 |
|
Here you go. Looks like a man very eager to get immigration
Posted on: November 16, 2016 at 11:06:53 CT
90Tiger STL
Posts:
163430
Member For:
23.37 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
law passed and enforced and very active in protecting rights of citizens when impacted by immigration law.
More concerned about that than whether courts with opposing views disagree. That's the kind of person willing to do what it takes to make difficult change happen.
Glad you brought up his record for everyone to review.
Immigration and the 2012 Republican Party Platform[edit]
The 2012 Republican Party platform included self-deportation as a response to illegal immigration to the United States. Kobach proposed the measure, stating “If you really want to create a job tomorrow, you can remove an illegal alien today.”[4]
Immigration lawsuits[edit]
While running for Congress, Kobach represented out-of-state students (on behalf of Federation for American Immigration Reform) in a lawsuit against the state of Kansas, challenging a state law which grants in-state tuition to illegal immigrants. The suit was dismissed for lack of legal standing for the plaintiffs.[5]
In 2005, Kobach filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Immigration Reform Law Institute, challenging a similar law in California. In September 2008, the California Court of Appeal held that California's law granting in-state tuition rates to illegal immigrants was preempted by federal law. (Martinez v. Regents, 166 Cal. App. 4th 1121 (2008)). In November 2010, the California Supreme Court unanimously reversed, finding that the law was not preempted by federal law.[6] In 2010, Kobach filed a third lawsuit, this time in Nebraska.[7][8] The case is still pending.
Kobach has also litigated several lawsuits defending cities and states that adopt laws to discourage illegal immigration. He served as lead lawyer defending the city of Valley Park, Missouri in a federal case concerning an ordinance that sanctioned employers who hire unauthorized aliens. The ordinance was upheld by Missouri federal judge E. Richard Webber on January 31, 2008 (Gray v. Valley Park, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7238).[3][9] The ACLU, representing the plaintiff, appealed the case to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Kobach prevailed in the appeal, and the Court allowed the Valley Park ordinance to stand (Gray v. Valley Park, 567 F.3d 976 (8th Cir. 2009)).
Kobach is also the lead attorney defending the city of Hazleton, Pennsylvania, whose ordinances prohibiting employing and renting to illegal immigrants had been struck down by a federal judge in Pennsylvania and again before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.[10] In June 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Third Circuit's decision and remitted the case back to the Third Circuit for reconsideration. Sup. Ct. No 10-722. In July 2013, the Third Circuit concluded again that both the employment and housing provisions of the Hazleton ordinances are pre-empted by federal immigration law.[11]
He was involved with another lawsuit, involving a Farmers Branch, Texas ordinance that prevents landlords from renting to illegal immigrants.[3] That case is on appeal before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. It was originally heard by a three judge panel, then the Fifth Circuit granted rehearing en banc before the entire Court. Case No. 10-10751.
Arizona immigration law[edit]
Ambox current red.svg
This article needs to be updated. Please update this section to reflect recent events or newly available information. (August 2012)
Kobach played a significant role in the drafting of Arizona SB 1070, a state law that attracted national attention as the country's broadest and strictest—at the state level—illegal immigration measure in a long time, and has assisted in defending the state during the ongoing legal battle over SB 1070's legality.[12][13][14] On February 7, 2008, Federal Judge Neil V. Wake ruled against a lawsuit filed by construction contractors and immigrant organizations who sought to halt a state law that imposes severe penalties on employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants.[3][9] The plaintiffs appealed the ruling, but Arizona prevailed (with Kobach's assistance) in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (Chicanos por la Causa v. Arizona, 558 F.3d 856 (2009)). The case was further appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.[15]
On June 25, 2012, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in a 5-3 decision to strike down three out of the four challenged provisions of Arizona SB 1070. Three key provisions of the law were struck down on the grounds that they were preempted by federal immigration law, and one provision was upheld. The first provision to be struck down was Section 3 of the bill, which made it a misdemeanor under state law for immigrants to fail to seek or carry federal registration papers. The second struck down provision, Section 5(C), made it a crime in Arizona for immigrants to work or solicit work without employment authorization. The third provision struck down was Section 6, which gave local police the authority to make warrantless arrests of immigrants suspected of being removable. This provision would have provided state officers with greater arrest authority than federal immigration officers, and could be exercised with no instruction from the Federal Government. Section 2(B), one of the most controversial provisions, was upheld, as it was found to be too early to determine how the provision would be applied in practice. 2(B) requires local law enforcement to investigate into the immigration status of anyone stopped or arrested when “reasonable suspicion” exists that the person is in the U.S. unlawfully. This was the so-called “racial profiling” provision.[16] A recent ruling by the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, to the effect that Maricopa County, Arizona, Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his department have engaged in unconstitutional racial profiling, may, as a practical matter, limit the effectiveness of the lone provision of SB 1070 upheld as constitutional.
Alabama immigration law[edit]
Kobach was also credited as a primary author of Alabama HB 56, passed in 2010, which has been described as tougher than Arizona's controversial law. Alabama State Senator Scott Beason and Representative Micky Hammon met Kobach at an Eagle Forum of Alabama conference in Birmingham. They worked closely with Kobach to draft the bill so that it would survive judicial review.[17]
More concerned about that than whether courts with opposing views disagree. That's the kind of person willing to do what it takes to make difficult change happen.
Glad you brought up his record for everyone to review.
Immigration and the 2012 Republican Party Platform[edit]
The 2012 Republican Party platform included self-deportation as a response to illegal immigration to the United States. Kobach proposed the measure, stating “If you really want to create a job tomorrow, you can remove an illegal alien today.”[4]
Immigration lawsuits[edit]
While running for Congress, Kobach represented out-of-state students (on behalf of Federation for American Immigration Reform) in a lawsuit against the state of Kansas, challenging a state law which grants in-state tuition to illegal immigrants. The suit was dismissed for lack of legal standing for the plaintiffs.[5]
In 2005, Kobach filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Immigration Reform Law Institute, challenging a similar law in California. In September 2008, the California Court of Appeal held that California's law granting in-state tuition rates to illegal immigrants was preempted by federal law. (Martinez v. Regents, 166 Cal. App. 4th 1121 (2008)). In November 2010, the California Supreme Court unanimously reversed, finding that the law was not preempted by federal law.[6] In 2010, Kobach filed a third lawsuit, this time in Nebraska.[7][8] The case is still pending.
Kobach has also litigated several lawsuits defending cities and states that adopt laws to discourage illegal immigration. He served as lead lawyer defending the city of Valley Park, Missouri in a federal case concerning an ordinance that sanctioned employers who hire unauthorized aliens. The ordinance was upheld by Missouri federal judge E. Richard Webber on January 31, 2008 (Gray v. Valley Park, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7238).[3][9] The ACLU, representing the plaintiff, appealed the case to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Kobach prevailed in the appeal, and the Court allowed the Valley Park ordinance to stand (Gray v. Valley Park, 567 F.3d 976 (8th Cir. 2009)).
Kobach is also the lead attorney defending the city of Hazleton, Pennsylvania, whose ordinances prohibiting employing and renting to illegal immigrants had been struck down by a federal judge in Pennsylvania and again before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.[10] In June 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Third Circuit's decision and remitted the case back to the Third Circuit for reconsideration. Sup. Ct. No 10-722. In July 2013, the Third Circuit concluded again that both the employment and housing provisions of the Hazleton ordinances are pre-empted by federal immigration law.[11]
He was involved with another lawsuit, involving a Farmers Branch, Texas ordinance that prevents landlords from renting to illegal immigrants.[3] That case is on appeal before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. It was originally heard by a three judge panel, then the Fifth Circuit granted rehearing en banc before the entire Court. Case No. 10-10751.
Arizona immigration law[edit]
Ambox current red.svg
This article needs to be updated. Please update this section to reflect recent events or newly available information. (August 2012)
Kobach played a significant role in the drafting of Arizona SB 1070, a state law that attracted national attention as the country's broadest and strictest—at the state level—illegal immigration measure in a long time, and has assisted in defending the state during the ongoing legal battle over SB 1070's legality.[12][13][14] On February 7, 2008, Federal Judge Neil V. Wake ruled against a lawsuit filed by construction contractors and immigrant organizations who sought to halt a state law that imposes severe penalties on employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants.[3][9] The plaintiffs appealed the ruling, but Arizona prevailed (with Kobach's assistance) in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (Chicanos por la Causa v. Arizona, 558 F.3d 856 (2009)). The case was further appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.[15]
On June 25, 2012, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in a 5-3 decision to strike down three out of the four challenged provisions of Arizona SB 1070. Three key provisions of the law were struck down on the grounds that they were preempted by federal immigration law, and one provision was upheld. The first provision to be struck down was Section 3 of the bill, which made it a misdemeanor under state law for immigrants to fail to seek or carry federal registration papers. The second struck down provision, Section 5(C), made it a crime in Arizona for immigrants to work or solicit work without employment authorization. The third provision struck down was Section 6, which gave local police the authority to make warrantless arrests of immigrants suspected of being removable. This provision would have provided state officers with greater arrest authority than federal immigration officers, and could be exercised with no instruction from the Federal Government. Section 2(B), one of the most controversial provisions, was upheld, as it was found to be too early to determine how the provision would be applied in practice. 2(B) requires local law enforcement to investigate into the immigration status of anyone stopped or arrested when “reasonable suspicion” exists that the person is in the U.S. unlawfully. This was the so-called “racial profiling” provision.[16] A recent ruling by the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, to the effect that Maricopa County, Arizona, Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his department have engaged in unconstitutional racial profiling, may, as a practical matter, limit the effectiveness of the lone provision of SB 1070 upheld as constitutional.
Alabama immigration law[edit]
Kobach was also credited as a primary author of Alabama HB 56, passed in 2010, which has been described as tougher than Arizona's controversial law. Alabama State Senator Scott Beason and Representative Micky Hammon met Kobach at an Eagle Forum of Alabama conference in Birmingham. They worked closely with Kobach to draft the bill so that it would survive judicial review.[17]
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
- 
Here you go. Looks like a man very eager to get immigration - 90Tiger MU - 11/16 11:06:53