Evangelicals unveil immigration reform plan

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Hunt Spanish Fork, UT
    June 14, 2012 2:27 p.m.


    The issue with your entire argument is that it focus's on economics only (as you term it "net positives") and completely ignores the real damage that is done as a direct result of illegal immigration.

    To use a simple analogy, it's the equivalent of saying that if I steal someones identity and drain their bank account but then donate some of the money to charity, pay taxes on it, use some of it to educate myself and others, maybe even create a product that benefits us all, that I should not be prosecuted for my crime because the result was a "net positive".

    The damages are so obvious if you only take a small amount of effort to look. Don't think that our local media hasn't. They are purposefully ignoring almost every story, and details in reported stories, that could possibly shed a negative light on illegals. Instead we get one sided anecdotal calculated sob stories in an effort to divert our attention from the truth.

  • Prodicus Provo, UT
    June 14, 2012 11:04 a.m.

    @VST I thought the sarcasm there was pretty clear. I definitely agree that it's a quality publication, and it doesn't take looking at the ownership to see where the WSJ falls on the political spectrum, esp. when compared to most of the media. That's why I was using it as an example; my point was that it'd be absurd to accuse the WSJ of a liberal bias in selecting the economists they consulted. If it'd been the NYT their panel of 46 economists might have been Krugman, Krugman, Krugman, ... (Krugman, to use Walt Whitman's phrase, is large, he contains multitudes; search for that phrase if you don't catch my drift).

    But I guess sarcasm is hard to detect on the Internet. No matter how over-the-top outrageous I make the sarcastic statement, there are people out there who are sincere in saying things that are even crazier.

  • Hunt Spanish Fork, UT
    June 13, 2012 10:52 p.m.


    I'm not going to respond to most of the fallacies that you continue to perpetuate. RRB has done a good job of that.

    I found this quote from you particularly interesting:

    "Everybody who has an incorrect SSN- almost all of whom are undocumented immigrants- pays into the Social Security system through payroll taxes but never receives benefits; the result is that Social Security gets an extra $7 billion every year, helping keep it afloat."

    So in your argument for illegal immigrants you point out one of the biggest crimes being perpetuated by them. Identity theft. I'm still trying to wrap my brain around the fact that you think stolen and falsified SSNs is a good thing. SSNs are being stolen at an alarming rate, over 50,000 SSNs of children in Utah alone. Some SSNs assigned to new born children have already been in use for years. Identity theft and document fraud are not victimless crimes despite our media's refusal to report on the damage. To pretend that no harm is being done and that illegals present a net positive is frankly laughable and a losing argument in the face of the real facts.

    June 13, 2012 9:39 p.m.

    Insulting the person instead of sticking to the facts loses the debate.

    None were government, as a matter of fact, the article is still on the internet. Here is a quote, read the last sentence.

    "David Wyss, chief economist at ratings agency Standard & Poor's, said he believes that undocumented workers have been a net positive. But, he said, "That doesn't mean there are no negatives, particularly for state health and education costs."

    Simple supply and demand, more work, less workers, wages go up. Less work, more workers, wages go down. Surplus illegal labor destroys the lifestyle of our low and middle class workers.

    More important, it's illegal. Don't sidetrack the real issue.

  • Prodicus Provo, UT
    June 13, 2012 9:14 p.m.

    @RRB: You can't face the evidence when it fails to confirm your preconceived biases, so you invent fabrications about it instead so you can dismiss the facts. The 2006 studies did not ignore any of the factors you mention, and these economists are not on the payrolls of any pro-immigration organizations (they're at top universities or the Fed or the CEA).

    Try talking to somebody who actually has some expertise in economics rather than deciding that you're the world's number one expert. It really doesn't sound like you have even understood Econ 101 level concepts; you seem to think employment is a zero-sum game.

  • JayTee Sandy, UT
    June 13, 2012 7:30 p.m.

    It's solidly amazing that people still buy into this "net boost" stuff, and other false rationalization for allowing unfettered invasion of this homeland, and unrestricted access to all the benefits we have that are covered by the good old U. S. taxpayer. Meanwhile, we spend literally trillions on the other side of the planet trying to remake their cultures and customs, in these unconstitutional, unaffordable, and unwinnable "wars." Every day I wonder what happened to this once-great, now bankrupt nation. We turned it over to people that were trusted, but obviously totally untrustworthy. Now we have the ecclesiastical community wanting the American taxpayer and citizen worker to carry their baggage as well, which is a genuine travesty, in my opinion. If they want to help out the poor little invaders, chaperone them back to their homelands, and help them build decent communities there. We can't carry and rehabilitate the entire planet--even though we keep trying.

    June 13, 2012 7:27 p.m.

    Alabama's unemployment has dropped considerably since their laws were passed. A chicken processing plant lost 130 illegal workers, next day 250 people showed up. White, Black, Hispanic, the plant finally has diversity.

    Could the Deseret news try to be more moderate in their choice of articles they pick? It seems we are getting one side all the time, a more balanced approach would be more fitting considering the papers standards.

    June 13, 2012 7:22 p.m.

    @AZRods, Most of us are aware that children brought here illegally do have a way to get straight with the law at 18. It's a law that allows them to return home and come back legally on a student visa or residency. It's a short wait, they are moved to the front of the line and asks a lot less of them than the 18 year olds we sent to Vietnam to die.

    Nothing has been done because business and some Hispanic organizations do everything we they can to fight any enforcement. They were for E-verify until they found out it was effective, now they fight it in the shadows. If we save this countries sovereignty we must demand business get it's act straight. The guest workers are their latest tactic, instead of business paying for visas, the taxpayer pay for them.

    @Prodicus, the 2006 study by the journal ignores the cost to taxpayers, it ignores the loss of income by Americans and the 44 economists were on business grants or worked for pro-illegal companies.

    Texas study showed a billion dollar loss once local costs were added. Cost to taxpayers $113 billion per year

  • Prodicus Provo, UT
    June 13, 2012 6:39 p.m.

    @Hunt: you can turn anywhere in the literature to find these facts; it's not just one isolated study, and I'm not your personal research assistant. A few of the first google hits: in 2006 the Wall Street Journal, that bastion of liberal thought, asked 46 economists whether illegal immigration was a net boost or net drag on the economy; all but two said illegal immigration was a boost to the economy. In Texas, illegal immigrants pay above $400 million more a year in taxes (sales, property, etc) than they receive in total government services (education, health care, etc). Everybody who has an incorrect SSN- almost all of whom are undocumented immigrants- pays into the Social Security system through payroll taxes but never receives benefits; the result is that Social Security gets an extra $7 billion every year, helping keep it afloat. Illegal immigrants produce a huge amount of goods, are paid 20% less than their jobs would normally command, and thus give us less expensive consumer goods and higher growth.

    Your knee-jerk defense of sticking your fingers in your ears and ignoring the overwhelming evidence out there does your cause no favors.

  • Filo Doughboy Bakersfield, CA
    June 13, 2012 6:28 p.m.

    Rods in AZ is proof positive that you can succeed in America without the benefit of correct spelling. So let the law breakers in, documented, educated or not, but please extend that equitably to all countries and crimes. I really would like a break on my outstanding speeding tix and that one accidental hit and run.

    And I've been skittish about the skids I left on my neighbors lawn, so let leniency reign and throw caution to the wind. Who values the rule of law when none will enforce it anyway? What a joke. There's so many wolves in the sheep pen that we're negotiating with the baby wolves 'cuz they're so cute and hungry.

  • Andy Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 13, 2012 5:59 p.m.

    Keep the pressure up. I'm a strong conservative who supports smaller government less spending and amnesty for all illegals who have not committed a more serious crime than overstaying their visa or fleeing a deportation order.

    Grow the pie, let amnesty reign.

  • AZRods Maricopa, AZ
    June 13, 2012 5:59 p.m.

    Regardless of which side of the issue we all stand on, I find it shameful that 4 years later, no one wants to tackle the immigration issue.
    And that's not an Obama bash. It just continues to be the less important issue that always gets pushed to the back burner.
    No one wants to be the bad guy or take the political fallout for taking a position.
    Meanwhile, the situation gets more complex and emotionally charged.
    Inforcing the existing laws is a place to start, but obviously that doesn't address all
    of the issues at hand, like the children of immigrants who came here illegally.
    Too many skidish old politicians in our government.

  • Say No to BO Mapleton, UT
    June 13, 2012 5:39 p.m.

    Translation: Our organizations tie their growth to Hispanic congregations, mostly from Mexico. We like that growth, even though many of them are here illegally (at least 30%).
    So, how about granting them amnesty so we can continue to fill our churches with them?
    It is nothing more than PC pandering to our elected officials who need no encouragement to consider illegal aliens a protected class until such time that they can seal the deal without riling the citizenry.

  • SLars Provo, UT
    June 13, 2012 4:53 p.m.

    There is a way for them to work towards citizenship, however most don't want it, they just want the jobs. Of those who are awarded green cards, many never claim their citizenship. A green card is looked at as a defense against deportation.

    You want to enforce our laws and give them a chance for citizenship? Give them a 90 day window to return home. Remove the 3-10 year block and let them apply right away. As a condition, the business they work for will be responsible for $2000 to help with their relocation. Let the compassion come from those who abused the system. The rest can be returned home by denying them jobs and an increase in judges and ICE personnel.

    Allowing them to stay and work,is amnesty. They came for the job, that needs to be taken away to create a deterrent to future illegal immigration.

    Protecting strangers in the land does not mean giving them others jobs or breaking countries laws. God told us to obey the laws of the land also. Perhaps they should read the entire Bible, including though shall not steal lie or covet.

  • Fitness Freak Salt Lake City, UT
    June 13, 2012 4:40 p.m.

    There's nothing at all wrong with existing immigration laws except they don't get enforced.

    Lets arrest and/or force those illegal trespassers already here to return home; THEN we can talk about changing the law.

  • Hunt Spanish Fork, UT
    June 13, 2012 4:14 p.m.


    You're using the same misleading tactics that many in the pro illegal immigration crowd try to use.

    1. You lump legal immigration in with illegal immigration and then pretend that they are the same thing. By doing so you label the anti illegal immigration crowd as anti immigration, a very misleading label. Its a tactic those of us in the know are well aware of. In addition I would love for you to direct us to the study that specifically states that illegal immigration is a net boost to the economy. In all my searching the only studies I can find use the same tired tactic of combining illegal and legal immigration in order to get their pro illegal immigration numbers.

    2. You insinuate that the anti illegal immigration crowd is racist and devoid of facts when just the opposite is true. Its the pro illegal immigration crowd that has resorted to misleading information and name calling (i.e. racists). They use these tactics because when anyone takes a little time to look at the issue with any level of scrutiny, they begin find that the arguments of the pro illegal immigration crowd fall apart.

  • Hunt Spanish Fork, UT
    June 13, 2012 3:37 p.m.

    "...opponents have misrepresented each other’s positions as open borders and amnesty versus deportations of millions. This false choice has led to an unacceptable political stalemate at the federal level at a tragic human cost."

    The agenda of this group is obviously amnesty. They try to draw a contrast where there is none. The Pro Legal Immigration crowd is not for mass deportation of illegals. They are for controlling our borders and enforcing existing laws against the hiring of illegal workers. You punish the lawbreaking employers and you fix the problem. Illegal workers will self deport when there are no jobs.

    When all is said and done, the document is so vague and generalized as to provide nothing new to the debate.

  • Prodicus Provo, UT
    June 13, 2012 3:22 p.m.

    Jazz Bass Man: if you actually look at the facts you'll see that government spending on illegal immigrants is considerably lower per capita than on any other segment of the population, and any real economist will tell you it's quite plain that illegal immigrants have overall been a net boost to our economy.

    The US has had dozens of recessions in its history, and irrational anti-immigrant fervor has skyrocketed every single time. Blaming the Irish, the Germans, the Italians, the Chinese and Japanese, and now the Mexicans is the same pattern of lazy thinking. Too many people would rather fall back on racist prejudices than deal with the facts.

    It's quite likely that some of your own ancestors only made it to the USA because after recession-linked anti-immigrant fervor started to die down clearer heads prevailed in overturning bad immigration law.

  • sally Kearns, UT
    June 13, 2012 2:41 p.m.

    The religious groups do not want to lose their paying customers. It is all about money!

  • Jazz Bass Man Wellsville, Utah
    June 13, 2012 2:16 p.m.

    Great, here they go again with the liberal media joining with the churches trying to fill their pews with more propaganda to get people to accept amnesty for illegal aliens.
    Didn't they try this just last year with the "utah compact"? Then there was the "dream act" to let lawbreaking illegals butt in line in front of legal citizens and other would-be immigrants who are trying to it the right way legally.

    At least they got one thing right, in that our economy is bad - probably the worst it's been since the great depression, and now is probably NOT a good time to discuss amnesty for more law breakers wanting to stay in our communities and get more freebies from the taxpayers.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    June 13, 2012 2:11 p.m.

    Get religion out of politics.