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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
"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.
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.
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
@anti-liarThank you. Very well put.
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.
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.
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
Clear and Reasoned, I'm sorry you have been misinformed about the process
followed to bring the proposals to the Central Committee for a vote.The Compact proposal was submitted in December. The first opportunity for
it's presentation was March 23, 2013 as the CCC agenda for February 2, 2013
didn't allow for any C&B or Platform business since the Executive
Committee previously set a date of March 23 for the C&B business to be
considered. Knowing that we had two polarizing documents between
the current language (which remains if the delegates don't ratify P106 by a
simple majority vote) and that of the Utah Compact and those who submitted the
Compact proposal didn't want to edit language, I asked the Platform
Sub-Committee to come up with a proposal that would blend the sentiment of the
Compact and the current language that could be acceptable to provide a UNIFYING
statement from the Utah County Republican Party. This task was accomplished by
many who favored the original language. It's important that we be a Party
of unifying instead of continuing the fight against each other.
Clear and Reasoned,At at time when the nation is fighting over
immigration, it is ultimately important that Utah County UNIFIES and that the
Central Committee did. It is very difficult to obtain a 2/3rds majority.
I'm very proud of our committee for choosing to UNIFY.I hope
this helps to understand what really happened to this proposal. It had a fair
normal path in being presented at the first chance after being processed and
then voted upon. Now it's time to UNIFY.I'm sorry you
were misinformed.Most sincerely,Lisa M ShepherdUCRP Constitution & Bylaws Committee Chair
Does the Utah Compact stand for an American citizen to illegally enter and live
in another country, refuse to take personal responsibility to learn and speak
the native language, and to respect and honor local laws?Illegal
immigration is wrong ... it is not something that should just be discouraged but
the law should be honored and enforced. The law often is not enforced because
politicians are more worried about their popularity than in serving the
The Compact states that it is a "guide to begin the discussion on
immigration". The UCRP Platform is a statement that is far beyond beginning
a discussion. A Platform is and should remain a firm declaration of Republican
values and principles. We expect our elected officials to work toward enacting
laws consistent with our Party's Platform. The last sentence
of our Platform reads: "All Republican elected officials, candidate and
party officers are expected to endorse these principles and agree to be held
accountable to the people and to the party."In 2011, the Utah
County and State delegates passed resolutions in support of the County, State
and National Immigration Platform planks because the legislature departed from
This question wasn't a matter of IF the members thought we shouldn't
be compassionate, it seemed that the members agreed by a super majority that
unifying behind a "partisan" statement to be inserted into our Platform
is exactly the purpose of adopting a Platform. I believe the closing argument
shared by Senator Margaret Dayton was the key to help undecided members. The
debate point she stated was that a Partisan Party's Platform is no place
for a bi-partisan statement. The Compact states it is a "guide
to begin the discussion on immigration". The UCRP Platform is a statement
that is far beyond beginning a discussion. A Platform is and should remain a
firm declaration of Republican values and principles.