Kris Kobach has worked with
John Ashcroft and the Bush administration on the
war on terror. He also helped develop the
National Security Entry Exit Registration System (NSEERS),
which resulted in the deportation of 13,740
people. Now, he is running for Congress in
Kansas’ Third District – against two others for
the Republican nomination, and if he wins, against
the incumbent, Dennis Moore.
Kobach has taken his experiences and turned them into
a large part of his campaign, with, “A stronger
Kansas. A Safer America,” as a reminder to voters
of what he wants to do in Washington.
“I have been fighting the war on terrorism for two
years, and I saw where the vulnerabilities were in
our law, and I saw what we needed in order to more
effectively fight that war firsthand. No other
members have been in that position and have that
perspective on how and where we can improve our
laws to make them even more effective on the war
on terrorism,” says Kobach.
“My executive branch experience in the Bush
administration will most definitely allow me to
make a difference on behalf of the people of
Kansas and behalf of all Americans.”
The University of Missouri law professor believes
he will bring something more to Congress if
elected as well, explaining, “That’s the only
reason why I’m running: because I have very
specific ideas about what we needed to do
differently in the war on terrorism, and I know
that I can have value and make a difference. If I
would just be one of the 435 members of Congress
with nothing special to add, then I shouldn’t
bother to run, but I know that I can make a
difference, and that’s what I’m gonna do.”
Q: You're a true Kansan,
raised in the state. Do you remember any Kansas
politicians you admired while growing up? What
was your first experience in politics?
A: I was born in Madison, Wisconsin, and my family
moved to Kansas when I was a small
boy. Throughout my childhood, I admired Bob
Dole. When I was in high school in the early
80’s, and he assumed a real leadership role in the
Republican Party, I admired his work as a
candidate who was playing a national role in
politics.
My earliest memory was Watergate. I remember how
everyone was talking about the fact that President
Nixon was resigning.
Q: You've been
interviewed many times about your involvement
helping President Bush and Attorney General
Ashcroft with the war on terrorism. What was it
exactly that you did? For people strongly against
the President's actions, what might you say to
convince them to see your point of view?
A: I served as John Ashcroft’s chief advisor on
immigration and border security. Specifically, I
spearheaded the development of the National
Security Entry Exit Registration System, or NSEERS,
which kind of led to the apprehension of numerous
terrorists and the interception of more than 800
criminals entering the United States.
Also, I led efforts to reform the immigration
court system as well as to expand our efforts to
apprehend so-called absconders, individuals who
have been deported and disregarded those
deportation orders and have become
fugitives. There are also numerous other issues
and initiatives that I led or was involved
in. Basically, in the year and a half after 9-11,
the Department of Justice took numerous actions to
tighten up our border security, and I was involved
in virtually all of those actions.
I would point out that the horrific attacks of
9-11 left virtually 3,000 Americans dead, and this
was a direct attack on our
homeland. Consequently, we needed to
respond. These were appropriate, reasonable, and
measured responses to the threat we faced.
Clearly, terrorist networks around the world were
exploiting the breakdown of the rule of law in our
immigration system. This was illustrated by the
fact that three of the 19 terrorists had
overstayed their visas, yet we had no system in
place to determine when this occurred, and we had
no way of finding them if we had known they
overstayed their visas.
They were able to exploit our lack of border
security and moreover, the President’s actions in
Iraq were justified, because Iraq was a prominent
base for terrorist organizations around the
world. We saw this when our troops invaded Iraq
and discovered known terrorists being harbored by
the Iraqi government as well as terrorist training
camps based in Iraq. That, in my mind, is the
greatest justification for what we did in Iraq,
regardless of weapons of mass destruction.
Q: Something you list
under issues on your campaign website is illegal
immigration. What are your thoughts on President
Bush's new immigration reform? How will you work
to protect jobs in America?
A: The critical objective regarding immigration
must be to enforce the rule of law. Our system,
at present, is plagued by lawlessness and a system
by which criminals and terrorists are able to
exploit that lawlessness. The President’s
proposals contain some good things, but the part
that I object to is the granting of amnesty to
those who have broken the law.
When you grant an amnesty to millions of people
who are here in violation of federal law, it is a
slap in the face to the more than 5 million people
who are waiting outside our country’s borders to
come in legally. They are the ones following the
rules; if you suddenly reward those people who
have broken the rules, you have, in effect,
punished those who are waiting. They will have to
wait longer. They will be in the back of the
line, and you will be giving privileges to those
who broke our rules. That’s one reason.
The other problem is, when you have amnesties, it
encourages fraud and greater illegal
immigration. The last time we had an amnesty in
1986, it caused a spike in illegal
immigration. We saw the greatest surge our
country had ever seen. The INS, by its reckoning,
discovered 398,000 fraudulent applications for the
amnesty in 1986.
Without a doubt, there were many more they did not
discover. Included among the ones they did not
discover was the case of Mahmud Abu Halima, who
was a leader in the 1993 attack on the World Trade
Center. He was granted an amnesty as a season
agricultural worker when, in fact, he had been
working as a cabby in New York. With that
amnesty, he was able to travel freely in and out
of the United States, receive terrorist training
overseas, come back into the United States, and
eventually attack the World Trade Center in
1993. Amnesties can be abused, they have been
abused in the past, and they are destructive to
the rule of law.
Q: A few days ago, you
had a column published in The New York Post about
the Patriot Act, writing, "Numerous challenges to
the Patriot Act have been raised; and virtually
all have been squarely rejected." You felt that
some things that groups said against the Patriot
Act were a bit ridiculous; what do you think is
the worst opinion against it?
A: The most ridiculous charge is the allegation
that the federal government is routinely looking
at the library records or Internet activities of
ordinary Americans. This simply is not happening,
and we know this for a fact, because Section 215
of the Patriot Act has not been used, and the
Patriot Act does not authorize the federal
government to read people’s e-mail randomly or
without judicial supervision.
With respect to library records, what people fail
to remember, what the critics of the Patriot Act
fail to mention is that Grand Juries have been
able to subpoena library records for decades
without any judicial approval. In contrast, under
the Patriot Act, if it is ever used, this
provision requires a judge to approve and issue
the subpoena of the records.
Q: You were on the
Overland Park City Council for a few years. Most
people who run for higher offices, such as for
Congress, have served at different political
positions. What were some constituent concerns
the Council had to look at that people might not
immediately think of?
A: One fact that many people don’t realize is
that, in Overland Park, which is the second
largest city in Kansas, the city council wards
were actually larger than the state legislative
districts. You represent more citizens as a city
councilman than you do as a state representative
in Kansas, and that of course, places greater
burdens on you in the same way that representing
700,000 as a member of Congress places even
greater burdens on the Congressman to be
responsible to his constituents.
There are some issues that city councilmen are
called upon to address more often than state
legislators are called upon. For example, in
Overland Park, I led the drafting of a noise
ordinance, which addressed the concerns that
constituents were having when other residents were
infringing upon their peace and quiet by either
driving cars with excessively noisy stereo
speakers or operating heavy machinery in a
residential neighborhood. That’s an example of
the kind of concern that a city council might deal
with.
Interestingly, the federal government also gets
involved with these kind of invasions of the
home. You often see the federal government
concerning itself with the protection of the
Internet, from decency to pornography. That’s an
area, protecting a person’s environment and
lifestyle, that you often see city councils and
Congress getting involved in.
Q: Why do you believe you
would be the best person to win the Republican
nomination? What do you feel you have that would
work in challenging Congressman Moore?
A: My experience as a senior official in the Bush
administration will enable me to take that
experience I’ve had in the executive branch and
translate it into effective lawmaking. I have
been fighting the war on terrorism for two years,
and I saw where the vulnerabilities were in our
law, and I saw what we needed in order to more
effectively fight that war firsthand. No other
members have been in that position and have that
perspective on how and where we can improve our
laws to make them even more effective on the war
on terrorism.
My executive branch experience in the Bush
administration will most definitely allow me to
make a difference on behalf of the people of
Kansas and behalf of all Americans. I served in
all three branches of government: I served as a
judicial clerk on the U.S. Court of Appeals, I
served as a local legislator, and I served in the
executive branch at the highest level.
I have seen government from every angle. I’m also
a law professor who teaches legislation, so I know
how to draft laws, I know how courts are going to
be interpreting these laws, and I have the kind of
direct experience in drafting laws that my
opponents don’t have.
I would say, probably more important than all of
the advantages I have over my opponents in terms
of experience, is the fact that I have the ability
to articulate these issues and defend my positions
aggressively against Dennis Moore. It’s important
that the Republican Party have someone who can
carry the fight to Dennis Moore effectively. Adam
Taft tried but lost in 2002. He wasn’t up to the
task, and in contrast, I will be able to take the
fight to Dennis Moore. It’s critically important
that the Republican Party and the Third District
of Kansas choose a person who has not already lost
this particular race, because the long history of
rematch races in Congress is a sore one.
Statistically speaking, Taft has less than a two
percent chance of beating Dennis Moore in a
rematch. In 2002, there were 39 rematch races,
and in 38 of them, the loser lost again, usually
by a larger margin. In 2000, there were 43 cases,
and in all 43 cases, the loser lost again. Taking
those two cycles together, you have 81 out of 82
cases where the loser in the first time loses
again in a rematch. My opponent has virtually no
chance of beating Dennis Moore, and Republican
voters need to take that into account.
Website
Campaign Email Address:
teamkobach@kobachforcongress.com
Campaign Office
8619 Hauser
Lenexa, KS
Near the intersection of 87th & Pflumm
Post Office Box 12224
Overland Park, Kansas
66282-2224
(913) 642-3903
teamkobach@kobachforcongress.com
Election
2004