Quantcast
Opinion

Letter: Immigration considerations

Comments

Return To Article
  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Aug. 13, 2014 5:49 a.m.

    I disagree.

    The problem doesn't stem from lack of leadership. There has been great leadership on display... From big business.

    Illegal immigration has been a problem for years. Yet, big business has successfully lobbied and defeated legislation to help fix this problem. They have even managed to keep themselves out of the blame game. Look at the debate today: build a fence, call in the troops, deport families who have lived here for years, etc.

    Why don't anyone mention new legislation to punish big business? Why do businesses that employ illegally get a free pass? If businesses stopped hiring these laborers then illegal immigration would go away for the most part.

    All of this is due to great leadership. Leadership from those who pay Congress the most. After all, bribery is free speech. A conservative justice said so.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    Aug. 13, 2014 6:53 a.m.

    In a commencement speech at Notre Dame, actor Martin Sheen said,

    "We are hearing a great deal of anti-immigration rhetoric these days, and some of it...disturbing. But what is far worse are the many unchallenged, swaggering, arrogant, immigrant-bashing voices across the land, and those voices need to be reminded that arrogance is ignorance matured.

    "America is the oldest country in the world because it was the first to enter the 20th century, which was made possible in large measure because for the first 200 years of our history, America opened its doors wider and kept them open longer than any other nation on earth. The immigration issue is a vastly complex one that is worthy of an honest, intelligent, and compassionate debate, not blame, angry resentment, or the cowardly irresponsible bluster that so currently dominates so much of the popular media. And I think from time to time, we all need a very gentle reminder of how this great experiment in democracy got started."

    “Give me your tired, your poor,
    Your huddled masses …”

    When we "close our borders" are we, at the same time, closing our minds?.

  • SCfan clearfield, UT
    Aug. 13, 2014 6:57 a.m.

    I'am speaking not as a Mormon, but from a political science point of view on this issue. Of the 6 some billion people living today, I'd guess some 5 billion would come to the U.S. if they could. Imagine what the U.S. would be like if even 1 billion more were to come here in the next 25 years. Take a look at other billion population countries. China, India. Do we really want to take the country there? To keep our standard of living, we need to control immigration in both numbers and who comes here. Importing more people who have English skills and education is much better than having more non English speaking and low education people coming in. May seem harsh to judge people in that fashion, but reality bites.

    As for Obama and the border. The unspoken truth is, Obama is the responsible person for most of those children coming here. And therefore responsible for the tragedy happening to many of them trying to make the journey. All he would need to do is put out a public service statement in those countries to stop sending them here. Why won't he do that?

  • Say No to BO Mapleton, UT
    Aug. 13, 2014 7:05 a.m.

    I agree with the letter writer. Those of us who oppose amnesty are considered heartless for not opening our borders wider, yet we already allow about a million new green card holders a year, mostly because they are related to someone already here. And the rate at which they naturalize is pathetic. Do they really want to become Americans? Or are they just here for the standard of living?
    We struggle to provide good schools and social services for our own, and yet some want us to reward millions of illegals with amnesty. We are surrendering our sovereignty when we legalize millions whose first act was to disregard our laws.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Aug. 13, 2014 7:42 a.m.

    Re: "I disagree."

    No doubt.

    But, it's interesting that you agree with the basic premise -- something must be done to deal with something we all agree is a serious problem.

    You suggest employer sanctions. You won't get much disagreement from real America on that. In fact, there's already a law in place -- eVerify. It's just not being enforced by the Obama regime. So, let's agree, we'll push employer sanctions on politicians. Liberal and conservative. Starting here. Starting now.

    Politicians -- are you listening?

    But, what's wrong with the belt and suspenders approach? Let's also secure our borders. It's not particularly hard. Most nations do it. We could, too. And, in addition to the unsustainable load of illegal immigration, it would protect us from the non-state terror actors, as well.

    It's long, long overdue. And would have been implemented long ago, but for venal, cynical opposition from liberals.

    So, liberals -- we agree with your employer sanctions scheme. How about communicating to your Congressional representatives that you're dropping your opposition to a real border security solution?

  • Curmudgeon Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 13, 2014 8:26 a.m.

    The Mexico border is 1,933 miles long. The Canadian border is 3,987 miles long. Securing the borders is a nice idea, but how realistic is it? What would it cost to close the borders tighter than at present? Are you willing to have your taxes increased enough to cover the cost? I don't see Congress increasing the allocation of resources for border security any time soon. They just complain that the administration isn't doing more with the existing resources. All talk, no action.

  • watchman Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 13, 2014 8:30 a.m.

    Jesse, you are right. There are good reasons for immigrations laws. The problem is that we are not enforcing them. No matter how compassionate we may want to be about the poor living in other countries and wanting to come to America, we must enforce the laws we have set in place.

    To do otherwise is contrary to protecting the value of American citizenship and maintaining the sovereignty of this once great country.

    There is an orderly and lawful way for people to immigrate to this country.

  • SCfan clearfield, UT
    Aug. 13, 2014 8:34 a.m.

    And to follow up, yes, I think that the day an employer is taken to court and either given a heavy fine, or jailed for violating immigration laws by hiring illegals is the day the problem begins to be fixed. I hope that happens with the next President, and I don't care if the employer thrown in jail is the owner of Hobby Lobby, or Chick -Fil-A. We need a harsh example made of some employer who looks the other way and hires illegals. And they have ways of getting around the law by using the temp agencys. I once worked at a manufacturing company where we had the same temp workers who were there for years. And paid less money than citizen employees. A bad system all around that needs to be changed. Both Democrat and Republicans are equally responsible.

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    Aug. 13, 2014 8:54 a.m.

    What's the source of the crazy myth that Obama is "not enforcing" the immigration laws?

    Fact: Obama is running the toughest enforcement system in history. Under Obama deportations have risen to record levels and immigration is now at a net zero, the lowest ever.

    Somebody's pants are on fire (Fox News?.

  • KDave Moab, UT
    Aug. 13, 2014 9:04 a.m.

    Sure, lets throw the employers in jail. We have way to many employers in this country anyway, and there is always food stamps. How about the Govt. just doing its job, then employers would not have to be concerned over who they are hiring.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Aug. 13, 2014 9:29 a.m.

    @SCfan
    clearfield, UT
    I'am speaking not as a Mormon, but from a political science point of view on this issue. Of the 6 some billion people living today, I'd guess some 5 billion would come to the U.S. if they could.

    [I'm speaking not as a Mormon, but from the point of view of someone who has spent over 40 years visiting some of those 6 billion people in other countries...
    MOST of them have no desire to leave their countries anymore than you do yours.

    But I do agree with about those hiring illegal labor,
    The reason they break the laws is for the jobs.

    Eliminate the source of the "problem",
    and address THAT,
    and you have found the cure to it.]

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Aug. 13, 2014 9:52 a.m.

    @Curmudgeon:
    "The Mexico border is 1,933 miles long."

    The Rio Grande River is about 1,900 miles long counting all the loops and oxbows. and the border goes down the center of the river. How you gonna build a fence down the middle of the river?

    The border along the Rio Grande will never be secured. The only way to discourage illegal immigration is to enforce laws prohibiting non-citizens from getting jobs... and that would be to enforce E-Verify.

    Will that ever happen? Not while Barack Hussein Obama or any other Democrat is in the White House. They love immigrants from south of our border. It increases their voter base by millions and increases the chances they will stay in control of our government for many years to come. Never mind the fact that uncontrolled borders will lead to the death of America.

  • Spangs Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 13, 2014 9:56 a.m.

    Some of the comments here have mentioned that business, especially agri-business is entirely dependent upon immigrant labor, and much of this illegal labor.

    My father worked for UDOT for years and watched as Utah road construction companies hired legal and illegal immigrants and made them kick back part of their salary every month. How could they protest?

    The reality is, we can't afford to militarize our borders and immigrants will continue to come. The real way we stop illegal immigration is to stop our complicit employment of these folks. If they can't get a job, they won't come.

    Huge fines for companies that hire illegals is the only rational solution. Try legislating that!

  • SLars Provo, UT
    Aug. 13, 2014 10:08 a.m.

    When people like Martin Sheen talk about immigration of old, are they aware that before 1976 we averaged 500,000 per year? Now we are allowing over one million people? Progressive liberals prey on America's sympathy and try to create a guilt trip to get what they want.

    Amnesty just creates more problems down the road, when people here illegally are sent home, and tell others they were deported, it's the best deterrent we have. Paying $5-10,000 dollars to come here, and being sent back, removes all the financial incentives.

    Obama claims people being turned away from the border as being deported, unlike all the other Presidents who count them separate. If you count just his true deportations he has the worst record since they started tracking them.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Aug. 13, 2014 10:08 a.m.

    Re: "Fact: Obama is running the toughest enforcement system in history."

    Sophistry. Outdated, inaccurate sophistry, at that. First off, there is no history of serious immigration enforcement. Secondly, Obama's deportation numbers reflect feckless immigration policy, not serious enforcement.

    Real fact: Obama ordered his ICE not to deport -- to give amnesty to -- several classes of illegal aliens.

    Real fact: In nearly all recent immigration cases, Obama's policy is to slow-walk prosecutions and give defendants -- 600+ guilty of serious felonies -- useless, unenforceable notices to appear, and an opportunity to disappear forever into the crowd.

    Real fact: The IRCA [1986] authorizes employer sanctions. Some administrations conducted employer audits under the Act, but, due to Congressional opposition, enforcement declined, then disappeared about 1999. Obama has done nothing to re-invigorate employer sanctions.

    Real fact: Under the provisions of Section 287(g) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, the Justice Department previously entered into agreements with state and local agencies to assist immigration-law enforcement. Obama's clone, Holder, revoked several of those agreements, stripping local law enforcement of any ability to staunch the flow of illegals.

  • Kent C. DeForrest Provo, UT
    Aug. 13, 2014 10:28 a.m.

    This is obviously a complex problem, but when the Republican House refuses to even consider it, we can draw several obvious conclusions. It is apparently much better politically to point fingers and spread misinformation than to actually meet with the Democrats and discuss a real solution to a very real problem. This Congress is the most useless in the history of that prostituted institution.

  • RichardB Murray, UT
    Aug. 13, 2014 10:33 a.m.

    Under the 1986 immigration reform, people received amnesty, which further fueled the illegal immigration into this country. Also enforcement provisions were passed. A triple fence, with razor wire, e-verify with penalties, interior enforcement, and more judges and law clerks. We never saw the enforcement provisions carried out. In 1996 we passed immigration reform also, it provided the US with a visa entry-exit system. We still don't have one.

    Immigration reform is meaningless until we have leaders willing to carry out the enforcement provisions. We should not be giving anyone amnesty until we have several years of honest enforcement.

    How many are aware that amnesty for the individual also means amnesty for business? It's no wonder business lobbyists are pouring billions into this fight.

  • Spangs Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 13, 2014 10:42 a.m.

    @procuradorfiscal,

    Your real facts, although interesting, don't refute the "fact" that Obama may or may not be running the toughest enforcement system in history. You were right in your first paragraph that there is no history of serious immigration enforcement.

    That being true you might as well blame any other American president for the same thing, especially GWB. Truth is, Obama is a paralyzed president. He can't act effectively on much of anything without Congress. Blaming him is like blaming a paraplegic for kicking your ball over the fence.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Aug. 13, 2014 10:52 a.m.

    I have to wonder if the letter writer is a little like my sister in California who complains about all the illegal immigrants and then hires them....

    In any case, if we can spend a trillion dollars on a couple of wars on the other side of the world, I think we can easily absorbed 50,000 children, most of whom will be staying with family already here.

    And finally, all you on the right, do you think the immigration issue started with Obama? My, that is ill-informed and perhaps duplicitous partisanship.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 13, 2014 10:54 a.m.

    @SLars
    "are they aware that before 1976 we averaged 500,000 per year? Now we are allowing over one million people? "

    That's good news for all the people who think declining birth rates are a major problem in this nation. Unless it makes a difference to them which kind of people are being born...

  • SCfan clearfield, UT
    Aug. 13, 2014 11:04 a.m.

    _ _ _ Liberal

    All I can say is that you must be visiting the wealthy people in all those countries. Do you actually believe that of the millions who live in poverty and oppression they would not want to come to the U.S. if given a choice? Then how come we have about about 10% of the Mexican population here in the U.S. right now. And that's official statistics. I wonder what the real number is. I doubt Mexico is the worst of places to live compared to many places elsewhere. I know it is bad in areas, but it also has a lot of wealth. The only thing that prevents millions of Asians, Indians, Africans, ect. from coming here is the ocean. And we do see people trying to steal their way here on planes, ships ect. Plus, we also know that a large percentage of illegals are visa overstays. If they wanted to be in their countries so much as you believe, they would just go home.

  • Ajax Mapleton, UT
    Aug. 13, 2014 11:30 a.m.

    You can complain against President Obama all the day long. He won’t enforce existing laws. He actually encourages illegal immigration for political purposes. He won’t act. He acts too much.

    Political accusations like these are of course grossly distorted and in the main simply false. But even worse they are a distraction and purposeless. How do they possibly contribute to a reasonable solution to our immigration crisis? Constant obstruction and confrontation are not the answer.

    You might start by getting a grip on reality.

  • ugottabkidn Sandy, UT
    Aug. 13, 2014 11:32 a.m.

    Let's face it. Conservatives make it up as they go. If you think the immigration problem started in 2009 then you are delusional. Make up some more facts. I still haven't seen any proposals to stem the tides from these made up facts. Your political leaders are too cowardly to tackle it, not to mention their donors are who benefit most by our policies. Reagan is the only amnesty POTUS and the Bushes didn't touch it. Please for once. Be honest.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Aug. 13, 2014 11:41 a.m.

    SCfan
    clearfield, UT
    _ _ _ Liberal

    All I can say is that you must be visiting the wealthy people in all those countries.

    =========

    Vietnam,
    Cambodia,
    Laos,
    Mexico,
    Peru,
    India,
    Ukraine,
    Armenia,

    -- hardly wealthy.
    And they had no desire to move here.

    Visit? - yes?
    Work here - temporarily.
    permananetly re-locate -- not a chance.

    On the other hand,
    and since you mentioned it....

    Sweden,
    Norway,
    France,
    Germany,
    England,
    Italy,
    Chekoslavokia,
    Canada,
    Japan,
    Korea,
    Israel,
    Australia,

    All those "evil" Socialist countries?

    Same-Same --

    Visit? - yes?
    Work here - temporarily.
    permananetly re-locate -- not a chance.

    Ask you illegal Hispanic friends if they are seeking permant residence.
    I'll bet 80-90% are here for a quick buck,
    and send 1/2 home.

    When things get better,
    they go home.

    BTW -- Making pennies on the dollar here in Utah,
    I do the same thing ---

    Live in other places, work for a year or 2, and move back.
    Flying back and forth M-F.

    It's called 21st century "communting".

  • Say No to BO Mapleton, UT
    Aug. 13, 2014 12:08 p.m.

    Obama has spent his administration sending the message that otherwise law-abiding illegal aliens would not be subject to deportation. When he took office, he:
    ~ended worksite raids
    ~sued states for their enforcement efforts
    ~ended No Match letters
    ~ended the Secure Communities program
    ~nullified 287g contracts (MOUs)
    ~vacated 300,000 standing deportation orders
    ~began calling port court proceedings deportations (and tied up ICE in the process)
    Shall I go on?
    Obama is not the great deporter and his lack of interior enforcement has made our country a more dangerous place.
    FAIR US has an analysis of his non-actions for the serious-minded.

  • RichardB Murray, UT
    Aug. 13, 2014 12:10 p.m.

    Kent C. DeForrest
    House Republicans have sent many bills to the Senate, where Harry Reid has not let them on the Senate floor.

    Spangs
    It's true that most Presidents have not made it a priority, they also never gave waivers (amnesty) to people without Congressional consent. They also counted returns at the border separate. Obama's actions speak for themselves.

    Esquire
    50,000 91% are teenagers, it's expected to be 140,000 next year. What about the 290,000 adults that came here with them? Obama gave them a notice to appear in court, then released them into the country. The notice to appear contained no enforcement provisions, less than 1% will show up, since he is not enforcing deportation laws inside the country.

    Schnee
    The declining birth rate coincides with the economy. When we fix the economy, the birth rate goes back up. It's happened many times in history. In 1920 we reached one hundred million people, by 1970 we hit 200 million, in 2010 we hit 300 million. Immigration is not just at replacement levels, it's at flood levels.

  • SCfan clearfield, UT
    Aug. 13, 2014 12:23 p.m.

    LIB Your points just don't add up, as we allow over a million in here every year, not to visit, but to relocate and stay. And the line is long to get here. I notice you did not address my point about visa violaters. They seem to want to stay too, not just visit longer. And, if you've ever visited So. Cal. you'd see ATM machines that allow money to be transferred internationally from the local 711 to wherever in Central or South America. There is no need to go home. So they stay. Plus most of the countries you cited do have a lot of wealth in them in certain places. Mexico for instance has the 2nd richest man in the world. It is just that many of those countries overtax the middle class, (for socialist programs) or don't allow a middle class at all. You must be seeing the world through 3%er rose colored glasses living there in Farmington.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Aug. 13, 2014 12:30 p.m.

    To those that think Obama is deporting more people, you are wrong. Obama changed the way deportations are counted so that it makes him look good. See "High Deportation Figures are Misleading" in the LA Times.

    To those that think that conservatives want to close the border, please stop watching your cartoon shows. Conservatives don't want the close the border and prevent all immigration. Conservatives want all immigrants to come here legally and in a way that allows us to know who is here.

    Imagine a family sneaks in here from Mexico and joins their relatives that are already here. If one member of that family is ill with measles, mumps, scabies, TB, or any other infectious disease, and they come and move in to your neighborhood would you want the children from that family attending school with your children?

    Disease is only part of the problem. Along the border they are also finding Muslim prayer rugs, and have caught some high profile Muslims that are known terrorists. Do we really want to make the US more vulnerable to disease and terror?

  • RRB SLC, UT
    Aug. 13, 2014 12:39 p.m.

    I see the progressive ultra liberal Democrats are out in full force today.

    If Obama tries to give amnesty (waivers) to those here illegally, he will be guaranteeing a Republican held Senate this fall. Already only 31% of Americans agree with the way he is handling immigration.

    During his Presidency, this "recovery" has created new jobs that pay, on average, 15k less than the jobs they replaced. Last thing America needs is 5 million more people competing with the American worker for the jobs that can't be outsourced, like service, hospitality, construction, etc. Our U-6 numbers, workers that are unemployed or working part time, looking for full time work, stands at 12%.

    I use to be a Democrat, when they actually cared about the American worker.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Aug. 13, 2014 12:47 p.m.

    Redshirt1701
    Deep Space 9, Ut

    Disease is only part of the problem. Along the border they are also finding Muslim prayer rugs,

    ========

    What do you want to do? Arrest prayer rugs?!

    I did not know being a Muslim made you a suspected terrorist, or illegal alien.

    Maybe you should form a posse Red, nominate yourself as sheriff, deputize your friends, and clean up Enterprise Utah -- ala Cliven Bundy.

    America doesn't agree with you,
    and neither does the Constitutiton.

  • RRB SLC, UT
    Aug. 13, 2014 1:27 p.m.

    LDS Liberal

    TSA has been profiling Muslims since 2009. That seems rather foolish since they can walk across our border.

    And what Ebola? Someone could come here carrying the disease, and not be stopped because of Obama's directions to ICE.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Aug. 13, 2014 1:29 p.m.

    To "LDS Liberal" since you are having problems figuring things out, let me make it a bit more clear.

    Since Mexico is a Catholic nation that means that the prayer rugs are being brought in by Muslims. Since there are radical Muslim organizations that engage in terror, and want to destroy the US, that means that terrorists are sneaking into the US along with Jose and Maria.

    Do you think it is a good idea for terrorists to have easy access to the US through its southern border?

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Aug. 13, 2014 2:13 p.m.

    @Maverick,

    Border Security is not the job of Big Business... don't look to THEM to lead, or enforce our borders.

    It's the GOVERNMENT's job. And before you blast me for being a "small government" guy... this is one of the areas I EXPECT the government to fully take responsibility for (our security)... This is something that IS outlined in the Constitution as the Federal Government's job... and should NOT be delegated to Big Business.

    ============

    Businesses should not be giving these people jobs, but they should not be expected to lead on enforcement (that's 100% the Government's job). Part of "Enforcement" is... insuring that businesses do not give illegals jobs and attract more to come here illegally. That's also something the Government SHOULD be doing (but they refuse to do).

    These businesses should be punished, and the people hiring should be punished. That's part of enforcement (at least in Bush's Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill).

    Until we do this (enforcement) the flood will not stop, and the problem will continue to grow until it collapses our economy and then our government.

    Just overlooking it (for votes or whatever) is dereliction of their duty...

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Aug. 13, 2014 2:16 p.m.

    "Do you think it is a good idea for terrorists to have easy access to the US through its southern border?"

    I am not sure anyone is talking about easy access for terrorist or illegal immigrants. Listen, the Soviets were unable to seal their borders. People still sneak into North Korea. Miles of ocean hasn't stopped people from making it from Cuba to US shores. We will never be able to seal off our southern borders. For immigrants nor terrorist.

    What is in debate is what happens when they get here. The first group who should be immediately repatriated are those with criminal records. No chance for anything here. Those who come here seeking asylum should be given a chance to get their case heard. Those who are here for work, we should give guest visa's too... and so long as they are legally employed, pay their taxes, and keep clean, they can live here 9 months out of the year... they do not get permanent status. While they are home during the off time, they can get in line and apply for permanent status.

    There are humane and sensible ways to deal with this problem.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Aug. 13, 2014 2:22 p.m.

    The people responsible for the predicament that the world is in, is mainly us. Business men have robbed and cheated people in foreign lands and we did not do any thing to stop them.

    In America we allowed businessmen to have free rein in their actions on people of other nations and with no holds barred and a strong military to back them up, our businessmen could bribe, steal and oppress people as they wished. And what they wished was money.

    Ordinary Americans, blinded by their phony propaganda, were given the left over spoils and enjoyed a wonderful life of ease greater than any where else in the world. But now the supply of wealth in foreign nations of our hemisphere has run out and the businessmen are not only looking to take back the wealth that they gave to Americans, but are eying the other hemispheres.

    Our task, if we care to take the mission, is to bring our capitalistic businessmen under control and become a world leader for good instead of oppression.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Aug. 13, 2014 2:23 p.m.

    Re: "You were right . . . that there is no history of serious immigration enforcement. That being true you might as well blame any other American president for the same thing . . . ."

    I do.

    But, honestly, there's very little Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton or Bush II can do about today's situation.

    There's plenty, however, that Obama could do, but won't. As his disingenuous apologists try to cover up his inaction with intentionally misleading propaganda.

    That's why its not just somewhat erroneous [there were some early audits and sanctions -- they died out in the middle of Clinton's second term], but cynical sophistry to suggest kudos for Obama because he may be trivially "outdoing" his do-nothing predecessors, on an issue he really could -- and should -- seriously address.

    He could enforce existing employer sanctions. He could take meaningful strides towards strengthening border security. He could partner with local and state officials to leverage and bring to bear already-available law-enforcement resources. And, most importantly, he could stop the illegal and feckless immigration amnesty that invites the problem in the first place.

    But will he?

  • RRB SLC, UT
    Aug. 13, 2014 2:39 p.m.

    Utahbluedevil
    "Those who come here seeking asylum should be given a chance to get their case heard. Those who are here for work, we should give guest visa's too... and so long as they are legally employed, pay their taxes, and keep clean, they can live here 9 months out of the year... they do not get permanent status."
    ***
    Giving people visas to work here circumvents our legal immigration. It rewards wrong doing, and punishes those who play by the rules. We don't have enough jobs for 3.2 million legal visa workers (2011), plus all of the people who have chose to break our laws.

    Only deterrents will stop people from coming here illegally. If fences don't work, why are they around the White House?

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Aug. 13, 2014 3:06 p.m.

    How dare Harry Reid kill bills that repeal Obamacare or construct the Keystone pipeline! So it's wrong for Reid to do this yet it's totally ok for your boy, Boehner to kill job bills and tax increases on the rich? Wow, that's fair.

    E-verify is optional in many states (including Utah). Utah doesn't even require all employers to use it. In fact, most employers in Utah don't. That's telling, as to what our true priorities in this state are!

    E-verify doesn't punish employers. If illegal immigration is so terrible, why don't repubs pass legislation stripping employers of their businesses and sending them to the point of the mountain (with Swallow and Shurtleff) if the the found guilty of employing illegally?

    If the right's concern over declining birth rates is sincere, then why are they upset with illegal immigration?

    Make up your minds repubs! The constant flip flop makes it impossible to know exactly what your platform is!

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Aug. 13, 2014 3:33 p.m.

    "But, honestly, there's very little Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton or Bush II can do about today's situation.

    Nope, not now. You blame Obama for doing little today. Fair enough. But did you scream as loudly when the GOP controlled house, senate and president did nothing?

    That is the problem. People only complain about the other guy.

    And, I have little doubt that, if the GOP wins the next presidency, nothing will be done either.
    And the Dems will complain and the Republicans will give them a pass.

    Pure politics. As usual.

  • Utefan60 Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 13, 2014 3:37 p.m.

    WRZ said that Obama wants the illegals here so they can vote. Really? They can't vote as they are illegals and can't prove citizenship. Our current President is enforcing immigration laws stronger than the last administration, yet these falsehoods persist.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Aug. 13, 2014 3:46 p.m.

    @Maverick 3:06,

    The "Your side killed bills so we can too" argument is a 5th grade argument.

    IMO E-Verify should be a Federal law (not a suggestion, or a State-by-State decision to enforce it or not).

    If Utah isn't enforcing it... the Feds should crack down on Utah and insist they obey Federal Law. When Arizona tried to do immigration enforcement their own way Obama sued them (for trying to do the Fed's job). They should do the same with Utah.

    Businesses should absolutely be required to do E-Verify (EVERY business... in EVERY State)... Immigration enforcement is a Federal Issue (Not a State issue).

    This, "We don't want to do it so we're not going to do it", is lame. Same on Federal Laws against Marijuana.

    A country that doesn't enforce it's own laws is NOT a country that believes in "Rule of Law". America has historically been a country that believes in the "Rule of Law". I want to live in a country that believes and walks-the-walk on "Rule of Law". Even on Illegal-Immigration and Marijuana.

  • prelax Murray, UT
    Aug. 13, 2014 3:51 p.m.

    @The Real Maverick
    The House passed a border bill before they recessed, the Senate was to divided and left without passing one.

    E-Verify was passed on a federal level in the 1986 immigration reform. It was never enforced. However the supreme court has ruled that local government can require it's use, and pull business licenses, they can also pass a law making it illegal to rent to people here illegally. With Obama not enforcing laws, we may need to pass it on a city by city level.

    @UtahBlueDevil
    That will just increase illegal immigration. Half the world will want to come here to work. Just how does that solve our immigration enforcement problem?

    Deporting 12 million, according to a government study done in 2007 by the Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agency put the cost at 94 billion. This is a one time cost, that does not include self deportation. The Federation for American Immigration Reform puts the cost of illegal immigration at $113 billion per year. When you add in the boost to our economy from putting millions of Americans back to work, we can't afford not to.

  • Confused Sandy, UT
    Aug. 13, 2014 4:05 p.m.

    So I have a question for you liberals....

    I see post after post that the Corporation are the evil in immigration reform. They some how a the bad guys in all this...

    So why did the Democrats block the use of EVerify in several states? They actually threaten a Federal suit against the state.

    You can not have it both ways.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Aug. 13, 2014 5:24 p.m.

    Re: "E-verify doesn't punish employers."

    It was never intended to. But, by amending the Code of Federal Regulations, making E-Verify mandatory for every hiring action by any private business [as is already the case for government agencies], E-Verify would provide the evidence necessary to sanction offending business under existing law [the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986], either for not conducting the required ID check, or for knowingly hiring an illegal alien.

    And, we know Obama knows the ins and outs of amending the CFR, as he's already done it -- adding scores of thousands of pages to the CFR [he has nearly 16,000 pending right now].

    Obama has the tools at hand to solve the immigration problem -- he has simply made the cynical, political decision not to use them.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Aug. 13, 2014 9:30 p.m.

    @UtahBlueDevil:
    "I am not sure anyone is talking about easy access for terrorist or illegal immigrants."

    We should be. Islamic terrorists would love to get into this country and blow up a few more buildings and kill more Americans.

    " We will never be able to seal off our southern borders. For immigrants nor terrorist."

    True. There is 1,900 miles of Rio Grande River counting loops and oxbows. And the border goes down the center of the river. How is the US supposed to fence something like that?

    "The first group who should be immediately repatriated are those with criminal records."

    You mean contact Honduras, etc, and get a copy of the records of immigrants to figure out who are criminals and who ain't? Good luck.

    "Those who come here seeking asylum should be given a chance to get their case heard."

    If they want asylum they apply at the US Consulate in their native country before they step foot out of their country.

    "Those who are here for work, we should give guest visa's too..."

    What? So they can displace an American worker and put him/her on unemployment?

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Aug. 13, 2014 9:51 p.m.

    @Utefan60:
    WRZ said that Obama wants the illegals here so they can vote. Really? They can't vote as they are illegals..."

    Their relatives and others of their ethnicity (mostly Hispanic) that are citizens can vote. And they will vote for the candidate who will give amnesty to their relatives and friends from back home.

    Besides, have you not heard that Obama and his friend AG Eric Holder is pushing for a no voter ID requirement? Which means anyone can appear at the voting booth without ID and can vote regardless of citizenship... or how many times they've already cast a ballot.

    "Our current President is enforcing immigration laws stronger than the last administration, yet these falsehoods persist."

    I wouldn't call the DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) the enforcing of immigration laws. It's actually the opposite.

    @procuradorfiscal:
    "And, we know Obama knows the ins and outs of amending the CFR, as he's already done it..."

    You need to understand what the CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) is. It's detailed instructions developed by agencies to carry out the requirements of congressional laws. The president has control over the CFR.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Aug. 14, 2014 11:04 a.m.

    Let me try to make my position on immigration very very clear... "Immigration" is good. "ILLEGAL Immigration" is NOT good.

    Some people on the Left seem to have it the other way around.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Aug. 14, 2014 1:33 p.m.

    "Only deterrents will stop people from coming here illegally. If fences don't work, why are they around the White House?"

    RBB, your kidding right? Do you have even the slightest notion the cost of securing the White House.... and even then a kid made its way through the fence just last week. I am lost by your analogy. Can you even begin to extrapolate the cost of securing almost two thousand miles of boarder with anything that comes slightly close to true high security. For the White House, or even Prisons for that fact, the cost comes to tens of millions per mile... imagine that cost over several hundreds of miles. And even then, that will not prevent people from arriving on tourist visa or general flights from just staying.

    Why don't we just toss in jail every American that employees an illegal alien... that will end the problem real fast.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Aug. 15, 2014 9:49 a.m.

    @WRZ.... you asked "You mean contact Honduras, etc, and get a copy of the records of immigrants to figure out who are criminals and who ain't? Good luck."

    In fact, exactly. We have reciprocal agreements with most nations to do exactly that. And it is our responsibility to inform those nations that we have their citizen in custody. Would you expect any thing less if the tables were turned and it was a US citizen that has been arrested in a foreign land?

    Then you ask "What? So they can displace an American worker and put him/her on unemployment?"

    Again, if there was a line of people - US Citizens lining up for these jobs cleaning offices at night, harvesting crops, processing chickens and pork, cleaning hotel rooms, perhaps we would have an issue. But for some reason many Americans feel entitled to better jobs. Kids out here refuse to work fast food as they view it as work for immigrants - I noticed it isn't so much that way in Utah Valley - high school kids still work fast food. But there is a wide swath of jobs "Americans" just don't want.

  • SLars Provo, UT
    Aug. 15, 2014 12:25 p.m.

    UtahBlueDevil

    In the early 1960s, Cesar Chavez successfully prodded then President John Kennedy to curb the “Bracero” guest-worker program, which allowed farms to hire low cost Mexican immigrants instead of American farmworkers. The program was killed by Congress in 1963.

    The loss of foreign workers forced farms and food companies to triple the wages paid to American field workers. The wages rose from $1.77 per hour in 1965, to $5.63 in 1978. That’s equivalent to $20.27 per hour in 2014, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Since then, farmworkers’ wages has fallen after inflation, amid a huge wage of legal and illegal immigration.

    Americans will work those jobs. They have in the past, they will in the future. It's not government's job to supply cheap labor to business, or to subsidize their workers with welfare and food stamps. Yet that is what is happening.

    One person crossing a fence is much less than 55,000 teenagers and 290,000 adults. A barrier is a deterrent, even if it just a psychological one.