Reader comments
Good ideas on immigration

liberal larry | 6:31 a.m. May 6, 2008

Wow, an I still sleeping(?) or has the Deseret News endorsed an immigration policy to the left of me, and Nancy Polosi? The end times are near!

Federal law | 7:32 a.m. May 6, 2008

Why is it that the ONLY time people get worried about local police helping enforce federal laws when we talk about immigration laws?

Shall local police stop enforcing federal gun or drug laws both of which might well be argued to "ignore human experience"? What about federal ADA or OSHA laws? Or even federally mandated speed limits?

It is a shame the usually correct and principled Sutherland Institute has caved into the desire for cheap labor and efforts to inflate our population prior to the 2010 census sufficiently to guarantee a 4th and even 5th seat in congress.

The feds need to secure our borders and get serious about enforcing CURRENT law so as to regain enough public trust to move on some needed reforms.

But if Utah is going to be asking for any "waivers" it ought to be waivers of federal mandates for free health care and free education without regard to immigration status.

As other States take measures to discourage illegal aliens from settling there, Utah is quickly becoming a magnet State for both the hardworking and criminal & welfare element alike. And the costs of the criminals & poor far outweigh the benefits.

Paul | 8:08 a.m. May 6, 2008

Yes, immigration laws are broken. But, to ignore the problem is not the answer. I'm sure the Sutherland Institute is more concerned about Big Business and owners making a profit off the back of illegals. There doesn't seem to be much concern for the people who are in the employment arena. How about enforcing current laws to make all employers verify who they are hiring? As for local law enforcement, I have no problem at all if they are checking the legal status of people they come in contact with. Especially the ones in jail. Those are people we don't need in our Country in any condition.

Comments continue below

Ultra Bob | 8:17 a.m. May 6, 2008

It is my understanding the the Sutherland people are Conservatives. It is no secret that conservatives are mainly on the side of business and therefore will favor imigration of cheap labor.

BBKing | 8:20 a.m. May 6, 2008

A few years back I listened to a radio interview of a 30 year, former Border Patrol agent. He was tough as nails when it came to all aspects of enforcement. He went on about border enforcement, internal enforcement, deportation, etc.

He was then asked the question of what to do with the 20 million already here. He paused and said something that completely surprised me. He said those that have been here 5 years or more stay, go through back checks, etc. Those 5 years or less go home and apply to come back legally.

I don't know if I agree with him but this comes from someone who is incredibly tough on the issue. I was shocked by his answer. Fact is, when you consider all aspects of the issue there is no easy answer. So trying to do something like this, take a different approach considering it is all but impossible to round up 20 million plus people, I applaud it.

One thing I don't applaud is the part about not having law enforcement checking immigration status. That has done more to adjust the illegal community than anything. I say do a work visa then enforce it!

Good for them! | 8:47 a.m. May 6, 2008

Good for the Sutherland Institute! It's time conservatives make a stand and take back their party from the angry ignorant people who are keeping us from finding a real solution! I'm proud to call myself a conservative today!

TimePrizm | 8:51 a.m. May 6, 2008

I am concerned about not empowering local law officials to enforce immigration laws. Last year, a friend of mine was in a traffic accident caused by a person here in this country illegally. That person had no insurance. The officer at the scene of the accident knew he was illegal but could do nothing about it. The illegal immigrant dissappeared, no one could find him and my friend had no recourse for her destroyed vehicle. That is not right. Why should we have to pay the price of the irresposibility of an illegal immigrant? I do not support rounding up and deporting millions of people, but I do believe we need to stop the flow of current illegal immigrants, and I do not believe they should be allowed to receive any kind of welfare benefits without being here legally. I believe in compassion, but I do not believe in allowing people to be irresponsible. It serves no one well including the illegal immigrant. Another option I hear nothing about, is why do we not simplify the legal immigration process? It is very difficult to come into this country legally. We should make it easier to come to America legally!

Re: BBKing | 8:20 a.m. | 9:15 a.m. May 6, 2008

At a practical matter, ONCE the border is secure and the violent and other criminals are dealt with, what to do with the otherwise law abiding, integrated illegal aliens becomes a moot point. We COULD let them stay and somehow normalize their status.

But you can't announce that as policy up front. It can only be adopted after the fact.

The same guys selling fake IDs, are already cranking out other fake documents "proving" that the guy who crossed the border yesterday has actually been here for 5 or 10 years. With 20-30 million illegal aliens here, we will NEVER be able to do a thorough check. So we secure the border and announce a policy of deporting all who come to the attention of law enforcement: from driving without insurance, to DUI, to drugs and violence.

THEN, in 5 or 10 years, we will KNOW that the vast majority of those here have been here for 5 or 10 years since the border has been secure. At that point, we can do almost anything we want in terms of normalizing status for those who have been here and are otherwise decent and law abiding.

Hypocrites | 9:30 a.m. May 6, 2008

I thought an LDS owned publication would not be so blatant about being honest and honoring, sustaining and obeying the laws... I guess that primary lesson that was taught throughout the church a couple weeks ago on the article of faith doesn't apply to newspaper editors and immigration law...

Bryan Kingsford | 10:52 a.m. May 6, 2008

I thought this was a good article and support the position of the Sutherland Institute.

I do not believe a trespass violation should prevent someone from providing for his family or gaining an education, regardless of where they're from. To me, the inscription on the Statue of Liberty still represents America:

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

Higher laws | 10:52 a.m. May 6, 2008

Once a Inca king had a man bought before him for the crime of stealing food to feed his family.

After hearing the story the king had the man's employer punished for paying his servants so little they had to steal.

Providing for your family is a higher law than illegally crossing a line on a map. Christians understand the unjust nature of laws that people are forced to break in oder to comply by god's admonition to care for you children.

There are no children of lessor gods.

If you think food is costly now, expel Mexican workers. Last year millions were lost because farmers couldn't find laborers.

I live in California. I've seen Mexican toil under a burning sun on 104 degree days for 12 hours. Let's bus some Utah kids out here to do this. How long do you think they will last?

You can get a kid in SLC to top beats.

The Mexicans ,I see are hard workers. They are honest. They value families and are religious.

If it weren't for Mexicans, you would be paying much more for food.

Pharisees | 11:05 a.m. May 6, 2008

Many of these comments are sounding more and more like the Pharisees of the New Testament. You are so focused on "the law" that you can't see past your phylacteries. I recall a story of a woman caught in act of adultery. Under Jewish law, she should have been stoned to death. The Pharisees brought the woman to Jesus and asked what should be done. His reply was, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." (John 8:7) As "The Sinless One," He had every right to cast a stone at her (some here seem to be arguing that He had a moral responsibility to do so). How dare He ignore the "rule of law"! I guess the lesson on the Articles of Faith doesn't apply to the Savior and adultery law.

What would Jesus do? Help those less fortunate around Him to better their situation, regardless of their standing in regards to the law, and work toward a solution that will benefit all parties involved. Hmmm, kinda sounds like the plan outlined by the Sutherland Institute.

DN: the master of mindless repet | 12:13 p.m. May 6, 2008

In one paragraph Sutherland says ï¿½donï¿½t make Utahns serve as proxy for federal immigration officialsï¿½. Then in the next paragraph ï¿½request a federal waiver than would allow Utah to . . .ï¿½ I guess the DN wants it both ways, depending on what will give advantage to their double-speak, obfuscating, relentless, pro-illegal-immigrant campaign, daily plastered on the pages of this paper.

Re: Pharisees | 12:51 p.m. May 6, 2008

First of all Corporations and businesses are NOT humanitarian organizations. Even Nu Skin (100% LDS owned, owners very focused on humanitarian projects) managed to layoff 20% of their workforce during the past 3 years.

I think Jesus would be pretty appalled at the concept that businesses are "helping" illegal aliens when they take advantage of them, keep them in deplorable working conditions, threaten them with deportation if they complain about their 16 hour workdays without adequate insurance, etc...

Anonymous | 1:04 p.m. May 6, 2008

Actually I have read the Sutherland paper. There's nothing deep or insightful in it. There's nothing there that convinces me they even gave the issue much thought. They didn't give ANY thought to the effect of immigration on America's quality of life.

In fact, given the Sutherland Institute's generally neofeudalist stand - slash taxes and regulations on businesses, do eveything possible to reduce the cost of labor, turning every American into serfs - it doesn't shock me in the least.

In the interest of balance and proividing us, as voters, with the information we need to make an independent decision about an issue that will greatly affect our future, I wonder if the News will be linking to papers by groups like NumbersUSA, CIS, FAIR, or anyone else.

Somehow I doubt. Nice try, Ellis. Try again.

Anonymous | 1:06 p.m. May 6, 2008

Sorry, but show me another law-enforcement issue where politicians try to reduce the problem by rewarding the lawbreakers. It is a proven fact - not just here (as with the 1986 amnesty)but nearly a dozen Eruopean countries - that amnesty leads to mor eillegal immigration. If you want it to end, you do not reward it. It would be like punishing car theft by etting the thief keep the car, then offering to pay for his gas and insurance.

Anonymous | 1:26 p.m. May 6, 2008

Is enforcing laws against illegal immigration a local issue, too, or should it all be left up to the feds?

Well, what are laws for except to deal with things perceived as harmful to the ciizenry?

For example, the federal government has laws against narcotics. So do the states.

The federal government has laws against discrimination. So do the states.

The federal government has laws against dumping toxic waste into rivers and streams. So do states.

The federal government has a minimum wage law. So do many states.

The list of areas where the two overlap is quite extensive. If the people of a state or locale feel that illegal immigration is a harm to them and that the federal government's repsonse is inadequate, then it is well within their rights that they do something to increase enforcement within their jurisdiction.

Interstate kidnapping is a federal crime, but is there any sane, rational person who would say that, if a local cop spots the kidnapper, that he shouldn't detain him?

Ekim | 2:27 p.m. May 6, 2008

This "editorial" marks a sad day for all of us.

What in the world has the Deserted News come to??

Shame, shame on them.

And to boot, exactly what part of illegal do you not understand?

Happy days, when Jesus... | 3:27 p.m. May 6, 2008

Ekim: It was illegal to harbor Anne Frank. It's a wondrous and joyful day when we stand for humanity above other considerations.

Paul | 4:18 p.m. May 6, 2008

Well, Happy, just let us know your address, so we can send them over to live in your attic. Let us know how it goes.

Flummoxed in Zion | 6:26 p.m. May 6, 2008

I knew it wasn't possible. The Southerland Institute has yet to come up with any position or analysis that was thoughtful or complete. For a place that claims to be a "think tank" there sure aren't many "thinks" to be found, yet convincing thinkers to communicate them.

Here again, they shill for special interest groups. Give me a break. Why insult everybody by bringing the Southerland Institute into the conversation?

new world order | 7:38 p.m. May 6, 2008

Has the US moved more to the left or right politically since the first amnesty in the 1980's? The answer to the question is fairly straightforward since we are finishing up eight years of the alleged Republican Jorge Bush and the republican nominee for President is "open borders McCain". Think big business interests don't want nationalized health care? Of course, it's one less benefit they have to offer employees.
There is something really sinister going on when the Government, Media and corporate interests all want increased immigration from third world countries and the citizenry is screaming for it to end. Somebody has to foot the overhead costs of Government and evidently us natives weren't getting it done.
What's going to happen when all these immigrants who are paying peanuts into Social Security become eligible for full benefits? Taxes go through the roof and voila.... the chains on the taxpayer just got much, much heavier... but the big dogs will be happy

Sparkes22 | 10:02 p.m. May 6, 2008

Paul,

Send them over. I have room in my attic, cellar and living room. There is always room in my inn.

BBKing | 10:23 p.m. May 6, 2008

In response to the post about enforcing the border first, then we can talk about legalizing them.

I am not taking the position of legalizing them. My point was that someone so close to the issue for so long has taken a position that many would scream is amnesty. For me it really struck home that any solution is going to require different approachs.

As for strict enforcement up front, I agree though that will not solve the problem entirely. It will slow it down significantly but we are then left with 20 million plus already here. With a number that large it requires a degree of self-enforcement.

Having local law enforcement tie into ICE creates an environment in which those here illegally are looking for a way to legalize. What if we had a one or two year work visa that these people could apply to - from their country of origin - then travel across the border easily. I could see many millions doing that.

That may not be the perfect answer but candidly, what does a 20 million pound gorilla do? Answer, what ever it wants. We must provide incentives to make any meaningful reform.

wrz | 10:54 p.m. May 6, 2008

>>Sutherland recommends Utah lawmakers be guided by four "sentiments." First, welcome all people of goodwill to the state... >second, don't make law-enforcement officers or other Utahns serve as proxy for federal immigration officials >third, pass laws that enhance "economic transparency," making it possible for immigrants to be law-abiding >and fourth, encourage illegal immigrants to be "thoroughly assimilated, literate and productive members of our community.">>

Too funny. No one can make anyone learn the language or become assimilated.

Further, a simple way to push assimilation is to stop with the "for English press 1, for Spanish press 2," etc... which will never happen.

Freddie | 11:15 p.m. May 6, 2008

"What would Jesus do?"

His position may well be spell out in the statement: "Obey, honor, and sustain the law."

wrz | 11:25 p.m. May 6, 2008

People keep harping on "comprehensive immigration reform." We don't need reform. All that is necessary is to enforce immigration employment laws already on the books.

Require verification of legal status with the Social Security Administration before hiring.

Heavy fines for employers who don't verify or who hire illegals.

Very simple. Let illegals who are here, stay. But I think, if they can't get work they will drift on home.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.