Quantcast

Comments about ‘Utah Compact gets little love from Utah County GOP committee’

Return to article »

Published: Saturday, March 23 2013 6:50 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Clear and Reasoned
Provo, UT

I was personally disgusted by the booing when those for the Compact tried to present their arguments and opinions. Members of the Constitution and Bylaws Committee blocked the Compact from the day it was presented. Giving months for their own members to draft the "Compromise". This was not a fair fight. The Republican Party has a long way to go when there are only 3 Hispanic delegates in attendance and so much controlling going on from within committees.

Dave Duncan
Orem, UT

Hmm. Only quotes from the losing side? How about some balance, DNew? How about pointing out how these supposed party and community leaders are out of touch with the grassroots of the party? Where are the quotes from the authors or supporters of the P106 compromise?

The Bramharts fought P106 all the way. Now they are almost getting credit for it passing???

As one of the four creators of P106, I can definitely state that we got no help from the Bramble/Lockhart clan, and that they were not open, in any way, to any modifications to the Utah Compact language to make it more compatible with format of the platform, to make it not conflict with other parts of the platform and especially not to modifying the content to be more Republican-oriented.

The grassroots effort to oppose P105 and instead, strengthen our platform with P106 is what should be celebrated here--not out-of-touch party power-brokers. :)

Dave Duncan
Orem, UT

Clear and Reasoned (and too ashamed to use a real name?):

"Members of the Constitution and Bylaws Committee blocked the Compact from the day it was presented"

Simply not true. It came through the committee. Today is evidence of that. It was even moved ahead of many other proposals submitted before it. Today, we didn't get to many of them, because it was even placed ahead of them on the Central Committee meeting agenda.

The Central Committee clearly felt that the compromise was superior to the Utah Compact language--because it is.

truth to be Told
Orem, UT

I'm personally disgusted with the elitist party insiders (Bramharts = establishment) and their little minions wanting to control every single Republican meeting. Their money and influence only works in political circles where they can buy votes. Those tactics don't work at grassroots or delegate level.

The Bramharts bragged for months about how voters, at the last caucus meeting, had elected a very moderate group of uninformed delegates and how they would be able to get those delegates to pass moderate agendas. Well the whole strategy backfired on them; these delegates did their homework and did not go along with the Bramharts moderate agenda.

The people of Utah County have now rejected the Bramharts amnesty two times in a row. First they voted to repeal HB116 (2011) and now the Trojan Horse-like Utah Compact.

This establishment team is out of touch with the people of Utah County. The people of Utah are welcoming and accepting of immigrants from every race or culture. The only thing they ask from immigrants is to do it legally and following the rule of law.

I surely hope the Bramharts learned their lesson, time will tell.

provo.res
Provo, UT

I wonder if you got 250 registered Republicans off the street, what the vote would have been. Bet it would be completely different. "Grassroots" Republicans outside the party hierarchy are much more moderate.

Dave Duncan
Orem, UT

The Central Committee is made up mostly of precinct chairs and vice chairs who are elected by the grassroots caucus attendees. They were the ones opposing the Utah Compact language in our platform. The party "hierarchy" was arguing for a "bipartisan" party platform. That doesn't even make sense. Sorry provo.res, but the grassroots at this meeting were conservatives, and the party power-brokers ("hierarchy") were the moderates.

Dave Duncan
Orem, UT

And, for the record, the only "booing" I remember was when Val Hale (a vice president at UVU) inserted the church into his argument for P105.

While the LDS Church expressed support for the principles in the compact, it did not endorse the compact itself. Neither did it request that the party incorporate the compact into its platform.

Misusing the church as a political bludgeon is usually not well received. Anyone who has looked into the church's statement regarding the compact knows the difference between the church's statement and a full endorsement.

prelax
Murray, UT

Bramble,and Lockhart are both pro illegal, pro cheap labor. They have no compassion for American workers.

It's time those willing to destroy this country with cheap labor and lack of enforcement be cast out. The future of the country they would leave us would not be the America that hangs by a thread today.

Utah_1
Salt Lake City, UT

None of the 4 main Utah immigration bills signed in 2011 followed the 1st principle of the Utah Compact.

Contrary to Mr. Shurtleff's public comments, it wasn't a key in what was passed. Member of the legislature in 2011 and 2012 received hundreds of emails saying to vote for something that followed the Utah Compact, apparently encouraged by both the Salt Lake Chamber and also the Sutherland Institute.

Since there were no bills that followed the first principle of the Utah Compact, nor could there be at a state level, It only made me wish the document was never created.

The local Catholic Bishop didn't come to the signing of the 4 immigration bills in 2011 because, as he stated, they didn't follow the Utah Compact.

loveacoralreef
Highland, UT

Booing only happened once, when someone tried to use the LDS Church as a weapon during debate. Bringing the LDS church into it was totally out of line. The Compact adoption proposal should have been defended based on its merits not on who was backing it.

Rod Mann
Highland, UT

I too am disappointed with the lack of balance in the article. By a nearly 2 to 1 margin 250+ people on the Utah County GOP Central Committee rejected the proposal to include the Utah Compact in its platform. Was it because they are not compassionate, caring people, or because the don't like immigrants or are racists?

As a member I listened to the arguments on both during the meeting and read numerous pro/con emails before. The pro compact side arguments tended to follow two lines of reasoning. 1) The Compact is an inspired document that provides a framework for law makers to create a compassionate solution to immigration and 2) it must be good because it has the approval so many including President Obama, the NY Times editorial board, multiple churches, business organizations ... . The argument to me were not substantive.

The oppositions arguments were that while the sentiment behind the document may be good the document itself is vague and has a lot of internal inconsistencies and therefore is not suited to provide a standard against which that actions of elected Republican officials can be compared. Specific examples were cited to illustrate these points.

provo.res
Provo, UT

Congress is going to pass immigration reform, and probably this year. And about time too. It looks like Utah County Republicans are out of step judging by the report in the article about what they did put in their platform. Where did they get that language anyway? Phew.

EDM
Castle Valley, Utah

"I highly resent us having to have this discussion. It is a result of failed federal policies," said Sen. M. Dayton.

And I highly resent the GOP extreme's unwillingness to work with moderates to get something accomplished - and that they get re-elected every time for what they say, not what they do.

anti-liar
Salt Lake City, UT

"I was personally disgusted by the booing..."

Many of us are personally disgusted by the lies and manipulation which surround the immigration debate.

Among these is the Utah Compact itself.

- It cunningly erases any distinction between legal and illegal immigration, in order to subtly convey a message that there is no legal nor moral difference between the two. It implies that both should be celebrated and embraced.

-- It hijacks and co-opts the terms "compassion," "caring," "welcoming, "reasonableness," and "humanity" and perverts these to mean "looking the other way at illegal immigration."

-- It gives lip service to the rule of law. It real purpose is to undermine the rule of law.

-- It deceitfully implies that illegal aliens do not commit crime. In fact, illegal entry and visa fraud are crimes. The typical illegal alien embarks upon a veritable career of dishonesty and felony crime (fraud, perjury, etc.) once in the nation's interior.

-- It subtly implies that anyone who opposes illegal immigration is "uncivil" and "unreasonable."

-- It puts law-abiding Americans on trial, instead of holding illegal aliens accountable.

-- It subtly suggests that the praise of the world is more important than law and order and doing what is right.

JWB
Kaysville, UT

It sort of sounds similar to the GOP State Convention with he said and she said type of process, such as the Chris Stewart process. What really happened may never be known, again. This appears to be a Chicago type of political process but with the power players out of the circuit.

so-what
Hurricane, UT

I am extremely worried about the "HARD-CORE" criminal element imbedded among the millions of illegal aliens who will obtain amnesty.

Everyone, seems to be "assuming" that amnesty will be granted to "hard-working, decent, law-abidng, etc." illegal aliens. This assumption is TOTAL BS!

The Mexican drug cartels need their imbedded criminals to "work" in the USA in order to launder money, smuggle drugs and people, and infiltrate and corrupt our political and economic systems.

As far as I can tell, our Stupid, ignorant, or "paid-off" politicians are crafting laws that do NOT take into account the illegal aliens deeply involved with Mexican drug Cartels and Latino criminals in the USA (street and prison gangs, for example).

And, please, don't give me that BS that our politicians are going to design-in "safeguards" to prevent illegal alien criminals from getting amnesty. My dear readers, This category of illegal alien will most likely make it "in" because he/she is well connected to money and power via the drug cartels' funds. These nefarious criminals will easily pay our greedy and complicit immigration lawyers to "fix" things expeditiously so that they look like potentially great future American.

Say No to BO
Mapleton, UT

@anti-liar
Thank you. Very well put.

SLars
Provo, UT

anti-liar, it's about time America's silent majority spoke up. That was a well reasoned post.

Start enforcing the laws and stop trying to flood the labor market. The Compact is nothing but a marketing ploy.

raybies
Layton, UT

the criminal elements of the latino communities hide behind those who are here to work and have a legitimate desire to participate in our communities and society as a whole. it's time to take away their hiding place, and provide legal means for illegals who are serious about contributing to society, so that we can clean up the illegals who aren't.

Wm. VanderWerff
Draper, Utah

When ever I see all of our so called leaders come together and endorse a document like the Utah-Compact, I can't help being suspicious of their, self promoting, motives. The Utah-Compact has no standing in law, is full of high sounding fluff, and fails to suggest solutions. Our founders were not so vague. They were precise and to the point. Their arguments and declarations took positions that jeopardized their lives and fortunes. More importantly the were meaningful and fruitful.

A sovereign nation's most defining aspect is citizenship and border definition. The failure on the part of our leadership to uphold both values is criminal and traitorous. That said, we are where we are. The remedies taken should not punish the children for the sins of their parents. Deporting those, who have lived their formative years here, brought here by law breaking parents, is a violation of common sense and righteous principles; however, any path to citizenship for the children should include rigorous indoctrination of our constitutional principals and the history of it's founding. The parents should not be given citizenship but should have probationary visas without recourse to full citizenship or the right to vote.

to comment

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