Quantcast

Comments about ‘Letter: Immigration considerations’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Aug. 13 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT

Updated: Tuesday, Aug. 12 2014 6:23 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

I disagree.

The problem doesn't stem from lack of leadership. There has been great leadership on display... From big business.

Illegal immigration has been a problem for years. Yet, big business has successfully lobbied and defeated legislation to help fix this problem. They have even managed to keep themselves out of the blame game. Look at the debate today: build a fence, call in the troops, deport families who have lived here for years, etc.

Why don't anyone mention new legislation to punish big business? Why do businesses that employ illegally get a free pass? If businesses stopped hiring these laborers then illegal immigration would go away for the most part.

All of this is due to great leadership. Leadership from those who pay Congress the most. After all, bribery is free speech. A conservative justice said so.

ECR
Burke, VA

In a commencement speech at Notre Dame, actor Martin Sheen said,

"We are hearing a great deal of anti-immigration rhetoric these days, and some of it...disturbing. But what is far worse are the many unchallenged, swaggering, arrogant, immigrant-bashing voices across the land, and those voices need to be reminded that arrogance is ignorance matured.

"America is the oldest country in the world because it was the first to enter the 20th century, which was made possible in large measure because for the first 200 years of our history, America opened its doors wider and kept them open longer than any other nation on earth. The immigration issue is a vastly complex one that is worthy of an honest, intelligent, and compassionate debate, not blame, angry resentment, or the cowardly irresponsible bluster that so currently dominates so much of the popular media. And I think from time to time, we all need a very gentle reminder of how this great experiment in democracy got started."

“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses …”

When we "close our borders" are we, at the same time, closing our minds?.

SCfan
clearfield, UT

I'am speaking not as a Mormon, but from a political science point of view on this issue. Of the 6 some billion people living today, I'd guess some 5 billion would come to the U.S. if they could. Imagine what the U.S. would be like if even 1 billion more were to come here in the next 25 years. Take a look at other billion population countries. China, India. Do we really want to take the country there? To keep our standard of living, we need to control immigration in both numbers and who comes here. Importing more people who have English skills and education is much better than having more non English speaking and low education people coming in. May seem harsh to judge people in that fashion, but reality bites.

As for Obama and the border. The unspoken truth is, Obama is the responsible person for most of those children coming here. And therefore responsible for the tragedy happening to many of them trying to make the journey. All he would need to do is put out a public service statement in those countries to stop sending them here. Why won't he do that?

Say No to BO
Mapleton, UT

I agree with the letter writer. Those of us who oppose amnesty are considered heartless for not opening our borders wider, yet we already allow about a million new green card holders a year, mostly because they are related to someone already here. And the rate at which they naturalize is pathetic. Do they really want to become Americans? Or are they just here for the standard of living?
We struggle to provide good schools and social services for our own, and yet some want us to reward millions of illegals with amnesty. We are surrendering our sovereignty when we legalize millions whose first act was to disregard our laws.

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: "I disagree."

No doubt.

But, it's interesting that you agree with the basic premise -- something must be done to deal with something we all agree is a serious problem.

You suggest employer sanctions. You won't get much disagreement from real America on that. In fact, there's already a law in place -- eVerify. It's just not being enforced by the Obama regime. So, let's agree, we'll push employer sanctions on politicians. Liberal and conservative. Starting here. Starting now.

Politicians -- are you listening?

But, what's wrong with the belt and suspenders approach? Let's also secure our borders. It's not particularly hard. Most nations do it. We could, too. And, in addition to the unsustainable load of illegal immigration, it would protect us from the non-state terror actors, as well.

It's long, long overdue. And would have been implemented long ago, but for venal, cynical opposition from liberals.

So, liberals -- we agree with your employer sanctions scheme. How about communicating to your Congressional representatives that you're dropping your opposition to a real border security solution?

Curmudgeon
Salt Lake City, UT

The Mexico border is 1,933 miles long. The Canadian border is 3,987 miles long. Securing the borders is a nice idea, but how realistic is it? What would it cost to close the borders tighter than at present? Are you willing to have your taxes increased enough to cover the cost? I don't see Congress increasing the allocation of resources for border security any time soon. They just complain that the administration isn't doing more with the existing resources. All talk, no action.

watchman
Salt Lake City, UT

Jesse, you are right. There are good reasons for immigrations laws. The problem is that we are not enforcing them. No matter how compassionate we may want to be about the poor living in other countries and wanting to come to America, we must enforce the laws we have set in place.

To do otherwise is contrary to protecting the value of American citizenship and maintaining the sovereignty of this once great country.

There is an orderly and lawful way for people to immigrate to this country.

SCfan
clearfield, UT

And to follow up, yes, I think that the day an employer is taken to court and either given a heavy fine, or jailed for violating immigration laws by hiring illegals is the day the problem begins to be fixed. I hope that happens with the next President, and I don't care if the employer thrown in jail is the owner of Hobby Lobby, or Chick -Fil-A. We need a harsh example made of some employer who looks the other way and hires illegals. And they have ways of getting around the law by using the temp agencys. I once worked at a manufacturing company where we had the same temp workers who were there for years. And paid less money than citizen employees. A bad system all around that needs to be changed. Both Democrat and Republicans are equally responsible.

Irony Guy
Bountiful, Utah

What's the source of the crazy myth that Obama is "not enforcing" the immigration laws?

Fact: Obama is running the toughest enforcement system in history. Under Obama deportations have risen to record levels and immigration is now at a net zero, the lowest ever.

Somebody's pants are on fire (Fox News?.

KDave
Moab, UT

Sure, lets throw the employers in jail. We have way to many employers in this country anyway, and there is always food stamps. How about the Govt. just doing its job, then employers would not have to be concerned over who they are hiring.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

@SCfan
clearfield, UT
I'am speaking not as a Mormon, but from a political science point of view on this issue. Of the 6 some billion people living today, I'd guess some 5 billion would come to the U.S. if they could.

[I'm speaking not as a Mormon, but from the point of view of someone who has spent over 40 years visiting some of those 6 billion people in other countries...
MOST of them have no desire to leave their countries anymore than you do yours.

But I do agree with about those hiring illegal labor,
The reason they break the laws is for the jobs.

Eliminate the source of the "problem",
and address THAT,
and you have found the cure to it.]

wrz
Phoenix, AZ

@Curmudgeon:
"The Mexico border is 1,933 miles long."

The Rio Grande River is about 1,900 miles long counting all the loops and oxbows. and the border goes down the center of the river. How you gonna build a fence down the middle of the river?

The border along the Rio Grande will never be secured. The only way to discourage illegal immigration is to enforce laws prohibiting non-citizens from getting jobs... and that would be to enforce E-Verify.

Will that ever happen? Not while Barack Hussein Obama or any other Democrat is in the White House. They love immigrants from south of our border. It increases their voter base by millions and increases the chances they will stay in control of our government for many years to come. Never mind the fact that uncontrolled borders will lead to the death of America.

Spangs
Salt Lake City, UT

Some of the comments here have mentioned that business, especially agri-business is entirely dependent upon immigrant labor, and much of this illegal labor.

My father worked for UDOT for years and watched as Utah road construction companies hired legal and illegal immigrants and made them kick back part of their salary every month. How could they protest?

The reality is, we can't afford to militarize our borders and immigrants will continue to come. The real way we stop illegal immigration is to stop our complicit employment of these folks. If they can't get a job, they won't come.

Huge fines for companies that hire illegals is the only rational solution. Try legislating that!

SLars
Provo, UT

When people like Martin Sheen talk about immigration of old, are they aware that before 1976 we averaged 500,000 per year? Now we are allowing over one million people? Progressive liberals prey on America's sympathy and try to create a guilt trip to get what they want.

Amnesty just creates more problems down the road, when people here illegally are sent home, and tell others they were deported, it's the best deterrent we have. Paying $5-10,000 dollars to come here, and being sent back, removes all the financial incentives.

Obama claims people being turned away from the border as being deported, unlike all the other Presidents who count them separate. If you count just his true deportations he has the worst record since they started tracking them.

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: "Fact: Obama is running the toughest enforcement system in history."

Sophistry. Outdated, inaccurate sophistry, at that. First off, there is no history of serious immigration enforcement. Secondly, Obama's deportation numbers reflect feckless immigration policy, not serious enforcement.

Real fact: Obama ordered his ICE not to deport -- to give amnesty to -- several classes of illegal aliens.

Real fact: In nearly all recent immigration cases, Obama's policy is to slow-walk prosecutions and give defendants -- 600+ guilty of serious felonies -- useless, unenforceable notices to appear, and an opportunity to disappear forever into the crowd.

Real fact: The IRCA [1986] authorizes employer sanctions. Some administrations conducted employer audits under the Act, but, due to Congressional opposition, enforcement declined, then disappeared about 1999. Obama has done nothing to re-invigorate employer sanctions.

Real fact: Under the provisions of Section 287(g) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, the Justice Department previously entered into agreements with state and local agencies to assist immigration-law enforcement. Obama's clone, Holder, revoked several of those agreements, stripping local law enforcement of any ability to staunch the flow of illegals.

Kent C. DeForrest
Provo, UT

This is obviously a complex problem, but when the Republican House refuses to even consider it, we can draw several obvious conclusions. It is apparently much better politically to point fingers and spread misinformation than to actually meet with the Democrats and discuss a real solution to a very real problem. This Congress is the most useless in the history of that prostituted institution.

RichardB
Murray, UT

Under the 1986 immigration reform, people received amnesty, which further fueled the illegal immigration into this country. Also enforcement provisions were passed. A triple fence, with razor wire, e-verify with penalties, interior enforcement, and more judges and law clerks. We never saw the enforcement provisions carried out. In 1996 we passed immigration reform also, it provided the US with a visa entry-exit system. We still don't have one.

Immigration reform is meaningless until we have leaders willing to carry out the enforcement provisions. We should not be giving anyone amnesty until we have several years of honest enforcement.

How many are aware that amnesty for the individual also means amnesty for business? It's no wonder business lobbyists are pouring billions into this fight.

Spangs
Salt Lake City, UT

@procuradorfiscal,

Your real facts, although interesting, don't refute the "fact" that Obama may or may not be running the toughest enforcement system in history. You were right in your first paragraph that there is no history of serious immigration enforcement.

That being true you might as well blame any other American president for the same thing, especially GWB. Truth is, Obama is a paralyzed president. He can't act effectively on much of anything without Congress. Blaming him is like blaming a paraplegic for kicking your ball over the fence.

Esquire
Springville, UT

I have to wonder if the letter writer is a little like my sister in California who complains about all the illegal immigrants and then hires them....

In any case, if we can spend a trillion dollars on a couple of wars on the other side of the world, I think we can easily absorbed 50,000 children, most of whom will be staying with family already here.

And finally, all you on the right, do you think the immigration issue started with Obama? My, that is ill-informed and perhaps duplicitous partisanship.

Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

@SLars
"are they aware that before 1976 we averaged 500,000 per year? Now we are allowing over one million people? "

That's good news for all the people who think declining birth rates are a major problem in this nation. Unless it makes a difference to them which kind of people are being born...

to comment

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