Comments about ‘Sandstrom pulls immigration bill to revise enforcement costs’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Feb. 8 2011 9:00 p.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Springville, Utah

I support Sandstrom's immigration enforcement bill 100%. If we have to pay more taxes to get rid of illegals, so be it. It will eventually pay off - more jobs will be available to US citizens and legal immigrants, and we will no longer have to pay for the illegals' education, health care, welfare.

Salt Lake City, UT

Sandstrom is a crybaby who can't stand to admit that his bill will require law enforcement to divert efforts from other activities to focus on removal of illegals. I'd rather see the police go after murderers, robbers, gang members, scam artists, and traffic violators, who really threaten our public safety. Let the feds enforce federal law.

Roy, UT

The Cost WILL BE WORTH IT, even though they are OVERESTIMATING THE COST!!! Why don't they mark out the savings of health care, welfare, housing, "Free School Lunches" and every other cost that will be saved simply by the Bill Passing as Law? I get a kick out of all those who "Pooh-Pooh" the Bill on the side of "Cost Savings!" This is not to mention all the LEGAL Immigrants and Citizens who are currently unemployed and looking for work who are Collecting "Unemployment Benefits" right now! This is a good Bill that will promote JOB GROWTH and help REDUCE CRIME! Any Good "Legal Immigrant" who loves this country and Utah should be in favor of this Bill because it will help REDUCE the Crime Rate, Drug Trafficing, and those who would take refuge in this state while fleeing Arizona and soon Texas! The Savings inside of Three Years would PAY FOR THE BILL! While you figure out the "COST" Don't Forget To Figure In The Estimated "Savings" as well from getting rid of Illegals! It's pretty simple!

Orem, UT


So are you basically saying, I want them to go after the Criminals who are here Legally, and not the ones who are here ILLEGAL AND Criminals, FAIL LOGIC!

Albuquerque, NM

The Legislative Fiscal Analysts Office released figures this week showing it would cost local governments $5.3 million to $11.3 million annually to detain and verify the status of people suspected to be in the country illegally.
That is an astonishing number for the job performed. I don't believe it is correct, and in fact, very high. If it proves to be the case in practice, it is time for a very serious audit.


Every immigration enforcement bill gets their cost question. Very few other enforcement ones do. It's a know path to stop bills on immigration. I saw it happen time and again in So. Cal.

If we can afford 400 million to subsidize dishonest business owners, we can pay 5 million to get our citizens jobs back. We have 100,000 citizens looking for jobs. They deserve our compassion also.

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

if cost is the only concern, then we should shut down the highway patrol. After all, it costs money. Same for the schools, fire departments, and every state agency.

Wayne Rout
El Paso, TX

The cost is not even an issue. Getting illegals off the streets and back to their own country is the most important thing.

Springville, UT

Typical that Republicans will spend anything it takes if it is their cause. When it comes to fiscal responsibility, they talk out of both sides of their mouths. Besides, the bill stands a good chance of being overturned.

Red Smith
American Fork, UT

A day's drive south from Utah's capital (where good people argue about rights) are mass drug murders, be-headings, rampant police corruption, armed bands with military equipment, bullet sprayed homes, burned out cars, and essentially anarchy.

With so much un-rest a day's drive from Utah, do nothing is not an option.

If not Sandsrom's bill, then what? Continuing to do nothing about illegal immigration is irresponsible and a legislative failure.

Kaysville, UT

I've liked Sandstrom so far even though I don't think his bill is necessary or necessarily effective. However, I think he and the supporters of his bill are the ones who are twisting things now.

How can he suggest that the legislative fiscal analyst is trying to defeat his bill? They are not political. Their job is merely to estimate the cost of all bills and attach a fiscal note. I think their estimates are conservative if anything. I believe if Sandstrom's bill were effectively enforced it would cost much much more than the estimate.

That being said, if you support the bill it may be well worth the cost. But, please Sandstrom and supporters, do not be demagogues and insult our intelligence. Any thinking person, understands there will be a cost, or they will divert from enforcing other crimes that may be higher priority. If you are for the bill, fine, pay for it, but stop insulting our intelligence.

I don't support the bill because the ability for local law enforcement to participate in federal immigration law enforcement already exists in federal law, or 287-G, secure communities etc.

Bountiful, UT

"The proposed law would require local police agencies to verify the legal status of people detained for other offenses if the officer has "reasonable suspicion" they are in the country illegally".


Therein lies the problem. This law will negatively impact minorities where the rest of the population is untouched. What is being proposed is an igdignity. Since this law only impacts a small portion of the population, it is likely to endure forever, unless the federal government comes to the rescue as they did in Arizona.

liberal larry
salt lake City, utah

A cost estimate of 11 million dollars actually sounds a little low. Are they including the costs of building more jails to house these "illegals", and how much is it going to cost to deport the offenders?
I think Sandstrom is suffering from a conservative entitlement mentality which thinks you can get services like education on the cheap. Maybe the police officers should "punch out" and do the background checks for free, or take pay cuts and work just for the love of public service.

Kaysville, UT

@ gogogoff,

Why do so many of you, not only fail to ground your assertions, but when the facts are right in front of your nose you twist the truth to be a lie in order to suit your purpose? The ends do not justify any means.

@ Curmudgeon did not say in his posts anything about a preference for apprehending citizens who commit violent crimes first over illegals who do the same crimes. You put words in his mouth and that gives you about zero credibility.

It's quite obvious that's not what he meant. @ C is totally correct that law enforcement must prioritize their time, just like any other job, and just like life itself. And it is quite clear to any thinking person that the first priority should be violent and other serious crimes first, regardless of whether that person is in this country legally or not.

If the funding is provided to expand resources in order to apprehend, detain and hand over illegal aliens to ICE under existing federal law, then more focus can be turned to those here illegally who are not perpetrating any other crime.

Kaysville, UT

@Cougar Keith,

Fair enough, when you say the cost will be worth it. But, the fact is the funding has not been provided in Sandstrom's bill and it will be an unfunded mandate to local governments if passed as is.

If you want it to pass, pony up and pay the cost. Where you get the savings or additional revenue from is another matter, but the appropriation must be made. Simple as that, like it or not.

Even is you say this additional enforcement emphasis will save far more in savings on services to illegals who will go home, as many claim, that still does not fund the specific agencies entrusted with the actual enforcement. The savings would be realized in other areas.

This is really very simple. Fund the local agencies or it is by definition an unfunded mandate, and makes our state legislators hypocritical in the extreme even as they rightly call for no federal mandates to the states.

Layton, UT

I think it's a fair question as to how local enforcement will be able to do the job of a federal agency without significant budgetary increase.

The Real Maverick
Orem, UT


Utahns might have to... *gasp* actually pay for services????

Crazy stuff!

As has been said all along, if you want to eliminate illegal immigration, it's going to cost ya!

Cost you more at the supermarket, cost you more at the hotel, and will cost you more in taxes.

Are you willing to pay for this? Or are Repubs just going to do what they have mostly done the past 4 years, cry about it?

Ogden, UT

utah police have to spend there time keeping the people safe.and these poor illegal mexican people just come here to join the lds church..they dont commit crimes or sell drugs or do anything that is against the law,they work hard to be able to take care of there familys they open small mexican grocery stores on red wood road at twenty seven hunderd south..they pay there tithing you cant go into a lds ward and find a seat because they people are in church every sunday..people in utah need to understand that if sandstorms law passes we could see a change in genral conference.another thing the people in utah will not try to learn spanish to comunicate with theys wonderful people..you just dont appriciate what these people do for you people of utah..they are really hard workers

New York, NY

The estimate is very conservative... and the legal fees projection is low. Think about the challenges from National and Local Immigration leagues, and our own Federal govt. Legal fees are not free. and the years to fight it, too long. In the end, all of this ...for nothing...UT is stepping on Federal grounds.

American Fork, UT

Aren't law enforcement officers going to be out there doing their job anyway? Why is the ESTIMATED cost so high? It's a ridiculous at best estimate.

to comment

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