Kobach, immigration laws

Did I miss something?  Is Kris Kobach running for the Presidency, or is Barak Obama running for the Secretary of State in Kansas?  It would seem one or the other of these would be true given Kobach's diatribe against the President.  Of course, neither is true, and Kris is railing against the establishment in hopes that it gives the appearance he is valiantly standing for something.

In the Bush administration, Kris served as A.G. John Ashcraft's top immigration adviser, charged with taking efforts to tighten border security.  Note that.  He was charged with tightening border security. 

Did he distinguish himself in that respect?  Well he did create a program for monitoring Arab and Muslim men, including legal U.S. residents, which collapsed because it entailed blatant racial profiling.  If he did anything regarding the border security vis-a-vis Mexico, during his tenure with the Justice Department, I can find no record of such actions on his part.

As to his criticism of the Obama administration for filing the law suit against Arizona, he deems it irrelevant because the ACLU and others parties are already filing law suits. Well he is correct, but slippery here.  Kris fails to note the essential difference between the two.  The suits being filed by the ACLU are based upon a violation of civil liberties; that by the Obama administration has to do with jurisdiction. These are quite different, as Kris very well knows, and his criticism here has no merit; indeed, it is deceitful.

So, Kris contends there are eight Republican senators who say the Obama administration is considering unilateral amnesty.  And the eight senators would be exactly who? This is clearly reminiscent of McCarthy's strategy of making allegations without disclosing the  sources of his allegations. It is simply dishonest of Kris to make such allegations without providing the names of those who contend this fact.

As to his contentions regarding the assertion by Senator Kyl, the absurdity of that sort of quid pro quo speaks for itself.

Kris's contention is the democratic process is in jeopardy because of voter fraud.  Yet, nowhere has he established that voter fraud is anything but a trivial issue in Kansas elections. Golly gee-whiz, how many cases of voter fraud have been discovered in Butler County; how many in Kansas?  From the standpoint of basic logic, Kris has "begged the question," and in doing so, has created a "strawman."
What should be of concern as well, is that Kris has worked as a paid consultant for the legal arm of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which in turn has financial ties to the Pioneer Fund. Because of this, FAIR has been designated a "nativist hate organization" by the Southern Poverty Law Center, the foremost organization in the United States  dedicated to  combatting racism and hate organizations.

­­Anyone who believes the Arizona law will not result in racial profiling is in basic psychological denial. How many Scottish illegals reside in Arizona? Australian illegals? Bosnian illegals?  Russian illegals? Ridiculous? Of course. The illegals of concern are almost all of Hispanic origin. Even though the majority of those of Hispanic origin in Arizona are either U.S. citizens or in residence legally, the single most important defining characteristic identifying an illegal is that of having Hispanic appearance. It does not matter how much racial profiling is denied, it necessarily will become the single most important factor in prompting a law enforcement officer to ask for proof of citizenship.  That is simply the way the world works.

There is one way to mitigate, though not eliminate, the inherent racism in the Arizona law.  And that is for Arizona to pass a law requiring all residents, as well as those entering the state, to carry with them proof of citizenship. Everyone. You get pulled over for a traffic infraction, you have to show your vehicle registration, license, proof of insurance, and birth certificate proving you are an American citizen. If you don't have any of the first of these three, you can be cited; you don't have proof of citizenship, you get detained and go to jail pending your ability to provide proof of citizenship.  Now, what could be unfair about that? This is what the Arizona law provides for. 

Kris Kobach thinks this is just fair and reasonable.

I wonder, how many of you folk reading this can put your hands on your proof of citizenship with little or no difficulty?  I know I have my birth certificate – somewhere in the house.

Doug Mould
Benton