Comments about ‘My view: Keep deceit out of immigration fight’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, Aug. 2 2010 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
anti-liar

"For example, the director of the Utah Minutemen has implied that privacy laws should take a backseat to the prosecution of illegal immigration."


Absolutely false. Rather -- and this is an important distinction -- the director has implied that privacy laws should take a back seat to NECESSARY RESISTANCE OF GOVERNMENT TYRANNY, which tyranny is indeed manifest today by the government's FLAGRANT, WILLFUL AND PERSISTENT REFUSAL, ON ACCOUNT OF ITS OWN CORRUPTION AND LAWLESSNESS, TO ENFORCE ITS OWN IMMIGRATION LAWS.

A altogether different matter and the far more serious root of the issue.

John Charity Spring

This letter writer is correct that there is no place for dishonesty in the debate over illegal immigration. However, he is absolutely wrong when he claims that there are two valid sides to this issue.

The fact is that there is only one valid side to this issue: the law must be absolutely honored, sustained, and obeyed. There is no room for lawlessness, anarchy, and crime.

The Founding Fathers established this Country on the principle that those who live here must obey the law. The Fathers would be appalled to see how many are willing to ignore their wishes and fight against everything they stood for.

Ultra Bob

How can we “Keep deceit out of immigration fight” when so many of the players in this game seem to be wearing masks.

From my point of view, the basic truths are:

1. Business interests want the cheap labor that immigration provides. Legality is not important.

2. American workers have been displaced by the cheap labor of immigration. And this has caused a major part of the economic recession.

3. Liberals, Conservatives, Republicans and Democrats all seem to have a position in the debate but not necessarily identifiable by their affiliation to those groups.

Conservatives, usually on the side of business, sometimes are shouting for obeying the law which would limit immigration.

President Obama, who we thought was a liberal, instead of representing American workers, seems to favor illegal immigration.

If someone, who could, would create for us a program to tell us who the players are, it would help.

Radical Moderate

Anti-liar: Excuse us all for being wrong. Privacy laws should take a back seat to armed rebellion against the lawfully and Constitutionally elected government. I get it.

The first two posts here demonstrate that both honesty and civility are required for rational discussion. There is nothing civil, honest, or rational in either post. The first attempts to justify/rationalize denial of civil liberties and borders on sedition. The second takes the tactic of a five year old that "If I scream loud enough I win." There is only one side to the issue? Really? Then what would all the fuss be about. Until both sides quit exaggerating, yelling, and lying, nothing will be accomplished. The editorial writer is correct.

anti-liar

Radical Moderate: Not necessarily rebellion involving arms. But what happens when the "lawfully and Constitutionally elected government" itself "goes rogue," as it certainly has with its absolute refusal to enforce immigration law (as recently re-affirmed by Judge Bolton's uncivil, dishonest, irrational decision that no law-enforcement officer, at ANY level of government, is allowed to check immigration status, period)?

The answer is that when the law or government itself becomes corrupt and tyrannical, the people have a duty to resist in the interest of saving the country. Benjamin Franklin said that.

VST

@anti-liar (10:14a): It is not entirely correct when you stated that Judge Bolton's injunction implemented "… that no law-enforcement officer, at ANY level of government, is allowed to check immigration status, period…"

Judge Bolton, indeed, did temporarily approve the injunction that the State of Arizona cannot enforce that Section of Arizona law "…requiring officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws and requiring verification of status prior to releasing that person." However, be aware, that the injunction does NOT preclude an officer from inquiring about immigration — the injunction just does not REQUIRE the officer from asking. Her decision is consistent with current procedures of Federal enforcement officers wherein they do not need reasonable suspicion to inquire about immigration status [Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93 (2005)].

Federal law, regarding questioning individuals of immigration status, has not changed.

Happy Valley Heretic

When a governor of a State is allowed to Lie outright and not held responsible.
"Headless corpses litter the desert, My daddy fought the nazzies, Crime is outta control" ect... Meanwhile Slanderson is fighting to keep Utah out of the National ID Card because he doesn't believe it's the Feds rights to tag him, but he expects brown people to prove their citizenship with as many National ID's as he deems necessary. Where's the honesty again?

Not_Scared

"When a governor of a State is allowed to Lie outright and not held responsible.'

This is about shared values. Lying to achieve you goal is a shared values among conservatives.

Furry1993

To anti-liar | 10:14 a.m. Aug. 2, 2010

I'm sorry that you believe a decision protecting and defending the Constitution (which is exactly what Judge Bolton's decision did) constitutes a government "going rogue." You're wrong; I'm sorry you won't recognize that fact.

anti-liar

@VST (11:37a)
I'll rephrase:

"Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked," Bolton wrote.


If this is true of AZ law-enforcement officials and agencies, then logically it must also be true of ANY law enforcement official or agency.

Moreover, Bolton's logic must also extend to officers merely checking driver license validity and vehicle registration and driver insurance status of any person, since by Bolton's logic this too would "restrict" their liberty.

anti-liar

To Furry1993 | 12:38 p.m. Aug. 2, 2010


But it is going rogue, since it stands solidly at odds with the Constitutional mandate that the Fed. gov. guard the country. Again if, as Bolton asserts, AZ officers checking immigration status would necessarily result in "restricting" the "liberties" of lawful residents, then why wouldn't this be true of Fed. officers doing the same thing? Apparently she believes it is. In other words, no one is allowed to check immigration status. The judge has issued an injunction that would prevent the execution of the Constitutional mandate named above. Bolton represents law and government gone rogue.

anti-liar

VST | 11:37 a.m. Aug. 2, 2010

I see your point -- but wouldn't not allowing a REQUIREMENT to make status checks essentially amount to the same thing as not allowing the checks?

Brother Chuck Schroeder

RE: Furry1993 | 12:38 p.m. Aug. 2, 2010
If what Judge Bolton's decision did constitutes a government "going rogue." What would my Military special forces husband say to that, that it's not a decision protecting and defending the Constitution of the US ?.





Reply: He would say meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeow as your cats do.

cbird

Ikeep asking this question. Why isn't Mexico's president doing anything about keeping his people in Mexico? Why are we so leinient when Mexico does not even tolerate illegal immagration? Why do they need to come here to work when Mexico is so rich? WHY?!!

Pagan

'For example, the director of the Utah Minutemen has implied that privacy laws should take a backseat to the prosecution of illegal immigration. Such a standpoint is alarming.' - Article

This would follow conservative views.

As the Patriot Act was created to review cell records, emails and physical documents without warrent.

All in the name of preventing terrorism.

The Gov. of Az, Jan Brewer, has also been caught in a lie. Claiming that 'Headless corpses litter the desert...', supported by Happy Valley Heretic | 12:06 p.m.

However, when her state coroner was contacted, they could not support Mrs. Brewer's claim.

i.e. it was a lie.

All this talk of a 'corrupt goverment.'

Keep in mind, our founding fathers either were 1) Immigrants themselves or 2) Decended from immigrants.

Just like 97% of this country.

Tell me, how would your granparents react to you treating others worse then they were treated comming into this country?

RedShirt

To "Pagan | 2:00 p.m." but the murder of people along the border is true.

Read "Mexican police find headless bodies in border city" in signon SanDiego. 15 headless bodies found across the border from El Paso.

At AsiaOne we read "Headless body, two US citizens among Mexico weekend killings".

In CNN we read "Obama, Mullen discuss violence in Mexico".

If you read those, you will find that the bodies of US citizens have been found in the Mexican border cities. The question you should ask, is how is it that those people are being picked up and taken across the border when they are killed?

Pagan

'If you read those, you will find that the bodies of US citizens have been found in the Mexican border cities.' - RedShirt | 3:18 p.m.

That may be true.

But not Arizona.

Or would you try the weak attempt to say the Gov. of Arizona was not talking about the state of Arizona.

Let's say that Headless bodies are found.

Should we blame illegals?

What evidence do you have?

Zero.

More fear mongering.

Is that the New Tea Party pitch?

'Blame the illegals!'

Blame illegals for crime, with no evidence, what else can we blame them for?

AIDS?

People do the same thing to the LGBT community.

yomero

@ REDSHIRT lately drugs cartels are getting soldiers from the salvatorian gangs , who happen to be U.S. citizens .

Radical Moderate

I'm not sure if people are lying to be deceitful or if they are lying because they are so passionate about their side of the issue that they figure it just must be true. But the fact of the matter is that people are lying. Anti-liar is so passionate about the issue that he is ready to take up armed rebellion against the government. Red Shirt is seeing headless bodies littering the landscape. The Arizona governor just can't help "exaggerating" to prove her point. Nothing will ever get accomplished until we all take a deep breath, calm down, look at ALL the facts calmly and logically, and then work on solutions. Despite what your emotions tell you, it is NOT an easy fix.

VST

@anti-liar (1:33p-08/02/10),

You asked, "…but wouldn't not allowing a REQUIREMENT to make status checks essentially amount to the same thing as not allowing the checks?"

Not really. Under current legal precedent and procedures, federal officers can ask a person about their immigration status if they are so inclined. They do not even need to have 'reasonable suspicion' that they may be here illegally. However, it likely would be a person's conduct and response to initial questioning that would lead them to further ask questions about their immigration status.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments