Quantcast
Opinion

Robert Bennett: Immigration reform should demonstrate 'love of neighbor'

Comments

Return To Article
  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    April 23, 2014 11:49 a.m.

    Marxist: Was the 40 to 50 million who were put to death at the hands of communist (Marxist) ideology just a clerical error or am I missing something in history?

  • WestGranger West Valley City, Utah
    April 22, 2014 7:38 a.m.

    The problem was that the law was not enforced for many, many years.That is what created the lack of respect for the law. Now we must create immigration laws that we will actually enforce. We need to open up the way for established immigrants to progress. So many young people raised for years in the U.S.A. find it much more difficult to attend college due to the actions of their parents years ago. We need immigrant laws that will benefit all of our society and not hold back a significant number of our residents. Some of us need to leave the bitterness and resentment behind and forgive. What is done is done. We need to move forward.

  • Say No to BO Mapleton, UT
    April 22, 2014 6:27 a.m.

    @Esquire
    Shame on you! I gave you very specific instances where Obama has DECREASED immigration enforcement and your response was just name calling. ("right wingers")
    Please refute what I have presented or admit that Obama has NOT enforced immigration law.

  • SLars Provo, UT
    April 21, 2014 10:45 p.m.

    @anotherview
    Acts 17:26
    New King James Version (NKJV)
    26 And He has made from one blood[a] every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings,

    God created the nations and the boundaries.

    Ellis Island and the statue of liberty welcomed honest legal immigrants. Immigrants that had to get permission to board the ship in their own country before coming here. Immigrants that respected our nation and it's people, Immigrants that had no welfare or support system in place, and many failed and returned home. Using it to justify illegal immigration is wrong. During those years we allowed half a million people each year (legally), we now allow over a million people. This is the greatest emmigration to America in history, and that is without those here illegally.

  • SLars Provo, UT
    April 21, 2014 10:24 p.m.

    Who would get amnesty? Anyone in jail for identity theft? social security fraud? Perjury? How about all business men who committed felonies? Or do they have to be connected with illegal immigration?

    If it's just for illegal aliens and the businessmen that hire them, that doesn't seem very compassionate.

  • wjalden Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 21, 2014 10:24 p.m.

    This column is a singular example of why Bennett failed as a senator, failed as a member of the banking committee to regulate the industry that wrecked our economy, and failed to secure our borders.

    Senator, name one other crime (besides those committed by Wall Street) which you would fight in the same manner we "fight" illegal immigration?

    We do no workplace enforcement. We let their children attend public schools. We let them open bank accounts. We let them purchase homes. Many states give them drivers licenses. Most states let them register their cars. Their children born here are given automatic citizenship and entitled to welfare benefits like food stamps.

    Is that how you would fight car theft, or bank robbery, or speeding, or driving while intoxicated, or non-payments of taxes - by REWARDING the behavior? What form of insanity is that?

    We could fight illegal immigration quite easily. Even if it cost us $10,000 to deport illegal immigrants - and it wouldn't - that would be less than what we were spending every 2-3 months at the height of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Deny them benefits and heavily fine businesses who hire them and many would leave on their own.

  • wjalden Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 21, 2014 10:11 p.m.

    Senator Bennett: "To those who insist that there must be no changes in immigration law until after we secure the border, I say, 'Check the record.' Start with 2007, the year when President George W. Bush first proposed immigration reform."

    Oh brother...

    Perhaps the former senator should have "checked the record." President Bush didn't first propose amnesty in 2007. The first time he proposed amnesty was in 2001, just months before nineteen, uh, "undocumented workers" here to bless us with their diversity, hijacked four airplanes and flew them into three buildings and the ground. That act of failed immigration policy has cost the United States hundreds of billions of dollars.

    The next major amnesty proposal was in 2006, which you, Senator Bennett, voted for. The 2007 amnesty bill did not even make it past a filibuster - under a Democratic-controlled Senate.

    Check the record.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    April 21, 2014 9:57 p.m.

    One possibility we have to consider with the church is that the continued growth of temples and missionary work in Mexico is contingent on the church going soft on immigration. Of course I have no facts here ...just my opinion based on comments from the president of Mexico in the past which happend to coinside with comments from the church supporting soft immigration policy.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    April 21, 2014 9:51 p.m.

    "Most illegal aliens currently here are not murderers, drug dealers or welfare cheats; they are productive members of society"

    ...who just so happen to be on welfare + food stamps + disability + free health care +free education and on and on.....oh and then they turn around and get to vote too because remember it is a racist thing to force people to have photo id (never mind drivers lic require photo id).

    Take a look at California if you want to see the end result of allowing an un ending stream of illegals to occupy your state. It's called bankruptcy - being forced to give I-O-U's instead of paychecks to state employees because your reserves are gone.

    To Robert Bennett - once again Bob you demonstate why we voted you out of office. You are more blue than red.

  • Mack2828 Ft Thomas, KY
    April 21, 2014 9:51 p.m.

    I disagree with Mr Benett's statement that most are law abiding citizens. Not true. Most of them have stolen ID's.
    I should know, my ten year old daughters social security number was stolen by an illegal alien. It's a sickening feeling to have our family victimized by a stranger.

  • U-tar Woodland Hills, UT
    April 21, 2014 9:30 p.m.

    It would be more credible If Mr Bennett practiced what he is preaching.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    April 21, 2014 9:26 p.m.

    @Littlebit:
    "A couple of questions for Mr. Bennett. Do we have any idea what is going to happen with the welfare programs when all the illegals achieve citizenship & when many more low-income people are added to the welfare rolls?"

    I'll help you with that one. We'll be running to China to borrow more cash.

    @marxist:
    "CORPORATIONS view labor as an international commodity."

    True. Try calling DNews about home delivery or Comcast about an internet issue and you get some strange sounding foreign person.

  • sg newhall, CA
    April 21, 2014 8:32 p.m.

    Bennet was a career politician. He never voted to enforce immigration laws. The right thing to do is deny all illegals every entitlement, driver licenses, housing, welfare, food stamps, health care, grants, modes of transportation and the elimination of anchor babies...guess what would happen? We wouldn't have an illegal invasion problem. And then We the People should demand that if any congressional member even hints at giving illegals entitlements, they are automatically removed from office with no benefits; and churches that harbor illegals will have their nontax status changed to tax. I don't think Christ has anything to do with immigration; and I for one was dismayed that the Mormon church sent a representative to the White House to meet with the ineligible fraud.

  • RichardB Murray, UT
    April 21, 2014 8:24 p.m.

    Compassion was the selling point for the 1986 amnesty. Things have not changed, if they really wanted compassion they would have enforced the laws before 12 million came here illegally.

    This is nothing more than wanting cheap labor. From the Young Women Personal Progress Program, “I will choose good over evil and will accept responsibility for my decisions.”

    We show compassion by letting people accept responsibility for their actions, and pay the price as prescribed by law. Ignoring the laws of the land for one select group is not compassion.

    “Good, law-abiding citizenship is a key to more abundant, joyful living. Taxes could be much lower, people would be more happy with their neighbors, homes would be strengthened, and each individual would find more inner peace, if laws were better observed.”

    LDS President Spencer W. Kimball
    Ensign Magazine - 1977

    Note the homes would be strengthened.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    April 21, 2014 8:07 p.m.

    @JoeBlow:
    "The point is that for many many years, illegal immigration was completely accepted and sometimes encouraged. The laws were not enforced. No by Bush, Bush, Clinton, Carter, or Obama."

    That's because Hispanics have amassed a significant presence in the US through immigration (illegal and otherwise), sufficient to adversely influence politicians. It's becoming more and more clear that America is being invaded by foreigners without even firing a shot.

    @Say No to BO:
    "Of course, Washington has failed to do that. Instead they court activists, labor unions and Chamber interests."

    That's because they are politicians, not statesmen. What we need are statesmen. That's partly why Bennett got tossed.

    @Mike Richards:
    "Our President knows that he cannot grant amnesty without breaking the Supreme Law of the Land."

    What? Obama has already violated the law of the land. 8USC1324 Makes it a felony to aid and abet illegal immigrants.

    @dasilverwelshman:
    "Yes, they violated our laws by coming here illegally, and they should pay for it..."

    The punishment is requiring illegals to fill out the necessary papers and get in line, not break in ahead of those who do it correctly.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    April 21, 2014 6:45 p.m.

    @@marxist:
    "if I knew an illegal family was living next door, but they were nice people with good kids, could I turn them in to the Feds to have them kicked out of the country? I couldn't do it."

    Let's say the neighbor has your job... or one of your kids' jobs. Would your comment be any different? We have millions of illegal immigrants working here, essentially taking Americans' jobs.

    " I just can't harm people without an overt reason, i.e. directly harming my property or person."

    We have millions of unemployed Americans drawing hundreds of millions in unemployment benefits... drawn from the US Treasury. Of course, that wouldn't be harming you if you don't pay taxes.

    @bandersen:
    "Rounding up all of them and sending them back is the most absurd idea of them all!"

    True... but there's a simple way, it's called E-Verify. Enforce E-Verify and illegals will deport themselves. No jobs and they leave.

    "They are here because America is the last best chance for freedom in the world."

    We can't take the entire world in. They have to make their own freedom where they live.

  • Joey D WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    April 21, 2014 5:10 p.m.

    “No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we ask him to obey it”By Theodore Roosevelt.

  • anotherview SLO, CA
    April 21, 2014 4:54 p.m.

    Statue of Liberty:

    Give me your tired, your poor,
    Your huddled masses, yearning to breath free,
    The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
    Send these, the homeless, tempest tost to me,
    I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

    Author: Emma Lazarus

    I'm just wondering for religious-minded people, does God really want us to differentiate between our brothers and sisters living in other areas of the world? Or, does he view us as all his children--brothers and sisters? These boundaries are not going to carry into the next life and It is hard to believe that it is going to be easy to explain to God how important it was that we not extend consideration to our brothers and sisters who are merely looking to improve life for their families.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    April 21, 2014 4:51 p.m.

    Immigrants should show no less respect of our immigration laws as we show in keeping the Indian land treaties we made with them. After all the law is the law.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    April 21, 2014 3:44 p.m.

    Hey Mike Richards -

    "Changing the law to grant amnesty would violate the Constitution. It would be "ex post facto" (after the fact). It is expressly forbidden. It would require a Constitutional Amendment."

    Ronald Reagan granted amnesty to 3 million illegal aliens in 1986.

    And guess what . . . It didn't require a Constitutional Amendment.

  • SG in SLC Salt Lake City, UT
    April 21, 2014 3:42 p.m.

    "Now I'll pose a question: 'Since when did the democratic party quit caring that SO MANY of our own citizens are unemployed?' Why does the democratic party campaign for amnesty, when so many of their ranks are already unemployed?" -Fitness Freak

    I certainly can't speak for ALL Democrats, but I believe we are generally very concerned with high unemployment among U.S. citizens. We just (generally) don't believe that illegal immigration is a major factor in unemployment. There has consistently been about 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. in May 2007 when unemployment (U3) was about 4.4%, in October 2009 when it was about 10.0%, and today when it is about 6.7%. Illegal immigrants occupy jobs, but they also contribute to consumer demand, which creates jobs. The much more significant factors in unemployment are changes in consumer demand and producer solvency, as well as failed supply-side economics policies.

    Taking an "enforcement-only" hard line on illegal immigration wouldn't necessarily reduce citizen unemployment, but it would likely reduce consumer demand and producer solvency because 12 million buyers of goods and services would be deported.

  • SG in SLC Salt Lake City, UT
    April 21, 2014 2:48 p.m.

    "2) We ascertain proper authority. The unsigned, incognito 'Church' immigration statements come from the Public Affairs Department -- which has NO inherent priesthood authority whatsoever." -anti-liar

    I find this line of reasoning both fascinating and more than a little disconcerting. Do you honestly think that the Church Public Affairs Department could publish an Official Statement on behalf of the Church without explicit First Presidency approval? (I'm referring to the Official Statement dated 10 June 2011, which was accompanied by a First Presidency letter to be read in Church congregations, rather than subsequent statements reiterating the Church's position.)

    I would suggest carefully rereading the 10 June 2011 Official Statement (it can be found by searching “immigration” at LDS-dot-org). The language in the Official Statement seems pretty clear and authoritative to me. A Latter-day Saint claiming that any Church position that they don’t happen to agree with, that isn’t preceded with “thus sayeth the Lord” or isn’t canonized scripture, isn’t authoritative is a doctrinally dangerous standard, in my view, as is arguing that the Church’s position is unjustly one-sided. Sometimes, the road to apostasy is paved with ideological dogma.

  • Kent C. DeForrest Provo, UT
    April 21, 2014 2:04 p.m.

    Personally, I'd much rather deport all those people I see driving I-15 while texting. They are much more likely to kill someone than an illegal alien.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    April 21, 2014 12:39 p.m.

    It seems right wingers make stuff up when the facts don't agree with them. Enforcement is way up. Fox is saying no, so many of you accept their propaganda. Sorry to disappoint you and eviscerate your talking points. Conservatives will argue the opposite of reality all day long.

  • Don Honda santa cruz, CA
    April 21, 2014 12:13 p.m.

    The LA Times posted an article,"High Deportation Figures Are Misleading", that shows that the Obama administration, the Illegal Alien lobby, and the major media outlets have been in collusion to depict the "high" deportation numbers. The exact opposite is true since the beginning of the current President's policy. Interior deportation has and will be lower than 1973 rates. This is leading towards more people overstaying their visas and currently, more Illegal Alien minors crossing the border. Obama has just recently instructed border patrol to not turn back those Illegal Aliens on record as having entered illegally as priors, but to let them pass IF they don't have a major criminal record. After the first Illegal Entry, it is a felony each time thereafter.

  • ronk-sandy SANDY, UT
    April 21, 2014 11:47 a.m.

    To RRB, this GOP advocate supports immigration reform for several reasons. Cost to deport over 12 million people would be a huge detriment to the national budget and impractical. Also, the farm industry could use clarification of current system of laws that would be a big help to our agricultural businesses. As for E-verify, it is slowly becoming a tool to enforce immigration. Overall, a system as presented by Sen Bennett makes sense. Have those who are here illegally pay some kind of penalty and make them legal residents. As for citizenship and voting rights, we probably need to push for something a little more demanding, but this is for doable. Overall, my GOP has stood up for families, and if immigration reform does this, I am for it.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 21, 2014 11:44 a.m.

    So much of our welfare is influenced by our neighbor next door that we refuse to help and refuse to recognize his welfare, it is stupid to be concerned with the welfare of those who would harm and displace our own welfare.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    April 21, 2014 11:30 a.m.

    Domestic labor feels threatened by immigrant labor. Those making anti-immigrant comments do not know who their enemy is. With globalization corporations have ceased to have national identities. In fact they often deny being a corporation of the United States, Sweden, Canada or whatever. The United States is a repository for corporations which feel no particular loyalty to its citizens. CORPORATIONS view labor as an international commodity. To deal with the new reality domestic workers need to understand they are pawns in a big capitalist game. Labor must unify across national boundaries. Our only protection is international organization to include workers in Latin America for example. The corporations did it. Now we must do it. Workers of the world unite!

  • Fitness Freak Salt Lake City, UT
    April 21, 2014 11:17 a.m.

    "SG in SLC" I'll take your question.

    When a citizen of another country chooses to leave his family to come here to take jobs from LEGAL American citizens, WHY is his "adopted country" to blame?

    CERTAINLY we hope families will stay together. The only problem is - THEY don't seem to have that same value.

    Now I'll pose a question: "Since when did the democratic party quit caring that SO MANY of our own citizens are unemployed?" Why does the democratic party campaign for amnesty, when so many of their ranks are already unemployed?

    How does that help democratic voters? Besides, getting more people to vote for them I mean?

  • anti-liar Salt Lake City, UT
    April 21, 2014 11:16 a.m.

    SG in SLC

    "How can you reconcile your political views with LDS Church doctrine and policy regarding immigration issues/illegal immigration?"

    ------

    Very easily.

    1) The principles of "Love of neighbor, compassion, and keeping families united" apply to innocent Americans too -- not just to illegal aliens.

    How do we apply these principles to both groups?

    Answer: The law is issued, it is applied to everyone equally, men are given agency, men are held accountable for their willful choices, and then THEY bring upon themselves the consequences of their own choices.

    In other words, Americans do not break up illegal-alien families; the illegal aliens themselves do, as a consequence of THEIR non-compliance with the law.

    But the argument is disingenuous in the first place, since typically, illegal-alien parents are perfectly free to take their children with them -- thus keeping the family together.

    2) We ascertain proper authority. The unsigned, incognito "Church" immigration statements come from the Public Affairs Department -- which has NO inherent priesthood authority whatsoever.

    3) AUTHORITATIVE Church doctrine, on the other hand, includes the 12th and 13th articles of Faith, and 8th, 9th, and 10th Commandments. These are part-and-parcel of the commandment to "Love they neighbor."

  • kiddsport Fairview, UT
    April 21, 2014 10:58 a.m.

    This explains why Mr. Bennett is no longer in office- we spend $4 billion and it bought us fewer than 10 miles of ineffective fence. Our Border Patrol still remains understaffed and underfunded. If that $4 billion had been turned over to the border states, I'm sure they would have been spent more effectively, except for California which has outdone even the federal government in waste and inefficiency.
    Proponents of open borders are the New World Order Pollyanna-ists whose myopic view of the world through rose-colored glasses reflects an adolescent thought process. Nations and borders (boundaries) are conducive to order. Otherwise, what we have is chaos.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    April 21, 2014 10:55 a.m.

    To get back on topic, do you wonder what Marx's position would be in the current matter? I'm pretty sure he would argue for unity among workers. His participation in the Labor Internationals makes that clear. Immigration is a labor issue. The current system sets one group of workers against another for the benefit of capital, immigrants versus domestic labor. Marx would be for humane treatment across the board, and for unity among the working class regardless of nationality.

    Now consider the situation with the United States and Mexico. NAFTA internationalized capital across all of North America, but insisted on the localization of labor in the U.S., Mexico and Canada. Inconsistent? You bet, by design to cripple labor. Labor must take upon itself the task of unity in the face of capital collusion!

  • Littlebit Salt Lake City, UT
    April 21, 2014 10:53 a.m.

    A couple of questions for Mr. Bennett. Do we have any idea what is going to happen with the welfare programs when all the illegals achieve citizenship & when many more low-income people are added to the welfare rolls? Also, how do we explain to the people who are trying to immigrate here through legal channels that those who broke the laws & entered illegally are being granted legal status? What message does that send to the world? How is that being compassionate?

  • SG in SLC Salt Lake City, UT
    April 21, 2014 10:44 a.m.

    @Mike Richards

    Your argument is specious at best, and disingenuous at worst, because I am sure that you are well aware that every legislative act that repeals or amends a previous legislative act is "ex post facto" in nature. The constitutional prohibition on ex post facto legislation specifically relates to laws that would result in punishment for actions that were not illegal at the time that said actions occurred.

    On the other hand, I am also sure that you are well aware that Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution states that the President "shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States" -- so the President could grant clemency for violating federal immigration laws to all 12 million+ illegal immigrants. The GOP, and ultracons in general, would howl at the perceived abuse of power, but the President clearly has the authority to take that course of action. The Constitution of the United States says so.

  • dasilverwelshman Provo, UT
    April 21, 2014 10:33 a.m.

    "I will be glad to love my neighbor, as long as they obey the laws" doesn't quite sound like what the Savior of mankind taught. I'm assuming you've never gotten a speeding ticket, or run through a red light. I'm also assuming that you've been 100% honest all of your lives. If that's the case, congratulations! I hope your wives, children, siblings, friends never make mistakes, or I'm afraid you would stop loving them. Jesus' words were more like "love your neighbor as thyself;" "love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you;"
    Yes, they violated our laws by coming here illegally, and they should pay for it, but most of these immigrants working and living in this country illegally are only doing so because they have no way of making amends for their trespassing the laws. If given the chance, I'm sure all of them would gladly do whatever it takes to be able to work and live here legally.
    If our fear is that immigrants will take our jobs, perhaps we should become more educated and qualified.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    April 21, 2014 10:30 a.m.

    re: banderson "Marist: Since you are an advocate of Marx, you are not allowed to speak on anything that resembles freedom, including commenting on a neighbor that is infringing upon your "property," something that doesn't exist under Marxism! Integrity of thought and action requires you to admit what you believe!"

    I wish at least some of you knew who Karl Marx was, and something about his work. Marx was concerned primarily with the employer - employee relationship. I believe he was mostly right and that his theory is of vital importance in today's world. That's why I am a Marxist.

    Marx was never a dictator, so we don't know what a regime he headed would have done. Now you might be interested in the fact that private property and markets never disappeared in the Soviet Union, that Communist revolution in Russia led to the granting of private property rights to millions of peasants. That is, the large landed estates were broken up and titles transferred to the peasants. Private agriculture never disappeared in Russia even after the formation of collective farms.

    Moreover, socialism does NOT mean no markets. It does mean worker management and ownership.

  • SG in SLC Salt Lake City, UT
    April 21, 2014 10:27 a.m.

    As an LDS Democrat, on a number of occasions I have had conservative LDS Republican friends ask me how I can reconcile my political views with LDS Church doctrine and policy regarding abortion and same-sex marriage. It's not difficult on my part, as I am a "mostly Pro-Life/mostly Pro-Traditional Marriage" Democrat who sides with Church policy versus the DNC national platform.

    I'd like to turn the tables and ask my conservative LDS Republican friends (particularly those who post here in the DN Opinion online comments), "How can you reconcile your political views with LDS Church doctrine and policy regarding immigration issues/illegal immigration?" With regard to immigration issues/illegal immigration, the LDS Church emphasizes love of neighbor, compassion, and keeping families united, and places these on *at least* equal (if not greater) footing with "obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law". Are the Brethren wrong on this issue? Should they counsel God, essentially saying, "this inspiration doesn't meet the approval of the conservative masses in the Church, so revelation supporting a more hard-line approach would be greatly appreciated . . ."?

    What say you?

  • anti-liar Salt Lake City, UT
    April 21, 2014 10:25 a.m.

    dansimp

    "There is certainly a lot of 'Justice' being discussed in these comments, but not much 'mercy'. I'm grateful that the ultimate authority is better at balancing those two principles..."

    ------

    First of all, there is no such thing as achieving such balance by compromising either of those principles. Each principle requires its full due.

    In the spiritual realm, the two principles are reconciled by the Atonement of Christ.

    In the temporal realm, however, they are reconciled by equality at the law, personal agency, and accountability. It is the only way to be fair to everybody. (Incidentally, reconciliation to the laws of society also is a standard requisite to the spiritual reconciliation referred to above.)

    Otherwise, mercy is shown toward the guilty at the expense of effectively scapegoating innocent parties. In the case of illegal immigration, such scapegoats include bicyclists killed by drunken illegal-alien motorists, American children who have their identities stolen by them, and American fathers who no longer are able to support their families because of covetous individuals coming into this country illegally and stealing jobs and other things to which they are not entitled.

    No the "ultimate authority" says to "obey, honor, and sustain the law."

  • prelax Murray, UT
    April 21, 2014 10:20 a.m.

    @esquire
    not even mainstream media believes that anymore

    "The statistics are actually a little deceptive," Obama said last month (sept 2011) during a discussion with Hispanic journalists. There has been "a much greater emphasis on criminals than non-criminals." And "with stronger border enforcement, we've been apprehending folks at the borders and sending them back. That is counted as a deportation even though they may have only been held for a day or 48 hours."

  • Say No to BO Mapleton, UT
    April 21, 2014 10:15 a.m.

    @Esquire
    Obama has not raised enforcement to new levels. Quite the opposite.
    He halted worksite raids.
    He nullified 300,000 valid deportation orders.
    He gutted the 287g and Secure Communities programs.
    He released detainees with violent histories out into the streets.
    He inflated his deportation record by including border captures.
    Shall I go on???

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    April 21, 2014 10:01 a.m.

    If we would only read the Constitution, this debate would never have taken place. Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

    Changing the law to grant amnesty would violate the Constitution. It would be "ex post facto" (after the fact). It is expressly forbidden. It would require a Constitutional Amendment.

    When people endlessly debate a subject that requires no debate, it is just a waste of time.

    Our President knows that he cannot grant amnesty without breaking the Supreme Law of the Land. Senator Bennett surely knows that the Constitution has forbidden Congress to write that law.

  • RRB SLC, UT
    April 21, 2014 10:00 a.m.

    The wait is long, because the demand is high. The show house has so many seats, and when full, people have to wait. We did a remodeling of the show house in 1976, before that, it held 500,000 a year, now it's over a million per year from all over. This is the largest crowd to come here in the show house's history. We use to let immediate family in on one ticket, now we let in the entire extended families, so it fills up quick.

    Business try's to oversell the show house and sneak people in by the back door, it only causes trouble, the bouncers are lazy and don't do their job, because business pays off their boss. So we end up with more people in the show house, with many on the floor. Much of the time it's the ticket holders that have to sit in the aisles, because the people who snuck in are taking the seats. It's going to ruin the show house if they keep it up.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    April 21, 2014 10:00 a.m.

    @ Shane333, your proposal, while it might sound rational and reasonable, it doesn't reflect reality and is actually naive. Immigration flow is a worldwide issue, not just the U.S. The borders are under reasonable control, enforcement is at an all time high. Illegal immigration is actually at a very low level. There is, however, no possible way to have "real control" under the framework you state. It will never, ever happen, even if the economic situation in other countries is comparable to our own.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    April 21, 2014 9:56 a.m.

    @ Fitness Freak, from personal knowledge, I can tell you that Obama raised enforcement to unprecedented levels. It still doesn't solve it. Besides, Republicans claim they don't want executive action.... Good grief!

  • Shane333 Cedar Hills, UT
    April 21, 2014 9:41 a.m.

    Reagan attempted the amnesty option already. It was intended to only involve about 3 million people if I recall correctly. The unintended consequence of Reagan's amnesty was the message it sent to the rest of the world that the USA doesn't really enforce its laws nor care about its sovereignty. The result was an INCREASE in illegal immigration. In summary: Good intentions often don't translate into good policy and "immigration reform" (amnesty) had negative consequences when previously attempted.

    The answer is to actually control the border first, enforce existing laws, and then once we have real control of the situation we can discuss adapting the laws allowing people to immigrate to the USA.

  • factsplease SLO, CA
    April 21, 2014 9:36 a.m.

    Exactly what is the legal immigration process for residents coming here from Mexico?

    Does anybody know?

    How long is the wait?

    I'd like to see a well-written and researched article on that.

    Maybe then we can base our opinions armed with some facts and a more thorough understanding.

  • Fitness Freak Salt Lake City, UT
    April 21, 2014 9:16 a.m.

    "GaryO" Obama COULD strengthen border security tomorrow. He ALREADY has the authority to do that. No need for new legislation.

    The folks who advocate for "immigration reform" are REALLY just talking open borders. Most of them are simply elitists who want cheap labor, either for them or their friends.

    The United States southern border is as porous as ever. Just ask ANY border patrol agent.

    Somehow.......I'm inclined to believe them before I believe Bob Bennett.

  • Say No to BO Mapleton, UT
    April 21, 2014 9:13 a.m.

    Laws exist to settle the question. Mr. Bennett knows how it works. He swore to uphold EXISTING law passed by his predecessors in Congress. That's the way it works.
    Enforcement is lacking. When one studies the blue ribbon commissions (going back to 1981, 1994 and 1997) they are all similar in their recommendations:
    -Secure the border
    -Control the Visa process
    -Validate work authorization
    -Enforce ID theft laws
    -Apprehend, detain and deport those who are here illegally.

    Of course, Washington has failed to do that. Instead they court activists, labor unions and Chamber interests.
    The end result is that ONE THIRD of all foreign-born are here illegally.
    When will Congress act in the interest of the citizens of the United States, rather than their petty campaign needs?

  • dansimp Layton, UT
    April 21, 2014 9:04 a.m.

    There is certainly a lot of 'Justice' being discussed in these comments, but not much 'mercy'. I'm grateful that the ultimate authority is better at balancing those two principles, then most of the comments here.

  • Outside-View Federal Way, WA
    April 21, 2014 8:45 a.m.

    Who really advocates rounding up every illegal alien? What i think most people want is to have "immigration reform" that puts hard limits on the type of people who come into this country (education level, skills, country of orgin, family association etc) along with very strick visa and work e-verify protections and followup. You dont even have to address the current iliegals although I would be willing to support some level of dream act for children of these people in exchange for hte visa and work e verify systems.

    When the resolution that you are proposing ( forgiveness) has been done mulitple times and all it has done is encourge more people to come here iliegally so that they can wait for the next act of forgiveness, then you dont do it again. Perhaps ever.

  • DN Subscriber Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 21, 2014 8:34 a.m.

    I will be glad to love my neighbor, as long as they obey the laws.

    When if someone steals my car, sells drugs to kids, or robs my bank, then I will not love them.

    Every legal immigrant is welcome, and our laws allow for orderly legal migration. By the same token, those who chose to break our laws and come here illegally are not welcome, and we MUST not reward them with amnesty.

    I am afraid I don't have much love for those who chose to aid law breakers rather than those who obey laws. Be they in the media, rejected former politicians, or anyone else.

  • RRB SLC, UT
    April 21, 2014 8:07 a.m.

    Bundy should pay the grazing fee's. The people were there to stop the BLM from over reacting and selling his property (cattle). It would be much like ICE selling the property of those here illegally.

    Is this lack of failure to obey the laws a result of lack of immigration enforcement? The American people want the laws enforced and it's time has come. Think for a minute about the Bundy reaction aimed at those here illegally. Either group taking up arms is scary, but it's only going to get worse until we start enforcing our laws.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    April 21, 2014 7:35 a.m.

    10 years ago, there was a town where I lived that built a "day workers plaza". This was done so that those looking for work had a place to safely wait and to safely be picked up by those needing workers.

    And I would have bet my car that 95+% of them were illegal.

    The point is that for many many years, illegal immigration was completely accepted and sometimes encouraged. The laws were not enforced. No by Bush, Bush, Clinton, Carter, or Obama.

    The reason is that both R and D parties and their contributors have never really wanted enforcement.
    There was no political gain. For the most part, there still isn't.

    On a side note, many take the stance of ILLEGAL IS ILLEGAL. Enforce the law.

    Until we look at Bundy. Then it seems that everything changes.

    Think for a minute if we had a group of Hispanic American Citizens who banded together as an armed militia to stop the deportation of some of their friends.

    How many who support Bundy, would support this group? And vice versa.

    Just food for thought.

  • RRB SLC, UT
    April 21, 2014 7:34 a.m.

    Deporting 12 million, according to a government study done in 2007 by the Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agency put the cost at 94 billion. This is a one time cost, that does not include self deportation. The Federation for American Immigration Reform puts the cost of illegal immigration at $113 billion per year. When you add in the boost to our economy from putting millions of Americans back to work in non agriculture jobs, we can't afford not to.

    Our leaders have known for decades just how easy it would be. E-verify and social security number matching would eliminate most by not letting them work. Strong interior enforcement and tough employer sanctions would force them back to their own country. This is why the border\everify\interior enforcement\more judges\and a visa entry & exit system were never enacted after being passed in previous reforms. Business should pay the cost of deportations.

    We know exactly how to solve the problem, and it's not amnesty which just makes things worse.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    April 21, 2014 7:33 a.m.

    Marist: Since you are an advocate of Marx, you are not allowed to speak on anything that resembles freedom, including commenting on a neighbor that is infringing upon your "property," something that doesn't exist under Marxism! Integrity of thought and action requires you to admit what you believe!

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    April 21, 2014 7:09 a.m.

    Without undocumented immigrants, the country would have imploded. Rounding up all of them and sending them back is the most absurd idea of them all! They are here because America is the last best chance for freedom in the world. However, rewarded Republican or Democratic politicians for promoting the welfare state, disobedience to law, and their crony capitalist friends is what I can't tolerate, which is exactly what most of them have done! Disengaging from Socialism, requiring all Americans to obey the law, including illegal immigrants, and returning to God will change America!

  • cmsense Kaysville, UT
    April 21, 2014 6:31 a.m.

    You make some very good points. Thank you for the article. Now I hope those strong arguements can persuade some "ship them all back at all cost" proponents.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    April 21, 2014 5:37 a.m.

    Mr Bennett has done a good job of detailing out the challenges of the immigration problem.

    It is easy to say "round up and deport all the illegals". That seems to be the go to, feel good solution to many.

    But is it practical? Or even doable?

    We have a real world situation. We need real world solutions.

    While many will blast Mr Bennett, how about you take specific exceptions to what he wrote, and provide an alternative, real world, practical solution.

  • anti-liar Salt Lake City, UT
    April 21, 2014 5:01 a.m.

    Also disingenuous is Bennett's implication that all illegal aliens would need to be deported overnight and that there would be no attrition factor. First of all, it actually COULD be done, practically speaking, contrary to Bennett's claim that immigration law is "unenforceable" (i.e., that deportation is impossible). And it would only cost a fraction of what illegal immigration costs this nation on a perpetual basis.

    But surely Bennett knows that we need only serve notice to this nation's illegal aliens that they are in fact SUBJECT to the law and to meaningful penalty if caught in this country illegally and that most would then self-deport.

    It is time for a little "love thy neighbor" in the direction of American families who suffer in a wide variety of ways as a direct result of illegal immigration, and in the direction of hundreds of millions around the world who suffer far, far more than this nation's illegal aliens and who, in contrast, actually respect this nation and its laws. Where is the "love thy neighbor" for these?

    There is only one way to "love" ALL of these parties: personal agency, equality at the law, and accountability.

  • anti-liar Salt Lake City, UT
    April 21, 2014 4:49 a.m.

    The notion that retroactive legalization is merely "changing the law," is specious. What "changing the law" actually would do is signify that the law never meant anything to begin with, doesn't mean anything now, and will not mean anything in the future. Like that other obfuscative euphemism for rewarding lawbreaking -- "immigration reform" -- "changing the law" would be nothing less than an abandonment of the rule of law and also an abdication of U.S. sovereignty.

    Not only are border breaches hardly a "trickle," Mr. Bennett also fails to acknowledge visa violations and the fact that enforcement of immigration law in the nation's interior is virtually non-existent today.

    And if the rate of illegal immigration today is not as high as it could be, this is due in substantial part because rampant illegal immigration has in fact harmed this nation's economy to a point where even would-be illegal aliens themselves are unimpressed by the prospects and are remaining home -- at least until such time as the nation is able to rebuild it; then they do come in illegally.

  • RRB SLC, UT
    April 21, 2014 4:03 a.m.

    Making it legal to come here without permission, and then making it apply to those already here is not a solution. It's open borders and giving up this countries sovereignty.

  • RichardB Murray, UT
    April 21, 2014 2:01 a.m.

    Senator Bennett voted for amnesty in 1986, and the six amnesties in the 90's. At no time did he attempt to pass laws that would of enforced the border, e-verify/interior enforcement, more judges and law clerks. (all passed with the 1986 amnesty, but never enforced). He also did nothing to forward a visa entry-exit system (passed in the reform of 1996). Senator Bennett was part of the problem, his current ideas want to continue the failed policies.
    I don't think rewarding illegal behavior is compassion, it's more of a guilt trip on America's giving nature. I see enforcement as more compassionate, and it would serve as a deterrent to stop the lawbreaking. No more separated families, no more people dying in the desert, and no more business breaking the law.

    Last year we were told 11.5 million were here illegally, now Senator Bennett says 12-13 million. It looks like the border is still porous (and ICE agrees, people are still crossing it).

  • SLars Provo, UT
    April 21, 2014 12:37 a.m.

    Funny, I remember the Churches website tells people to come here legally, and that it is right for governments to enforce their laws.

    How about enforcing the laws, and demanding that people follow them?

    With the majority of people here illegally having committed id theft, social security fraud, perjury and tax evasion, Mr. Bennett's idea would apply to very few people here illegally. It would also give amnesty to business owners that commit felonies by hiring people here illegally.

    We have followed Mr. Bennett's ideas seven times in the last 30 years, it's only made the problem worse.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    April 21, 2014 12:34 a.m.

    "In addition to being good policy, such a system [law reform] would also demonstrate the “love of neighbor” of which President Uchtdorf spoke so eloquently when visiting President Barack Obama."

    I agree with Senator Bennett. What it comes down to is this: if I knew an illegal family was living next door, but they were nice people with good kids, could I turn them in to the Feds to have them kicked out of the country? I couldn't do it. I just can't harm people without an overt reason, i.e. directly harming my property or person.

    So if I couldn't turn them in, I have to advocate for changing the law. To get a position on this, we have to personalize it.