"I'd say the Legislature tried to do what our constituents wanted us to do," Waddoups said. "I don't have any inclination to undo what has been done ... the law was properly passed."

Clark said if SB81 were challenged he'd likely rely heavily on the advice of legislative legal counsel on how to respond, but he also voiced continued backing of the changes.

"From a legislative standpoint, we are still supportive of this bill," Clark said. "These are the first, small steps towards solving a problem ... we waited a year, held meetings all over the state, and it's clear to me that public wants this to happen."

Both leaders said that the Legislature was forced into addressing illegal immigration at the state level after the continued failing of the federal government to address the issue adequately. Clark railed against the lack of movement by D.C. lawmakers.

"Congress, quite frankly, has dropped the ball on this issue and left us with little recourse," Clark said. "They do two things well — absolutely nothing and overreact."

Accusations of overreaction leveled at the Utah Legislature for passing SB81 have come from many quarters, and some are surprising.

The conservative Utah think tank Sutherland Institute issued reports last week that question some of the underlying premises of SB81 and criticized the bill for failing to differentiate between violent criminals and those whose only transgressions may be an illegal border crossing and use of forged documents.

In a statement released Thursday, the institute said the new laws are based on the false notion that "undocumented immigrants behave differently than the rest of us" and "the state should take action to responsibly modify or repeal Utah's new immigration law."

Last December, Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. urged lawmakers to consider delaying SB81 just months after signing the bill into law. Huntsman cited a dramatically changed economy and new federal administration as grounds for taking a wait-and-see approach. But legislative attempts to enact a delay went nowhere in the 2009 session.

State immigrant advocates, who had pinned their hopes on a legislative delay or a speedy ruling by the 10th Circuit, are now considering other, more direct responses to the new laws.