Quantcast
Utah

Utah immigration proposal catching on in Indiana, other states

Comments

Return To Article
  • JBrady Murray, Ut
    Feb. 12, 2011 1:16 a.m.

    Pro-illegal-open border groups are using each others propaganda material? Amazing.

    It's handled in civil courts, because that's who handles deportations. It does not take away the fact that it's a crime. Nor does it dismiss the fact that the people doing it are committing multiple felonies by working, using stolen id's lying on forms etc.

    Do you really think Americans are that stupid?

  • LuVePacifica WestValleyCity, Utah
    Feb. 12, 2011 2:05 a.m.

    lets get this problem solved now.
    were in a nation of everyones voices of color

  • Mary E Petty Sandy, UT
    Feb. 12, 2011 3:15 a.m.

    This is great news. My only hope is that Utah may be more of a leader than in words-only, and pass good law in 2011, reflecting the wisdom, the compassion, and the humanitarianism of the Utah Compact that is so needed to make right, the bad that besets us now.

  • My2Cents Kearns, UT
    Feb. 12, 2011 4:44 a.m.

    The Utah Coalition should all be arrested as terrorist. The citizens of Utah see this coalition for what it is and we do not support it at all. This coalition is nothing more than an organized group of businesses who are criminally employing illegal aliens and illegal foreign nationals. We are not talking about immigrant who have papers and documents, this coalition has formed itself to promote criminal occupation by illegal foreign nationals.

    Our legislators who are business owners with conflicts of interest to legal immigration are using this coalition as a means to bury their heads to hide from the truth. These coalitions are nothing more than organized Antillean employers who are exploiting and keeping the unemployed americans out of jobs. With unemployment at 17%, the real number, we can no longer tolerate the impunity that business is violating all federal labor laws.

  • CJ Murray, UT
    Feb. 12, 2011 5:52 a.m.

    Stupidity is like a virus,, it spreads. Now we are going to have a CON PACT in other states? This is nothing but open border amnesty hacks doing their usual self serving re-definition of "compassion" to benefit those they want to exploit to the detriment of American citizens who have a right to be here. Maybe they can get Robles and Yapass to come and help them set up a "work permit" to allow illegals in their states to break the law until they can change the law to their liking.

  • Timj South Jordan, UT
    Feb. 12, 2011 6:09 a.m.

    If you're LDS, you may be interested in knowing that Elder Oaks signed the Utah Compact, and the LDS church supports the Compact.

    It's a reasonable response to xenophobic hysteria. Immigration is way down due to the recession. Don't make immigrants your scapegoat.

  • John C. C. Payson, UT
    Feb. 12, 2011 6:58 a.m.

    The two sides on this issue seem so hung up on what to do about the "rule of law" when they both need to back up and look at that law. Why did we start making people illegal? It wasn't because of population control. It was the unfounded fear of job loss by those who don't understand basic economics and the natural fear of "different" people by all of us.

    Let's undo our mistake by broadening the irrational and cruelly strict immigration quotas. Otherwise we are stuck trying to select the better of two virtues, enforcement and compassion. Choose both. Streamline the visa process.

  • fanUVU Orem, UT
    Feb. 12, 2011 7:05 a.m.

    Illegal aliens are just that: Illegal. However, having seen firsthand the unintended consequences of the AZ law, I support the compact as a first step to a comrehensive solution, whatever that may be.

  • John C. C. Payson, UT
    Feb. 12, 2011 7:15 a.m.

    If idealism isn't enough to justify fixing the visa bottleneck, try practicality. Having endured a great recession and facing a baby boom retirement crisis in medicare and social security, lets balance our economy by inviting the guest workers we want instead of forcing them to self select through illegal entry.

    This policy kills eight birds with one stone:

    1. Less pressure for illegal entry means that the Border Patrol can focus more on guns, drugs, and general security.

    2. More workers to fuel our recovery.

    3. More contributors to Social Security and Medicare.

    4. More workers we didn't have to pay to raise and educate as children.

    5. Less incentive for identity fraud.

    6. Less family separation as temporary workers may cross freely, including those that choose to retire back home.

    7. More stability in Mexico as our growing tide of prosperity also lifts their economy and reduces the enticement for desperate workers to resort to the drug trade.

    8. Fewer victims for the drug cartels and smugglers to feed on.

    If idealism doesn't inspire you, try selfish practicality.

  • Utah Joe murray, utah
    Feb. 12, 2011 7:37 a.m.

    Legislation should reflect the values of the community. I'm grateful that the Utah Compact has reminded us of these values. Now it's up to our legislators to do the right thing.

  • kemitc Nashville, TN
    Feb. 12, 2011 8:14 a.m.

    Timj I am LDS and just because Elder Oaks signed it doesn't make it the right thing to do. Don't follow like a blind sheep just because the Church want's it. It's not right for this Country or UT not to mention it's unfair to the immigrants who followed the law and did the right thing.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Feb. 12, 2011 8:54 a.m.

    Re: "Utah proposal catching on. . ."

    Not in border states, it's not. New Mexico's new governor just enacted Arizona's approach by executive order.

    Illegal immigration is recognized along the border as an emergency, national security issue, requiring meaningful emergency action.

    Utah has elected the head-in-sand approach.

    Iillegal immigration already has, and will continue to degrade personal and public security in our state, until we recognize and deal with the threat.

    Neither endless hand wringing over the consequences to families of their own illegal acts, nor symbolic signings of meaningless compacts, actually addresses the issue.

    Utah's politicians should begin complying with their oaths of office and adopt both Arizona and the New Mexico [legislative and executive] solutions.

  • DN Subscriber Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 12, 2011 9:01 a.m.

    The "Compact" is a bad solution to a big problem.

    It attempts to provide incentives for illegals to come and remain here, at the time when we should be doing the opposite to help secure the border.

    The only solution to the immigration problem is for people who want to come to the U.S. to follow our laws. Do that and they are welcome. Anything else is unacceptable, and anyone (U.S. citizen or otherwise) who undermines our immigration process should be prosecuted.

  • lawenforcementfromAZ Glendale, AZ
    Feb. 12, 2011 9:05 a.m.

    With over 30 years of law enforcement experinece, it seem reasonable to me that when you either disregard existing laws or weaken them, there are consequences. The consequences will be continued illegal immigration, jobs that should be for lawful US citizens are given to those here illegally, and the criminal illegal aliens element will continue to be significantly higher than lawful US Citizens.

    And for those that don't pay attention to what it costs for illegal immigrants, in LA County taxpayers pony over a billion dollars a year, and state taxpayers "contribute" over 6 billion dollars. And we wonder why California is 26 billion dollars in the hole?

  • Proud to be American West Jordan, UT
    Feb. 12, 2011 9:28 a.m.

    I am 100% in favor of Senator Sandstrom's illegal immigration bill. I am also in favor of the basic concepts of the Utah Compact.

    The two are totally different. The Utah Compact is about immigration and treating people with respect that are trying to do things the right way.

    Illegal immigration is a totally different story, I want illegals out of Utah yesterday!

    I like the "family" value ploy in the Utah Compact. Guess what? I totally agree that families should not be separated. If you are here illegally as a family, then the whole family should be deported.

  • AZ Resident mesa, az
    Feb. 12, 2011 9:31 a.m.

    Way to go Utah and those following their lead. Now AZ and NM can give the illegals a going away party as they will now flood into your state. This will give our state a chance to recover from the devastation caused to our welfare system, not to mention the crime we have endured.

  • Mayfair City, Ut
    Feb. 12, 2011 9:56 a.m.

    Timj mentions:

    "If you're LDS, you may be interested in knowing that Elder Oaks signed the Utah Compact, and the LDS church supports the Compact."

    And he also mentions "xenophobic hysteria".

    I know many active LDS who let the Revelation on the blacks and the Priesthood become their "line in the sand"--the issue which they decided to separate themselves from the LDS Church because they DID NOT AGREE with it.

    Same goes for many LDS who think the Church is off base and out of line for speaking out against Gay marriage.

    MY QUESTION: Are there active members of the LDS Church today who are going to let the legal/illegal divide be their "line in the sand"?

    Will they hold to their "xenophobic hysteria",(clamoring for "follow the law", "deport all illegals", "no exceptions, no excuses, no more tax money wasted on illegals"), and in so doing, go against their Church--who supports a more patient, compassionate view such as the Utah Compact?

    I am just really curious--if it came to push or shove, which would you choose?

    Your strongly held views and opinions, or the Church's?

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Feb. 12, 2011 10:07 a.m.

    Re: "I am just really curious--if it came to push or shove, which would you choose?"

    No need to choose. The approaches are not incompatible. One says respect the law. The other urges respect for the humanity of lawbreakers.

    Why would compliance with both require hard choices?

  • tenx Santa Clara, UT
    Feb. 12, 2011 10:21 a.m.

    I'm LDS and disagree with Oaks and 100% agree with Sandstrom.

  • Kathy. Provo, Ut
    Feb. 12, 2011 10:24 a.m.

    procuradorfiscal I agree with your post. Give them a blanket, pillow, snack and water on their way home. Then give the fast food job to a high school or college student.

    Remove all incentives for social security theft, identity theft and drug smuggling.

  • Watch Dog Provo, UT
    Feb. 12, 2011 10:28 a.m.

    No need to choose. The gospel suggests that obeying and following the law is the thing to do. It also suggests that we cannot have mercy, justice without accountability.

    We are blessed to live in a country where we have the ability to change the law. Either we need to change it, or obey it. There is no other way. Ignoring the violations of law is NOT one of those ways.

  • CJ Murray, UT
    Feb. 12, 2011 11:44 a.m.

    Regardless of who did or didn't sign the compact one fact is very plain and simple. You can either say you believe in obeying and sustaining the law or you don't. You can't say "obey all the laws except those that apply to immigration". If you say that then you must make an exception for the guy who believes that tax laws are unconstitutional and refuses to pay taxes.
    It makes no sense that a guy who isn't current on his child support is denied a temple recommend but an illegal immigrant who breaks into the country and steals an ID from a child, steals a job from an American ,and then loots the state and national treasuries can get one without even being asked his legal status. You can try to make that shoe fit in name of "compassion" but it doesn't work. Where is the compassion for the children of prisoners at point of the mountain who likewise didn't do anything? This whole issue is a simple matter of enforcing the law equally.

  • JBrady Murray, Ut
    Feb. 12, 2011 12:08 p.m.

    Elder Oaks signed as an individual, not for the LDS church, they instead released their own policy statement. Like the Catholic church, they asked people to come legally and to follow the laws.

    If more workers refueled a recovery, our 100,000 Utahns out of work would give us a huge growth spurt.

    So many excuses not to follow the law. The compact is a call for us to open our borders and destroy our constitution. The illegal immigration-amnesty chain has been around for 25 years. If we don't get a handle on it, we are going to lose the country.

    No society can exist unless the laws are respected.

  • Ajax Mapleton, UT
    Feb. 12, 2011 12:13 p.m.

    Allowing the Sandstrom crowd to prevail in Utah is the moral equivalent of siding with the rise of the islamic brotherhood and sharia law in the Middle East. Such thinking is a threat to all of us who appreciate the freedoms and opportunities of modern society.

  • Ajax Mapleton, UT
    Feb. 12, 2011 12:30 p.m.

    There was a time in Idaho when it was illegal for Mormons to vote, hold government office or even serve on a jury. Other discriminatory laws against Mormons remained part of the Idaho constitution until all were rescinded in 1982.

    Lucky for we Mormons in Idaho at the time there was no stiff opposition stuck on the absolutism of past legalities: no taunting like "What is it you don't understand about the law?"

  • brw1 Salt Lake City, Utah
    Feb. 12, 2011 1:03 p.m.

    @ajax: Yeah, because being religiously bigoted is exactly the same as enforcing an immigration law.

  • Mary E Petty Sandy, UT
    Feb. 12, 2011 1:09 p.m.

    Big Question: Who side would you be on if you had lived during the American Revolution? Beginning with the Boston Tea Party in 1773, would you have supported bad law and been a Tory/Loyalist, loyal to the British Crown during the ensuing War for Freedom in the American Colonies, or would you have broken bad law as a Sons of Liberty and actively fought as a Patriot to establish law that reflected Deity's Laws?

    And so it is with immigration and its bad law. Whose side are you on?

  • Tom Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 12, 2011 1:17 p.m.

    No one is for illegal immigration. What people who support the Utah compact are saying is that just as our tax laws are broken, our immigration laws are broken also. Both need to be fixed so that they work better and fairer. One example of the broken nature of our immigration law is that there are around 3 million U.S. Citizens who are married to undocumented people. There is no path way for those people to change their status. The only option is for the undocumented individual to return to their home country and be barred from reentering the U.S for ten years. This is an example of the COMPACT talking about necessarily breaking up families. The law could easily be changed to remove the ten year bar and allow the spouse to return to their country and work on changing their status. I know that some will say their is no Mercie for law breakers but many, if not most of these spouses where brought her as children.

  • Most Truthful and Patriotic Layton, UT
    Feb. 12, 2011 1:48 p.m.

    My2Cents: you do NOT speak for the citizens of Utah.

    We need to quit declaring people "illegal". Not ONE of your kind, My2Cents, would bother checking the immigration status of a non-white person.

  • nyca411 Menlo Park, CA
    Feb. 12, 2011 3:22 p.m.

    I disagree with the statement in this article that "immigration policy is a federal matter, not a state issue."

    Immigration policy is ALSO a "state issue" because each state uses state taxes to cover the costs of providing education, health care, and other community resources to illegals. States are not reimbursed by the federal government for these costs!

    Which is why states with the highest illegal immigration levels are b*r*o*k*e!!

    States have every right to, and must, play a key role in immigration policy, and step in where the Feds fail to do their job.

  • California Bob Valley Springs, CA
    Feb. 12, 2011 4:11 p.m.

    I don't know how Utah treats an undocumented worker in its state. It is a felony to remain in the US without documentation to lawfully be in this country. I don't know what to make of the Utah Compact other than it appears to be a 'feel good' resolution. But if the intent to to encourage Utah residents to ignore people who are in the state without documentation, its framers should amend it. The resolution should state that all those residing in Utah should obey the law or challenge it in court or in the legislature.
    The City of San Francisco says it will NOT turn over those in the city illegally to federal immigration officials. San Francisco is a sanctuary city. My concern is that Utah will become a sanctuary state if officials sworn to uphold the law are encouraged to, like San Francisco, look the other way when they knowingly confront illegal immigrants.

  • Texan Bedford, TX
    Feb. 12, 2011 4:50 p.m.

    I am LDS & I do NOT support the pact or anything like it but then I live in a border state with 2 million illegals and the multitude of problems that we have to deal with because of them being here. Because enforcing tough immigration laws can break up families I am supposed to give them a pass? I don't think so. Those who exercised their free agency to break the law put their families at risk not me or my state. If I have to be law abiding they should be as well. You can't ask people to be obedient to the law and at the same time state let some of them stay because their families will be split up just because they chose to commit breaking and entering by coming to this country illegally. I notice the states mentioned looking at the pact are not border states; convenient since they havent got as large a problem as those along the border.

  • runwasatch Ogden, UT
    Feb. 12, 2011 4:50 p.m.

    I have yet to find a single source, other than members of this comment board, of Elder Oaks signing the compact. The Church has supported it, but there is no record of Elder Oaks signing the compact...surely a newsworthy occurance IF it acutally happened...

  • TRUTH Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 12, 2011 6:09 p.m.

    The Church has taken no such stand on Illegal Immigration.....if it were so, we would have heard it from the pulpit!

    Until then I suggest those who seem to think otherwise refrain from such lies as the Church supports the Compact and doesn't support honoring and sustaining the law.....including SB70!

  • Legal? Saint George, UT
    Feb. 12, 2011 8:16 p.m.

    How do we tell some of our needy citizens that their social programs are facing extinction because the money has been spent on illegals.

    If families don't want to be split up, then all of you go back to Mexico or wherever. Come legally or don't come. I couldn't go to other countries and get away with what you do here.

    Utah legislators...listen to the voice of reason. Stop inviting illegals here. We can't afford them, don't want their gangs, don't want our schools crowded by their rough kids, don't want their poor drivers. They need to fix their own country and stop ruining ours.

    IMMIGRATE LEGALLY!

  • Pop's in AZ Chandler, AZ
    Feb. 12, 2011 8:57 p.m.

    "The Utah Compact demonstrated to the nation that there is an alternative to Arizona-style, enforcement-only punitive legislation," said Paul Mero, president of the Sutherland Institute, a conservative Utah-based think tank." Stop bad-mouthing your Mormon neighbor: we have more crud to put up with here than you can imagine.

  • JBrady Murray, Ut
    Feb. 12, 2011 11:57 p.m.

    Our immigration laws are not bad, but those breaking them are.

    All countries have immigration laws, and the US has some of the most liberal. Over 1 million per year come here legally, more than the anywhere else in the world since 2006.

    It's not about bad laws or any other excuses, it's about forcing people to obey the law. Lack of enforcement breeds bad behavior.