Quantcast
Utah

What's next for immigration reform?

Comments

Return To Article
  • prelax Murray, UT
    July 5, 2014 4:47 p.m.

    Two out of three people in recent polls want less legal immigration, and enforcement of our immigration laws.

    The politicians need to listen to the people and not special interest groups and business lobbyists.

  • Third try screen name Mapleton, UT
    July 5, 2014 5:56 p.m.

    Well, Obama needs to be stopped. Look at the mess he created at the border with his deferred action program.
    The House needs to step in with emergency legislation to make sure those children are sent home.
    And Obama's threats to do amnesty by fiat need to be stopped as well.
    I would like to see the House present an enforcement bill similar to the one they did in 2005 - HB4437.
    Amnesty must be avoided at all costs; it only encourages people to come here illegally.
    And, as LBJ put it in 1965, "The days of unlimited immigration are past." (I guess Obama didn't get the memo.)

  • DN Subscriber Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 5, 2014 9:47 p.m.

    Piling more excuses, extensions, waivers and exemptions to enforcement of our immigration laws solves nothing. It creates de facto amnesty for anyone who wants to come here illegally, and encourages hundreds of thousands more to break the law and not bother with the legal immigration process.

    There are two things that need to be changed immediately.
    1- Enforce our current laws to the full extent Congress intended.
    2- Repeal all provisions for deferred action, "anchor babies" and any other impediments to returning illegal border crossers to their homeland immediately.

    Either we have and use our generous legal immigration process for people who want to come here or we surrender the concept of the rule of law not just on immigration but every single law on the books, federal, state and local.

    Deliberate failure to enforce laws is just as bad as breaking them, be it a local cop, a Border Patrol agent, the Attorney General, HHS or DHS Secretary, or the President of the United States.

    Legal immigration or anarchy. Which will we tolerate? And for what reasons?

  • Utah_1 Salt Lake City, UT
    July 6, 2014 12:34 a.m.

    "comprehensive immigration reform"
    That is the problem. pass several bills that solve many of the major problems. That would pass, or at least most of them. Trying to pass everyone's ideal, isn't ever going to happen.
    Take it a piece at a time.

  • mohokat Ogden, UT
    July 6, 2014 5:57 a.m.

    @DN. What a novel idea and I concur completely. Enforcement in its entirety might just work. Obvious it hasn't end tried.

  • JimInSLC Salt Lake City, UT
    July 6, 2014 6:19 a.m.

    The solution is simple. Quit whining and trying to make new immigration laws to solve a problem that would not exist if we just uphold the immigration laws currently written.

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    July 6, 2014 6:37 a.m.

    The last thing we need is some kind of "comprehensive reform" that is aimed at granting amnesty to millions of people who broke our laws in exchange for some vague promises of border enforcement that Obama has no intention of keeping.

    Obama blames Congress (only the House, he doesn't seem to mind the Harry Reid controlled Senate that blocks everything the House proposes) for not falling for his latest "bait and switch" immigration proposals. Congress has done plenty to try and fix this problem. In his mind they have "done nothing" because they won't rubber stamp everything he wants.

    We can't trust this president to do his job and enforce our laws. Period. Why would we give him any more power to invite even more illegals into this country? Sure, they will probably vote Democrat, but this invasion of cheap labor is ruining it for the middle class. I guess it is party first, country second with Obama.

  • Kings Court Alpine, UT
    July 6, 2014 6:42 a.m.

    Nothing. We haven't had immigration reform for the past 30 years. Why would it be any different now, especially with the laziest Congress in U.S. History?

  • Eliyahu Pleasant Grove, UT
    July 6, 2014 6:58 a.m.

    @DN subscriber:

    Getting rid of "anchor babies" would require a constitutional amendment. The same founding fathers who decided that we all have the right to bear arms also decided that anyone born in the US is automatically a citizen. It's not how it's done in most other countries, but unless and until we change the Constitution, it's the law.

    And the biggest impediment to "returning illegal border crossers to their homeland immediately" is the logistics of removing eleven million people from the US, as well as the social and economic impact of doing so. Imagine the impact of four or five million vacant homes and apartments, millions of low-paying jobs unfilled, millions of fewer people buying from stores, and millions of empty seats in schools that are funded based upon enrollment.

    As always, complex problems will usually have a lot of simple and easy-to-understand wrong answers.

  • What in Tucket? Provo, UT
    July 6, 2014 8:13 a.m.

    I thought the House presented an immigration bill to the Senate and Harry refused to even discuss it. I like the "Dream" act and hope somehthing like it will come forth. We can't put this off forever.

  • conservative and proud Orem, UT
    July 6, 2014 8:14 a.m.

    It is simply interesting that we are told to obey the law of the land, except in this instance.

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    July 6, 2014 10:56 a.m.

    Eliyahu: "...And the biggest impediment to "returning illegal border crossers to their homeland immediately" is the logistics..."

    Amazing that somehow we find the government resources (taxpayer money) to feed and house illegals and give them transportation (plane, bus, train tickets) to various cities throughout the U.S., yet sending them home (in some cases actually a shorter distance) is somehow...too expensive.

    Give me a break. Yet another lame excuse for not faithfully executing the laws of this land.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    July 6, 2014 12:43 p.m.

    May our liberal Obama voters get what they voted for.

    Don't complain folks! It was your votes!

  • LOU Montana Pueblo, CO
    July 6, 2014 12:56 p.m.

    There are plenty of jobs for Mexicans in their own country. They simple come here for their own personal wealth.

  • Alfred Phoenix, AZ
    July 6, 2014 1:20 p.m.

    What in Tucket?
    "I like the 'Dream' act and hope something like it will come forth. We can't put this off forever."

    I like the dream act as well. It's called... if you wanna come here, fill out the necessary immigration papers, get in line, and wait your turn.

    Perhaps the reason Barack Hussein Obama won't enforce our immigration laws is because he had an undocumented aunt who should have been deported but he refused to send her back to her native country.

  • RRB SLC, UT
    July 6, 2014 3:23 p.m.

    @Eliyahu

    The Founding Fathers had nothing to do with "anchor babies". It was the 14th amendment that provided a way for children of slaves to have citizenship after the civil war. We no longer need it.

  • New to Utah PAYSON, UT
    July 6, 2014 4:03 p.m.

    Obama has not been willing to negotiate with the House. Harry Reid has played hardball, partisan politics. Obama's ultra liberal and extreme partisan immigration legislation guide John Podesta is encouraging Obama to score points by picking a fight with Congress. John Podesta is perhaps the worst possible person to bring bi-partisan solutions to the table. Obama, Reid and the host of liberals are not trustworthy in my humble opinion so working to solve the immigration problem is sacrificed for political poinst mostly for the President.

  • andrea59 Las Vegas, NV
    July 7, 2014 12:37 a.m.

    The chaos at the border was not by President Obama.
    It was created by the Congress doing nothing.
    It was created by wrong information from money-hungry people.
    Many Americans break laws. You do not pay taxes, denounce people who are in their way,
    and much more.
    America needs to stand up and act.
    Do not complain and seek excuses.
    The Congress is afraid of a vote.
    Very , very sad.
    I read and hear ONLY WORDS.
    Action the country needs

  • John Randolph RIDGWAY, CO
    July 7, 2014 7:26 a.m.

    Washington's Insidious Immigration Reform Scam - Profitized Abuse Of Human Beings

    By all rights Washington's immigration "reform" that does not address the root cause of illegal immigration should be dead.

    In fact I am glad it is dead. It gives me hope that more Americans are becoming aware of this decades-old abusive scam of not only themselves but the undocumented too.

    This Washington mess is about a continuous supply of labor, crony remittances and billions of US tax dollars glad-handed over as border security boodle.

  • CBAX Provo, UT
    July 7, 2014 8:20 a.m.

    Actually enforcing "Laws"? Are you serious? That's just as ridiculous as making someone have ID when they are going to vote. Like why would someone have to prove they are able to vote? Racist of course!

    Current immigration laws are like gun laws. IF we just make a bunch of tough laws then that means criminals and illegals will start following them.

    Oh wait...

  • A_Chinese_American Cedar Hills, UT
    July 7, 2014 10:42 a.m.

    As a citizen of USA, I am concern that No Law will be respected by the people since those ones continues their lawless actions like current president in the white house. What currently called "comprehensive solution" from us senate is simply a vote-buying action plan from D party. It’s a bribe, not a solution this nation needed.

  • Objectified Richfield, UT
    July 7, 2014 10:56 a.m.

    @ Eliyahu:

    Where in the Constitution is the totally misused and misapplied Anchor-Baby law?
    It was a law created after the Civil War to allow the children of slaves (who themselves weren't legal citizens) to finally start becoming citizens. And it served that purpose. The trouble is, it was written somewhat ambiguously and has become misunderstood and misused to a great extent. Anyone who takes time to actually read the law will understand exactly what I'm saying.

    The law only needs to be clarified back to it's original meaning... not changed. It has allowed millions of children to unlawfully become USA citizens. Thus, the incentive to sneak across the border long enough to give birth continues. It's actually ridiculous how badly it's become misinterpreted, misunderstood and misapplied.

    House Republicans have said for years that once the administration gets the border secure, as legally called out and required the last time amnesty was granted about 30 years ago, then they will actually start discussing some sort of immigration reform. But not until then. Obama is proving he can't be trusted and isn't even capable of securing our border... the very basis of national sovereignty.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    July 7, 2014 10:56 a.m.

    Are we being betrayed by our political leaders?

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    July 7, 2014 11:14 a.m.

    The GOP's ad hoc leader advocates self deportation. Why don't the Republicans in the house just pass another worthless bill and vot to have all the illegals just leave on their own?

  • Brio Alpine, UT
    July 7, 2014 3:10 p.m.

    @ FT:

    You have a habit and history of making unsubstantiated and rebarbative statements about Republicans using this comment platform. In this particular case, who is the current GOP leader advocating self-deportation and when and where did this supposed advocation happen?

    You also referenced a previous "worthless bill" passed by the GOP. Which bill are you referring to? In answer to your question as to why don't they do it... Well, they have don't need to. Democrats seem to already be taking care of that end of things. For verification, please reference the actions and/or lack of actions of Harry Reid throughout this legislative session.

  • TheProudDuck Newport Beach, CA
    July 8, 2014 2:08 p.m.

    Since when is it Congress's job to re-write existing laws, when a solid majority of their constituents don't want them re-writting?

    The one person who has a job and who isn't doing it is the person who is sworn to faithfully execute the laws of the United States, and who doesn't want to, and so isn't.

    We the people have decided to allow this many people to move to our country, and no more. This is little different than the people of a town deciding to allow only so much development, so infrastructure, schools, and social resources aren't overburdened. We expect the laws we chose to be governed by to be enforced, not ignored.

  • rph Arlington, VA
    July 9, 2014 11:19 p.m.

    Can any one of you cite which immigration laws the Obama administration is not enforcing? Reading your comments reveals that you have little, if any, understanding of U.S. immigration laws. Instead, you would rather parrot the talking points of political leaders and pundits that suit your dislike for the current administration. Whether you believe it or not, deportation continues apace. The problems facing this adminstration are the exact same facing the previous several, and so far nobody in Washington has come up with a solution. The "flood" of children on the Southern border is a but a drop in the bucket of the total problem and, by the way, is the result of policies that have been in place long before Obama became president.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Nov. 29, 2014 3:16 p.m.

    @Kalindra:
    "The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, a.k.a Public Law 99-603."

    No, no. Copy/paste the pertinent verbiage.

    "The Constitution gives Congress the power "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,"

    True. And it does not say the Congress can delegate modification of the law. Any law.

    "Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the implementation of that rule cannot be delegated..."

    True. In fact, the Constitution says the president shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed... There is no authorization to change the law. 'Amnesty' is a change.

    "...and the Constitution makes no mention of immigration."

    True... especially in Article II. 'Naturalize' in Article I involves immigration.

    "All illegal immigrants are not similarly situated - some have been here longer, some have legal spouses or children..."

    They're all illegal.

    "Three or more people are not similarly situated to two people, children are not similarly situated to adults, relatives are not similarly situated to legal strangers. These are very basic legal concepts."

    Two people of the same sex are not 'similarly situated' regarding marriage. I could point out the differences but DN moderators would deny.