Opinion

In our opinion: A worthy message

Comments

Return To Article
  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    April 20, 2017 12:24 p.m.

    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.

  • RedShirtHarvard Cambridge, MA
    April 20, 2017 6:38 a.m.

    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 branch?

  • SG in SLC Salt Lake City, UT
    April 19, 2017 5:46 p.m.

    @RedShirt

    I 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?

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    April 19, 2017 3:03 p.m.

    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?

  • RJohnson Salt Lake City, UT
    April 19, 2017 2:27 p.m.

    @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."

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    April 19, 2017 7:31 a.m.

    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.

  • RJohnson Salt Lake City, UT
    April 18, 2017 11:40 p.m.

    @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.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    April 18, 2017 4:52 p.m.

    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?

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    April 18, 2017 3:16 p.m.

    @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 time.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    April 18, 2017 1:30 p.m.

    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.

  • Husker1 Northern Utah County, UT
    April 18, 2017 10:48 a.m.

    @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.

  • LOU Montana Pueblo, CO
    April 17, 2017 5:31 p.m.

    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.

  • Vermonter Plymouth, MI
    April 17, 2017 4:51 p.m.

    @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.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 17, 2017 3:39 p.m.

    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

  • Misty Mountain Kent, WA
    April 17, 2017 3:10 p.m.

    "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.

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    April 17, 2017 2:48 p.m.

    "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.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    April 17, 2017 2:33 p.m.

    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.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 17, 2017 1:03 p.m.

    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 said.

  • Husker1 Northern Utah County, UT
    April 17, 2017 12:25 p.m.

    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 themselves.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 17, 2017 11:59 a.m.

    @LOU Montana 9:48
    RE: "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.

  • U. C. Professor ,
    April 17, 2017 11:50 a.m.

    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 everyone.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    April 17, 2017 11:46 a.m.

    @ 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 us.

  • Third try screen name Mapleton, UT
    April 17, 2017 11:35 a.m.

    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.

  • Third try screen name Mapleton, UT
    April 17, 2017 11:27 a.m.

    @airnaut
    Actually, 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.

  • Vermonter Plymouth, MI
    April 17, 2017 10:04 a.m.

    @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.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 17, 2017 9:52 a.m.

    @Esquire
    RE: "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.

  • LOU Montana Pueblo, CO
    April 17, 2017 9:48 a.m.

    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?

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    April 17, 2017 8:38 a.m.

    @Third try screen name - Mapleton, UT
    April 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.

  • unrepentant progressive Bozeman, MT
    April 17, 2017 8:13 a.m.

    Thid

    On 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.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    April 17, 2017 8:14 a.m.

    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.

  • unrepentant progressive Bozeman, MT
    April 17, 2017 8:06 a.m.

    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 indeed.

  • John Charity Spring Back Home in Davis County, UT
    April 17, 2017 7:30 a.m.

    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.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    April 17, 2017 7:03 a.m.

    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 Donald Trump!

  • Third try screen name Mapleton, UT
    April 17, 2017 6:48 a.m.

    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.