Confusing article. First we read from our Bill Of Rights which guarantees
"to all citizens" certain rights. Those who come here as refugees are
NOT citizens -- they are guests and they inherit none of the rights in the Bill
of Rights. Again, stating the obvious, The Bill of Rights is only for legal
citizens of the united states ..not guest workers or refugees or illegals who
happen to be our friends. Second, the Latter Day Saints who migrated to Utah
were citizens of the United States and were thus protected by our Bill of
Rights. The wrongs commited against the Latter Day Saints by the US government
and state government of Missouri were in violation of the Bill of Rights.
Let's stop all the wrongful, politically motivated, sanctimonious finger
pointing and state the truth -- citizens are protected by the Bill of Rights but
non-citizens are not. Period. President Trump wants to put American citizens
first and he is 100% correct in that stated goal. We can be civil and humain and
helpful to immigrants but let's not try to conflate their status into
something it is not.
To "SG in SLC" yes, your public salary is available to all. However,
that is not the same as your income taxes being available to all.If
all you want to know is how much the government pays Trump, then you have it.
You can look up how much of a salary the President makes from the government.So again, why does Trump have to supply his tax documents for everybody
to view? Yes you want it, but there should be a bigger reason than just saying
"I want it".If the concern is about ethics and conflicts of
interest, there is a government office dedicated to that one purpose.
Don't you trust the government ethics office to police the Executive
@RedShirtI think you missed the part where RJohnson said, "we
are equally entitled to know about our president's financial and business
affairs. My government job requires me to disclose that information every year;
why should the POTUS be any different."This is a common
requirement for public officials and public employees. I am also a public
employee (I work for Salt Lake County), so my total annual compensation (salary
+ benefits) and outside interest disclosures are a matter of public record.Public officials/employees accept these exceptions to their general
privacy rights as a condition of public employment or holding public office. Or
at least most do, unless they have the hubris to believe that the rules
don't apply to them.From a practical standpoint, why the
stonewalling on Trump's part? If he isn't financially beholden to
anyone, doesn't have any conflicts of interest, and there's nothing
shady or embarrassing in them, what does he have to hide?
To "RJohnson" you wanted Trump to have the same requirement to show his
taxes that Obama had to show his birth certificate.Legally, Obama
had no obligation to show his birth certificate. That means when you say
"Donald is entitled to no more privacy than he gave his predecessor with his
bogus show us the birth certificate nonsense " that any revelation is
voluntary. Trump could not force Obama to show anything. Obama had the choice
to show the birth certificate or not. It was Obama's choice, not
Trump's to release his birth certificate.Don't you believe
in freedom? Why do you want to force others to do your will? Why can't
Trump have the same choice that Obama had?
@RedShirt"To "RJohnson" so then you agree that Trump
does not have to show his Tax returns unless he wants to, just like Obama and
his birth certificate."Nope. Show the tax returns. Putting words
in another's mouth seems to be a pattern with you and your "ilk."
To "RJohnson" so then you agree that Trump does not have to show his Tax
returns unless he wants to, just like Obama and his birth certificate.So, if Trump doesn't want to show his tax returns, that should be the end
of the discussion. The more that your ilk protests and demands things the
worse it looks for your cause.
@RedShirt"Again, why should you get more privacy for your tax
records than the POTUS?"Sorry, but the Donald is entitled to no
more privacy than he gave his predecessor with his bogus show us the birth
certificate nonsense. And before you counter with "we're entitled to
know that the President meets the natural born citizen requirement of the
constitution", we are equally entitled to know about our president's
financial and business affairs. My government job requires me to disclose that
information every year; why should the POTUS be any different.
To "Frozen Fractals" so, you agree, he didn't ban immigrants from
certain countries. He only delayed their entry.Again, why should
you get more privacy for your tax records than the POTUS? If the POTUS has to
release his tax forms then shouldn't every single member of congress, and
all high ranking government official, down to state and large city leaders.Why should we expose all of those thousands of people to scrutiny?If your concern is about conflicts of interest there is a Government
Ethics group that watches out specifically for that. Don't you trust the
government to police itself for ethics violations?
@RedShirt"Trump did not "ban" legal immigrants. He put on hold
immigration from a few nations that support terrorism so that a better vetting
process could be implemented."He attempted to temporarily ban
immigration from some countries. "You hide your tax documents
from the public, why do you get more rights to privacy than the POTUS?"I don't think you or I are in a position where we have a high
enough influence over the economy, law, and trade decisions where conflicts of
interest present a significant concern. Trump's HHS Secretary is currently
under scrutiny over some of his investments that may have benefited from some of
his policy advocacy.@LOU_Montana"I am impressed how 2-bits
gets to post 4 times. "That's been the rule for a long
To "LDS Liberal " how can you continue to lie to us.Trump
did not "ban" legal immigrants. He put on hold immigration from a few
nations that support terrorism so that a better vetting process could be
implemented.What rights has he stripped away from women? (FYI
having somebody else pay for their birth control or abortion is not a right)You hide your tax documents from the public, why do you get more rights
to privacy than the POTUS?Building a 2000 mile wall is within
constitutional limits.Why not racially profile? Your ilk profiles
when it comes to telling us how any racial or minority group is doing in
comparison to another.To "unrepentant progressive" what law
makes it harder for minorities to vote? It has been proven that voter ID laws
only prohibit people from voting illegally.To "LOU Montana"
if you read the rules, you are now allowed 4 posts not 3.To
"Misty Mountain" you do know that the Bill of Rights is part of the
Constitution, so using a photo of the constitution is appropriate.
@unrepentant progressive "Do laws making it harder to vote help
minorities?"I assume you are talking about voter ID laws. How
do they make it harder for minorities to vote? I think you are selling
minorities short. They are smarter and more advanced than you think. I lived
in the Deep South for 13 years in predominantly black areas. They had IDs,
computers, the internet, email, etc. It was amazing. And perhaps the
government could help the extremely small number of people who need IDs attain
them. It wouldn't be hard with modern technology. Let's
face the truth, Democrats don't want voter ID laws because it will help
ensure only registered American citizens vote and that will hurt the Democrats.
I am impressed how 2-bits gets to post 4 times. The rant of
"lazy, stupid and not worth the money Americans", was so common that FOX
News had a one hour dicussuon on it. (You know FOX News is always right).It is wrong that Trump views 50% Of America as an enemy! He is a perfect
example of what is wrong with the GOP. In my wildest dream I can not view my
fellow Americans as an enemy. Russia is and has always been the enemy. To think
otherwise is treason.
@Husker1.If we want to follow the Mormon immigration model for refugees,
we would need to look at Alaska. Definitely not politically correct and a
non-starter (especially for pro-open borders people, liberals, and of course,
Democrats. But, an interesting side-note.
RE: "The only group the liberal, progressive democrats want to suppress is
any conservative, republican voter"...---Don't know
if they want to suppress our vote. But they surely see us as their #1
"enemy".Romney is the only Presidential candidate who
didn't point the finger at the American people when asked who our #1 enemy
is.Google "Romney called Russia our 'No. 1 enemy' |
PolitiFact"...Google "Dems Mocking Romney For Calling Russia A
Threat [video]"...Google "5 Times Liberals Mocked Mitt Romney
About Russia"...-Mitt Romney said "Russia", when asked
who our #1 enemy is (televised Debate).-Barack Obama called the American
people his enemy (televised on Univision).-Hillary Clinton called
Americans her #1 enemy (Democratic debate)-Donald Trump called Americans
(Democrats) his enemy. That's shameful IMO.Is it any wonder
we are so divided, when 3 of the last 4 Presidential candidates identified
Americans as their #1 enemy? Not Terrorists. Not Russia. Not North Korea.
Not Iran. Not ISIS.... but Americans are their #1 Enemy? I'm
not surprised we are so divided when our Presidents see ~50% of the American
people as their #1 Enemy. Not Russia
"Every now and again, Americans need reminding that the Bill of Rights
secures to all citizens essential civil and religious liberties..."True. But the stock photo is of the Constitution, signed in September, 1987.
It was more than two years later before the first ten amendments, also known as
the Bill of Rights, were passed.
"The only group the liberal, progressive democrats want to suppress is any
conservative, republican voter."I am a liberal, progressive
Democrat and I don't want to suppress anyone, including conservative
Republican voters. A few wackos may say that, but if you don't want to be
painted with a broad brush, don't paint me either.
IMO it appears the only group the liberal, progressive democrats want to
suppress is any conservative, republican voter. The Huffington Post ran an
article calling for the suppression of white male voters for twenty years. A
California liberal professor called for the violent removal of all republicans.
Are we automatically OK with oppressing people because they
didn't vote for Clinton? Apparently with all the liberal posters on these
threads why yes, they believe the constitution is wrong, it allowed for the
election of a president by the Electoral College. These commentators believe in
the suppression of any vote they don't agree with.
Esquire 11:46@ 2 bits, my, aren't you being thin-skinned....---No. Just pointing out that you don't know what other people
think, even if you claim to know what Utahns think and what Conservatives say
(even stuff we haven't said, and stuff we don't think. But stuff
that's part of your stereotype for us).It's lame (unless
we actually say/think the things you pretend we say/think). But we
don't.===RE: "I said "Too many Utahns",
not all Utahns"...---And I pointed out that you don't know
ANY Utahns who think or say that. Or you would have produced a quote from one
of the posted opinions saying that. But you can't. Because exactly Zero
people have said what you claim we say.===RE: "And
you claim I pretend to speak for Utahns. Where did you get that from?===Uhmm. Hello. When you and LDS Lib say, "Conservatives say
blah", or "Utahns think blah"... you are speaking for them (not
their words... your words).Saying what you think they would say
(even if they don't) and attributing the thoughts to them. That's
called speeking for somebody.Note:I don't speak for
others, or assume I know what you think. I cut and paste what you actually
From the article: "This is especially true in light of the state’s
founding as a refuge for, as the resolution states, “oppressed
people” who were fleeing religious persecution. After the Mormon
pioneers' arrival nearly 170 years ago, The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints, which owns this paper, has been the majority faith throughout
the state."It should be noted that Mormons first arrived in what
is now Utah in 1847. Utah became a territory in 1850 and a state in 1896.
Mormons did not settle here because they viewed the state as a symbol of
religious diversity and acceptance. It was essentially a sparely populated area
that they could attempt to claim as their own (including large parts of
Colorado, Wyoming, Arizona, and California, and all of Nevada). Once again,
comparisons of Mormons and Middle Eastern refugees are apples and
oranges...unless we are prepared to give these refugees a huge chunk of land for
@LOU Montana 9:48RE: "During the great years of GWBush conservatives
justified hiring illegal aliens by telling everyone that American workers are
lazy, stupid and not worth the money"...---Did conservatives
REALLY say American workers are "lazy", "stupid"? Or is this
post another assumption or strawman? I don't remember saying
that, and I'm a Conservative.But since you know what I said
back then... I guess I must have said it. ===I
don't think Conservatives really said "American workers are lazy,
stupid and not worth the money".Those who did were probably
talking about "Jobs Americans just won't do". The more accurate
phrasing -- "illegal immigrants just do the jobs Americans won't do for
the same low wages that illegal immigrants will take, and it helps our economy
to have the jobs done at those low wages.Both sides (mostly the
media) used the verbiage "Jobs Americans won't do" during the
immigration debate back then.Google "Senate kills Bush
immigration reform bill"It was the Senate (D-Harry Reid Majority
leader in 2007) that killed Bush's "Comprehensive Immigration
Reform" bill. Even though it included things Obama would push for later.
When we truly make our Nation safe for nonbelievers, minority religions, LGBTQ
People, the handicapped, the poor, the sick, the homeless, the friendless,
powerless and unloved.....only then we will we be a nation that is safe for
@ 2 bits, my, aren't you being thin-skinned. I said "Too many
Utahns", not all Utahns. And you claim I pretend to speak for Utahns.
Where did you get that from? Guilty conscience? I speak only for myself. They
say a little introspection is a good thing, something that is good for all of
So, the Gov issues a declaration and the DN editor seems to be declaring that
the Bill of Rights extends to the vetting process of refugees.That's a pretty broad brush.Y'all come!I
shouldn't be surprised. We don't enforce the law but seem governed by
poetry instead. "Give me your tired..."Next time I'm
stopped for running a red light, I'll try it. Wish me luck.
@airnautActually, I think the number is higher than one third.Pew
Research estimates that, based on their census data. They claim about one third
are illegal, one third are LPRs/Visa and one third are naturalized.Other estimates based on housing and school enrollment would put the number of
illegals higher...closer to 50%The entire problem is a creation of
our government, as Barbara Jordan testified to Congress, "Failure to develop
more effective strategies to curb unlawful immigration has blurred distinctions
between legal and illegal immigrants.”I've long ago given
up debating people who see the problem as racism and simply want to debate
numbers, as though the problem doesn't even exist. Some folks just buy the
narrative, I guess.
@unrepentant progressive.You noted, "Most illegal aliens are here for
a better life and economic opportunity. "In general, I'm
all in favor of amnesty (permanent residency) for non-felon illegal aliens
without the right to vote or seek public office. This would give them exactly
what they want.
@EsquireRE: "Too many Utahns who descended from an oppressed group now
have no problem oppressing others"...---Since you pretend to
speak for us Utahns and know what we think... who do we Utahns have no problem
oppressing?I've seen mostly support from Utahns at refugee
rallys in Utah (many organized by Mormons if you were going to take that
angle/false-stereotype). I've participated in numerous service projects
for refugees at church. I heard nothing but support for refugees the oppressed
around the world at General Conference a few weeks ago.Don't
know who I'm supposed to be for oppressing in your mind...===Are we automatically OK with oppressing people because we
didn't vote Clinton?She proposed immigration changes and limits
too (which evidently is construed as oppressing people).What if you
voted for Trump for some other reason (other than wanting to oppress people)?What if you liked his energy plan better. Or his budget plan better.
Or his SC nominees better. Or his defense plan better? Or his stance on
terrorism better? Or his trade agreement plans better?Must we want
to oppress people if we voted Trump? Seems like an assumption to me.
During the great years of GWBush conservatives justified hiring illegal aliens
by telling everyone that American workers are lazy, stupid and not worth the
money. They cared nothing for the constitution, their motivation was profit.Todat they act as if they had NO part in this problem. They claim to be
the defenders of the constitution and blame everyone for their wrong doings. Healing begins when you admit your mistakes. Fess up GOP, you are a huge
part of the problem. Fifty years you have fought all immigration reform. You
claimed it was inhumane to deney illegals work, why the big change in heart?
@Third try screen name - Mapleton, UTApril 17, 2017 6:48 a.m.ONE THIRD of all the foreign-born people living in the United States are here
illegally. Let that sink in.Then perhaps you will understand the
hypocrisy of this editorial.======= How do you know who
is and who is not legal?By the COLOR of their skin?Facial
features?an accent?Because if you even thought yes to anyone
of those - that makes you racist.You don't know, and no one
can assume to know who is, and who is not.BTW - that Constitution
also guarantees -- one is innocent until proven guilty.Let that sink
in.Then perhaps you will understand the hypocrisy of you comment to
this editorial.FYI -- The real hypocrisy is Republicans passing this
bill, but turning around and supporting Trump....But then again, Republicans
[including Trump] are YUGE flip-floppers, Bigly.
ThidOn this we certainly agree: (you said) "If the laws are so
blatantly disregarded then the rights are meaningless, because the people in
power are doing whatever they feel like anyway"Lawlessness is
rampant amongst Corporate America. Political elites disregard law to pursue
personal interests. And we can certainly point to laws violated by the current
occupant of the White House. So why the diatribe against illegal aliens and
forgetting that the already rich and powerful engage in lawlessness? Is that no
more worthy of attention? Most illegal aliens are here for a better
life and economic opportunity. Most of the powerful violating law are doing it
to become all the more powerful and wealthy.
Too many Utahns who descended from an oppressed group now have no problem
oppressing others, or voting for those who would oppress. Seems pretty
short-sighted to me.
DN, do you really believe this? ("Americans need reminding that the Bill of
Rights secures to all citizens essential civil and religious liberties,
including protection against majoritarian persecution and
discrimination")If so how do you square the circle with your
almost knee jerk response to almost every politically Conservative position?
Many of these positons seek to remove a minority from full participation in
American society. Do laws making it harder to vote help minorities? Do
proposals to eliminate consumer protections help anyone but Corporate America?
Do women not have the right to control their health care options? And on, and
on.Lofty words without the action to back them up are empty words
This editorial is absolutely correct that we would all be wise to pause and
remember what the Founding Fathers really stood for. Too many have forgotten.
The Founding Fathers established this Country on the principle that
the government is beholden to the people and that it has no other source of
power except the people. The great question of our time is whether we will stay
true to this principle. Will we believe in our capacity for self-government, or
will we abandon the American Revolution and accept the left-wing claim that a
tiny group of intellectuals in a far off capital can plan our lives for us
better than we can plan them ourselves?That is the problem with the
leftist ideology. It teaches that the public is far better off if it lets its
life course be determined by pointy headed elites in a far off capital. That is
why the Governor and legislature should be praised for protecting the religious
liberties of all Utahns. That is what the Bill of Rights was all about.
On Friday, Gov. Gary Herbert signs an important resolution unanimously passed by
Utah’s Legislature, declaring that local lawmakers are committed to
protecting the “civil liberties, religious freedoms, and dignity of all
Americans, (and) legal immigrants” while also encouraging
“compassion for refugees seeking protection in the state of
Utah.”======= So please explain:How
can these SAME Republicans support and vote for Donald Trump, who:tried to
BAN legal immigrants, BAN them based on their religion, strips away
women's rights, supports racial profiling, hides his taxes, and building a 2,000 mile wall?I did not vote for Hillary Clinton,
but based on the CONSTITUTION, I most certainly do NOT support
The notion that we are a nation of laws, as suggested in the second paragraph of
this editorial, is completely lost by this declaration of rights.How
can this newspaper and our politicians bombard us with pitiful stories and
notions of sanctuary for millions of people here illegally...and then tell us we
are a nation of laws?How can you possibly declare equal protection
as a right when police chiefs and county sheriffs are meeting with people who
live here illegally to explain that they are safe in our communities and these
law enforcement officers have no intention of enforcing our immigration laws?ONE THIRD of all the foreign-born people living in the United States are
here illegally. Let that sink in.Then perhaps you will understand
the hypocrisy of this editorial. If the laws are so blatantly disregarded then
the rights are meaningless, because the people in power are doing whatever they
feel like anyway.