NY Times profiles Utah AG Mark Shurtleff for unusual immigration stance

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • SLars Provo, UT
    April 10, 2012 10:45 a.m.

    rblack, mercy is a two way street. Walk in the shoes of citizens that have depressed wages and higher taxes because of the law breaking. Mercy for those losing their jobs because of the dishonesty of business and individuals. Mercy for the honest immigrant who just came here legally and cannot find work because of the people willing to work outside the law. Mercy for those with stolen identities.

    The challenge is accepting that laws have been broken and the penalty must be paid, even from those who attend church. Evil? that's not for me to decide, but they did break the law and must do things correctly and make things right. Mercy is letting them return home and come back under the law after waiting their turn. Ignoring laws is not mercy, and laws don't break up families, bad decisions do.

    New York or Idaho?

  • rblack Fulton, NY
    April 10, 2012 5:52 a.m.

    Slars, so, it's your position that unless all of the demands for justice are met that you can have no mercy. Justice is therefore the overriding principle here. We must execute all people that cause someone else's death (even by accident) because it wouldn't be just to allow that person to live while parents morn for their child. On the other hand, I believe that Mercy is what is required of us. I say, walk a mile in their shoes and see whether mercy is appropriate. Spend some time at a dairy farm in Idaho. Watch the workers, then go to Jerome and attend church services with the individuals and their families that have come here. Tell me that they are evil people and that the arm of Justice must crush their family. These are good people. We could learn from them. The challenge is separating the evil that has resulted from illegal immigration from the good. We will never be able to do that until both sides can see the other side's position.

  • rblack Fulton, NY
    April 10, 2012 5:37 a.m.

    Dear Cats, I aboslutely agree. We need to get control of our borders. I agree there is a big problem with illegal immigration. However, what do you do with those who are here? Fitness Freak, I strongly disagree with your statement. Our prisons are not full of hard working, well meaning people. Our prisons are full of criminals. I acknowledged and allowed for the fact that some people came here to trample on and take advantage of our country. I have compassion for them, however, I do not believe that that they should be allowed to stay here. My comment was focused on the Millions (yes millions) of illegal immigrants we have here that have only broken the law by crossing the border illegally. They have worked using their own Social Security numbers, which an illegal alien can get (although it technically does not authorize them to work in the country) or they have started their own business (some of which employ many citizens of this country). They pay taxes. They serve their communities (some of them as Bishops in the LDS Church). They are good people.

  • Fitness Freak Salt Lake City, UT
    April 8, 2012 8:49 p.m.

    "milhouse" So what are those folks doing that are standing in line at the Western Union counter at WalMart if "all the money" (as you claim) stays in the U.S.

    Hint: NONE of them speak a word of English and I NEVER hear them ask to wire money to Finland!

    You've got a VERY BAD economics teacher. You might want to ask for a refund on your tuition!

  • SLars Provo, UT
    April 8, 2012 6:16 p.m.

    "Mercy cannot rob justice and remain righteous."

  • danaslc Kearns, UT
    April 8, 2012 5:40 p.m.

    The question I have is why? Why does Shurtleff want to hurt Utah's citizens more? If this recession has not done enough to the citizens, why does Shurtleff feel the need to rub more pain in? Jobs are already being held by illegal immigrants that citizens will do and he wants to bring in 85,000 more?

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    April 8, 2012 5:15 p.m.

    Dear rblack: Whether illegals are good or bad is not the issue. The fact is they are ILLEGAL. No matter how much sympathy I may have for them personally, they are still ILLEGAL. I believe in compassion, but these people need to come here legally and through the front door. We have the right to decide who comes here. They're just going to have to obey the law. I think we all have mixed feelings about this, but we need to get control of our borders, then we can make decisions about who should be here and who shouldn't.

  • Fitness Freak Salt Lake City, UT
    April 8, 2012 4:42 p.m.

    I wonder if the NYT mentioned at all that Shurtleff is so out of step with Utahs' voters that he has zero chance of EVER being elected to anything again in Utah.

    Apparentally, the NYT appreciates those elected to "uphold and sustain" the law - IGNORING that part of their oath of office. NYT dovetails nicely with Obama's NO ENFORCEMENT position as regards illegal immigrant trespassers.

    "rblack" You do realize I HOPE that our prisons are full of all kinds of "well-meaning, hard working fraudsters, bogus check writers", etc. Why do illegal immigrant trespassers deserve preferential treatment above those currently residing in prison for DEFRAUDING the American public?

  • I M LDS 2 Provo, UT
    April 8, 2012 4:29 p.m.

    I have never been impressed with Shurtleff.

    This must be yet another of the reasons why.

  • tenx Santa Clara, UT
    April 8, 2012 3:57 p.m.

    1 commenter for Shurtleff, the NY Times and amnesty. 6 against. Pretty parallels the vote in snap polls by Channel 2 and 4 and most other polls. About 84% Utahns are against amnesty and favor enforcement of our Immigration Laws. Glad to see Shurtleff go and hope the next AG will enforce the laws he swore to uphold.

  • jim l West Jordan, UT
    April 8, 2012 3:01 p.m.

    My last comment was denied because the media wants or supports illegal immigration.

  • rblack Fulton, NY
    April 8, 2012 1:20 p.m.

    I understand the argument of "Rule of Law." I agree, the law should be followed. There are many illegal immigrants that have come to the United States with the sole purpose of undermining our laws by spreading the drug trade and by bringing crime and corruption. However, what about the people who have left their homeland with the sole purpose of providing for their families. Those that are hardworking, loving parents to their children. Do we ship them off with all of the rest? Do we tell them that they are evil people for desiring nothing more than to provide a better life for their children? Think about it. Do we really want to take a hardline stance against families of immigrants? Many people in this country illegally have been here for their whole lives. They have never been on welfare, they have never taken one dime from the government. They have paid taxes including social security taxes that they will never be able to benefit from. They came for one purpose, to feed their families. Can justice really overrule mercy in this situation? Should it?

  • milhouse Atlanta, GA
    April 8, 2012 12:24 p.m.

    New immigrants, legal or illegal, spend almost all of the money they earn. In a sense, they become economically transparent, passing every dollar along to someone else in the economy, thus creating jobs for those who sell them food, housing, education, et cetera. This is scientific fact (I actually study economics, unlike many who make false economics their hobby).

    So anti-immigration stances therefore cannot be rooted in a desire to protect American jobs. Republicans need to either acknowledge that their nativism is racist or they need to abandon such an untenable position.

    Thank you, Mark Shurtleff, for being brave and responsible. And thank you, Deseret News, for trying against all odds to get your readership to think of others beyond themselves.

  • vdubbin' Ogden, UT
    April 8, 2012 11:18 a.m.

    You can talk about an "entitlement complex", but the fact is that illegal immigrants don't belong here. It's in the title, right? It's not about a narrow-minded attitude, it's about the fact that the world works based on borders. Resources are allocated based on number of citizens vested in the system. People coming into that system and taking out without putting in leads to ruin. It's a fact. You can't get around it with flowery words and liberal ideals.
    SLars said it wonderfully when he mentioned our loss of sovereignty. Stop for a moment and take that in. What happens when our nation loses it's sovereignty? What happens when those who are supposed to be in charge (We the People) lose sovereignty? And what happens when we look back at how that loss occurred and we find that it's because Liberal Progressives didn't want to hurt the feelings of scofflaws from south of the border? It's too late for a foot in the mouth at that point. We have avenues for legal immigration. If those are ignored than laws are broken and require punishment.

  • John20000 Cedar Hills, UT
    April 8, 2012 7:55 a.m.

    I believe the symbol of a US citizen should be "personal betterment". I welcome anyone willing to work hard for that, and think those with an entitlement mentality should move back to Europe.

  • SLars Provo, UT
    April 8, 2012 2:30 a.m.

    It's to bad we can't get honesty over immigration. Shurtleff and the Times are "open border" supporters. Their goal is an open border that will allow workers to come and go as they please. This will end the sovereignty of the United States. This is one of the most dangerous groups ever to see the light of day in America.

    The compact did not make the way for the laws passed. It's opposed to the three laws for usurping Federal power. The compact wanted the Feds to handle it, the three laws turn immigration over to the state. That assumption is really off base.

  • Upson Downs Sandy, UT
    April 7, 2012 11:45 p.m.

    What a sad commentary when a "supposedly" Conservative Utah Republican is highlighted for his political positions by the NYT. And what is even sadder is that he thinks his position on Illegal Immigration is what the majority of Utah Republicans believe. The granting of amnesty to Illegals, which is all the greed driven Utah Compact really pushes for, is not what the adherence to established law is about.
    And the philosophy of keeping Families together is something these illegals should have considered before they came to the this country. Convicted criminals, who are sent to a U.S. jail or prison, are separated from their families and Shurleff isn't trying to curtail that activity. Why is he only worried about Illegals from other countries?

  • Doug10 Roosevelt, UT
    April 7, 2012 10:51 p.m.

    Ag Shurtleff has become a law unto himself and refuses to follow or adhere to the beliefs of those who elected him. Instead he has a personal agenda that has taken precedence.

    I think he needs more time to review his personal agenda, where the taxpayers aren't subsidizing his time or lack of effort.

  • DN Subscriber Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 7, 2012 9:38 p.m.

    Considering what the New York Times is, a pitiful excuse for a newspaper, but in reality a mouthpiece for the liberal wing of the Democrat party, any comments favorable to AG Shurtleff simply confirm the disdain he as earned for his outrageous pro-amnesty position.

    I used to be a big Shurtleff supporter, but he has totally alienated himself now. Glad to see him go.