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.
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.
I wonder if the NYT would have called the church by its full/proper name had a
church representative signed the compact.Probably not.
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?
A NY Times endorsement is good enough reason to question the Utah Compact as a
template for rational policy.