EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
On MLK Day, Romney Steps Up his Attacks on Immigrants
Romney Makes South Carolina Campaign Stop with Kris Kobach, Anti-immigrant Champion
Mitt Romney is set to reinforce his strict anti-immigration stance today in South Carolina with an appearance with recent endorser Kris Kobach. Kobach is known for his work on anti-immigration laws in both
Mitt Romney and Kris KobachArizona and Alabama, as well as his work with the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), now referred to as a 'nativist hate group' by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Think Progress Reports:
On a day set aside to honor civil rights activist Martin Luther King, Jr., Mitt Romney plans to tout his extreme immigration positions during a campaign stop in South Carolina today — with Kris Kobach, the author of Arizona’s and Alabama’s immigration laws, at his side. He will attack his competitors Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry for their softer immigration stances, which could resonate with South Carolina voters who support that state’s harmful immigration law. [...]
One of FAIR’s main goals is to overturn the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which “ended a decades-long, racist quota system that limited immigration mostly to northern Europeans.” FAIR’s founder John Tanton has said that he wants the U.S. to remain a majority-white nation through limiting the number of non-whites who enter the U.S.
When Arizona’s SB 1070, Kobach, in emails to then-state Sen. Russell Pierce (R), pushed for the law to be used to cast a wide net against Latinos. He helped write an even more harmful immigration law for Alabama, which effectively made it illegal to live as an undocumented immigrant in the state. And when Kobach ran for Congress in 2004, he lost by an 11-point margin after his opponent accused him of having ties to white supremacists. (While campaigning, he was working on a FAIR lawsuit against Kansas’ law granting in-state tuition to the children of undocumented immigrants; the suit was dismissed.) Kobach even once wrote a book opposing the anti-Apartheid boycott of South Africa.
Romney proudly said he “look[ed] forward” to working with Kobach on stopping illegal immigration, and Kobach has been equally effusive of Romney, saying, “Mitt Romney is the candidate who will finally secure the borders and put a stop to the magnets,” when announcing his support. Again and again, Romney has proven how hardline he is on immigration, and Kobach’s support continues to reinforce it.
The Hill recently reported:
“Mitt Romney stands apart from the others. He’s the only one who’s taken a strong across-the-board position on immigration,” Kobach told The Hill in an interview.
“Gingrich and Perry, with their pro-amnesty positions, are not acceptable on their issues to me or the vast majority of Republicans.”
Kobach also criticized Rick Santorum, another GOP candidate trying to win over conservatives, for voting in 1996 against a pilot program that turned into E-Verify, the national system which helps employers check the immigration status of their employees. But he did praise Santorum for more recently voicing support for the program.
“All of the other candidates stand to the left of Romney on immigration,” Kobach said. “This is an issue that people with weak backbones sometimes have trouble taking a position on, and Mitt Romney has shown some real backbone on this issue.”
TPM adds:
But that’s not entirely what Kobach is known for. Rather than secure the border, Kobach is the architect of a different approach. As is evident in the Arizona and Alabama laws he helped design, the goal is to drive Hispanics, and particularly immigrants, out of the country. As Kobach put it, according to The Daily Beast, “People often see federal immigration policy as a dichotomy between amnesty and deportation. But the most rational approach is a third one: you ratchet up the enforcement so that people make their own decisions to start following the law.” Or, as the legislation itself says, “attrition through enforcement.” The Alabama law — portions of which have been blocked in court for now — has been blamed for prompting children to drop out of schools and devastating industries that depended on Hispanic labor. He is involved in legislation and lawsuits across the country, including suing states for granting in-state tuition to undocumented students, and is planning anti-immigration effort in Kansas this year.
Kobach, with degrees from Harvard, Oxford, and Yale, approaches the immigration question from a legal perspective and puts on a measured air, but his rhetoric is extreme. Kobach currently serves as counsel to the legal arm of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), recently listed as a nativist hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

33 Comments so far
Show AllSimply to succumb to power and greed.
Romney's "anti-immigration" campaign rhetoric is as disingenuous as Obama's 2008 "antiwar" campaign rhetoric. In both cases, it's pandering to your base and kabuki theater.
As to honoring MLK on his day, we should all remember that King was assassinated in Memphis while supporting the sanitation workers' strike for fair wages, and that recruitment of foreign migrants is a primary union-busting tactic.
Management recruits scabs wherever and whenever it can. The "recruitment of foreign migrants" is not "a primary union-busting tactic." There is no shortage of native born people to recruit as scabs.
Immigrants have historically been disproportionately active in organized Labor and radical politics.
"Recruitment" of "foreign migrants" occurs mostly in the white collar professions. The anti-immigrant hatred, however, is focused mostly on the poorest of the poor, people who were not "recruited" but rather who migrated on their own initiative to escape brutal repression and grinding poverty.
Cesar Chavez's testimony before Congress in 1979:
"... when the farm workers strike and their strike is successful, the employers go to Mexico and have unlimited, unrestricted use of illegal alien strikebreakers to break the strike. And, for over 30 years, the Immigration and Naturalization Service has looked the other way and assisted in the strikebreaking. I do not remember one single instance in 30 years where the Immigration service has removed strikebreakers... The employers use professional smugglers to recruit and transport human contraband across the Mexican border for the specific act of strikebreaking..."
Since 1979 the same tactic has been used to break unions and impose lower wages on meatpacking workers, janitors, construction workers, restaurant and hotel workers and others.
Yes, all of the right wingers, white supremacists and anti-immigrant bigots sure do love Cesar Chavez. Every extreme right wing site on the Internet is using the quote you use here to promote an agenda that is in direct and complete opposition to everything Chavez fought for.
Misusing Cesar Chavez in Immigration Debate
"This past spring, the National Council of La Raza called on congress to honor Chavez’s legacy by passing immigration reform. In response, long-time Chavez critic Ruben Navarrette Jr. published a column on Pajamas Media, titled 'Cesar Chavez Would Not Have Supported Amnesty for Illegals,' in which he argues that "it is absurd for anyone to invoke the name of Cesar Chavez to pass immigration reform. As I said, were he alive today, it’s a safe bet that Chavez would be an opponent of any legislation that gave illegal immigrants even a chance at legal status.'
"The extent of this misrepresentation is stunning. Chavez opposed undocumented labor inasmuch as workers were exploited, used to depress wages, and undercut unionization efforts. While he did oppose Mexican guest worker programs he simultaneously campaigned for the legalization of Mexican citizens. But above all, Chavez demanded that the common humanity of Mexican people be recognized and appreciated. He literally gave his life toward this simple goal so one can be fairly certain that he would have protested any immigration policy that dehumanizes Mexicans, such as Arizona’s notorious SB 1070."
...
"It was in response to an Arizona state law nearly 30 years earlier - once again aimed largely at Mexicans and Mexican-Americans - that the Arizona-born Cesar Chavez endured a twenty-five day 'Fast for Justice' back in 1972. Arizona House Bill 2134 prevented farm workers, the vast majority of whom were Mexican and Chicano, from organizing, picketing, and boycotting - effectively stripping them of rights guaranteed to all other American workers. Chavez turned to these tactics as a recourse against employers who exploited farm labor."
...
"How ironic, then, that some advocates of Arizona’s SB 1070 have misappropriated Chavez in their anti-immigrant hysteria, citing the late organizer’s advocacy for the enforcement of laws against Mexican immigrants isolated from its historical context. This myth is repeated in Richard Rodriguez’s recent essay 'Saint Cesar of Delano.' A critic of SB 1070, Rodriguez unwittingly feeds the anti-immigrant fervor."
...
"In fact Chavez did organize and reconcile undocumented workers to his union. He also worked to repeal the infamous bracero program which imported exploited laborers from Mexico leading to the law’s 1965 expiration and he traveled to Mexico for a meeting with politicians to discuss improving working conditions for Mexican workers. in 1973 the UFW was one of the first unions to oppose the federal law making it illegal for employers to hire undocumented workers.
"Chavez’s goal was to undo hatred, writ large on the American landscape; for this, he is often misunderstood and misrepresented."
http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/politics/3139/misusing_cesar_chavez_in_immigration_debate/
"Chavez opposed undocumented labor inasmuch as workers were exploited, used to depress wages, and undercut unionization efforts."
That may be the first factually accurate statement you've ever posted on CommonDreams.
" Recruitment" of "foreign migrants" occurs mostly in the white collar professions. "
TA,
I agree. Many years ago I was recruited by a large U.S. company...
Thomas Gilbert-
snipped from today's Democracy Now! MLK Special!
“This call for a worldwide fellowship that lifts neighborly concern beyond one’s tribe, race, class and nation is in reality a call for an all-embracing and unconditional love […].” ~♥~☮leave all the hate to "them" 'cause We gotta whole lotta Lovin' to do!
Honoring MLK's commitment to ending poverty in the U.S. is not "hate," even if Democracy Now! says that it is.
You missed something: Kris Kobach is also the Kansas secretary of state and was a law professor (chaired position) at UMKC (University of Missouri Kansas City) until his election in 2010 to secretary of state of KS. Before that he failed in a legislative run when neo-nazi ties were exposed. In 2010 he was also "retained by Sheriff Joe Arpaio to train his deputies on immigration matters to the tune of $300 per hour" until the county attorney, Rick Romley, fired him (http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bastard/2010/06/kris_koback_kicked_to_the_curb.php)
This guy is the slick face of hate. Period.
Kris Kobach is the GOP's Wilhelm Stuckart for immigration. Shame (but no surprise) on the Mittster for associating with such utter slime.
"One of FAIR’s main goals is to overturn the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which 'ended a decades-long, racist quota system that limited immigration mostly to northern Europeans.' FAIR’s founder John Tanton has said that he wants the U.S. to remain a majority-white nation through limiting the number of non-whites who enter the U.S."
There it is.
Yet we have people right here, on every thread about immigration, claiming that the anti-immigrant movement has nothing to so with race, and that it has nothing to do with immigration but rather is about "illegal" immigration.
The founder of FAIR, which is behind the anti-immigration movement - anti-immigrant posters here constantly repeat the talking points and arguments that FAIR invented and disseminated - is quite clear about the agenda.
Did these employers have other choices as to who they hired?
I think most farmers would rather have local employees, if only because of the language issues. When I was young, 40 years ago, most of the farm labor was white and local. That was then no longer over the last few decades until the last couple of years, as hard times are leading to more young whites applying for farm work. Also, the pressure on immigrants from the national mania on the issue (drummed up by extreme right wing hate groups) has made it more and more difficult to get workers.
Employers can not legally turn people away based on race. Employers should not - in my view - act as agents of law enforcement, spying on and investigating their employees. It is impossible for an employer to know minute-to-minute what an immigrant's situation may be, and most of the so-called "illegal" situations are matters of lapsed or inaccurate paperwork as immigrants wade through a long and problematic bureaucratic process.
They must have had a reason why they hired illegal immigrants over citizens.
In years and years of direct experience, I have never known a small farmer to intentionally or knowingly seek out or hire an "illegal immigrant." Nor have I ever known a farmer to choose an immigrant over a citizen. There is no hard and fast dividing line between so-called "illegal" and "legal." It is a complex and problematic process to be and stay "legal." No farmer wants to put him or herself in a precarious legal position. All of this should be obvious and common sense, but the anti-immigrant hate propaganda has posed a variety of leading questions intended to present a false view of what is happening.
Maybe it was solely because they would work cheaper...
I have never seen immigrants paid less than citizens for equivalent tasks.
...but I am thinking there was some bias as to thinking they were more "pliant" employees.
Because of the language barrier, and the literacy issue, it is easier to work with native born people and farmers would prefer that.
Or that the employer could ask immigrant labor to things, they wouldn't or couldn't ask of a citizen.
I have never seen that. Besides, farmers don't know who is and who is not "illegal." Many immigrants are citizens. Many workers who are not yet citizens are related to people who are. There is no hard and fast dividing line on this, either.
If that's true then there will remain an employment black market for such immigrants.
I personally know hundreds of immigrants who have become citizens. Their work and their pay does not change as a result of that.
I don't know of it would be possible to have more experience than I do.
Everyone on the farm "uses the bushes as a bathroom." So do upscale white campers, Why is it that reactionary arguments, whether against OWS or against the immigrants, so often include talking about urine and feces? Some sort of bizarre obsession there.
Material use on farms is heavily regulated. I have never seen (hundreds of farms, thousands of workers, several decades) unskilled or untrained workers applying any pesticides.
I have seen thousands of immigrants disqualified from a job because they were illiterate or could not speak English. I have never seen that happen to a white person because they could not speak Spanish. Of course, if a job required Spanish - Spanish language instructor for example - then the applicant would need to speak Spanish.
It is almost always people from California making the claims you are making, and people from Arizona who fear-monger about the supposed "invasion." They are often saying "you don't know what it is like" or "you don't know how they are."
Things may be radically different in California or Arizona. The farms are much bigger and there are more absentee farmers. One thing I have noticed from my trips there is the extreme bigotry against immigrants, worse than anywhere else.
"It's like you starve a person intentionally and then prosecute them for stealing some bread."
Who is the "you" in that statement? Is it the U.S. policymakers you blame for poverty in Latin America? Or, is it the formerly middle-class U.S. carpenters, meatpacking workers, janitors and their families who are now impoverished because of corporate recruitment of low-wage replacement workers?
By your twisted rationale, the first group is guilty and the second group deserves to be punished. It's the 1% and the 99%, except you can't seem to distinguish one group from the other. Your "moral" framing promotes the Wall Street low-wage policy that REWARDS the 1% (whom you blame for Latin America's problems) at the expense of decent, hard-working Americans and their families. It makes no sense.
Just wondering, have you ever given even a nano-second's consideration to the millions of desperately poor and struggling families in the U.S.?
For example, this "immigrant rights" representative was revealed to be something else entirely:
http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2012/01/chris_lariche_lothario_notari...