PPC Homepage

Lang Sias – Ready to Demagogue, Not Lead?

by | 7:43 pm, July 20, 2010 | 1 Comment

Today, in the race for the Republican Nomination for Colorado House District 7,  Lang Sias’s campaign released a press release attacking Ryan Frazier for his stance in reforming an area of immigration law known as the 3/10 year bar (press release, courtesy of Jen Raiffe, is posted in full below).  In making this attack, Lang probably didn’t realize that he was criticizing Ryan Frazier for advocating for the reform of one of the worst-thought out portions of immigration law – one that even Mark Krikorian (research director for Center for Immigration Studies) has criticized.

To begin to understand why this area of the law is so criticized by even ardent immigration restrictionists, it is important to understand how the 3/10 year bar works (also known as the 3/10 year ban).   Originally passed in in the 1997 immigration reforms, it creates a severe punishment – a 3 year ban from returning to the U.S. for immigrants who were here without authorization for over 180 days and 10 years for immigrants who are here without authorization for 360 days or more.  8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(B)(i).  If the alien leaves, gets hit with 10 year version of the ban, and returns while it is still in effect, that alien is forever barred from the U.S. without an impossible achieve pardon (which they can’t apply for anyway for 10 years).  8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(C).  However, these punishments only applies to immigrants who leave (even by  voluntarily self-deportation) the country. Immigrants who decide to stick around in the shadows and wait for an amnesty are not punished by the ban.

Where this becomes important is in two areas:  First, immigrants who are here illegally are given every incentive to stay by the law. Stay and they may eventually get an amnesty (especially in this age of Obama), leave and they can’t return for up to a decade. Second, the ban is overly draconian relative to the offense – and – (the important part) it applies to the spouses of U.S. Citizens and soldiers.  In other words, marry an undocumented immigrant from Mexico who entered illegally and you better be prepared to spend the next decade worrying about getting kidnapped or shot in Ciudad Juarez.  In fact, I have a close friend who served in the military and whose wife got hit with the ban.  She has about another 9 years to go before the ban ends – but my friend, who served this country has almost given up trying to get a pardon for it – he is about to start taking classes to learn a trade and is resigned to trying to build a life in war-torn Mexico.  His mistake?  He tried to go about the immigration process honestly.  If he had been smarter, some whisper, he would have just kept his wife hidden in the figurative closet.  Many others aren’t as ethical – especially if they are facing a decade or more of life in a war torn land risking kidnapping due to having “rich” family or a past life in the United States.

For these reasons, many good governance types want to see the ban reformed.    Now, obviously there needs to be a punishment for illegal presence, but the 3/10 year ban is not a well-functioning answer to this need.  Ryan Frazier knows this, which is why he advocated for reforming the ban.  Hardly something that he should be attacked for in a press release.

Not only does Ryan Frazier know this, but Mark Krikorian seems to as well.  Mark is the research director for CIS – or as some would say, the academic arm of FAIR and NumbersUSA.  When Ross Kaminsky and I interviewed Mark Krikorian in April, I asked Mark about his position on the ban.  His response was that he was not a “big fan of” 3/10 year ban, that reducing the ban to a 6 month/1 year penalty was a reasonable starting point which he would be likely to support, and that this reduction in penalty would not constitute amnesty (click the highlighted link and listen to the audio from the 33 minute mark until the 35 minute mark).

However, unlike Ryan Frazier, Lang Sias seems to show a complete lack of awareness on any of these policy arguments.  Instead of defending the ban as a policy (a difficult proposition, to say the least), he just takes pot shots at Ryan for having a “weak position on immigration.” (He also claimed that Ryan has backed away from advocating for the ban’s reformation, a position that his campaign denied when I spoke with them today on the phone).

Pot shots and demagoguing the issue of immigration is the last thing this country needs.  We need to have a substantive discussion, not just about how to enforce the law, but also about what areas of the law are good policy and which ones are well intentioned but poorly designed.  Lang Sias does not seem ready to participate, let alone lead, this discussion.   And if Lang Sias seems ready to demagogue the controversial issue of immigration, which many are paying close attention to, how can we trust him to thoughtfully defend free market policy in other areas which the spotlight won’t be on?  For these reasons, I look forward to any statement from Lang Sias on how it is in the Nation’s interest to maintain the 3/10 year bar.  Baring such a statement or explanation, it will be clear that Lang Sias just isn’t paying attention to the intricacies of one of the most important issues currently facing the electorate; that he is more ready to demagogue than to govern.  And in this age of Obama, do we really need yet another demagogue?

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:be
July 20, 2010

Contact: Sean Walsh
303-903-1749

Sias Campaign Manager Sean Walsh issued the following statement today on Aurora City Councilman Ryan Frazier’s Nogales Photo Op:

“Less than a week after Ryan Frazier took two diametrically opposed positions on the issue of illegal immigration during televised debates, he and his campaign are clearly in full damage control mode.

“This contrived and inappropriate photo op will do nothing to secure our borders or add new solutions to a serious national security problem. Councilman Frazier is exploiting a serious situation with a silly campaign gimmick for political gain. Voters in Colorado are sophisticated enough to see through this transparent attempt to burnish a consistently weak position on illegal immigration.

“Certainly, our brave law enforcement officers on the border have more important things to do than to help a career politician rehabilitate himself on an issue of great importance. Councilman Frazier can’t seem to make up his mind from one day to the next – or from one debate set to the next.

“Colorado voters deserve better than a career politician who is more interested in photo ops than results. It is time for a serious candidate who will work to secure our border and oppose amnesty, consistently and without equivocation.”

BACKGROUND: Over the course of this campaign on three separate recent occasions, Councilman Frazier clearly staked a consistent position favoring removing certain penalties on illegal immigrations:
“If you get rid of the three and ten-year bar you now provide a scenario where those who are here unlawfully know that if they have a willing employer, if they have a provisional work visa, they can come back and work in the country lawfully.” Aurora City Councilman Ryan Frazier – Debate with opponent Lang Sias 7/15/10

Among the ideas he touted were scrapping the 3-year and 10-year rules for re-entry to create an incentive for voluntary self-deportation, and establishing a non-immigrant visa for service workers. Ben DeGrow, “Frazier’s Principles,” The Next Right Blog, 5/14/09

“The reality is that what we need is a practical reform that allows those folks who are currently an opportunity to work here while allowing them first to return home and come back legally. I think that we have to look at reform that would allow us to respect the laws of this country while still understanding and embracing the fact that these folks, most of these folks, are here to do the right thing. They’re here to work.” Aurora City Councilman Ryan Frazier – “Top Line’: Colorado Senate Candidate — New Face for GOP?” ABC’s Top Line, 5/13/09

“I have never, never advocated lifting the penalties on illegal immigration,” Aurora City Councilman Ryan Frazier – Debate with Lang Sias 7/15/10-this post isn’t legal advice or a legal opinion.

(Provisio – This post isn’t legal advice or a legal opinion, so don’t rely on it.  If you need an attorney, find somebody other than me, because I’m not helping you).

UPDATE – The original post had Lang Sias referring to Ryan Frazier’s efforts to reform the 3/10 year bar as “silly campaign gimmick.”  Actually, that portion of the press release was referring to Ryan’s trip to the border.  Just a mistake that I caught myself while rereading things, which does not impact the overall argument.

Share
Category: Colorado, Elections, Politics
Tags: > > >

Comments

  1.   Peoples Press Collective | Colorado Politics | Lang Sias Says The Three/Ten Year Bar Isn’t Tough Enough :
      August 1st, 2010 @ 6:06 pm

    [...]  For background on why this is incorrect and the 3/10 year bar needs drastic reformation, click here.  Unfortunately, audio won’t be available for several days, but Colorado now has a clear [...]

Praise for PPC From Our Lefty "Fan"

  • "Zany-ass bombast-entertainment...Hackneyed weirdo communist pseudo-nostalgia" --Alan Franklin, ProgressNow

Featured Posts




  • When a young girl gets close to the truth about a long-forgotten mystery, a harmless adventure becomes a threat to the future of the independent commercial settlements on Mars.

  • Advertise Here!

    info-at-peoplespresscollective-dot-org

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Meta




  • Buy a Tea Party Poster!