Editorial: Humane immigration enforcement

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Trooper55 Williams, AZ
    Dec. 5, 2011 11:43 a.m.

    @Dave4197 If you love the ilegalls so much maybe you need to foot the bills they are making on our resouces, such as foodstamps, medical, tutions and the cost to the taxpayers. They come here ilegally and you want to open them with open arms and call alot of people not caring, people like you should take care of them or move with them when they get deported.

  • justaguy Out There in, WI
    Nov. 30, 2011 12:32 p.m.

    One area that doesn't seem to get much discussion is how hard it is to immigrate into this country legally. Everyone clamors for the illegals to go home and come back legally, which many do. But that process is long, hard, expensive and fraught with beauricratic bungles and missteps that drag the process out needlessly. Let's make fixing that part of the solution, too.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Nov. 29, 2011 2:42 p.m.

    Anti-Liar, I am not accusing you of this, but I am going to use your post as an example. How many times have we been beat on the head about President Ezra Taft Benson's talks about "liberals" (given before he was President) as validation of the churches position on politics? This has been written here as doctrine, that what he said is gospel about what political views a member in good standing should have.

    And yet, on issues like this, we see excuses why we don't have to accept the churches published council on this subject - because it is not doctrine for all the reason you gave.

    So when is it we should follow the brotheren? Conference talks are just suggestions? There is no gospel doctrine about R rated movies, just talks. No signatures involved. The list is endless. So when do we take what the Brothern say at face value, and when are things just guides?

    I am not saying i have the answer. But is is confusing on which certain subjects the lines are very hard and fast (liberalism) where as others, immigration, they are just suggestions and not doctrinal.

    Lots of grey space out there.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Nov. 29, 2011 1:40 p.m.

    If you go to work now, in a foreign country, and you loose your job, you must go home as you are no longer sponsored. That is how it works today for hundreds of thousands of legal workers.

    The premiss here is that if you create a legal way for these people to be here to work, that they will be forced into a world of slavery and abuse. That is quit the quantum leap.

    Yes, there are those that would abuse these people. These people are here today, now. Even making these illegal people legal isn't going to make the unethical employer ethical. But rather, with a legal system, rather than chasing down millions of illegal residents, we would only need to manage and supervise thousands of employers. By the numbers, it is cheaper and more effective to make sure the workplace is eithical, rathar than keeping track of millions of migrant families.

    Its a matter of management and bandwidth. Where do you want to enforce the law. Under the guest visa program, we will know who these people are working for. Under the current system, we have no idea.

  • anti-liar Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 29, 2011 1:40 p.m.


    "I wonder how many of the hate filled commenters here are LDS and are aware of the counsel the Lord's Prophet has given on how to treat immigrants?"

    Are you LDS? If you are, then you ought to be aware of the commandment not to bear false witness against your neighbor, which is exactly what you have done in accusing commenters here of being "hate-filled," and for implying that to enforce the law is to hate. Both are lies.

    Next, you lie by implying that immigrants somehow are being mistreated, when they are not.

    Next, YOU SHOW ME where the Prophet has spoken on this matter. SHOW ME THE SIGNATURE.

    @Twin Lights

    Only the First Presidency is allowed to speak for the Church (Handbook 2, 21.1.29), and even then the unanimous approval of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve is required (D&C 107). The statements you cite are devoid of any express invocation of the specific authority of the First Presidency. In fact, they bear no name or signature at all. Therefore, they do NOT constitute official doctrine, policy, nor posture. They represent someone's personal opinion ONLY.

  • SLars Provo, UT
    Nov. 29, 2011 9:06 a.m.

    So someone here illegally can change jobs now if they are not treated fair, but once guest workers they can't change jobs? I wouldn't do it. I can see why the business community likes it.

    Nov. 29, 2011 8:41 a.m.

    A work permit or visa is much different than a resident that can live here indefinitely and have children that are citizens. Problems, problems, problems. If they don't do what the owner says, they can be deported, knowing some of Utah's business community, they will be abused, that would be a form of slavery/servitude.

    If they don't do what the owner wants, are we going to deport them according to the law, and separate the family as their children born here are birthright? That's the same problem we face now. The guest worker bill solves nothing. It just creates a situation where the resident can't afford to lose their job, and has to do what the boss tells him, including breaking the law.

    These will be low wage workers that will not cover the tax burden they put on the citizens, as non citizen residents will the business be responsible for the difference, and pay the American wage earner for losing his job?

    I don't like the problems it creates either. It solves nothing, it still causes the same problems we have now. And it makes them a slave to the company.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Nov. 29, 2011 6:38 a.m.

    RichardB - I have lived abroad a couple of times, and each time I was a second class resident because I was not a citizen of that country. Being a foriegner in anothers country by default resulted in things that I could not do. I had a higher burden of proof for insurance. Getting a loan on a home was harder. I could not vote. I had to be a resident over a certain period of time before civil benefits became available, and certain benefits never did become available. My rights to work in their country were curtailed.

    But at no time was I treated as a second class person. I enjoyed the fullest protection of the law, and in some cases, more so. For the most part I was never treated as a lesser person, and was embraced by the people I lived and worked with.

    I was a foreigner living in a foriegn land. It was as I expected it to be as I was not a citizen of the countries I lived. Being a "second class resident" should not be equated to lessor treatment or standing - where as being illegal usually does.

    It's a very fixable problem.

  • New to Utah PAYSON, UT
    Nov. 29, 2011 3:22 a.m.

    DN pushes amnesty again, couched in tear jerker fashion the editorial board uses an illegal married to a serviceman to push its case for humane treatment.
    The legal citizen who has lost his livelihood in construction because of undocumented workers has never been written that I've seen in the past 6 months.They have children,house payments and may have to move to North Dakota to support their family which may have to stay in Utah because their home won't sell.It is always a one sided slap in the face to middle class caucasian men who work hard and play by the rules. It is time for their voice to heard.

    Nov. 29, 2011 2:07 a.m.

    Why do people here always exclude part of the Churches statement. They also believe that people need to immigrate legally, and countries have the right to protect their borders and control immigration.

    Is it right to demand that citizens follow their statement, but those here illegally can ignore them without comment?

  • dave4197 Redding, CA
    Nov. 28, 2011 9:02 p.m.

    RichardB, I cannot disagree with your post more, you're certainly not hearing anything divine.
    Read the Compact. Read the parable of the Good Samaritan. Listen to recent LDS conference talks about pride and how to treat others. These are divine. Consider recent history of the reunification of 2 Germany's who absorbed the poorer economy and built up a new strong economy and community, there is a story of true friendship across lines of poverty and borders.
    RichardB, your post misconstues any vestige of what we should do about 2nd class citizens, as you refer to them. We need to help others less fortunate, not disclaim them, not call for the boot of on their necks. Those of us in this continent who have, must share with and lift up those who have not. I'm saying, RichardB, to you and to many others posting above, your attitude NEEDS to CHANGE. Laws need to change, let's make that happen.

  • RichardB Murray, UT
    Nov. 28, 2011 1:35 p.m.

    As LDS, Both Brigham Young and Joseph Smith told us that blind faith was not demanded by the Church. That if we questioned anything said by the leaders, we should ask of God. That is the path I have taken.

    I cannot condone trying to solve the problem by creating second class residents. It's opening Pandoras box, and the problems it will cause could continue for decades. I hope these groups that support this will look to the future and see the problems it could cause. Children born here of the second class residents will hold birthright citizenship. In the same family we will have citizens with full rights, and residents with reduced rights. It's a form of slavery or servitude that should not be allowed in this country again. It will be one of this countries darkest hours if it is allowed to happen.

    On top of that, it wrongly takes jobs from Americans, and depresses our wages. It does nothing to solve that, or the required taxpayer support to supply business with cheap labor.

    Enforcement and prevention are teachers. Lying and breaking the law should not get you ahead in the game.

  • radically_independent Orem, Utah
    Nov. 28, 2011 8:53 a.m.

    Should not all law enforcement be humane, fair, and yet swift? Kids are the hard part of this. These parents know the risks they are taking. The kids are just collateral damage.

    A reasonable guest worker program need to be worked out. One that doesn't lead to citizenship necessarily, but that does provide opportunity for those willing to take the risk of moving here, and earning a reasonable living for their families, legally.

    I am not even really worried about the back taxes issue. I could see if if we made all the other trades people who earned cash and didn't report it come clean. Trades people cheat the system on a regular basis. I refuse to pay them cash because of it. I pay taxes, so should they.

    But humane immigration enforcement. A novel and odd concept. Bush actually had some good ideas on this. Not politically popular with the isolationist crowd, so they died, but good ideas.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Nov. 28, 2011 6:05 a.m.

    I'm with the Prophet Mormon on this one --
    Such a prophetic Warning he gave us:

    The Latter-Day Nephites,
    supporting the Gadiantons,
    fully caught up in Materialism,
    shunning the Lamanites,
    are ripening themselves for Destruction....

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 27, 2011 11:15 p.m.

    Why exactly are people surprised that an LDS-owned Deseret News editorial is supporting an immigration idea that is very similar to something the Utah Compact, something the church agreed with, would support?

  • Kiyo Washougal, Washington
    Nov. 27, 2011 9:16 p.m.

    Please stop with the "weak and vulnerable" photos! "We must say no, so that we can say yes." Bachman. "We must be cruel, only to be kind." Shakespeare.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Nov. 27, 2011 8:28 p.m.

    From the official statement on immigration at the LDS Newsroom:

    "What to do with the estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants now residing in various states within the United States is the biggest challenge in the immigration debate. The bedrock moral issue for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is how we treat each other as children of God."

    "The history of mass expulsion or mistreatment of individuals or families is cause for concern especially where race, culture, or religion are involved. This should give pause to any policy that contemplates targeting any one group, particularly if that group comes mostly from one heritage. "


    "The Church supports an approach where undocumented immigrants are allowed to square themselves with the law and continue to work without this necessarily leading to citizenship."

    We who profess allegiance to the church would do well to consider this statement. There are many possibly political solutions that would fit this definition. We should be doubly wary of any solution that does not.

  • Casca Orleans, IN
    Nov. 27, 2011 7:38 p.m.

    The American people cannot be apathetic anymore, so it times to enforce our immigration laws. The E-Verify program that has gained notoriety, but not in the Liberal press, the special interest lobbyists or open border so called anomaly. The time has come to build the real fence from Texas to California covering the whole 2500 miles with double-layer fencing. It is also the time to contact the Ways and Means Committee responsible for bring The Legal Workforce Act, bill number H.R.2885 to the House floor in Congress. Only the American voter or legal resident has a say in this urgent matter, which will produce large numbers of jobs displaced by the 8.2 illegal workers as estimated. The number to call for the Washington political phones is 202-224-3121. These people need to listen to the People, instead of deceiving us anymore. If you have further questions, go to the NumbersUSA via Google and study the facts of years of the fabrication and idiom we absorb through the Leftist associated newspapers or the politicians, who evidently are working for us?

  • DrGroovey Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 27, 2011 7:28 p.m.

    I wonder how many of the hate filled commenters here are LDS and are aware of the counsel the Lord's Prophet has given on how to treat immigrants?

  • DevonRomero OGDEN, UT
    Nov. 27, 2011 6:55 p.m.

    No administration is ever going to solve the ongoing immigration crisis in this country. No law, no president, nor citizens outcry will solve it. How would any of us United State Citizens/Natives act if our family was separated or if we lived in complete poverty? We would do anything and everything in our power to create a better life to provide ourselves and families with a better quality of life its human nature. The only way to truly solve the problem is to get over it cause its never going to be solved.

  • wrz Salt Lake, UTah
    Nov. 27, 2011 6:21 p.m.


    "Not only will we be paying more for produce but also our lawn care, houses and other items we purchase."

    It's about time we started looking after ourselves.

    "Many of these jobs would not be filled by the unemployed and the produce will rot in the fields."

    They will, when they run out of unemployment benefits. They get 99 weeks now and that's it.

    "... but what are the consequences to those consumers who enjoy the cheaper products/services that they provide?"

    About five cents more per heada cabbage.

  • wjalden Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 27, 2011 6:15 p.m.

    "Give me your tired, your poor, yada yada yada..."

    Christy, where in law do these words appear? Oh right - NOWHERE. The Jamestwon colonists did not write them. The Plymouth colonists did not write them. The men of the Continental Congress or the Constitutional Convention did not write them. They have not been added to the Constitution in any amendment, ever. They appear in a poem written by a woman named Emma Lazarus. Emma Lazarus did not give us the statue, the French did. They called it "LIBERTY Enlightening the World" not "Immigration Overwhelming the Nation." Got that? "Liberty."

    But no matter what the statue's raison d'etre, we are still free as a nation to set our own immigration laws, and in the years immediately following the statue's placement we had some very restrictive, unidealistic ones.

    As for your claim that we have to let in an unlimited number of immigrants because our ancestors did, are you suggesting that we have to let immigrants displace us because we displaced the Indians? Such extremism speaks for itself.

  • Christy Beaverton, OR
    Nov. 27, 2011 5:26 p.m.

    The picture with the article shows "the wife of a deployed U.S. soldier holding their son. She entered the U.S. legally but overstayed her visa. Thousands of American soldiers have family members who could be deported while they are away."

    So, soldiers who are away fighting for us should come home to find that we have deported their wives? And it seems most of you are perfectly fine with that. Undoubtedly you're also against the commonsense DREAM act.

    Never mind what we did to the Native Americans when we landed here, uninvited. Never mind we are a nation of immigrants. Never mind how badly the Irish were treated, or the Chinese. Now it's the Mexicans.

    Never mind the Statue of Liberty in the harbor and her liberal bleeding heart, her "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

    I mean, clearly she meant, "I lift my lamp to check their papers!"

    This is AMERICA. We are better than most of the sentiments being expressed regarding this smart editorial.

  • marcamus goochland, va
    Nov. 27, 2011 4:29 p.m.

    Speaking of those illegally here, many have made positive contributions. I would dare say the majority have made positive contributions Many come to our shores seeking asylum or refugee status, sometimes we treat them well and other times not so well. I know of a family who came from Guatemala 20 years ago and applied for asylum. Many thousands fled Guatemala at the time and applied for asylum. USCIS boxed all of their applications up for 20 years allowing them to have work permits. In 2009, USCIS unboxed these applications,routinely denied the cases, and sent the people to immigration court to be removed. The Gingrich panel would be a great help to these individuals and they should stay. The particular family I know of had children serving in the military at the same time the parents were in removal proceeding. The government attorneys argued strenuously that the family tried to game the system by putting their kids in the military to gain sympathy. Fortunately, a much wiser judge, allowed the family to stay.

    I agree with enforcement and knowing who is here, e-verify, but we also must have a compassionate heart.

  • gfridley Lake Point, UT
    Nov. 27, 2011 4:16 p.m.

    The last words in the article are very telling. Moral Courage should be changed to Political Pandering. It appears we are given a magical potion during election season where we believe and hang on every word spoken by the candidates. All since of reality is suspended while we listen to the shape shifters move reality around. It reminds me of a phrase that an investment house used, "past performance is not indicative of future earnings". Well in the case of people it is quite the opposite. Past performance is directly related to future performance since these individuals don't change. Character is character and we should judge them by their works not their words. It is true that we need to reform our immigration laws so that it is easier for those who come through the front door to do so. It is also true that we handle these people as such with dignity and respect however amnesty is not an acceptable policy. It has not worked in the past and will not work now.

  • marcamus goochland, va
    Nov. 27, 2011 3:55 p.m.

    Immigration is more complex than tax law. Many who write on the post are uninformed about the complexities of the law.

    I wish we would concentrate more on solving business immigration. Currently, no non-immigrant investor or entrepreneur options exist for nationals of India, China, Brazil, South-Africa. Yet, someone from Iran can easily obtain a non-immigrant investor visa. The above countries could represent a significant investment opportunity for the U.S. However, this is not enough. USCIS consistently denies investor or entrepreneur cases despite the businesses successfully surviving in this economy hiring U.S. citizens. I know of several where U.S. citizens employed by these foreign nationals lost their jobs because of the inept USCIS denying their employer's visas.

    Most of the candidates discuss making visas easier to obtain for higher educated foreigners who will open businesses and employ more U.S. citizens, but currently it is all talk as it has been for years. I wish we would turn the conversation away from illegal alien problems and focus on ways to assist foreigners grow our economy as they have done for centuries when able to do so.

  • JayTee Sandy, UT
    Nov. 27, 2011 3:15 p.m.

    Ivory Homes hires many illegal alien workers. Ellis Ivory is, I believe, still a wheel with the Deseret News. See any connection here? One hand washes the other--but if you're a taxpayer or an unemployed or underemployed citizen, you get to underwrite the ride. Fun, huh?

  • JayTee Sandy, UT
    Nov. 27, 2011 2:59 p.m.

    Newt lost my respect and support when he can out with this. I had my doubts before, because he fancies himself to be an intellectual--which usually means some ability to complicate the obvious. I wish those who advocate for giving away our money, freedoms, and sovereignty were the only ones paying for it.

  • BobP Port Alice, B.C.
    Nov. 27, 2011 2:14 p.m.

    The attitude of "good LDS" Utahns on immigration sickens me. Illegal immigration is a problem, it must be dealt with.

    But much of what I read here makes me wonder if the Evangelicals are right, the we are not Christian - at least those "good LDS" folks sure don't act like it. You polute my beloved church.

    Well said dave4197

  • wjalden Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 27, 2011 1:47 p.m.

    There is nothing "inhumane" about putting an illegal immigrant on an airplane or bus and sending him back to his rightful country.

    No families need to be torn apart by deportation. Deported illegal aliens are free to take their children with them. They almost always do.

    Their having had children while illegally in the USA does not oblige us to raise those children for them, any more than the American people are obliged to raise my children.

    Separating illegal parents from their adult citizen children is not "tearing a family apart," any more than a family is torn apart by an 18-year-old who goes away to college, a 23-year-old who moves away for a job, or, AHEM, a 19-year-old who goes on an LDS mission. If it is, then the church that owns this paper has got some 'splainin to do.

    The nonsense spewed by the open borders crowd is nauseous.

  • dave4197 Redding, CA
    Nov. 27, 2011 1:42 p.m.

    It's appalling to me to read so much hatred towards immigrants in most posts above, do you guys have an actual heart beat? You haters don't have a leg to stand on when you complain about Newt's moral misses. You haters don't have a place to stand when you call upon the rule of law as some kind of high ground, you're over the cliff's edge, the law needs to be changed radically.
    Immigration by our friends from south of the border needs to be practical, possible, routine, easy. Winnow out the real criminals.
    The community attitude of hate, disdain, or even mild dislike towards those of a different color, or with a different language, or who are poor, NEEDS TO CHANGE. We are a nation of immigrants. My ancestors were immigrants, except one native American. I stand for helping our friends from south of the border, into our job market to compete, into our schools to get educated, into our hospitals if they're sick. Get the boot of the law off the neck of a bunch of poor people. Get a life, you haters.

  • canyon wench WILLIAMS, AZ
    Nov. 27, 2011 12:58 p.m.

    Several years ago before the economy fell and tempers flared I got to see the special treatment close up. One evening while sitting with our small child at the local clinic a father rushed in with his sick daughter. He told of a high fever, sore throat and hurting body. At this point she had the sympathy of all of us, well everybody but the state of Arizona. It turned out that because of her enrollment in our states insurance(AHCCCS) she could not be seen and now needed to be taken another 45 miles to sit in an overcrowded ER. The next in line an illigal who had been injured on the job. No questions, no payment just free medical care. Yes he needed care but so did this small child so put up your sad pictures tell us the sad stories but I can garantee each one can be met by a matching story of a US citizen that has gone without caused by our selfish need for cheap service. Those sad feverish eyes along with hearing that father explain that the Dr. couldn't help her pretty much closed the argument for me.

  • PackersFan SAINT GEORGE, UT
    Nov. 27, 2011 12:44 p.m.

    Mike B makes a good point. Not only will we be paying more for produce but also our lawn care, houses and other items we purchase. Many of these jobs would not be filled by the unemployed and the produce will rot in the fields. We want the cheap services but like having an sub class people to abuse and blame. The illegal immigrants knew the consequences of coming here but what are the consequences to those consumers who enjoy the cheaper products/services that they provide?

  • CJ Murray, UT
    Nov. 27, 2011 12:37 p.m.

    Next week I would like to see a legal American mother holding her child who has been a victim of identity theft (along with 50,000 other Utah kids) on her lap.Then tell about the father of the family who used to work in construction until he was undercut on his job by invaders from Mexico who have no right to even be here. That is a real sob story we can all relate to and feel both sorrow and anger about.
    Somewhere along the road in the last several years the DN has ceased being a newspaper and has now become the propaganda wing of the Mexican government in an effort to aid and abet them in their quest to colonize the USA. The Gingrich plan is exceeded in stupidity only by the Utah CON PACT and HB116. We are now supposed to reward those who break the law the longest and deport the rest? Those who stay can't vote? (think ACLU lawsuit) I guarantee you that if there are 11 million of them, 10.9 million of them will show up with phony documents showing they have been here that long.

  • What in Tucket? Provo, UT
    Nov. 27, 2011 12:21 p.m.

    This is a good starting point. I do not see why we should have illegals with HIV or tuberculosis or other communicable disases. English must be the language of government forms. In Texas if you are in an accident and your car has no insurance it is impounded. They found all the lots full in 9 days. They were illegals and could not get insurance. So what are we waiting for.

  • The Sensible Middle Bountiful, UT
    Nov. 27, 2011 12:14 p.m.

    The desnews is right, there needs to be a balanced approach. If someone is breaking the law in a serious way, of course they need to be put in prison, and then deported. But to make a blanket rule that law abiding people who have come here without papers need to be deported simply isn't reasonable. There are people who have been here for years, who are good residents, people who are contributing, people who have family ties.

    The reactionary right, or left is seldom the way to properly conduct affairs. The sensible middle is generally the wisest course to follow.

  • TRUTH Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 27, 2011 12:12 p.m.

    I think it's time we start boycotting the Utah Compact Businesses like the Dnews..........The Dnews is the new SLLibso why have two lib papers?

    Boycott today

  • teleste Provo, UT
    Nov. 27, 2011 11:54 a.m.

    Let's stop putting people who break ANY federal laws in jail...you know, it breaks up families.

  • Alfred Salt Lake, UTah
    Nov. 27, 2011 11:29 a.m.


    "Gingrich's nuanced approach seems to understand this complexity."

    Gingrich's nuanced approach ignores complexity, detail and forethought.

    He talks of amnesty about the guy who's been here 25 years. What about the guy who's been here 24 years... or 20, or 1 year? What about the guy who's got only one traffic or parking ticket in 25 years? Should he be deported? What are Gingrich's intentions with these guys? He doesn't say. Someone needs to challenge him on his one-liner sound bites.

    This whole immigration issue has to be black and white otherwise each case will have to be adjudicated in a court of law which will cost the US government billions and billions just to figure out who should go and who is entitled to stay. Gingrich shows total lack of ability to fathom the complexity of immigration.

    As a matter of fact, AG Holder is embroiled in this very issue. Each potential deportation is run through a court proceeding which costs the government an estimated $25,000 each. With 15 million immigrant cases to adjudicate that would be ($25,000 X 15,000,000)... you do the math. My calculator doesn't go that high.

  • I M LDS 2 Provo, UT
    Nov. 27, 2011 11:02 a.m.

    When an editorial board that includes members of the Chamber of Commerce and those with vested interests in advancing "cheap labor" continue to publish editorials that are in direct conflict with both the obvious WILL of the people, and the existing LAWS, such a pattern goes beyond mere "editorial opinion" and becomes PROPAGANDA!

    To DN Editorial Board: Enough! The People of this State do NOT support amnesty, illegal immigration, and "cheap labor" cartels. Period. Stop trying to brow-beat us with repeated "opinions" that amount to re-hashing the same nonsense!

  • Mr. Bean Salt Lake, UTah
    Nov. 27, 2011 10:47 a.m.

    @Joe Smith:

    "I am not willing to discuss what is to be done with those already hear until the border is secured."

    Securing borders? Never happen. Too porous. Furthermore, illegals can fly in. And still further, almost half of illegals get here via a legal visa but don't go home when the visa expires. Such is the case of the highlighted young lady in the article's picture.

    @Mike B:

    "We used to own a business in the Hispanic area of Tucson, AZ. The day after the first anti-immigration prop. passed, our business fell off a cliff."

    Perhaps you shoulda been paying a competitive wage instead ripping the poor immigrant off and treating them as slave labor. And a competitive wage would only add a few cents to a head of lettuce at the grocers.

    It is unconscionable to not hire American workers giving deference to illegals, when we have so many unemployed Americans.


    "Remember the old soft shoe? Well here it is again."

    Yeah, and it's worse than that. Giving any kind of amnesty means more will be encouraged to illegally come. Soon we will be mostly an Hispanic nation. Can you learn to speak Spanish?

  • Say No to BO Mapleton, UT
    Nov. 27, 2011 10:25 a.m.

    Another dubious message of the Gingrich plan, "No citizenship for you," is an obfuscation. It sounds like a compromise but is not.
    Of those offered amnesty in 1986, only about 40% actually naturalized. By comparison, 56% of those who came here legally (and thus didn't need amnesty) became citizens.
    (Source: Nancy Rytina, IRCA Legalization Effects: Lawful Permanent Residence and Naturalization", summarized by CIS)
    Citizenship is not considered a prize or even a goal for third world immigrants. They are here for the jobs and the quality of life; not for any altruistic pursuit of the American Dream. What makes us believe that illegal aliens have any regard for the American way?
    Newt's citizenship ban is a nonstarter.

  • Petra Sanpete County, UT
    Nov. 27, 2011 10:20 a.m.

    Thank you so much for this reasoned editorial. While I think Newt Gingrich should be disqualified from being the Republican presidential nominee on the same moral grounds as those that brought about the impeachment hearings for Bill Clinton, I do agree with Gingrich on this issue. (For the party of "Family Values" to nominate him, with his history, would be hypocrisy at its worst, in my opinion.)

    This is an extremely difficult issue, one that cannot be solved by the angry spouting of bumper-sticker slogans. Gingrich's nuanced approach seems to understand this complexity. Hopefully, compassionate and reasoned leaders will indeed find the best possible solutions for all concerned.

  • wrz Salt Lake, UTah
    Nov. 27, 2011 10:19 a.m.

    Gingrich is nuts. He can't have it both ways. If he allows for any illegals to stay in the US, he has to allow all to stay. Why? Because they all come here for essentially the same reason... to take jobs (jobs, by the way, that unemployed Americans should be taking).

    And another thing... any verbiage to secure the border is a red herring. Like the woman in the picture holding her baby who came here legally on a visa but overstayed, fully forty percent of all illegals came that same way.

    The only way to stem illegal immigration is to stop them from obtaining employment by enforcing Federal E-Verify laws. And by the way, how is it that they can get jobs as illegals? Don't they need an ID such as a Social Security number, which is only given to citizens?

  • RichardB Murray, UT
    Nov. 27, 2011 10:17 a.m.

    We have Americans in prison, their children in foster care. There families are broke up, yet no one complains about that.

    We have legal immigration that lets in over a million people each year, we have guest worker programs (visas) that can keep people here for up to three years. What we don't have is enforcement, politicians putting the heat on dishonest businessmen, and media that is consumed with forcing amnesty on us. None of these people are doing a thing to stop people from coming here illegally. In 10 years you'll read their sob stories, remember it could of been stopped by responsible people who acted humane in counseling people to come here honestly.

    We already have unlimited visas for agriculture, and Americans will do any job if the price is fair. If companies want illegal help, let them move out of the country. Bringing them here requires American taxpayers to subsidize the business cheap illegal labor. Welfare for the rich.

    There is no statute of limitations for illegal immigration.

  • FDRfan safety dictates, ID
    Nov. 27, 2011 10:14 a.m.

    My esteem for DN has shot to the heavens. I hope that you will be careful not to change to an elitist approach to immigration however. Mathematical and science skills are not the only measures of worth to America.

  • wjalden Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 27, 2011 10:09 a.m.

    There are 7 billion people living on this planet. Most of them don't live in the US, and yet they still manage to live happy lives, get married, feed their families, raise their children, and die peacefully at an old age. Mexico? According to data from the Mexican government the life expectancy there is 75.8 years - about the same as for Hispanics in the USA.

    There is nothing at all "inhumane" about safely repatriating illegal aliens to their home countries via airplane or bus - two of the safest methods of travel ever invented. You think bus travel is inhumane? We just celebrated Thanksgiving. Try crossing the North Atlantic in October aboard a late-16th Century era sailing vessel, the way the Pilgrims did.

    "Tearing apart their families"? Their 5 year old anchor babies aren't obligated to stay here because they're citizens. They can take them, and always do. As for extended families, how many people in America live hundreds or even thousands of miles from parents, grandparents or adult siblings? Tens of millions.

    So spare us the dreck...

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Nov. 27, 2011 10:09 a.m.

    There is a great problem with giving people the "right" to live in the United States without giving them "citizenship". That problem is that they are people without the right to vote. That is exactly what we had before slavery was overturned. Now, those who favor the return of "pseudo citizens" are telling us that those who entered the United States illegally should be allowed to stay here with all the rights and obligations of citizens, but without the right to vote.

    Sure, let them work for sub-minimum wages. Let them live three or more families per apartment. Let them be our "slaves", but don't let them vote!

    Fairness requires that they first comply with all rules and regulations relating to entry into this country. AFTER they have complied with those rules and regulations, they deserve ALL the privileges and responsibilities of every other citizen - including the right to vote.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Nov. 27, 2011 9:46 a.m.

    Here's a crazy simple (yet effective) idea!

    Hire illegals?

    Lose your business and go to prison!

    All of a sudden Utah employers would run to hire legal workers. All of a sudden those who are illegal will either go through the necessary steps to become legal or leave! They'll stop coming if businesses would only stop hiring them!

    I know I know, it makes TOO much sense.

  • wjalden Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 27, 2011 9:46 a.m.

    This newspaper continues with the dishonest claim that it favors enforcement, so long as it's "realistic" and "humane." Yet time and again, when any new proposal is made to reduce the number of illegals in this country, the Deseret News finds some reason to object - it is "unworkable" or "unconstitutional" or "inhumane." So the News isn't pro-open borders and pro-dirt cheap labor - they just conveniently can't find an enforcement measure they support.

    When the economy was good we had ~500,000 illegals coming each year. It's slowed substantially since the recesssion, but the 12 million or so who were already here have mostly remained. Any real enforcement policy - "comprehensive" or otherwise - needs to yield a substantial year-over-year reduction in illegals. The News wants leniency in certain cases? Fine. What I'd like to know is in which of the 12 million cases besides murderers, rapists and arsonists they don't think leniency is merited. Scant few, I'd wager.

    Which leaves us with a paper that thinks America doesn't belong to its citizens, and that any or all of the 6.7 billion people living elsewhere are entitled to come here whether we want them or not.

  • oldcougar Orem, UT
    Nov. 27, 2011 9:43 a.m.

    Nothing like a common-sense editorial, full of pragmatism a sense of what's real to bring out the narrow-minded haters. I agree with this editorial completely, and have been saying similar things for a long time.

    But, along with securing the border (that means making it nearly impossible for bad guys to cross it), a matter of equal import is to fix our immigration laws, which are ridiculously fouled up, making legal crossing almost impossibly expensive, time-consuming, and bound with bureaucratic paperwork. The main reason folks swim the river or brave the desert is to avoid the unnecessary hassle of doing it legally...and, to provide for their families' immediate needs.

    Finally, if an immigrant with a visa is allowed to serve his/her country, putting their life on the line, why would we deport his/her family while they are in harms way...for us?

    Meanwhile, all of you who have NEVER broken a law, please escort a friend back across the border...and do it at your expense while telling them how it's best for them.

  • DN Subscriber Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 27, 2011 9:26 a.m.

    The camel's nose is under the tent now at 25 years.

    How about 24 years? Why not 23? 22, 21, or 20 years? Why discriminate against 19 years? Or 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11?

    Do I hear 10 years from the Democrats? We have 10! Maybe, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, or merely 1 year?

    SOLD! We have amnesty for everyone!

    The Deseret News editorials and the amnesty advocacy pawned off as news stories has become pervasive, and I can guarantee there will be another one tomorrow, like every Monday.

    After slashing the formerly excellent staff it sure appears that the paper has hired a bunch of illegals "to do the jobs Americans won't do" and write pro-amnesty stuff.

    Legal immigrants are welcome and needed, but illegal immigrants must be stopped at the border, and those already here returned home! Any form of amnesty just creates a magnet attracting more illegals who hope (or know) there will be another amnesty program if they wait long enough.

    Enforce our laws- all of them!

  • sally Kearns, UT
    Nov. 27, 2011 9:18 a.m.

    The articles are always about family. What about the family these illegals have left behind in their home country. I've read articles about the disabled and elderly that are trying to survive back in their home country without family support. This really isn't about family. Deseret News, why not tell it like it really is, "It is about cheap labor for the businesses of America".

  • Trooper55 Williams, AZ
    Nov. 27, 2011 9:10 a.m.

    I believe that we do need to secure our borders, but at the same time we don't need to be rewarding the law breakers, if you are here ilegally they should be deported and made to enter this country the legal way. When you marry someone and you know they aren't legal here, then you too are breaking our laws and should be accountable for all the actions that are there. I am not against breaking up families,but lets get real about the ilegalls and say enough is enough. Most do put a strain on the system and it's already costing alot of taxpayers money, and I aam getting tried of my tax dollars going to support them. Money that is made in the U.S.is being sent out to support their famlies in other countries and they should have to pay an added fee for that.

  • Doug10 Roosevelt, UT
    Nov. 27, 2011 9:04 a.m.

    What is the statue of limitations on border hopping?

  • mohokat Ogden, UT
    Nov. 27, 2011 8:34 a.m.

    Remember the old soft shoe? Well here it is again. Give the lawless legality? And then down the road after a few years of the old soft shoe the then legals will want citizenship and Politicians who see a gain for themselves will be selling citizenship instead of just legality. Giving the lawbreakers legality? Who will still pay for the costs of having them here? Not the employers who benefit from their cheap labor, but the taxpayers. And don't tell me then they will be paying taxes because the cheap labor will allow them tax credits!If they are not working at cheap labor they will be competeing with citizens for better paying jobs ie construction,manufacturing etc. This is a scam where business, churches, and politicians benefit. Bonafide citizens lose again!

  • Say No to BO Mapleton, UT
    Nov. 27, 2011 8:33 a.m.

    This editorial makes the flawed assumption that sending someone home is somehow inhumane. It is not. Most often that "home" is Mexico. Is Mexico listed as a refugee nation? No. Do we send missionaries to Mexico? All the time.
    To put a finer point on it, most of the illegal aliens from Mexico come from well within the interior in Guanajuato, Jalisco, Michoacán, San Luis Potosí, and Zacatecas. That's far from the border violence.
    So sending them home is not bad at all.
    And the policy Newt Gingrich and the Church seem to endorse is a slap in the face to our minority citizens who are out of work as well as those waiting to immigrate legally.
    Then you must deal with the concept of rewarding bad behavior; never a good idea.
    Lastly, what message are we sending to the 165 million third world inhabitants that Gallup (2009) tells us want to live in the United States?
    If this concept were viable, the 245i program would have been a success. It wasn't.

  • Utah_1 Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 27, 2011 8:21 a.m.

    If we are going to have a line for people to come to this country, you can't reward those that bypass the line. They need to be sent to the back of the line. That doesn't mean you should stop treating them like people.

    Do you remember when you had to wait in line to buy tickets to a movie, and then wait in line before going in? If you came to the theater and the show was full, you could buy a ticket to a later show. That was before you could order them at home, and know then where your seat was and what time to come to the theater.

    You can't let everyone show up for the same movie or there would be no place to sit, and you do need some reasonable security and rules.

    Why do we make immigration more complicated?

    We have a new law. Lets use it. The sponsoring principle of 2011 HB 469 provides a limiting factor of how fast immigrants can come, makes sure they do not place a larger burden than we can handle, and is more like co-signing a friends car loan.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Nov. 27, 2011 7:47 a.m.

    In the 80's I supported amnestry but I feel that it didn't work. I am all for law and order, but I got this deep down feeling, (I don't care what the ACLU thinks) it is my conscience and it says that the scriptures teach that we need to be kind to strangers.

    But, I am sure in favor of putting up a fence and having border enforcement.

  • K Mchenry, IL
    Nov. 27, 2011 7:23 a.m.

    And they joined the service to get to stay in the country themselves. How many people should ride those coattails?

  • danaslc Kearns, UT
    Nov. 27, 2011 7:19 a.m.

    We are forgetting the Humane treatment of the US Citizen. Teenagers and college students have lost jobs due to illegal immigrants and wages are depressed. The American man has lost there trade jobs due to illegal immigrants and wages are depressed. This article is siding with the business man who is looking for cheap labor at the expense of the American worker and middle class citizen.
    Illegal Immigration is responsible for the collapse of middle class America along with the practice of shipping jobs to other countries.
    Illegal Immigrants along with their children need to be deported back to Mexico that has a 4 percent unemployment rate due to jobs being shipped there.
    The middle class taxpayer needs the expense of illegal immigration taken off of there backs and they need jobs with wages that fit with inflationary times.
    Jails need to be empty of illegal immigrants who commit crimes, another thing that causes high taxes.
    Drugs need to be stopped at the border and not allowed to walk in to be sold. Cartels are terrorists and they are here among us. Humane treatment for Americans is what we need now.

  • Mike B TUCSON, AZ
    Nov. 27, 2011 7:14 a.m.

    Great moral courage Newt! You now have my vote. Has anyone ever considered the economic impact of removing almost 12 million people from this country. It would be a disaster to take 12 mission consumers out of the market place. It would be a disaster to have 6 million new housing vacancies. Crops rotting in the field like we just had in Alabama would happen nationwide and food prices would go through the roof. These people have been woven into the fabric of our society and like it or not, we should carefully consider how mass deportations would damage this country and our economy.

    We used to own a business in the Hispanic area of Tucson, AZ. The day after the first anti-immigration prop. passed, our business fell off a cliff. All of the businesses in the area experienced the same disaster and almost half of them, including ours are now closed. Our recession started the day the first Arizona anti-immigration law was passed.

  • Paul Scholes Provo, UT
    Nov. 27, 2011 7:07 a.m.

    This is an editorial that is right on. We need to get away from the knee-jerk reactions that usually characterize this debate and recognize its complexity. There are people who have lost jobs, even though they are low paying jobs, to illegal immigrants. On the other hand, there are industries here at home that would fall to foreign competition if it were not for the illegal immigrants working here in the U.S. Immigration can make this country stronger but we need to deal with the very real issues it brings in an intelligent and human way if we are to realize those gains. I hope we can elevate the debate beyond the entrenched bickering between the federal and state governments and the partisan politics of individuals who refuse to see multiple sides of a complex issue.

  • BobKjar Humble, TX
    Nov. 27, 2011 6:44 a.m.

    While the hardliners in the Republican party may not agree with this, I think the majority of Americans are in accord. I am a hardline conservative Republican from Texas and fully support what Perry and Newt are doing to bring common sense to the immigration issue.

  • patriotandmore Spanish Fork, UT
    Nov. 27, 2011 6:23 a.m.

    Same old message.....Yawn!

  • RichardB Murray, UT
    Nov. 27, 2011 5:33 a.m.

    Bachmann pointed out a "2004 letter to the Wall Street Journal in which Gingrich endorsed "paths to permanent residence to enable more workers to stay, assimilate, and become part of America."

    It's more workers.

  • RichardB Murray, UT
    Nov. 27, 2011 4:55 a.m.

    When someone comes here illegally and works, anything that allows them to stay and work is amnesty. The Orwellian double speak doesn't register with anyone but those supporting cheap illegal labor.

    Our current immigration laws are fair and just. Coming here illegally is a fine, jail, and deportation. The US has not fined or given jail time in years, and our laws are more humane than any other industrialized country. When did we lose the right to deport those who come here illegally?

    As far as breaking up families, when people come here illegally, they know they can be deported for breaking the law. Each generation that comes here has to decide whether they will come and break up their extended family, or remain and keep it together. Those here illegally made the decision to take the chance of having their family split up when they chose the illegal path and not the legal one.

    Have we given up on employing the 10%? out of work? Alabama's law has proven that immigration enforcement returns Americans to work.

  • JBrady Murray, Ut
    Nov. 27, 2011 4:15 a.m.

    How much does Deseret management being a chairman for the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce affect your viewpoint on illegal immigration?

    The lack of compassion towards Utah's workers and taxpayers tends to show the true motivation, and I don't think it has anything to do with humane.

  • anti-liar Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 27, 2011 3:33 a.m.


    The notion that legalization is "moral," and "only fair," certainly is disingenuous. A 25-year criminal who disdains America, its laws, and its Constitution, and who almost certainly has engaged in perjury, identity theft, and otherwise lying, cheating, and stealing, as a way of life -- should not be rewarded with legal residency while BILLIONS of respectful, would-be immigrants continue to wait in line politely. It is grossly unfair AND immoral, and Americans know it.

    And how truly "humane" is it to relegate millions to a 2nd-class existence of indentured servitude -- which is EXACTLY what "legalization that doesn't necessarily lead to citizenship" would amount to.

    Other "core principles?" How about the principle that this is a country of laws and that without the law -- and RESPECT for the law -- the U.S. Constitution cannot survive, and that without the Constitution, there is no safety for families, nor freedom of religion, which enables the family-promoting churches to even exist.

    There is only one way for them to "square themselves with the law:" turn themselves in to ICE -- or, at least, avoid prosecution, put their affairs in order, and return -- with their families -- to their home countries.

  • anti-liar Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 27, 2011 2:42 a.m.

    This article SOUNDS so moral, faithful, and true.

    But so does Satan, disguised as an angel of light, when he speaks.

    There are several problems with this editorial.

    First, it is fundamentally false to assert -- in the name of family -- that we should not enforce the law. Americans who value the Constitution and the rule of law know that the institution of the family faces a far greater threat in an environment of lawlessness. For this reason, we never assert that because it might result in family separation, U.S. citizen burglars (for example) should not be prosecuted or incarcerated.

    Nor do we, as a nation of laws, unjustly imply that such separations are the fault of a law-abiding society. Rather, we rightly place the blame for such separations squarely where it belongs: on the criminal who chose to break the law.

    And the notion that families are "destroyed" as a result of deportation, is false. Sure it may be inconvenient, but the fact is, deportees are free to take their families with them. Family members likewise are free to join them.

    Lastly, family members routinely are left behind -- separated -- at the time of illegal entry into America.

  • Joe Smith Mountain View, CA
    Nov. 27, 2011 12:54 a.m.

    I am not willing to discuss what is to be done with those already hear until the border is secured.

    NOBODY is talking about mass deportation. If you take away incentives, people will leave on their own. If you can't get a job, you'll have to leave on your own accord.

    So it is okay if they have been here 25 years - what about 20? How can we verify how long they have been here?

    Sure, they might have been paying taxes (sales). If they have been paying income taxes, it is because they have committed ID theft, something for which if I or any other citizen did, we'd go to jail.

  • SLars Provo, UT
    Nov. 27, 2011 12:46 a.m.

    We have had guest workers in this country for decades, they are called visa workers. Let's not create a sub class of workers to satisfy business interest.

    He is talking about letting those that have been here for 25 years a chance to stay, that would mean deportation of 90% of those here illegally. It was a mere 25 years ago that we had our last amnesty. When people come here illegally for 25 years to work, and we allow them to stay and work, that is amnesty.

    Any parent who has raised a child knows that you don't reward bad behavior.

    Nov. 27, 2011 12:18 a.m.

    Already a way for people to square themselves with the laws, go home and come back legally.

    When will the Deseret news start telling people to come here legally so we don't face the same problem in the future?