Comments about ‘N.Y. Times praises Utah Compact’

A NY Times endorsement is good enough reason to question the Utah Compact as a template for rational policy.

The compact says law enforcement should "focus on fighting crime, 'not civil violations of federal code.'" OK, great. But when an illegal immigrant presents a false social security number as proof it is legal for him to work, that person becomes a felon according to U.S. Criminal code. (See 18 USC 1546a) Do signers of the "Utah Compact" support prosecution of these felons? If not, who decides which felons to prosecute? Are we a nation of laws, or not?

I wonder if the NYT would have called the church by its full/proper name had a church representative signed the compact.

Probably not.

I don't often agree with an NYT editorial, but reasonable people will judge every issue on its own merits, rather than resorting to generalizations. Read it first. This is a great editorial and there is not much to disagree with here.

Name me one crime, (e.g. the war on drugs, gang violence, etc.) that has been eliminated by enforcement alone. As important as enforcement of the law is, most societal problems require more than enforcement alone. Also, sometimes laws can be changed to make law enforcement's job easier, and to address the root of a problem.

The NYT editorial is merely pointing out the obvious. Utah can again gain a reputation for creative solutions to difficult problems like illegal immigration, or we can take a narrow view like AZ's that is destined to be ineffective.

Let's encourage expansion of exising federal enforcement programs for local law enforcment like 287(g) to additional Utah counties. Let's continue to support increased effectiveness of enforcement efforts, targeting those guilty of other crimes first.

At the same time it does not detract from enforcement efforts to be supportive of intelligent comprehensive solutions that the compact encourages.

Just a bunch of lies:

- "partisan extremism" (two lies for one)
- "government by rage"
- "xenophobic radicalism" (another twofer)
- "terrorize"
- "immigrants" (No. ILLEGAL immigrants)
- "harsh"
- "Law enforcement is strengthened by bolstering
immigrants' rights." a half-truth, at best).

By the way: notice that the LDS Church referred to the "compact" NOT as a solution, but as an "approach." Not necessarily the same thing.