Immigration

Kris Kobach: We Don't Need to Convict or Try People in Order to Punish Them

|

FOX News

Kansas Secretary of State Chris Kobach is a lightning rod in the immigration debate. He's a lawyer with the hyper-restrictionist Federation for American Immigration Reform, the brains behind Arizona's SB1070, and the guy who convinced Mitt Romney to embrace the concept of "self-deportation."

But it turns out Kobach's bad ideas aren't limited to immigration policy. While discussing the case of Jesus Cabera Molina, an undocumented immigrant who allegedly killed Phoenix Police Officer Daryl Raetz in an intoxicated hit-and-run, Kobach told Fox's Megyn Kelly that the U.S. shouldn't wait until people are convicted to punish and/or deport them:

Megyn Kelly: Sir, it's good to see you again on the program. Welcome back. Let's start with this case in Phoenix. Daryl Raetz's alleged killer. Now, he admits being drunk and having done cocaine on the night of the crash. He denied that he was driving, but his car was definitely the one that was used, police say. They believe he did it.

Why does he get to stay? He's already been arrested for burglary and DUI. He's an illegal immigrant. What is it about his situation that allowed them to exercise discretion to leave him here?

Kobach: My guess is in that situation, I mean we haven't seen the internal communications in ICE, but my guess is because he'd been arrested and not convicted.

This administration has been drawing a fairly strange line and saying, "We don't regard you as a criminal, as a threat to public safety, until you've been convicted in a court of law." Merely being arrested for drunk driving or arrested for assaulting a federal officer isn't enough. And I think that's a really problematic line. They've drawn that line not only the way they've exercised discretion as you described, but in their executive amnesty they did a year ago…..

As we all know, just because a person hasn't had that final conviction, that person is still very much a danger to the community and probably did commit the crime in some cases where the evidence is irrefutable.

Kelly: Well, but that can't be the standard in criminal cases. You need beyond a reasonable doubt.

For a guy with degrees from Harvard, Oxford, and Yale, Kobach's appreciation of due process is pretty disappointing. It's already incredibly easy to deport non-citizens–regardless of how long they've been in the U.S.–for misdemeanor convictions. Providing a stripped-down form of due process is hardly malfeasance. Not to mention there's no apparent reason why jumping from arrest to punishment in "cases where the evidence is irrefutable" should be applied only to illegal immigrants. 

NEXT: NASA Picks Next 8 Astronauts. You Might Get To Go to Space Before They Do.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. This administration has been drawing a fairly strange line and saying, “We don’t regard you as a criminal, as a threat to public safety, until you’ve been convicted in a court of law.”

    Wait, what? How is that strange? And how has this administration been doing that?

  2. For a guy with degrees from Harvard, Oxford, and Yale, Kobach’s appreciation of due process is pretty disappointing.

    Hardly surprising, however, considering the performance of the Ivy Leaguers on the SCOTUS.

  3. Just for the folks who haven’t been around the world very much, its incredibly easy for ANY country to toss out illegal immigrants. The difference is, most of the other countries check and register people on entry, minimizing illegality at the source.

    Border control. How does it work?

    1. Border control. How does it work?

      Having (accidentally) crossed over the border from Thailand into Myanmar (while it was still a military dictatorship) while on a hike; it doesn’t seem to work very well.

      Jus’ sayin’

      1. I went to Canada by accident once. They were very pleasant. Getting back in the USA was a very different story.

        1. Do you think the Canadians would have let you stay for several years and work as an undocumented alien?

          I don’t think so.

          1. What does the way another sovereign nation handles its immigration have to do with us? Would you say the same about North Korea? Chile? The fucking Sudan?

            1. I just wonder why the USA is the only country not allowed to have a border.

              1. No one said the US can’t have a border. It’s just that these days, “border security” means turning the country into a police state (even more than it already is) and shredding the Constitution for anyone within 100 miles of the border (again, more than it has already been shred)

                1. Ah, thank you. So we can have a border, we just mustn’t enforce the laws that govern coming in across it.

                  Because enforcing laws means a police state, or something.

                  1. If you think all of the insane laws that are either on the books or being proposed regarding border security, from REAL ID, E-verify, the nullification of the fourth amendment in a border zone (most of the country) are justified just to keep out the brown people, then fuck you, you obviously don’t give two shits about liberty

        2. That’s because you came across a controlled border instead of wading across the Rio Grande.

          1. There are no uncontrolled crossing points into Canada, right?

            You might want to take a look at a map. Start in Minnesota and go west for about 1500 miles.

            1. Or go East for another 1500 miles. I’ve driven both ways across Canada and don’t need a map reading lesson, but thank you for your help.

              I recall the time my wife and I paddled our canoe from Minnesota’s Boundary Waters Canoe Area into Canada’s Quetico Provincial Park.

              We hadn’t even gotten to the Canadian shore when a Canadian border guy putted up in a little boat, checked us out, and looked over our ID. He was pleasant, but prompt.

              So walk across the border into Canada and apply for a job as an undocumented alien and see how far you get.

              “Write”, as they used to say, “when you get work”.

    2. Based on your idiotic comment, I doubt very much you yourself have been “around the world very much”.

      Want to live in a country truly free of illegal immigrants? Try North Korea.

      1. I worked 15 years overseas, subject to foreign immigration laws so I know somewhat whereof I speak.

      2. By the way, I don’t want a country free of immigrants. My grandparents were immigrants. Legal ones. I like those.

        1. So i take it you’re all for slashing the bureaucracy on legal immigration, right?

          1. Yes. I absolutely am all for slashing the bureaucracy on legal immigration. Requirements for legal immigration should be simple and consistent and applications for legal status should be promptly and fairly processed by competent people.

            1. And by “consistent” I don’t mean “only unskilled from a few favored countries need apply”, if you get my drift.

              A potential immigrant who gets off an airplane should get the same consideration as one who wades across the Rio Grande.

      3. To amplify, I dealt for 15 years with German and Eastern European immigration authorities on behalf of myself, my wife, my expat employees, and their spouses and children.

        What was your experience?

        1. Going through the immigrations process on behalf of my foreign born wife is what made me a libertarian.

          I’m currently living in Brazil where they’re liberalizing the immigration process and yes, they do have illegal immigrants here.

          1. Sloth and incompetence in administering the law doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have any laws, you know.

            1. Yes, and the argument “teh law is teh law” is not a justification for the law.

  4. This seems to tangle up two different issues. If he hasn’t been convicted of drunk driving, sure, you can’t punish him for drunk driving. But if he’s an illegal immigrant, yes, you can deport (“punish”) him for being an illegal immigrant. If someone gets arrested for something and they are illegal immigrants, it seems perfectly fair to deport them, regardless of (and perhaps even prior to) any conviction.

    1. Isn’t there a due process that needs to be followed to deport someone? Wouldn’t that process require a court to determine whether or not he broke our immigration laws in the first place?

      1. No, if you’re a presumed alien, the supreme court has said you don’t have any due process rights. The US deports several hundred people a year who are actually US citizens because once they get into the ICE system, it’s nearly impossible to challenge the basis for your detention.

        1. Well that’s a bit fucked up.

          1. Yep, but it usually only happens to poor minorities, so no one cares.

      2. “Where’s your documentation that you are here legally?”

        “I don’t have any.”

        “Bye.”

        Do you need more due process than that?

        1. So we have to carry a birth certificate around with us at all times now?

          1. No. Why would you think that? Do you believe “I don’t have it on me” is the same as “I don’t have it”?

        2. Do you need more due process than that?

          Fuckin’ A you do.

          “Where’s your proof you didn’t rob that guy?”

          “I don’t have any.”

          “Bye.”

          I mean, you either have due process for all laws or you don’t. That’s a founding principle.

          1. What steps, in your view, must the government take to prove someone is here illegally?

            1. Take them to court, charge them with a crime (of being here illegally) and convict them by jury trial or judge trial if they request one. After all, being here illegally is a fucking felony. It should be treated as such.

              1. Pro tip: the Constitution (you know, that thing Libertarians always harp about) starts out “We the People of the United States ….” It does not say “We are the World, we are the children….”

                1. Further Pro tip: the preamble to that old document concludes, “…provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”

                  I don’t think they meant general welfare of the entire planet’s population, and I don’t think “ourselves and our posterity” means open borders in perpetuity.

                  1. It doesn’t conclude with that, you fucking mongoloid. It continues on as I noted below.

                    FAIL!

                  2. If you want to go to the Constitution, please give the part that justifies our current immigration laws? The preamble doesn’t give any power to the government, so don’t even try to torture those words (BTW, that’s the first move every liberal ever makes in an argument about the constitutionality of their favorite government program, so you’ve got some great company). And “naturalization” is not synonymous with “immigration.” Our naturalization laws were very restrictive very soon after the Constitution was passed, and yet there were virtually no immigration restrictions for almost 100 years.

                2. We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

                  Show me in there where it only applies to citizens. It says “…establish this Constitution for the United States of America”, not “…establish this Constitution for the citizens of the United States of America.

                  By your fucking retarded logic, only American citizens have constitutional rights as they apply to the 4A and 5A. Are they also exempt from income taxes? And can the government quarter troops in their homes? Can they be forced to testify against themselves? Are you retarded?

                  1. See, Homple demonstrates the source of the issue I mentioned above. If people in immigration detention had due process rights, we might actually have to give unauthorized immigrants trials. Far better to just dump unfortunate Americans who get caught in the ICE net in the middle of a Mexican slum and leave it up to them to deal with it.

                  2. I assume that non citizens have fewer rights than citizens. Otherwise, why bother with citizenship as a concept at all?

                    I guess that’s my question, why bother with citizenship as a concept at all? Maybe there is no reason to do so.

                  3. Show me in there where it only applies to citizens. It says “…establish this Constitution for the United States of America”, not “…establish this Constitution for the citizens of the United States of America.

                    Seriously dude?

                    Does that mean that the Federal government has a duty to enforce individual liberty everywhere on the planet?

                    1. “Does that mean that the Federal government has a duty to enforce individual liberty everywhere on the planet?”

                      Samantha Power thinks so and so, apparently, do some Reason H&R commenters.

                      Our next international experiment may be Syria.

                  4. Testy and wound up a bit, eh?

                    Funny you should pick these days to mention the 4th and 5th Amendments. Add some profane references to the First and Second while you’re at it. You’ll be right up to date with the current discussion of the meaning of the Constitution.

                    I would like the Bill of Rights applied to citizens in the same way you seem to want it applied to illegal immigrants.

                    1. Does that mean that the Federal government has a duty to enforce individual liberty everywhere on the planet?

                      The Federal government doesn’t have any duty to enforce “individual liberty” anywhere. Fucking negative rights, how do they work?

                      I would like the Bill of Rights applied to citizens in the same way you seem to want it applied to illegal immigrants.

                      The Bill of Rights doesn’t apply to people, it applies to the government, you fucking socialist.Your rights don’t come from a document, nor do they come from some bureaucrat’s say-so.

                      The government is obligated to respect the natural rights of all persons, regardless of who has laid claim to the soil which lay beneath the feat of the agent acting on its behalf.

                    2. Your rights don’t come from a document, nor do they come from some bureaucrat’s say-so.

                      I’m sure that shouting that will comfort you as your carried away to the camps.

                    3. The Federal government doesn’t have any duty to enforce “individual liberty” anywhere. Fucking negative rights, how do they work?

                      So the Federal government has no right or obligation to prevent the states from violating my rights.

                      Gotcha.

                      Why don’t you tell me what a tyrant Lincoln was next.

                    4. Apparently it’s also illegetimate for the federal government to protect my right to life and property too.

                      So what exactly does kbolino think the government is supposed to do?

                    5. I’m sure that shouting that will comfort you as your carried away to the camps.

                      Tulpa II: Electric Boogaloo

                      So the Federal government has no right or obligation to prevent the states from violating my rights.

                      That was not one of the original powers of the Federal government, and the courts haven’t settled whether and how much the 14th Amendment makes it one.

                      Governments don’t have rights, and the only obligations placed upon the Federal government are to limit what powers it has and what it can do with those powers.

                      Apparently it’s also illegetimate for the federal government to protect my right to life and property too.

                      The Constitution does not oblige the government to protect you and yours; seriously, read the damn thing sometime.

                      It may exercise some powers to that end, but crimes against person and property are state matters.

                      So what exactly does kbolino think the government is supposed to do?

                      At the Federal level, normalize trade among the states and raise an armed force when necessary to defend the country from an imminent threat. Essentially, what it was established to do.

                    6. Except that the constitution gives the federal government powers beyond that.

                      Including:

                      To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

                      To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

                      The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

                      The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government

                    7. Powers are not obligations, and those powers don’t much contradict what I said.

                    8. The situation you describe was the articles of confederation – not the constitution.

                      Seriously, people at the time of ratification saw that the federal government was getting to much power under the constitution. 220 years later there’s no doubt that was the case.

                    9. You realize the clause you’re citing is referring to the slave trade, correct?

                    10. Where does it say ‘slave’?

                      Is that in the same secret annex where the 2nd amendment is about militias and not an individual right to own weapons?

                    11. That’s what “such Persons” is referring to. Your strawman about the 2nd amendment doesn’t apply, because I’m actually talking about the original intent. Read any history of the formation of the Constitution and the inclusion of that clause. It was a compromise between pro-slavery and anti-slavery factions. Do you think it’s a coincidence the slave trade was banned on January 1, 1808 (meanwhile, immigration restrictions remained virtually nonexistent for several decades). In any case, Section 9 is a list of restrictions on Congress’s power, using a clause from that section to justify a government power is even worse than when liberals reference the preamble.

                    12. I do realize that is the general interpretation but the actual words in the clause do not comport with that interpretation.

                      The Migration … of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, …

                      The addition of the word migration at the beginning of the clause means that it applies to well migration as in immigration not just the slave trade and the last quoted phrase is a tacit grant of power to prevent said migration after the year 1808.

                      That’s what the actual text says regardless of the original intent.

                    13. VG who do you think “such Persons” are? and why do does it say “shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight”?

                      The Founders were putting off dealing with the issue of the slave trade.

                      I wonder if you interpret other parts of the constitutions as liberaly.

                    14. The text must be read with the meaning it had at the time it was written, otherwise you end up with the insane readings of the general welfare and interstate commerce clauses that we have today. As MWG says, “such Persons” is referring to slaves, not any foreigner. The entire reason that clause was in the Constitution was to put off a decision on the slave trade.

    2. By the way, try to enter Canada if you have an American DUI on your record. You’ll be turned back at the border.

  5. For a guy with degrees from Harvard, Oxford, and Yale, Kobach’s appreciation of due process is pretty disappointing.

    Really? I think for a guy with degrees from those places, his appreciation of due process is to be expected.

  6. As we all know, just because a person hasn’t had that final conviction, that person is still very much a danger to the community and probably did commit the crime in some cases where the evidence is irrefutable.

    If that person is so obviously a danger to the community and the evidence of their criminality is irrefutable, you should have no problem proving them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of their peers. Or does the presumption of innocence no longer apply in Kris Kobach’s version of America?

    1. “…you should have no problem proving them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of their peers.”

      So we should have juries and judges composed of illegal immigrants?

      Jaysus wept.

      1. Well, if no one else wants to accept Jury Duty, why shouldn’t immigrants take the job?

        😛

      2. So if I go to trial people have to have at least a masters degree to be on the jury?

        1. Correct. Just like if Shrike goes to trial, the jury must consist of drooling mongoloids.

        2. No, but I’d expect them to fulfill the basic requirements for jury duty in your jurisdiction. I might be wrong, but citizenship in your state or county might be part of the deal.

          And, ooooh! A Master’s Degree. Shit just got real.

  7. Degrees from Harvard, Oxford and Yale just establishes your credentials to be part of the ruling class. You would hope that just from exposure some better understanding of due process and rights would happen but in his case the lust for power has prevented any such event.

    1. but in his case the lust for sucking the cock of power has prevented any such event.

      FIFY.

    1. How dare he help defeat the USSR!

      1. Oh man, don’t tell me you buy into that myth too?

        1. He probably secretly hopes the guy took potshots at the camel jockeys when he was over there. Defeating the Russkies was merely a bonus.

      2. I’m sure glad those Mujahideen fellows turned out to be so friendly to the U.S. Our involvement with them has brought us only good things, I’m sure.

    2. HM,
      What is your issue with Charlie Wilson? I don’t know much about the arming the afghans to fight the Russians.

      1. Charlie Wilson is a bit of a conundrum. He was singularly successful at what he did. He was arguably instrumental in bringing down the Soviet Union.

        However, he did it by intervening in a foreign affair, arming up the people who flew planes into buildings in 9/11, and hated us for our kindnesses.

        It was a massive secret program to give weapons, money and support to what is now universally known as a global terror organization.

        But… there’s that whole ‘take down communism’ thing that makes you shake your head and say, “Well played, sir… well played.”

        1. But… there’s that whole ‘take down communism’ thing that makes you shake your head and say, “Well played, sir… well played.”

          I don’t buy that. That’s just something we tell ourselves because we think the world revolves around us. The fact is the man responsible for “taking down (Soviet) Communism” was Gorbachev. He was the one who attempted to steer the USSR into a China-like market reform. He was the one who lessened the Soviet’s authoritarian controls on freedom of speech, travel, etc., which made the Russian population hungry for more. And he was the one who led the peaceful transition of power from himself to Yeltsin after the failed hardliner coup. (And he’s still fighting the good fight against Putin.)

      2. Charlie Wilson got our nation involved in a foreign war with a power that was toppling from it’s own top-heaviness. He helped give weapons to the people who would later wage war on us and indirectly helped kill Americans by doing so.

        He is an interventionist dickface that deserves to rot in hell.

        1. I’m always so impressed by people who take hindsight as a proxy for wisdom

      3. “You are creating a Frankenstein.”

        –Benzair Bhutto to G.H.W. Bush concerning U.S. support of the Afghani mujahideen, 1989

        Well, first of all I resent the way he has been lionized by Hollywood and academia due to having been a fairly liberal Democrat. If he were a Republican, Charlie Wilson’s War wouldn’t have been a light-hearted depiction of his zany antics, but a stentorian Micheal Moore documentary about “the man who created Osama bin Laden”.

        Secondly, Wilson is a prime example of America’s culturally ignorant foreign policy blundering. Wilson had no idea who these mujahideen were or what their ideology was, and he didn’t care. With typical American hubris, he wanted to use them, just like we used the Hmong in Laos, and if things got hot dispose of them. His pea-brain could imagine that these fanatical goat-herders could not be controlled by American power.

        1. Thank you for the response. I learn a lot coming here. I like that everyone has their own niche of expertese.

          1. You’re welcome. I’m glad you found it interesting.

            1. Didn’t we basically say the same thing?

              How ya been, by the way?

              1. Is this going to be like with hat tips around here? Thank you as we’ll sloopy but I had asked HM specifically and he was kind enough to respond. I did not mean to offend you.

                1. Too late. You’re now dead to me.

                  1. 1 down, 14 more commenters to go. Lol

                2. And I don’t ask for hat tips. Ever since the heady days of “Poet Laureate sloopyinca”* I’ve not felt the need to ask.

                  *pours beer on curb for Lucy Steigerwald

              2. How ya been, by the way?

                Busy as fuck. The kid has been having good days and bad days. She’s up to transfusion #30 which means we might have to start thinking about chelation therapy to get the iron out of her organs.

        2. Secondly, Wilson is a prime example of America’s culturally ignorant foreign policy blundering. Wilson had no idea who these mujahideen were or what their ideology was, and he didn’t care. With typical American hubris, he wanted to use them…

          So you think a drunk liberal do gooder invented the concept of the enemey of my enemy…?

          1. the concept of the enemey of my enemy…?

            Yeah…and how did that turn out?

            1. I don’t see how Islamic terrorism can be blamed on that, considering that Hassan al Banna hated the US from the 1940s. Or that OBL was hanging out in Sudan after the Soviets left Afghanistan.

              In my more conspiratorial moments I think that a secret motivation for funding the mujaheddin in Afganistan was the same as invading Iraq – ie creating a place for young Saudi troublemakers to die heroically as a safety valve for the house of Saud.

              1. I meant Qutb not Banna.

              2. HM wasn’t referring to all Islamic terrorism ever. I don’t know why so many people insist that everything has to have a simplistic, singular cause

                1. Bhutto was referring to generalized violent islamic fundamentalists in 1989 not OBL who was a bit player in Afghanistan in the 1980s.

                  1. There are many factors in “generalized violent Islamic fundamentalism.” I don’t see how that refutes point. And I think it’s a bit naive to think that Bhutto, a Pakistani politician, was not primarily talking about the situation in Afghanistan, where the US was actively supporting the mujahideen

                    1. The Afghan mujahideen did not attack America. A psychotic Arab wahhabi did.

                    2. Yeah Cali, how dare you declare those brave muhahideen, like Bin-Laden, to be terrorists. Everyone knows there’s not connection whatsoever.

        3. And the Saudi royal family giving hundreds of billions of dollars to psychotic Wahhabis did a lot more to build that particular Frankenstein than the US.

          Did LRC hijack hit-n-run or something?

          Which one of you guys is Lew and who’s Gary?

          1. And the Saudi royal family giving hundreds of billions of dollars to psychotic Wahhabis did a lot more to build that particular Frankenstein than the US.

            And you don’t think we have a particularly close relationship to the House of Saud?

            1. I do think we have a particularly close relationship with the House of Saud. GW Bush tripped around his ranch holding hands with a Saudi prince and Obama presented himself to the Saudi King with a deep bow. If he’d had a forelock he would have been tugging at it.

              Why this should be so I know not.

              1. No, Heroic Mullato is correct here.

                The house of Saud is a key to America’s empire. Although, I think they would wind up on history’s ash heap if push came to shove.

                My problem with the war on terror nonsense is that we know exactly what the problem is, ie the Sauds and we refuse to confront it directly.

                1. No,

                  This side needs a fucking edit button.

                2. House of Saud is key to America’s empire. Empire, how, eh? Key, what, huh?

                  A few more supportive details and I might swallow that one, but not yet.

                  1. America’s empire is financial. Control and reward are the result of financial machinations. Which are enabled by the world wide demand for dollars, ultimately driven by oil being traded in dollars.

                    Here’s a nice summary to get you started.

                    And that system was created via an alliance with the house of Saud. However, it’s my contention that if they ever tried to back out of the deal they’d quickly meet the same fate as Qaddafi.

                    Tangentially, do you realize that, coincidentally, Qaddafi released a plan to buck the petro dollar system shortly before the rebellion that toppled him began.

          2. Accusing HM of being LRC is hilarious

  8. He’s a lawyer with the hyper-restrictionist Federation for American Immigration Reform, the brains behind Arizona’s SB1070, and the guy who convinced Mitt Romney to embrace the concept of “self-deportation.”

    And here I am telling Kennedy to send advisers into Vietnam. I still say that war was a good idea.

  9. Sometimes dude, you jsut gotta roll with it man.

    http://www.Privacy-Web.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.