Considering what the New York Times is, a pitiful excuse for a newspaper, but in
reality a mouthpiece for the liberal wing of the Democrat party, any comments
favorable to AG Shurtleff simply confirm the disdain he as earned for his
outrageous pro-amnesty position.I used to be a big Shurtleff
supporter, but he has totally alienated himself now. Glad to see him go.
Ag Shurtleff has become a law unto himself and refuses to follow or adhere to
the beliefs of those who elected him. Instead he has a personal agenda that has
taken precedence.I think he needs more time to review his personal
agenda, where the taxpayers aren't subsidizing his time or lack of effort.
What a sad commentary when a "supposedly" Conservative Utah Republican
is highlighted for his political positions by the NYT. And what is even sadder
is that he thinks his position on Illegal Immigration is what the majority of
Utah Republicans believe. The granting of amnesty to Illegals, which is all the
greed driven Utah Compact really pushes for, is not what the adherence to
established law is about. And the philosophy of keeping Families together
is something these illegals should have considered before they came to the this
country. Convicted criminals, who are sent to a U.S. jail or prison, are
separated from their families and Shurleff isn't trying to curtail that
activity. Why is he only worried about Illegals from other countries?
It's to bad we can't get honesty over immigration. Shurtleff and the
Times are "open border" supporters. Their goal is an open border that
will allow workers to come and go as they please. This will end the sovereignty
of the United States. This is one of the most dangerous groups ever to see the
light of day in America. The compact did not make the way for the
laws passed. It's opposed to the three laws for usurping Federal power. The
compact wanted the Feds to handle it, the three laws turn immigration over to
the state. That assumption is really off base.
I believe the symbol of a US citizen should be "personal betterment". I
welcome anyone willing to work hard for that, and think those with an
entitlement mentality should move back to Europe.
You can talk about an "entitlement complex", but the fact is that
illegal immigrants don't belong here. It's in the title, right?
It's not about a narrow-minded attitude, it's about the fact that the
world works based on borders. Resources are allocated based on number of
citizens vested in the system. People coming into that system and taking out
without putting in leads to ruin. It's a fact. You can't get around it
with flowery words and liberal ideals. SLars said it wonderfully when he
mentioned our loss of sovereignty. Stop for a moment and take that in. What
happens when our nation loses it's sovereignty? What happens when those who
are supposed to be in charge (We the People) lose sovereignty? And what happens
when we look back at how that loss occurred and we find that it's because
Liberal Progressives didn't want to hurt the feelings of scofflaws from
south of the border? It's too late for a foot in the mouth at that point.
We have avenues for legal immigration. If those are ignored than laws are broken
and require punishment.
New immigrants, legal or illegal, spend almost all of the money they earn. In a
sense, they become economically transparent, passing every dollar along to
someone else in the economy, thus creating jobs for those who sell them food,
housing, education, et cetera. This is scientific fact (I actually study
economics, unlike many who make false economics their hobby).So
anti-immigration stances therefore cannot be rooted in a desire to protect
American jobs. Republicans need to either acknowledge that their nativism is
racist or they need to abandon such an untenable position.Thank you,
Mark Shurtleff, for being brave and responsible. And thank you, Deseret News,
for trying against all odds to get your readership to think of others beyond
I understand the argument of "Rule of Law." I agree, the law should be
followed. There are many illegal immigrants that have come to the United States
with the sole purpose of undermining our laws by spreading the drug trade and by
bringing crime and corruption. However, what about the people who have left
their homeland with the sole purpose of providing for their families. Those that
are hardworking, loving parents to their children. Do we ship them off with all
of the rest? Do we tell them that they are evil people for desiring nothing more
than to provide a better life for their children? Think about it. Do we really
want to take a hardline stance against families of immigrants? Many people in
this country illegally have been here for their whole lives. They have never
been on welfare, they have never taken one dime from the government. They have
paid taxes including social security taxes that they will never be able to
benefit from. They came for one purpose, to feed their families. Can justice
really overrule mercy in this situation? Should it?
My last comment was denied because the media wants or supports illegal
1 commenter for Shurtleff, the NY Times and amnesty. 6 against. Pretty
parallels the vote in snap polls by Channel 2 and 4 and most other polls. About
84% Utahns are against amnesty and favor enforcement of our Immigration Laws.
Glad to see Shurtleff go and hope the next AG will enforce the laws he swore to
I have never been impressed with Shurtleff.This must be yet another
of the reasons why.
I wonder if the NYT mentioned at all that Shurtleff is so out of step with
Utahs' voters that he has zero chance of EVER being elected to anything
again in Utah.Apparentally, the NYT appreciates those elected to
"uphold and sustain" the law - IGNORING that part of their oath of
office. NYT dovetails nicely with Obama's NO ENFORCEMENT position as
regards illegal immigrant trespassers."rblack" You do
realize I HOPE that our prisons are full of all kinds of "well-meaning, hard
working fraudsters, bogus check writers", etc. Why do illegal immigrant
trespassers deserve preferential treatment above those currently residing in
prison for DEFRAUDING the American public?
Dear rblack: Whether illegals are good or bad is not the issue. The fact is
they are ILLEGAL. No matter how much sympathy I may have for them personally,
they are still ILLEGAL. I believe in compassion, but these people need to come
here legally and through the front door. We have the right to decide who comes
here. They're just going to have to obey the law. I think we all have
mixed feelings about this, but we need to get control of our borders, then we
can make decisions about who should be here and who shouldn't.
The question I have is why? Why does Shurtleff want to hurt Utah's citizens
more? If this recession has not done enough to the citizens, why does Shurtleff
feel the need to rub more pain in? Jobs are already being held by illegal
immigrants that citizens will do and he wants to bring in 85,000 more?
RBlack"Mercy cannot rob justice and remain righteous."
"milhouse" So what are those folks doing that are standing in line at
the Western Union counter at WalMart if "all the money" (as you claim)
stays in the U.S.Hint: NONE of them speak a word of English and I
NEVER hear them ask to wire money to Finland!You've got a VERY
BAD economics teacher. You might want to ask for a refund on your tuition!
Dear Cats, I aboslutely agree. We need to get control of our borders. I agree
there is a big problem with illegal immigration. However, what do you do with
those who are here? Fitness Freak, I strongly disagree with your statement. Our
prisons are not full of hard working, well meaning people. Our prisons are full
of criminals. I acknowledged and allowed for the fact that some people came here
to trample on and take advantage of our country. I have compassion for them,
however, I do not believe that that they should be allowed to stay here. My
comment was focused on the Millions (yes millions) of illegal immigrants we have
here that have only broken the law by crossing the border illegally. They have
worked using their own Social Security numbers, which an illegal alien can get
(although it technically does not authorize them to work in the country) or they
have started their own business (some of which employ many citizens of this
country). They pay taxes. They serve their communities (some of them as Bishops
in the LDS Church). They are good people.
Slars, so, it's your position that unless all of the demands for justice
are met that you can have no mercy. Justice is therefore the overriding
principle here. We must execute all people that cause someone else's death
(even by accident) because it wouldn't be just to allow that person to live
while parents morn for their child. On the other hand, I believe that Mercy is
what is required of us. I say, walk a mile in their shoes and see whether mercy
is appropriate. Spend some time at a dairy farm in Idaho. Watch the workers,
then go to Jerome and attend church services with the individuals and their
families that have come here. Tell me that they are evil people and that the arm
of Justice must crush their family. These are good people. We could learn from
them. The challenge is separating the evil that has resulted from illegal
immigration from the good. We will never be able to do that until both sides can
see the other side's position.
rblack, mercy is a two way street. Walk in the shoes of citizens that have
depressed wages and higher taxes because of the law breaking. Mercy for those
losing their jobs because of the dishonesty of business and individuals. Mercy
for the honest immigrant who just came here legally and cannot find work because
of the people willing to work outside the law. Mercy for those with stolen
identities. The challenge is accepting that laws have been broken
and the penalty must be paid, even from those who attend church. Evil?
that's not for me to decide, but they did break the law and must do things
correctly and make things right. Mercy is letting them return home and come back
under the law after waiting their turn. Ignoring laws is not mercy, and laws
don't break up families, bad decisions do.New York or Idaho?