Published: Tuesday, May 6 2008 12:00 a.m. MDT
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!
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.
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.
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.
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
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!
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!
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.
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...
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.
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.
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
In one paragraph Sutherland says dont make Utahns serve as proxy for federal
immigration officials. Then in the next paragraph request a federal waiver than
would allow Utah to . . . 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.
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...
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.
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.
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?
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?
Ekim: It was illegal to harbor Anne Frank. It's a wondrous and joyful day when
we stand for humanity above other considerations.
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.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments