Kris Kobach, Author of SB1070

John Tanton

This law was written by Yale-educated Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach while moonlighting for the man the Southern Poverty Law Center has labeled an American bigot, John Tanton.

Dr. Tanton founded the Federation for Americans for Immigration Reform (FAIR), the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), NumbersUSA and Official English groups, all funded by an outlier foundation that studies Black penis size relative to crime rates. He also comes from population control groups like Zero Population Growth and Planned Parenthood.

A federal district judge eviscerated SB1070 and she was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States with one exception, that of a “papers please” section of SB1070 that allows local and state police to demand proof of legal residency when people are detained. It declared that issue not legally “ripe” but suggested that when that provision was enforced the courts would rule on it when someone with standing sued.

In the meanwhile, two other controversial SB1070 provisions jumped from the district court to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals where a panel unanimously upheld the lower court’s junking of these provisions of SB1070.

Politico:

The provisions in question make it illegal for a person in a car to pick up and hire a person for work, and for someone to enter a stopped car for that purpose, if the vehicle blocks traffic.

The judges agreed that the State of Arizona simply failed to prove the lower court injunctions wrong when SB1070 criminalized stopping on a road to offer someone a job or for an individual to ask for a job or enter a stopped car after accepting a job offer. The court said it was a broad assault on commercial and free speech. They also ruled that Arizona failed to show how traffic safety was actually involved.

Judge Raymond Fisher

Judge Raymond Fisher writing for a unanimous three-judge panel:

Arizona … has failed to justify a need to serve that interest through targeting and penalizing day labor solicitation that blocks traffic, rather than directly targeting those who create traffic hazards without reference to their speech, as currently proscribed under the state’s pre-existing traffic law. Laws like this one that restrict more protected speech than necessary violate the First Amendment.

That pesky 1st Amendment to the Constitution — if only we had a President like Venezuela’s now-deceased Hugo Chavez who simply closed down newspapers, television and radio stations when they criticized him.

Another interesting part of the court’s decision was how the judges smacked Arizona around for trying to cover unconstitutionality by claiming it was trying to improve traffic safety. Judge Fisher wrote that SB1070 was a “classic example” of limiting free speech to a narrow band consisting of making it a crime to offer someone a job or to accepting one from a roadside or sidewalk.

On Arizona’s claim that the intent of the law was only “traffic safety” the court ruled:

The district court reasonably determined that the purpose of the day labor provisions was to suppress labor-solicitation speech rather than to promote traffic safety. Significantly, the purposes clause introducing S.B. 1070 describes it as an immigration bill, not a traffic safety bill…Finally, the day labor provisions’ punishment is far out of line with punishments for other similar traffic violations. For example, conduct that recklessly impedes traffic is punishable by 30 days’ imprisonment, but day labor solicitation that is not dangerous or reckless, but merely impedes traffic, is a class 1 misdemeanor punishable by up to six months’ imprisonment.

The decision does not rule these provisions unconstitutional but it prohibits them from being implemented. The judges also stated that if these provisions were enforced, they would most likely be ruled unconstitutional at the first opportunity in front of a judge.

Once again, the John Tanton/Kris Kobach legal conspiracy to attack legal and illegal immigrants with laws at the state (Arizona, Alabama, Georgia) and local levels (Texas, Nebraska, Pennsylvania) that violate the federal constitution’s power in Article 1, Section 8 for Congress to “make a uniform rule of naturalization (immigration)” suffers extreme mortal wounds in judicial courts.

Reposted with permission from Cafe Con Leche Republicans – original link

####

Raoul Contreras Lowery

Raoul Lowery Contreras (1941) was born in Mexico, raised in the USA. Former U.S. Marine, athlete, Dean’s List at San Diego State. Professional political consultant and California Republican Party official (1963-65)…Television news commentator, radio talk show host…published Op-Ed writer (1988 to present)…author of 12 books (as of 1-05-12). His books are available on Amazon.com.

Our Founding Fathers never conceived that a massive “Brown Horde” would take over their White Male paradise, the United States of America. The “horde” has done just that in the last three Presidential elections including reelecting Obama, who by all political measures should have disappeared into one-term Hell.

First they voted for George W. Bush in 2004 in percentages (44%) for a Republican that topped any Hispanic vote for any Republican in history. Then they came back in 2008 and 67% of them voted for Barack Obama to experience helping elect the first “Black” President. They came back November 6 and threw in a 70% vote for Obama topping 2008.

Without that percentage and an increase in 30% more Hispanics than voted in 2008, Obama could have lost Florida, Nevada and Colorado and lost the election.

Tellingly, the same “gender gap” that existed among all women in their lack of support for Republican Romney, exists among Hispanic women. The University of Washington-based LATINO DECISIONS reviewed national exit polls and concluded that 76% of Hispanic women voted for Obama while 65% of Hispanic men voted for Obama – a gender gap of 11 points.

Professor Isidro Ortiz of San Diego State University told NBC San Diego: “Why would a Latino or Latina voter look at those (Republican) positions and say they are favorable to us?”

They seem to have ignored these facts: Record levels of unemployment and underemployment among Hispanics (19%), modern record levels of Hispanic/Latino poverty (28%), a drop of two thirds (67%) of Hispanic net worth since June, 2009 and the fact that Obama plain lied about “fixing” immigration in his first year in office. He never mentioned it again until an El Paso Speech in his third year, and then again in 2012 but never, never sent an immigration reform proposal to Congress.

These facts weren’t enough to convince them to dump Obama, so Professor Ortiz is correct – they rejected what they perceived the Republican Party to be – the illegitimate off-spring of insane ethnic-hating old White male Republicans. These haters themselves reject the GOP’s birth as the first legitimate opposition to America’s Original Sin, Slavery.

These people think that the 13^th, 14^th, and 15^th Amendments to the Constitution are illegitimate. They think this not because the amendments were ratified by state governments created by Washington and staffed with newly freed slaves, but because they changed –forever – the status of what the Supreme Court had ruled weren’t people in 1857. It ruled that they were property and could never become citizens because they were African Blacks.

Those same Founding Fathers had written the first immigration laws in 1790 that required “new” citizens to be “free and White.” That was the law until 1868.

Compare the founding of the Republican Party and the bloody civil war it took to cement into the Constitution the rejection of the Founding Father’s preoccupation with race. The founder of what is now the Democrat Party – Thomas Jefferson – was a principal architect of legal slavery and original immigration laws. In his writings, he posited that Negro men smell like they do because they “urinate through the pores of their skin.”

Democrats have slavery, Jim Crow, the Ku Klux Klan, lynching of thousands of Black men and total segregation of Blacks and Whites and in Texas, Mexicans. The Republicans have the 13^th, 14^th and 15^th Amendments, the Supreme Court’s race-based rulings in 1954 (Hernandez v. Texas, Brown v. Board of Education), Republican bayonets that integrated a Little Rock high school, Senate Republicans overcoming Southern Democrat Senators to pass the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts of 1964/1965 and Southern school integration directed by Richard Nixon’s Justice Department.

Democrats killed George W. Bush’s Comprehensive Immigration Reform in 2007 at the direct order of national labor unions. They are against the key element to any immigration reform, a guest worker program.

What, then, can Republicans do to meaningfully bring some Hispanics home?

They can name rising star Hispanic Republicans to a Commission – Senator Marco Rubio (Cuban), Representative Raul Labrador (Puerto Rican) and Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval and New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez (Mexican Americans) – that will provide Republican congressmen a market-based-outreach keyed on a Comprehensive Immigration Reform plan supportable by Speaker John Boehner and the Republican House. Then Obama and Senate Democrats can put up or shut up.

The GOP wins the economic argument every time; it loses the welfare argument every time. It can, however, win the immigration argument by simply creating immigration reform. It can also shed insane Mexican haters like Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, former congressman Tom Tancredo, Pat Buchanan, his sister Bay and muzzle Senators Jeff Sessions of Alabama and David Vitter of Louisiana.

The GOP cannot reflect only White male southerners, it must reflect a diverse society of 314,728,350 (million) Americans; better yet, it should not just reflect, it should mirror the country.

Yesterday’s election results show it is imperative that the Republican Party improve Latino outreach or become permanently uncompetitive in presidential and many other races. Exit and election-eve polls put Mitt Romney’s votes among Latinos at 23%, although over 60% of Latinos are center-right, according to Pew Research.

Polls consistently show a majority of Republicans support immigration reform, including a path to legalization, and a PEW Research poll from May 2011 showed that even among staunch conservatives there is a 49/49% split on immigration reform. However, due to lack of engagement and outreach and shrill rhetoric on this issue from a small minority of Republican politicians, Democrats have been successful in unfairly framing the Republican party as anti-immigrant and anti-Latino, particularly in states where there has been harsh rhetoric on immigration.

This trend started in California. Prior to proposition 187, Republicans were competitive in statewide races, but since Governor Pete Wilson jumped on the proposition 187 bandwagon, many Hispanics left the GOP and since then the GOP has not been competitive in statewide races in California.

Latino outreach improved during the Reagan/Bush years, and President Bush won over 40% of the Latino vote during his reelection campaign, proving that Latinos can be swayed to vote Republican with the right messaging and sensible solutions to issues of interest to Latinos like immigration.

However, since SB1070 and other harsh laws were passed, mass exodus of conservative Hispanics has occurred in Colorado following Tom Tancredo’s candidacy for Governor, in Arizona following SB1070, and in Nevada due to harsh rhetoric from Sharon Angle in the U.S. Senate race.

Cafe Con Leche Republicans initially supported Newt Gingrich, and one of our reasons is that Newt’s campaign recognized the importance of outreach to Latinos and a sensible stance on immigration reform, neither mass amnesty nor mass deportations but a solution that addresses our broken immigration system and seeks to strike a balance between accountability for illegal immigration, and the need to keep families together and avoid damaging our economy. Newt’s campaign reached out to us, and ultimately Cafe Con Leche Republicans provided five members of Newt’s national Hispanic leadership team.

When Newt dropped out of the race and Mitt Romney became the nominee, we decided to support Mitt Romney. Numerous attempts to connect with the Romney campaign’s Hispanic outreach proved fruitless. In our one year of existence, we’ve also had just one conversation with the RNC’s Latino outreach, and were left with the impression the RNC wasn’t interested in working with us due to our pro-immigration focus.

A common complaint among Latino Republican leaders is that RNC Latino outreach is dominated by a small clique of Latino Republicans from Washington DC and Florida, to the exclusion of others, particularly from the Southwest. We share the frustration of Latino Republican leaders from outside the DC/Florida clique that Mitt Romney received bad advice to largely ignore immigration, and some of Mitt’s rhetoric and association with immigration extremist Kris Kobach early in the campaign provided useful fodder for Democrats to frame Mitt Romney as anti-immigrant and anti-Latino, which we don’t believe is the case.

It’s time to root out the small minority of immigration extremists from the GOP. That process is already underway, for example Russell Pearce, the author of SB1070, has now twice been defeated by conservative Republicans who differed mainly by having sensible positions on immigration reform. We’d like to see Kris Kobach leave the party. Kobach is a top lieutenant to John Tanton, a notorious bigot and population control progressive, who once bragged how he manipulates Republicans. In a letter to a supporter, Tanton in 2001 stated:

The goal is to change Republicans’ perception of immigration so that when they encounter the word “immigrant,” their reaction is “Democrat.”

Our plan is to hire a lobbyist who will carry the following message to Republicans on Capitol Hill and to business leaders: Continued massive immigration will soon cost you political control of the White House and Congress, given the current, even division of the electorate, and the massive infusion of voters about to be made to the Democratic side. We are about to replay the Democratic hegemony of 1933-53, fueled back then by the massive immigration of 1890-1924.

It’s time for the GOP to recognize this pattern of manipulation, and fully embrace immigration reform based on free market principles, and not arbitrarily low quotas promoted by population control progressives like Tanton. Harsh rhetoric on immigration coupled with lack of adequate engagement with Latinos and race baiting by Democrats has resulted in very low GOP support among Latinos, and we ignore this at our own political peril.

The 2012 election served up lemons for Republicans, but with sensible changes in strategy and direction we can make lemonade instead. Already we’re hearing that party leaders have woken up and ‘smelled the coffee’ and we’re hopeful this situation can be turned around.

President Obama promised to pursue immigration reform during his second term. Due to President Obama’s history of immigration fakery and failure to put anything on the table during his first term, we have reason to doubt this promise, but he is welcome to surprise us. With the election behind us, we have put our partisan hats and boxing gloves aside, and we stand fully ready to work with President Obama and Democrats on immigration reform, which won’t happen without bipartisan support. We hope that President Obama will ‘hit the reset button’ in his relationship with Republicans in Congress, as the hyper-partisanship that has characterized the last four years has been a major stumbling block to governing our nation.

Original link here.

####

About Us – Cafe Con Leche Republicans is a national organization of Republicans who welcome “New Americans”, defined as immigrants and family of recent immigrants. Our mission is to make America and the GOP, more welcoming to “New Immigrants” through political activism, “in-reach” and education within the Republican Party, and lobbying government to adopt more immigrant friendly policies. We also seek to bring more conservative and moderate “New Americans” to the Republican Party. These efforts will strengthen the GOP, and lead more Republicans to embrace welcoming policies for immigrants and their families. We have members nationwide, with chapters in Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Texas, Oklahoma, Arizona, and California. Our members and leadership are predominantly Hispanic, though we define ourselves by mission and guiding principles, not ethnicity, and we welcome all who share our goals. Our leadership is 100% Republican.

The State of Arizona and the states of Alabama, South Carolina, Utah, Indiana and Georgia have been squashed by the United States Supreme Court in the case of the State of Arizona against anyone-looking Mexican.

This is a day of celebration for those that believe in the Constitution of the United States.

The entire opinion written by Justice Kennedy in essence it states that only the federal government can regulate immigration based on the Constitution which clearly states that the Congress and only the Congress can “establish a uniform rule of naturalization (immigration).”

Three sections of (Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach-written law) SB 1070, were declared invalid and one was left to be decided when there is a factual case presented in court.

SB 1070 was sponsored by the now disgraced former State Senate President Russell Pearce – Republican — who was thrown out of office by his constituents last November. Kobach also wrote similar laws for other states which are now invalidated by this decision, Arizona et al v. the United States of America.

What is fascinating is that despite the obvious incompetence of the Solicitor General of the United States, a top Obama official of the Justice Department who is almost the equal of Attorney General Eric Holder, and the inadequate presentation he made to the Court in April, the Court overwhelming ruled against Arizona by a vote of 5 to 3 with Justice Kagan not involved. Had she voted the score would have been 6 to 3.

Here are the exact words of the decision that slam the door shut on the states that have tried to implement a legal secession from the United States of America and the U.S. Constitution:

1. Sections 3, 5(C), and 6 of S. B. 1070 are preempted by federal law.

(a) Section 3 intrudes on the field of alien registration, a field in which Congress has left no room for States to regulate.

(b) Section 5(C)’s criminal penalty stands as an obstacle to the federal regulatory system.

(c) By authorizing state and local officers to make warrantless arrests of certain aliens suspected of being removable, §6 too creates an obstacle to federal law. As a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain in the United States. The federal scheme instructs when it is appropriate to arrest an alien during the removal process.

The Attorney General in some circumstances will issue a warrant for trained federal immigration officers to execute. If no fed­eral warrant has been issued, these officers have more limited au­thority. They may arrest an alien for being “in the United States in violation of any [immigration] law or regulation,” for example, but on­ly where the alien “is likely to escape before a warrant can be ob­tained.

The only contested provision the Court allowed to stand is not a victory for Arizona and Kris Kobach, it is only a remand to the lower courts to examine this provision when it has actual facts in hand. Here is what the Court said:

4. It was improper to enjoin §2(B) before the state courts had an opportunity to construe it and without some showing that §2(B)’s en­forcement in fact conflicts with federal immigration law and its objec­tives.

Here is the vote and it is found in these precincts that not only is the Kennedy vote noteworthy but so is the fact that Chief Justice Roberts supported the majority:

KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and GINSBURG, BREYER, and SOTOMAYOR, JJ., joined. SCALIA, J., THOMAS, J., and ALITO, J., filed opinions concurring in part and dissent­ing in part. KAGAN, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case…

In essence, this Arizona decision clearly signals that this court will not tolerate rogue laws created by rogue states that attempt to argue that they are sovereign unto themselves and can do as they wish in the face of clearly stated “enumerated” duties of the federal government.

It also puts certain constitutional subversives like Kris Kobach on notice that they cannot evade the Constitution because of racial malice that they clearly manifest.

For example, the uneducated (no college) Arizona Governor Jan Brewer says that the Court’s sending Section 2B of SB 1070 back to the lower courts for a case with facts is a “victory” for the people of Arizona and the country. Kris Kobach also says that.

How ignorant can these ersatz public officials be? Lady, the Court simply stated that a factual situation must present itself before this section can be judicially examined for Constitutionality.

The first time a local yokel high school drop-out Arizona cop demands proof of citizenship from a driver he pulls over for a broken tail light and that person tells the cop to take a hike, the facts will draw the case back into the courts and the Supreme Court will never see the case again if the Mexican-looking person is legal.

Editors note: As with all postings on this blog which appear with a byline, the posting represents the author’s opinion and not the official position of Cafe Con Leche Republicans.

###

Raoul Lowery Contreras (1941) was born in Mexico, raised in the USA. Former U.S. Marine, athlete, Dean’s List at San Diego State. Professional political consultant and California Republican Party official(1963-65)…Television news commentator, radio talk show host…published Op-Ed writer (1988 to present)…author of 12 books (as of 1-05-12). His books are available on Amazon.com.

A famous French Army Marshall, Ferdinand Foch, declared during the darkest days of WWI that: “Hard pressed on my right; center is yielding; impossible to maneuver. Situation excellent, I shall attack!”

Today’s version among the far right anti-immigrant, anti-Mexican lunatic fringe that has controlled the immigration issue for several years is just the opposite of Marshall Foch.

They are in full retreat, not because they have lost their CHUTZPAH or have run out of lies, but reality and common sense have overtaken them in the legislative halls, in public opinion and in courage of Republicans who refuse to bow to cowardly immigration restrictionists.

The national restrictionist cabal is led politically by the Federation of American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and its myriad affiliated front groups like the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) and NumbersUSA and intellectually by their supplicant publication “The Social Quarterly” and a web site of author Peter Brimelow’s, Vdare.com, named for the first white child born in Virginia circa 1607.

The founder of these groups was a man named John Tanton who previously served as head of Zero Population Growth (ZPG) who also served in high Sierra Club office and founded Planned Parenthood locals. His underlying theme is that the U.S. is being caught by people – Mexicans – with their “pants down” versus America being caught with its “pants up.”
He also targets all Roman Catholics.

Facts contradict their old time racist (as declared by the Southern Poverty Law Center) views of Mexicans breeding like rabbits as the Mexican birth rates of old have been slashed to almost U.S. rates by decades of birth control education by the Mexican government.

Nonetheless, the Tanton/FAIR groups and their paid lawyer, Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach are busy on many fronts trying to pass laws that attack people who may be in the country illegally, especially if they are Mexican. Towns in Pennsylvania, Texas, Nebraska and the states of Arizona, Alabama, South Carolina and Georgia have all passed Kobach-written laws that are attacks on Spanish-speaking immigrants even if they are legal.

Central to these “laws” is racial profiling by authorities of people who they “suspect” of being in country illegally. Authorities are not permitted by federal civil rights laws to profile by race or ethnicity. Nonetheless, these laws have common corollary elements of allowing almost every single public employee to confront people they “suspect” of being illegally present, to demand proof of legal residency.

We speak of building inspectors, municipal bus drivers, meter maids, school teachers, school administrators and office clerks, not just sworn police officers.

In Alabama, the legislature has pulled back from its passage of a highly dubious anti-illegal resident law passed last year and mostly stopped by a federal court. It has introduced new legislation eliminating highly controversial elements that do not pass constitutional muster. In Arizona, before its infamous SB 1070 even went into effect, the legislature made major changes that a federal court invalidated anyway. In Texas, the town of Farmer’s Branch with its own Kobach-written law has spent mucho dollars in the federal courts defending its law and has lost at every level almost bankrupting the city. In Nebraska, a Kobach-written town law has never been implemented because the town has no money to fight for it in court. They know they will lose.

And now, Nebraska hits the news again. Right wing Republican legislators tried to defeat a pre-natal care bill that would be available to expectant mothers regardless of legal residency. Governor Dave Heineman weighed in on the question with this statement:

“We should only be using taxpayer funds for legal Nebraska citizens, not for illegal aliens. I am going to fight against LB 599 because it’s not right (April 3, 2012).”

This statement, of course, proves the Governor has a very limited view of reality.

First of all, people in Nebraska who might not be legally-present pay taxes thus are “taxpayers.” Secondly, though he claims to be “pro-life” he refuses to acknowledge that pre-natal care is not to treat a woman but to make sure her baby-to-be is born healthy. That baby will probably be born in Nebraska, born a United States citizen as per the Constitution.

Governor Heineman declared he would veto the bill if passed. It passed because Republican legislators ignored the ignorant governor and voted “Pro-life” for LB 599 31-15, a veto proof majority.

The question, then, has the anti-immigrant, anti-illegal-immigrant; anti-Mexican provocateur of the Tanton-type hit the high tide mark of the movement? Its corollary question is: is it receding in the face of court injunctions and opposition based on the Constitution and common sense?

And, where do we place the credit for this triumph: The Courts? The people…Common sense…The Constitution?

How about, all of the above?

###

Raoul Lowery Contreras (1941) was born in Mexico, raised in the USA. Former U.S. Marine, athlete, Dean’s List at San Diego State. Professional political consultant and California Republican Party official(1963-65)…Television news commentator, radio talk show host…published Op-Ed writer (1988 to present)…author of 12 books (as of 1-05-12). His books are available on Amazon.com.