Comments about ‘Feds sue Utah over illegal immigration enforcement bill’

Return to article »

Shurtleff hopes to modify law to end challenge

Published: Tuesday, Nov. 22 2011 6:59 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
CJ
Murray, UT

What a disgrace this administration is, they won't do their job and enforce the law and then sue their own states who try to do their job for them. 2012 can't come soon enough, if ever there was a President who needs to go it is this one. It's always about politics with him, he is trying to pander to Hispanics, plain and simple and doesn't care how many Americans suffer as a result of it. Barack Obama has never stopped running for office beginning about eight years ago. Everything is about him and getting more and more power. And to have a disgraceful attorney general like Holder, who has the fast and furious blood of a border agent on his hands, leading the charge to stop the enforcement of our immigration laws makes this all the more shameful. Holder needs to resign or be fired and Obama needs to be impeached for failing to protect the borders of the United States, it's his duty under the constitution. Instead here we are as state defending ourselves in court. Unbelievable.

Hemlock
Salt Lake City, UT

The Feds ignore their responsibilities with respect to immigration and then sue Utah because they are trying to handle the problem. Eric Holder's logic is the same as his Fast and Furious debacle - flawed. He should be added to the list of those seeking employment.

Andrew J. Marksen
Deseret, UT

Gotta solidify that illegal immigrant voter base right Mr. President? I notice the Democrats in Utah, the ones who have our best interests at heart support this nonsense. No such thing as right and wrong for a Democrat, for them breaking the law is condoned as long as the votes turn up for them in November.

Fitness Freak
Salt Lake City, UT

Wouldn't it be nice if our federal government were as concerned about the rights of ACTUAL legal citizens as they are about the rights of illegal alien trespassers?

One can dream!

trekker
Salt Lake, UT

Tell the Feds to enforce or the States will leave the Union, i am willing to bet they would give in

David
Centerville, UT

"A patchwork of immigration laws is not the answer and will only create further problems in our immigration system," U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement.

"The federal government is the chief enforcer of immigration laws, and while we appreciate cooperation from states, which remains important, it is clearly unconstitutional for a state to set its own immigration policy."

OK, Mr President and Congress, if states cannot pass laws to deal with immigration, then why don't you do it?

The fact is, the federal government has completely ignored this issue because of politics. It is sad that our national leaders do not do what is right for America. They only try to do what is in their own selfish, individual interests to remain in power.

Sick sick sick. Voters can change Washington by continuing what was started in 2010.

Makid
Kearns, UT

I agree David but, that means we must vote out all incumbents. The only way that they will get the message in Washington is if there is a constant new House of Representatives every 2 years and each Senator is only in office for 6 years.

Both parties are to blame. I do hope that you are planning to vote for something other than an (R) next to it if you expect any changes coming from Utah as the current group are complicate to just keep the current state of immigration affairs as can be seen by the bills that have been brought forth by the current Utah representatives.

David
Centerville, UT

Re: Makid

I never vote straight party. I haven't voted for a Republican governor since Leavitt in the early 90's.

I don't ascribe, necessarily, to term limits either. But I do hope that every American will study the issues, learn about candidates, and vote for the man that will be best, and honest.

When I stated that we must continue what was started in 2010, I didn't mean to vote Republican only. Instead, we must vote for what is best for America. Current federal spending levels are not in the best interest of America if we want to avoid what is happening in Europe with Greece, Italy, etc. Our spending levels are not sustainable.

In 2010 we voted in a group of new congressmen and senators that vowed to change federal spending, decrease the size of government. I say we must continue that effort until the government actually follows through on this.

The current fiasco with the special committee, who was to come up with a bipartisan plan to reduce the deficit, was another display of partisan selfishness. Vote them out. Vote Republican or Democrat, as long as they will decrease spending.

David
Centerville, UT

Re: Makid continued

And I do not believe that Democrats are sincere in wanting to increase taxes to reduce the deficit. They want to increase taxes to appease their voting base, to hurt business, to consolidate power with the federal government, and to avoid cutting favored programs.

The federal government has more money rolling into the treasury than ever before in American history. They don't have a money problem. They have a huge spending problem.

Social programs of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are exploding the budget. Another source are retirement funds of federal workers.

It is also frustrating to have read that the reduction in military spending that is now required (because an agreement was reached by the super committee) is really a reduction in the growth of military spending. The annual military spending would have been over $700 billion, but will now be only over $600 billion. Spending increases will drop from 23% to only 16%. Republican fear mongering over military spending in this scenario is similar to Democratic fear mongering over social programs to score political points. Spending must be reduced so stop acting this way...both Democrats & Republicans! Get the job done!

RichardB
Murray, UT

Alabama's new laws are proof that self deportation laws are working and put Americans back to work. Look at their unemployment numbers.

"September was the first full month that the reform was in force, and
the unemployment rate fell from 9.8 percent in September to 9.3 percent
in October, according to a Nov. 18 report from the state government.

The rates fell from 9.9 percent to 9 percent in Etowah County, from
8.8 percent to 8.1 percent in Marshall county, and from 11.6 percent to
10.6 percent in DeKalb county."

We have a solution to immigration and to a jobs bill.

Spoc
Ogden, UT

Federal law 287(g) encourages local participation in interdiction of illegal aliens. Recent POLICY changes made by Obama in that program require local agencies to "follow Federal priorities". Those priorities were expressed when Janet Napolitano announced that they would no longer be deporting anyone not convicted of a felony because of a lack of manpower. Talk about laying out the welcome mat for illegal aliens!

They bring suit because "it is a federal issue" and therefore unconstitutional for local agencies to assist with enforcement of federal law. That of course makes the federal law 287(g) unconstitutional. I haven't seen them declare that states cannot assist with enforcement of other federal laws such as controlled substance violations. Nor have they brought suit against certain left-coast states whose pot laws are directly contradictory to federal drug laws.

There is nothing about the Utah law that is contradictory to Federal law. They want to be perceived as tough on crime but refuse to assign enough people, enable catch and release policies, and refuse assistance.

There is no logic in this argument, only deception and ulterior motives.

RRB
SLC, UT

The Church said they supported the 4 bills as a package. When the guest worker bill came under fire, they fought for it. Will they also fight for the enforcement part of the package?

Obama has proved that the executive branch can't be trusted to run immigration alone. It needs to have a partnership with congress.

Our government has a responsibility to it's people, it either lives up to it's commitment, or the people need to change it. I have lost trust and faith over the illegal immigration issue.

Americans need those jobs, and Alabama proves that getting rid of illegal labor puts Americans back to work.

Dixie Dan
Saint George, UT

Why doesn't Utah enforce the 1986 Immigration Reform Act signed into law by President Reagan. It was one of President Reagan's crowning achievement of his administration instead of blaming President Obama? How can our local Constitutional expert Carl Wimmer, allow all of this to happen and not enforce Reagan's law? What a joke Wimmer has become in Utah.

JWB
Kaysville, UT

Over the years, immigrant votes have been a very serious tactic for people such as the Clintons and the President today. There has never been a serious study on the impact of illegal alien voting when they are not citizens. Why protect their votes when they are not legal to vote. The politicians want the whole support of that block on their election day. Not closing the border is not just one party, as it impacts on all parties, even Independents. The U.S. has always had border requirements on highways but it wasnt until the U.S. started having a drug problem that there was more government agents on the border, DEA, etc. That brought in the ATF due to the weapons and drugs interconnect. With the advent of Homeland Security, there should have been more of a concerted effort but there wasnt as it is a very political agency linked with more sub-agencies under their control.

JWB
Kaysville, UT

This is a stretch to sue 4-5 states for trying to maintain state integrity.

The Federal Government hasnt done anything in this administration to stop the border flow.

The U.S. attorney-general doesnt want the case to go to court, even though he says he is suing the State as it will bring up a lot of infighting within the Federal Government, not just the issue of immigration.

dave4197
Redding, CA

The real disgrace here is Sandstrom's attempt to put the boot of the law on the neck of a bunch of poor people based on the color of their skin.
We need to debate comprehensive change to the immigration laws, we don't need anything like Sandstrom's attempt at elimintation of immigration, we do need to open the door to our friends, we do need to help others in our hemisphere who only walked across a line in the sand to our relatively opulent economy, we do need to think about sharing our wealth with our friends in need.
The real disgrace here includes attitudes of hate and exclusion towards our neighbors and friends from south of the border.
Go, Holder! Stop Sandstrom's bad law.
Then let's continue a discussion about how we as a state and a region and a country can help raise up the standard of living for a few of our poor neighbors. The Utah Compact has good points.

md
Cache, UT

Illegal is illegal. They broke the laws of our country, send them home and secure the borders. Bring our troops home to protect our country that is under siege. More people are dying in the war in our own country due to these illegals bringing their gangs and drugs across the border with them. Get tough America. Vote for people who want to have immigration that is legal.

mohokat
Ogden, UT

Notice that the Regime sues on this law but leaves the amnesty (116) alone. Shows their true colors. Amnesty is their keyword.

Freedom-In-Danger
WEST VALLEY CITY, UT

"The federal lawsuit suit claims that HB497 is unconstitutional because it attempts to establish a state immigration policy."

While I think that immigration is best handled on the federal level (and few things are as I see it) ...the attempt for Utah to pass laws is by all means not unconstitutional. If the constitution says 'undocumented immigration is okay' then we'd be wrong for enforcing legitimate citizenship, etc. If the constitution said 'you have to be legit' then our laws would only enforce and sustain the supreme law of the land. If the constitution doesn't say anything at all about it, then the laws are left to the states respectively.

So by all means, laws aren't unconstitutional that merely enforce the very same constitution and the laws below it. This attempt only further places doubt on our judicial branch's ability to understand law.

Or can we not pass laws that simply say 'we can enforce the law'?

I'm all for peaceful and a welcoming but safe immigration policy. However, this case has no merit and only wastes even more tax dollars than the federal government is currently. States have sadly lost too much power as it is.

Keith43
Springville, UT

The fact that more than 50% of the voting public leans to the far left, how will it be possible, as suggested earlir, to vote out the incumbents? Secondly, what makes us think these people will vote themselves out of power by setting term limits?

With as much debate, outrage and protest as there has been (Arizona in particular) over the years due to our failed immigration policy, what of real substance has changed? There's too much power to be lost if our elected officals do what's right. And, as long as the Federal Government continues to do nothing, the states have every right to enforce the laws and protect it's citizens.

Finally, I have a question. What constitutional rights does a person have who is not a citizen of the U.S., and who enters our country illegally? It would appear that the government bends over backwards to insure they have every advantage; whereas, our constitutional rights are trampled on daily.

to comment

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