT TO BE, THEN I THINK I KNOW HOW I WILL VOTE.

lawslady 3 years, 5 months ago

All political or immigration arguments aside, this suit may actually "have legs" (i.e. it could succeed). Just my opinion, but if in fact anyone orders his/her subordinates to not enforce current laws - when that is their job - that is not something they can legally do (on either side). This reminds me of when Governor Joan Finney decided that the HIghway Patrol should simply ignore over-weight farm trucks hauling during harvest season, and officially told them to "Stand Down" (not give tickets in such situations). She soon had to recant that order when the Attorney General politely pointed out that she was not authorized to change state/federal law (with regard to weight limits of trucks on specific roads) by simply issuing an order. She probably could have gotten away with it if she'd not issued the order so publicly (assuming the Highway Patrol officers went along with it). Seems like a very similar situation here. The policy of not prosecuting someone for violating current law can be made by the prosecutors (and it's sometimes very much a policy decision). But the officers of the law who are supposed to catch people at breaking the law are not supposed to do just that, and let the prosecutors decide who to move through the judicial/legal system.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 5 months ago

But if prosecutors use this program to try those who apply, wouldn't that amount to a violation of the fifth amendment, or perhaps constitute entrapment of some sort?

progressive_thinker 3 years, 5 months ago

No, it would not amount to a fifth amendment violation. The executive order does not apply to anyone who is being accused of a crime.

There are two different types of what are referred to as "illegal immigrants." 1. Those who have committed a crime, either illegal entry or illegal reentry after being deported. 2. Those who have overstayed a visa or who were brought to the US as a child, thus not having the capacity to have committed a crime under federal law.

Persons in category 2 have committed no crime, but nonetheless, can be deported under a civil deportation proceeding. As such, the fifth amendment does not apply.

The executive order, in theory, will free up a bunch of time for law enforcement as undocumented persons are encouraged to self report. Otherwise, we have to keep spending more sending out ICE agents to try and figure out who they are, arrest them, and get them into the hearing process.

As a practical matter, if an undocumented person meeting the criteria in the executive order is picked up by the ICE, they are often given bond or released on their own recognizance pending the removal hearing. Once the removal hearing is done, they are often allowed to remain in the US anyway.

This lawsuit and all of the drama about the executive order is nothing but a bunch of fear mongering and political gamesmanship.

progressive_thinker 3 years, 5 months ago

Have you seen this opinion?

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9078024/Memo_exec_branch_authority.pdf

I think it makes a pretty compelling case that the President's actions were indeed legal.

A critical point that many of the "negative" posters in this forum have no grasp of is that the Executive Order does not give any relief to persons who have committed the felony crime of criminal reentry, nor does it provide relief to those who are in violation of federal criminal law [misdemeanor] regarding illegal entry.

The Executive Order can only apply to the variety of folks who could be subject to being deported based on the civil violation of unauthorized presence. As a practical matter, if someone of this description is picked up by the ICE, they may well get released on bond or own recognizance pending their hearing, and many of this description would not be deported anyway.

What the Executive Order accomplishes is that it focuses scarce government resources on processing criminal illegal immigrants who are posing an immediate threat to safety and security within the US, and deferring action on those who are not of the criminal variety, and who may well not be deported anyway.

As no relief is contemplated nor ordered on behalf of anyone being accused of a crime, I have a hard time seeing that a law enforcement officer would have a cause of action.

The fear and misinformation mongering that has been used to whip up the electorate over this issue is breathtaking. I can only conclude that most of the very negative posters in this forum have no knowledge of immigration law, nor practical experience with the processing of persons who are in the country without documentation..

voevoda 3 years, 5 months ago

States can't nullify Federal law; that was the problem with a governor ordering state employees not to enforce Federal law. But this is about the Federal government ordering its own officials what priorities to adopt in the enforcement of the law. So very different circumstances.

Flap Doodle 3 years, 5 months ago

If I wanted to create a permanent under-class whose members would feel obligated to vote for Democrats, this amnesty is exactly how I'd start the process.

Paul Wilson 3 years, 5 months ago

Would you please supply your source for this data? Thanks

Paul Wilson 3 years, 5 months ago

Could you please supply the link where you got them?

Flap Doodle 3 years, 5 months ago

Since the border is currently a revolving door, the illegal aliens simply come back.

jhawkinsf 3 years, 5 months ago

If you hire an illegal immigrant, then you've done something wrong. If you're over zealous in screening, you're accused of profiling. It's a fine line that businesses have to walk.

jhawkinsf 3 years, 5 months ago

I think you're assuming that we're talking about a large company that accepts applications, hands it over to the department that handles hiring, and in a week or two, you hire the appropriate candidate. Fine. But if you need a day laborer, or your dishwasher or cook didn't show up today and you need someone today, your choices are limited. You hire quickly and hope that what the person tells you is the truth. Background checks, e-verify comes later, when you have the time. And should that cook or dishwasher turn out to be a good worker, you suddenly have a very strong incentive to never get around to background checks.

Of course, you could lessen your chances of accidentally hiring an illegal by hiring only people with no accent, or their skin color looks more "American". Obviously, we would and should condemn that strategy (profiling).

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 5 months ago

http://colorlines.com/archives/2012/07/justice_kennedy_never_used_the_term_illegal_in_sb1070_ruling.html

"Mónica Novoa, campaign coordinator for the Drop the I-Word campaign, a public education campaign working to eradicate the term “illegals” from everyday use and public discourse, supports Garcia’s statement and issued the following statement.

“Illegal alien” appears in the Arizona v. United States (SB 1070) court syllabus and in the dissenting opinion by Justice Scalia. But in the final court decision by Justice Kennedy, he only uses the term from quoted material and uses other descriptions like “unauthorized alien” “undocumented alien” and “unauthorized worker.” While archaic and clearly dehumanizing “alien” language is deeply embedded in our country’s immigration code and the SCOTUS narrative about immigration, the move away from using the i-word in the court’s opinion is a significant change because Judge Kennedy is choosing not to conflate criminality with undocumented status.

We’ve explained before why practicing attorneys do not use the i-word. This is the most recent and prominent SCOTUS opinion not to include the i-word. Recent opinions by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Sotomayor have not used it either. This is tremendous for our efforts to get the media to Drop the I-Word. Now that SCOTUS opinions are not using the i-word and making it clear that being undocumented is not equal to criminality, journalists will have a harder time claiming that the i-word is neutral or precise."

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 5 months ago

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/05/opinion/garcia-illegal-immigrants/index.html

"When you label someone an “illegal alien” or “illegal immigrant” or just plain “illegal,” you are effectively saying the individual, as opposed to the actions the person has taken, is unlawful. The terms imply the very existence of an unauthorized migrant in America is criminal.

In this country, there is still a presumption of innocence that requires a jury to convict someone of a crime. If you don’t pay your taxes, are you an illegal? What if you get a speeding ticket? A murder conviction? No. You’re still not an illegal. Even alleged terrorists and child molesters aren’t labeled illegals.

By becoming judge, jury and executioner, you dehumanize the individual and generate animosity toward them. New York Times editorial writer Lawrence Downes says “illegal” is often “a code word for racial and ethnic hatred.”"

Paul Wilson 3 years, 5 months ago

That has got to be the stupidest thing I think I have ever read. If you break the law you are an "illegal". Convicted or not. You know if you've broken the law. Period. Speeding and murder have nothing to do with the bottom line. Feelings have nothing to do with it. Labeling people who disagree with policy as racists or full of hate is just another ploy to draw attention to the accuser instead of the crime. Focus lib's...Focus.

jhawkinsf 3 years, 5 months ago

I've mentioned this before, but now appears a good opportunity to repeat. In a court of law, certain rules exist that do not apply outside that place. Words are used differently inside a courtroom than they are outside.

You speak of a presumption of innocence. If you're going to go there, you need to understand why it is there. The government has enormous power as compared to an average citizen. They can bring enormous resources to bear against an individual. They have the power to deprive you of your property, your freedom and in extreme cases, they have the power to deprive you of your very life. To balance that power, individuals have certain rights, including a presumption of innocence. There are many more, like the need to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt. So if a juror believes a person is probably guilty, that juror must find the accused not guilty. The high burden is not met.

But those standards don't apply outside of the courtroom. I can judge O.J. Simpson guilty all I want. I can think every poster here is guilty of some crime. But specifically because I have no power, I've violated no person's rights. I can think an illegal immigrant guilty all I want. Now should I find myself in a courtroom, I am ready and willing to swear an oath that would include things like a presumption of innocence.

Therefore, I may presume illegal immigrants to be illegal all I want. Each of us can do as they please, until we enter that courtroom. Then and only then, is the presumption guaranteed.

As to the issue of the use of the word illegal, well, I'll just say this. When I was young, the word "colored" was the most common. Then it was "Negro", sometimes another word that began with "N", then "black","Afro-American, African-American, "black" still is acceptable as is "person of color". Wow! Maybe common usage will change some day. Until then, I'll stick with illegal immigrant. Inside a courtroom, they can use whatever term they choose to use.

jafs 3 years, 5 months ago

Yes.

There is an interesting question, of course, as to whether people who tend to judge people guilty without evidence outside of the courtroom can then suddenly switch to presumption of innocence as jurors.

jhawkinsf 3 years, 5 months ago

I would think that sort of thing happens all the time. Suppose someone was deeply religious and their religious beliefs might conflict with their duties as a juror. Could they put their religious beliefs aside for the purposes of being a juror? Certainly, it happens all the time. Someone might believe in Jesus' teachings of "turning the other cheek", but still be able to throw a criminal in jail. During voir dire, people with very deeply held beliefs that could not be put aside could be screened and eliminated from the jury pool. But just because I don't believe in a guarantee of a presumption of innocence in an anonymous forum doesn't mean I can't feel very differently once I enter a court of law.

jafs 3 years, 5 months ago

I think that one's view isn't that easily changed, personally.

People who tend to rush to judgement outside a courtroom are likely to do so as a juror in my experience.

jhawkinsf 3 years, 5 months ago

You're trying to compare our everyday lives, where we make judgements all the time with the extra ordinary experience of serving on a jury. The whole point of bring 12 jurors together, 12 people with a variety of experiences, a variety of points of view is so they can look at the issue from a wide variety of perspectives. Quite frankly, if someone came into the jury pool and claimed to be a blank sheet of paper, in fact they said they began each day as a blank sheet of paper, I would not want that person on the jury. A skilled lawyer might, knowing they could bend and twist that person. But I would rather have the truth bend and twist that juror. I want a person with a great deal of common sense. If only people who didn't judge others were allowed on juries, a hung jury would be the result, always.

BTW - While I've called for jury duty many times, all but one time my days were spent in a room off to the side, not called into a courtroom. One time, I was selected to serve on a jury, but the case was settled prior to us hearing one word of testimony.

jafs 3 years, 5 months ago

Well, it would be interesting for you to serve on a jury.

My experiences have shown me that the reality of jury trials is a far cry from the ideal, in numerous ways.

I said people who "rush to judgement" - I'm not suggesting people never judge on juries, simply that they should listen to and weigh all of the evidence, as objectively as possible, before doing so.

My first experience was in NYC, when I was about 18-19 - I was called, questioned a few times, and never got onto a jury, despite the fact that I was thoughtful, interested in being a juror, etc. One guy who got on to one of the juries I didn't saw me in the bathroom, and said he had previously been on a jury, and it "was a nig*** that time, and we got him too" - so much for objective unbiased jurors, huh? Obviously the defendant was black in that case, and that was a criminal case.

More recently, I was on a civil case - the defendant was again black, all the jurors except one were white. It was supposedly a case about somebody who was injured in a car accident suing the estate of the guy who injured him who had since died (not related to the accident). The defense attorney made some impassioned comments about this, like "If you're going to sue the estate of a dead guy", etc. After the case was over, we found out that the parties were in fact insurance companies - the plaintiff's insurance company was suing the defendant's. Seems to me that we should know the actual litigants as jurors, but insurance companies have lobbied the government to remain hidden in such cases.

Also, it was clear from the first moment the jury stepped into the deliberation room that most of them didn't want to be there, some didn't follow the difference between "preponderance of evidence" (the standard in civil cases) and "proof beyond reasonable doubt" (the one in criminal cases), and most of them had made up their minds without any discussion whatsoever. In fact, the first vote was 10-2. That was despite the fact that we had evidence to sort through, from different doctors, etc. One juror said to me, "I'm not going to give him enough to retire for life", with a rather mean spirited expression, suggesting that he was less concerned with the evidence and the law than other concerns.

You've mentioned that most people can't accurately name the three branches of government, and that's disturbing to you - it's also disturbing to me, and you should consider that those are the same people on many juries.

They come with unexamined biases, a desire to be done and back home, a lack of understanding of the law, etc.

Paul Wilson 3 years, 5 months ago

And that has something to do with illegal entry....how? That is an effect of step 1. Cut off step 1 and step 2 doesn't happen.
Let's focus on step 1. Enforcing immigration laws already on the books.

jhawkinsf 3 years, 5 months ago

Maybe that is a dirty little secret. But let me tell you another dirty little secret. Advocates for illegal immigrants put us all in a situation where our choices are bad and bad. And then they chastise us for not coming up with a good solution. Sorry, if you are putting me in a no win situation and then I suggest a bad solution, that's on you, not me.

voevoda 3 years, 5 months ago

Maybe this analogy will help, by removing the pro- or anti-Obama emotion. Imagine this: Governor Brownback tells the state police that for now, they should not target for arrest persons driving cars with expired tags. The governor is aware that the system for registering automobiles is currently overloaded and the available personnel are unable to keep up. A lot of the time, it's not the fault of the drivers that they couldn't get their tags renewed in time, and they have little choice but to continue to drive, especially if they want to remain employed and pay their bills. The governor tells the state police, who have insufficient resources to do everything, to direct their attention to more serious offenders-- the drivers who are drunk, intoxicated, reckless--while the auto registration system is getting fixed. Instead of complying, several police officers file suit against the governor and recruit a high-profile attorney from out of state who accuses Governor Brownback of violating his oath of office and the state constitution. Who would be in the wrong here?

voevoda 3 years, 5 months ago

The analogy still holds, because Obama's executive order concerns people who haven't commited crimes. I wasn't thinking about only those under 21 in my analogy, but rather all those people who couldn't get their tags because the state computer system wasn't working properly. No age limits, there; nothing about who is the owner of the car.

voevoda 3 years, 5 months ago

Of course, most illegals are paying taxes and very few of them are "murdering American citizens." A lot of them are paying for their medical care. They don't qualify for welfare. If the issue is really about people using medical facilties and collecting welfare, then most of the offenders are US citizens, born and bred here. By your logic, rockchalk1977, we ought to allow the illegals who are paying taxes, refraining from committing crimes, and supporting themselves stay--that's actually what Obama's policy is aiming to do--but deport citizens who commit murders, use emergency rooms, or seek handouts from welfare offices. Nice try, rockchalk1977, but a failed attempt at a rebuttal.

Katara 3 years, 5 months ago

You cannot collect EITC with an ITN.

"You cannot get the EIC if, instead of an SSN, you (or your spouse, if filing a joint return) have an individual taxpayer identification number (ITIN). ITINs are issued by the Internal Revenue Service to noncitizens who cannot get an SSN." http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p596.pdf

Also for the misinformed about the EITC...from the same IRS publication...

"This credit is called the “earned income” credit because, to qualify, you must work and have earned income. If you are married and file a joint return, you meet this rule if at least one spouse works and has earned income. If you are an employee, earned income includes all the taxable income you get from your employer."

Katara 3 years, 5 months ago

Your post states that they do this through earned income credits of which the EITC is one. ACTC is not an earned income credit and the article you linked to provides no other proof other than anecdotal evidence that this is occurring. Nice try, though.

Additionally, this has nothing to do with the immigration policy shift that is happening now. The kids affected by this are not American citizens. They were not born here. They were brought here by their parents... which also means that their parents could not have collected the ACTC because of them.

jafs 3 years, 5 months ago

Link to the NBC story?

"I believe" may not be convincing.

jafs 3 years, 5 months ago

I meant a link to the NBC story, not the one you provided.

If it's accurate, though, I do find it problematic that the IRS can't make sure people aren't claiming dependents that don't exist - that's a real problem, regardless of citizenship.

jafs 3 years, 5 months ago

Thanks - I thought that was a different link.

If it's accurate, it's problematic that the IRS can't determine that people are claiming children that aren't really theirs, but that would be true regardless of citizenship.

These folks are just doing what many people do, taking advantages of loopholes in our laws - we should fix those, of course.

Armstrong 3 years, 5 months ago

Pander to your base Barry, it's about your only chance left

bunnyhawk 3 years, 5 months ago

I hope my tax dollars are not paying Mr. Kobach a salary as Secretary of State while he's of representing ICE workers in a ridiculous lawsuit. And after all that GOP squawk about tort reform, too!

JackMcKee 3 years, 5 months ago

Kris Kobach is likely your next Governor. After 6-8 years of Brownback. Along with the right wing takeover of the state Senate. Just let that sink in.

We're looking at options in other states. If you can get out, I'd advise you to do the same.

Katara 3 years, 5 months ago

More reasons why Kris Kobach should be bounced out of office. He has now publicly stated that LGBT folks are not entitled to Constitutional protections.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/08/22/romney-adviser-being-gay-much-like-being-a-polyamorous-drug-addict/

Commenting has been disabled for this item.