Comments about ‘State immigration laws may never be constitutional’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, May 13 2011 12:00 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
West Valley, UT

All we need is 2/3 of the states on board to convene a Constitutional Convention and matters such as immigration and healthcare can be put to rest. How many states are obviously fed up with the way the Federal Govt is acting? 5? 10? 20? It only takes 33.

Brother Chuck Schroeder
A Tropical Paradise USA, FL

Utah better do this then.

Absolutely no "Sanctuary Cities." NO AMNESTY. Go home. If you come back, come back legally, and learn to speak English, because it is our national language. (U.S. English has consistently given that their "A in English" award.)

That's STILL my views.

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

BCS said: "and learn to speak English, because it is our national language."

It is, when did I miss that legislation?

DF: You want to change the constitution? Conservative are soooo inconsistent???

Farmington, UT

So why does the state have the right to my identity when I get pulled over?

Say No to BO
Mapleton, UT

Your constitutional scholars are hand-picked by the AP to show a one-sided view of this issue. Why didn't they quote IRLI or Judicial Watch law experts who represent the other side of this issue?
Fifteen years ago federal legislation was passed INVITING local law enforcement to assist in immigration enforcement. No, city cops cannot deport people...but they CAN assist in identifying and detaining them.
Programs like 287g, CAP and Secure Communities rely on local involvement. Homeland Security's LESC exists for the sole purpose of helping local agencies ID illegal alients. By law, the feds MUST provide immigration status to local police on request.
And the constitutionality of Inherent Authority to inquire and detain have been verified by the US Attorney General.
In short, your constitutional scholars are biased and wrong.
Now, if a state wants to run their own guest worker program...THAT could be a problem.


"Despite those refinements, the bottom line remains the same, legal scholars say. Immigration is enforced by the federal government, and any state attempting to tell the federal government how to enforce immigration laws is stepping into potentially unconstitutional territory."

Big difference between the federal government taking the law to court, which they did not, and the ACLU.

According to your experts the the Utah compact is completely out of line. Watching the media come out against enforcement, but approve guest workers makes me question the validity of the national press on many issues.

Williams, AZ

I am all for sending the illegals back to were they come from. If the feds don't want to do their job, then leave the state do it for them. I believe that if you are here illegally, then they get no free pass, deport them and leave them come back the legal way. Giving them free pass has only created a big problem this time. When States passes law it such do so were they aren't given free passes, but must leave the country and enter through the right way. If they stay then they should suffer the price deportation and jail time if necessary.

to comment

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