LJWorld.com weblogs Election headline roundup

Kobach loses immigration battle; GOP enjoys Democratic memo; Hartman says no to Libertarian run


The Associated Press reports that a federal appeals court ruled Thursday that Hazleton, Pa., may not enforce its crackdown on illegal immigrants. The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia said that Hazleton's Illegal Immigration Relief Act usurped the federal government's exclusive power to regulate immigration. The city of Hazleton's attorney is Kris Kobach, the Republican candidate for Kansas secretary of state. Kobach said the city will appeal the case and is ready to take it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary. Kobach faces Democratic Secretary of State Chris Biggs in the November election.

The Kansas Republican Party is measuring for drapes in the governor's office for its nominee Sam Brownback. In a news release, the GOP cites a election strategy memo from the Democratic Governors Association and notes that nowhere in the group's memo are Kansas or Democratic candidate Tom Holland mentioned. Conceding Kansas to the GOP "validates the strong, bi-partisan support the Republican nominees have received for their vision to get our state growing again," said Kansas GOP Chair Amanda Adkins.

Wink Hartman of Wichita, who lost the Republican Party primary race in the 4th Congressional District, said he will not run as a Libertarian in the November general election. Hartman had been considering the idea but decided against it. The race features Republican Mike Pompeo and Democrat Raj Goyle.


TheOriginalCA 7 years, 5 months ago

Then enforce the freaking federal immigration law you freaking idiots!!!

Ignorant_Yokel 7 years, 5 months ago

Cool your jets, turbo. Your fanaticism is unbecoming.

notyourmom 7 years, 5 months ago

I also think it would be nice if the existing law was enforced.

beatrice 7 years, 5 months ago

If a post ever deserved to be repeated, this one is it!

Flap Doodle 7 years, 5 months ago

There should be a convoy of buses going to the border every day with a load of illegal aliens being deported.

Sue McDaniel 7 years, 5 months ago

There is a reason they are called "illegal", the federal gov't SAYS they are here illegally!!! Get in line like everyone else had to.

gccs14r 7 years, 5 months ago

Sorry, no. There are some things that are definitly Federal, and immigration law is one of them. An individual State cannot usurp that authority; if that were permitted, we'd quickly end up with a patchwork of 50 different sets of immigration laws.

Cait McKnelly 7 years, 5 months ago

How do you figure? The US Government has always ruled that immigration law was federal territory only. Otherwise states would be allowed to make treaties with foreign countries and that just ain't happenin' Somehow I think there's going to be a very hard time getting around that and your "5-4" nonsense is just that; nonsense.

Jimo 7 years, 5 months ago

Kobach loses a legal case! How can that be? This was just the appeal from the lower court loss a few years ago.

Basically, it came down to two things: criminalizing housing and criminalizing employment.

For employment, the appellate court said that stacking all the penalties on the side of punishing an employer who hires an undocumented worker virtually guarantees that employers will take shortcuts and discriminate against anyone who they believe might be illegal - dark people named Gonzalez need not apply! The court hinted quite strongly that if the ordinance was rewritten to punish racial discrimination just as severely that such an approach might survive review.

For housing, the appellate court had no tolerance for voiding the exclusive right of the federal government to control where aliens may live. There simply is no constitution basis or history for states or localities to do this. What's more, the court schooled the city of the built-in gray areas of immigration law: "legal" and "illegal" are extremes on a continuum where aliens routinely move back and forth as they become "compliant" and become "uncompliant". The law recognizes that aliens are not required to be deported while the immigration applicants, attorneys, authorities and courts go about their work (if there's work to be done - a distinction the City's ordinance doesn't make). The City's demand for a duplicate system of enforcement would interfere with the federal system in a multitude of circumstances and the court gave several examples: statuses are incorrect at times, statuses are in the process of changing, statuses are secondary to other discretionary priorities. Criminalizing putting a roof over these aliens' heads not only interferes with federal provisions but in practice subordinates the federal system to local whim. That's not the the constitutional system - something a "constitutional law professor" like Kobach should understand.

Of course, Congress could just reform the broken system to stop trying to make water flow uphill and set out a rational, workable system that legally admits aliens in the quantity and quality the U.S. needs, squeezing out the illegal aliens and the illegal employers. But then what would wingnuts complain about if the problem was solved?

somedude20 7 years, 5 months ago

Little known fact but Kobach back in the late 80's wrote legislation that took ALF off the air and that is one thing that I can never forgive him for. Why does he hate aliens so much?

MyName 7 years, 5 months ago

Dude, if you're blaming people who are getting paid less than minimum wage and can't even vote for all of America's budget problems, then maybe you need to seek some help. I mean seriously, paranoia, xenophobia, whatever you want to call it, it's not normal human behavior.

Brittanicus 7 years, 5 months ago

She represents a hard core in the administration acknowledging that a path to citizenship is not only beneficial to the country, but at any cost she will sponsor a kind of Amnesty. Here is the cameo of Democratic Senator Boxers voting record on both Legal and illegal immigration, displaying a strong stance at catering to foreign nationals. She is in a fight to save her seat, against contender Carly Fiorina, a former Hewlett-Packard CEO. Because of her stance on her obligation to the 18 million and up illegal aliens in our nation, there is a rational opportunity that illegal households will try to vote by absentee ballot or by direct vote, especially in an immense state like “Sanctuary State” like California or even Nevada? Any state is at risk with the “honor system” of voting, where no governmental ID is required.

Sen. Barbara Boxer Voted--YES--on continuing federal funding for declared "sanctuary cities". (Mar 2008) Voted--YES--on comprehensive immigration reform. (Jun 2007) Voted--NO--on declaring English as the official language of the US government. (Jun 2007) Voted--YES--on eliminating the "Y" non immigrant guest worker program. (May 2007) Voted--YES on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006) The paired fences were carefully ostracized to just--ONE-- in a omnibus bill of the same year

Voted--YES--on establishing a Guest Worker program. (May 2006) Voted--YES--on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security. (May 2006) Voted--NO--on allowing more foreign workers into the US for farm work. (Jul 1998) Voted--YES--on visas for skilled workers. (May 1998) Voted--NO--on limiting welfare for immigrants. (Jun 1997) Provide funding for social services for non-citizens. (May 2006)

We need politicians whom are trust worthy, willing to stand up against special interest lobbyists and open border zealots. No pro-amnesty incumbents need apply, which is directly pointed at elected Sen. Harry Reid, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Diane Feinstein, Russ Feingold, Janet Napolitano and a whole long list, who can be graded as Anti-American worker, anti-sovereignty, pro-illegal immigration and offer concession in the the Rule of Law. Time to clean shop and remove all pro-amnesty incumbents and show your anger and frustration Washington at 202-224-3121 Find out the depth of the lies and propaganda at NUMBERSUSA, JUDICIAL WATCH

Brittanicus 7 years, 5 months ago

The reality of the 1986 immigration reform and control act has never been compulsory, which makes me wonder the agenda of either party? Finally I have discovered the reality of the circumstances, which Republicans are strong advocates of allowing cheap labor to propagate around the business world. Those employers still have “Carte Blanche” to hire blue and white collar foreigners in the cheap labor pool, leaving lawful Americans jobless and walking the streets. But I am still not fully in belief that the Democrats are ready to announce to the world, that America is open for non restrictive settlement--for anybody who can reach our shores or breech our walls. My main argument is the public entitlement system that caters to anybody who arrived yesterday or a month ago. Nevertheless, it’s when American citizens who have been employed a whole lifetime are still unable to apply for welfare in many cases.

The hurt comes when the broods of illegal immigrants are immediately accepted through instant citizenship and the illegal parents can then collect all manner of public benefits, including low income housing. While numerous veterans and the general population, must apply on an ever growing list to be housed? Although the Republicans have fallen into silence regarding the illegal immigration invasion, they must accept most of the blame for the immediate problem of the illegal population over their years in power. But then Democrats are strongly pushing for some kind of amnesty for illegal alien households, while thousands of people who have followed the rules and wait tolerantly for acceptance into American society. Senator Barbara Boxer has illustrated to the American people, that the Rule of Law can be destabilized.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.