Letter: What this issue is really about

Return To Article
Add a comment
    Nov. 26, 2014 9:23 p.m.

    Americans were 55% against the 1986 amnesty that proved to be a failure. We don't need reform, we need mandatory enforcement, and for business to pay deportation costs for their illegal workers and their children.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Nov. 26, 2014 7:41 p.m.

    @Thid Barker:
    "...when we get a conservative President, he can follow Obama's lead, ignore congress and strike down all gun control laws..."

    Conservatives aren't that maladroit.

    "...mandate traditional marriages, repeal Obamacare..."

    Those are good things.

    "Under Obama, what is congress' role?"

    Under an Emperor-in-Chief we don't need a Congress.

    "Why didn't Obama do something for the illegals when Democrats had full control of all three branches of government the first six years of his presidency?"

    Democrats apparently are not that astute.


    "This whole Obama has destroyed the world theatre is really getting tiring.

    BO has not destroyed the world theater, just the American way.

  • RFLASH Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 26, 2014 3:22 p.m.

    For many people, it would not have mattered what Obama decided to do, it would automatically be wrong. They have had decades to do something and nobody seemed to care. Why don't they blame prior presidents for doing nothing? Those who complain about what he has done should have some better idea, right? I think that this issue is not as easy to solve as some people think. Many of these people came as children and making them return to their country would be the same as making any of us go live in another country. At the same time, our laws were broken. You have to consider that we were aware of what was happening for years and nobody did anything. How many laws have a statue of limitation? Does that apply to immigration? I am glad I don't have to make those decisions.

  • Vermonter Plymouth, MI
    Nov. 26, 2014 10:44 a.m.

    Obama has said that recent undocumented immigrants are some of the brightest and best the world has to offer. What gives America the right to "steal" these people from the countries their birth who need their talents so much more than America?

  • Fred44 Salt Lake City, Utah
    Nov. 26, 2014 6:22 a.m.

    So all of you that are so concerned about the law and the constitution why are you not outraged at those who ILLEGALLY hire these people that you want deported? If there where no jobs for them they would not come. They would return to their home countries. As long as we keep allowing businesses to hire cheap labor to increase their bottom line, we will have a problem with illegal immigrants. As so many of you say so often, enforce our current laws. Lets throw those who hire people here illegally in jail! That one thing alone will do more to solve our illegal immigration problem than any other thing that could be done.

  • Lia Sandy, UT
    Nov. 25, 2014 11:24 a.m.

    See? "Helping people" is the hook here.
    "The GOP" and "helping people" should never be uttered in the same universe.

  • 2 bit Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 25, 2014 8:46 a.m.

    You seem to think this applies to the people who are currently coming to America (to escape drugs, gangs, etc). It doesn't. You are required to have to have been in the country at least 5 years evading the law for those 5 years for it to apply to you.

    So unless you knew they were going to have these problems today in your home country (at least 5 years ago) and you came here in advance to hide out until Obama came along... you can't take advantage of the program Obama just made part of our immigration law.

    It's ironic that Obama's amnesty program doesn't apply to the people who fled to America during HIS administration (kinda a coincidence that he's been in office a little over 5 years, and this only protects people who have been in the country over 5 years).

    It's almost like he exempts HIS years in office from his own laws. This amnesty program only applies to people who were here BEFORE he took office. The main parts of the ACA won't go into law until AFTER he leaves office...

    What's up with that??

  • RichardB Murray, UT
    Nov. 25, 2014 5:19 a.m.

    Was this story changed? I remember this letter saying it allowed his parents to stay.

  • RichardB Murray, UT
    Nov. 25, 2014 5:13 a.m.

    People who want to make a better life for them and their family come here legally. Those looking for work, and knowing that they could be deported at any time are just working the system.

  • LOU Montana Pueblo, CO
    Nov. 25, 2014 3:09 a.m.

    Confused,Sandy, UT: Former President Bush, 2002 on TV, leans over the podium with a smirk on his face and says "I don't see what the problem is they (illegal aliens) are just doing jobs Americans don't want". That was the beginning of the end of the proud American worker.

    History repeats it's self
    In 376 AD, a large band of Gothic refugees arrives at the Empire's Danube frontier, asking for asylum. In a complete break with established Roman policy, they were allowed in, un-subdued. They revolted, and within two years had defeated and killed the emperor Valens--the one who had received them.

    Republicans allowed illegals into America to break the American worker's wage. Now those illegals will become citizens and take them down.

    Nov. 24, 2014 10:37 p.m.

    “Good, law-abiding citizenship is a key to more abundant, joyful living. Taxes could be much lower, people would be more happy with their neighbors, homes would be strengthened, and each individual would find more inner peace, if laws were better observed.”

    LDS President Spencer W. Kimball
    Ensign Magazine - 1977

    "While some immigration stories are interesting tales of personal struggle, the failure of deceptive legislation that would grant amnesty is a national indicator that legality must not be based on convenience or individual circumstance. When it is, everyone expects to be the exception and the rule of law crumbles into meaninglessness." --- Arturo Morales-Llan the founder of Legal Immigrants for Immigration Law Enforcement.

    The problem is not a lack of love on the part of those wanting enforcement. The problem, instead, is a lack of love on the part of many people for the United States. The utter contempt for this nation, its sovereignty, its constitution, its borders and its laws, is unmistakable.

    The American Dream, the fruits of this nation , which people coming here illegally enjoy so much, and feel entitled to -- do not exist independent of those principles.

  • Thought not Dogma Hurricane, UT
    Nov. 24, 2014 10:11 p.m.

    @CJB: "President Lincoln did something similar when he signed the Emancipation proclamation."

    President Lincoln used his power as commander in chief of the military to take an action against an enemy nation (the Confederate States of America) with whom the USA was at war. Notice that the Emancipation Proclamation applied only to slaves in the confederate States. It did not apply to slaves in the border States, which States were still part of the union.

    The slaves in the border States, States that remained part of the union, were not freed until the 13 amendment was passed shortly after the Union won the war. THAT was the right (or at least constitutional) way to make that change.

    Just remember, that whatever power one president uses, the next can use himself in very different areas. It was concerns over abuse of power that caused many conservatives to condemn Bush for the Patriot Act. Democrats may want to consider on what could happen when a future GOP president decides that minimum wage laws, top tax rates, insider trading, or environmental laws don't need to be enforced.

  • Desert Suburbanite Mesa, AZ
    Nov. 24, 2014 8:00 p.m.

    This is not just about people. It is about preserving this nation's culture, economic, and national security. You need to read about 'amoral familism' to understand the seriousness of the issue. Start with:
    Banfield, E.C., (1958), The Moral Basis of a Backward Society, Free Press, Glencoe, IL
    Alesina, A. and Giuliano, P. (2013), Family Ties, in Handbook of Economic Growth, Volume 2a, Aghion, P. and Durlauf, S. Eds., North Holland: San Diego, CA.
    Then, search published literature. Keep to the academically reviewed articles and stay away from the opinion pieces. When you read the research you will understand the need to stop immigration from Latin America and remove or economically drive out as many of the invaders currently in this nation. It is imperative to prevent our economic future from being destroyed by our culture assimilating the same social issues that cause the latin nations to be failed states.

  • RichardB Murray, UT
    Nov. 24, 2014 7:17 p.m.


    Jesus told the woman to go and sin no more. He didn't tell her to keep breaking the law, and he would give her special permission to continue committing adultery. To me, go and sin no more would be to return home and come back legally, no more coveting, stealing or lying.

    Compassion would be enforcing the laws, not awarding the wrong behavior.

  • RichardB Murray, UT
    Nov. 24, 2014 7:12 p.m.

    Wrz--"Businesses might be using cheaper illegal immigration labor to keep costs down, but those savings are being passed on to the American consumer.... you and me"

    No they are not. Cheap labor goes right to the bottom line, and pleases the stockholder.

    Everyone wants to be the exception to the rule, thankfully the majority of people in the world have chosen to come here legally. Over one million people each year.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    Nov. 24, 2014 5:51 p.m.

    @ wrz

    "Businesses might be using cheaper illegal immigration labor to keep costs down, but those savings are being passed on to the American consumer..."

    Right. That's the tired line we're always given. And perhaps it's technically true. After all, business owners and CEOs are consumers too.

  • watchman Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 24, 2014 4:07 p.m.

    No, Tim. It is about trying to maintain a civilized society by following the rule of law. That provides the principles to help everybody.

  • SLars Provo, UT
    Nov. 24, 2014 3:35 p.m.

    Our current immigration laws are 10 years old, and the enforcement provisions in all the previous reforms have never been enforced. Border fence, interior enforcement, E-verify, and a visa entry-exit system all were part of the 1986 and 1996 amnesties. Until we find leaders who will enforce our laws, there is no reason to "reform" (amnesty) them. Obama has proven he would not enforce them.

    The LDS church has always advocated lawful immigration.

    There are no statutes of limitations on illegally coming here and the id theft to illegally find work. Nor is business exempt from the felonies of hiring people here illegally. Obama's waivers get the dishonest business owners off the hook.

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    Nov. 24, 2014 2:57 p.m.

    There is an easy fix for the GOP. Actually, pass a bill, iron out the differences with the Senate bill and send it to BO for his signature. Problem is the right wing extremist holding Bohener hostage want anarchy instead of compromise.

  • Emerger Magna, Salt Lake, UT
    Nov. 24, 2014 1:58 p.m.

    I agree with the sentiment of the writer's letter, and I share his compassion for the individuals and families involved, and for the other families that will not be affected.

    There is, however, one major problem standing in the way for me in accepting the president's edict, which overrules ALL OTHER CONSIDERATIONS. And that is the essential rule of law about which PeanutGallery spoke --the critical need to uphold the Constitution. Obeying the current law --however inadequate it may be in this case-- is essential to maintaining any kind of lawful and peaceful order in our society. If we we start making exceptions to the LAW we run the destructive, highly-probable risk of permanently damaging our Republic, which was designed to protect the individual rights of every citizen.

    As much as I would like to see the president's desire made into law, until it is, I have to oppose what he has done in overriding the constitutional authority of the Congress.

  • joe5 South Jordan, UT
    Nov. 24, 2014 1:48 p.m.

    Esquire: My argument was in response to the poster who said the Republicans had the WH and both houses of Congress for six years and did nothing about immigration. Funny how you easily shrug off my comment and seem to have no qualm about someone blaming the Republicans. Put away your biases for log enough to read these comments in context. Instead of being so sure of your rightness and infallibility, you might actually allow a new thought to enter you mind. That could be a revelatory experience for you since I doubt that has happened for many years.

    Face it, the democrats are a party of blame. They revel in their own perfections by pointing the distracting finger in another direction. And if it has to stay in their own party, they turn on their own people and sacrifice them (like Gruber). They would turn on you in a heartbeat if you ever didn't tone the party line. Try it and see how much they really care about you. You'll find it is nothing at all.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Nov. 24, 2014 1:22 p.m.

    "What about the two years when the Dems held the WH and both houses of Congress? Are we conveniently forgetting that?"

    They (Democrats) were busy shoving Obamacare down our throats. They apparently can't walk and chew gum at the same time.

    @Karen R.:
    "It's in businesses' best interest to hire at the lowest wage possible."

    Businesses might be using cheaper illegal immigration labor to keep costs down, but those savings are being passed on to the American consumer.... you and me. What I'm saying is, if illegal workers were to be somehow kicked out of the country, wages would increase... as would the cost of production and thus, consumer prices... prices you and I and the rest of America pay for goods and services.

    "Does is seriously make sense in both cases to 'round em up and ship em back to Mexico' because the law is the law? Think about it."

    It's not complicated... According to the US Constitution's 14th Amendment, everyone is to receive 'equal protection of the laws.' Granted, this seems to apply to state law but can reasonably be applied to federal law as well.

  • Confused Sandy, UT
    Nov. 24, 2014 1:01 p.m.

    ordinaryfolks and other liberals...

    In the 60's and 70's these illegal worked the jobs we did not want to do (Farm work, Janitorial, hotels, etc..)

    But the in "Today's" world, they also have taken over the construction trades because they are willing to work for less. Which means a lot of our constructions are out of a job...


    You sight one bill the house did not pass.. while forgetting the 298 bills Harry Reid did not allow to the floor of the Senate that dealt with Immigration.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Nov. 24, 2014 12:56 p.m.

    Congress is under no obligation to "pass a bill". Obama has no authority under the Constitution to demand that Congress pass any bill. Congress serves the people, not the President. The people spoke loud and clear. They told Obama that they were fed up with his high-handed abuse of power. They told him that they were through with his belly-aching and his infantile tantrums. They FIRED the Democrats that supported Obama.

    Now, it's time to fire Obama. Somehow, he has convinced himself that he is right and that the people of this nation are wrong. That's something only a dictator would conclude. We had an election. The biggest change in American history took place. If the only way that Obama gets the message is to be impeached and then convicted, then let the process start.

    We fought bloody wars to rid ourselves of Kings. The PEOPLE of this nation do not support Obama's self-serving policies. His policies lost - big time. Even his most ardent supports know that he and his policies are finished.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Nov. 24, 2014 12:51 p.m.

    @ joe5, you arguments are irrelevant. Who cares what a prior Congress did or didn't do? Republicans complain that the Congress from 2009 to 2011 passed the ACA without GOP support, and now you are saying they should have passed immigration reform? Wow. But now, we have a bill that passed the Senate with the support of both parties. The House could deal with that bill and this whole issue would be resolved. But again, the Republicans want Obama to not act, then they want him act, then not act, and so on and so on. The GOP House can put this to bed this week. What happened or didn't happen four years ago is of no concern.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Nov. 24, 2014 12:15 p.m.

    re:one old man

    As usually is the case the "devil is in the details". When other presidents signed amnesty laws (Reagan and Bush) it was AFTER congressional approval. What Barack is doing is unprecedented in that he ignored congress - actually he arogantly by-passed congress right after an election and to amplify the action he refused to even allow the new "peoples" representatives to have any say in the matter. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. Think for a moment if this new precedent was followed by a GOP president in the future - ignoring a Democrat congress and signing executive action for his own agenda. Do you think the liberals like yourself would be howling from the roof-tops? Better believe it and I can tell you what they would be howling ...."impeach him" ....and they would be correct!!! Don't be so ardent in your desire for amnesty for illegals that you forget you are first an American citizen who belongs to a constitutional republic - not a bananna republic!!

  • SoCalChris Riverside, CA
    Nov. 24, 2014 12:05 p.m.

    I'm a life long Republican, prefer Fox to other cable news, am not a fan of Obama -- and I agree with this letter. I'm a lonely guy.

    I'm sick of the endless politicizing and demagoguing of the issue. It's time to drop the political dogma and come up with solutions that reflect reality. I tend to think liberals live in a fantasy world of theories that don't work. This is one issue where the far right lives in a fantasy world.

    As for Obama's announcement, I think it's a tempest in a teapot. It gives a 3 year reprieve to folks who weren't going to be deported anyway and puts many of them on tax rolls and identifies who they are.

  • ordinaryfolks seattle, WA
    Nov. 24, 2014 12:04 p.m.

    Lost in all the noise about the illegal immigrants is the reason they came here in the first place. The vast majority of illegal immigrants are here for jobs. We have 'em, and they need 'em. And American citizens are loathe to do 'em. And there really is not penalty to American citizens who illegally employee illegal immigrants. Deal with the cause not the result if you expect to see a different result.

    Secondly, just how much stomach does the country have to deport every single last illegal in the country? How does that play on TV - parents torn from their families in the dead of night? I don't think so.

    Thirdly, just how much stomach does the Republican/Tea Party Congress have to place harsh sanctions on those who employ illegals? Will TV show us a CEO being hauled off to jail for hiring an illegal? I seriously doubt that corporate American will allow the Republican/Tea Party to infringe on their right to hire cheap labor.

    Fourthly, the issue is so politicized that it is toxic waste to actually pass a bipartisan bill that satisfies the needs of the country.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Nov. 24, 2014 11:39 a.m.

    Thid and others who try to claim that Obama is creating illegal "legislation" through this action are showing an abysmal lack of understanding of the Constitution they claim to revere.

    An Executive Order does NOT in any way create legislation.

    Executive Orders are PERMITTED by the Constitution.

    Executive Orders have been used by EVERY President since George Washington.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Nov. 24, 2014 11:35 a.m.

    Missing the point. The problem isn't about the WHY are we doing this it is about the HOW. We are a constitutional republic which has a separation of powers. Without the separation of powers we reduce to a monarchy again (King George of England). We just had an election where the people elected new representatives for congress and it is the congressional legislative branch that sets immigration laws and NOT the executive branch. The executive branch enforces the law passed from the legislative branch. Obama has just ignored the vote of the people and destroyed this constitutional process with his reckless and lawless action. Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you should. In the past both Reagan and Bush signed amnesty laws ONLY after congressional approval. Obama is by-passing the congressional approval which has NEVER been done before and eliminates the checks and balances built into our system.

    So again if you allow a president to assume this much power then you no long have a separation of powers. Think if a GOP president decided to do the same thing - by-pass a Democrat congress and set his own agenda like a King!!

  • CAB90 Logan, UT
    Nov. 24, 2014 11:28 a.m.

    The legal immigration process stinks but letting all the illegal immigrants do what they want spits in the face of everyone who did the process right. The only way the problem will get better though is passing laws to fix the process. An executive order is temporary. A law could permanently change the process and provide funding to implement it. (Congress holds the purse strings.) Congress needs to be the one to act and they need to fix the problem. It would be even better if they could get the other countries involved where the illegal immigrants are coming from and get them involved in the lives of their citizens. Maybe if they could fix some of their problems so many people wouldn't feel the need or desire to come here.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Nov. 24, 2014 11:14 a.m.

    @ BrentBot, your list actually turned out to be a litany of Republican lies. They have all been proven to not hold any water, even by the Republicans who have investigated them. It's politics and propaganda, nothing more. It is a pity that some still hold on to these lies.

  • Grover Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 24, 2014 11:14 a.m.

    What this is really about is that Congress (some or many in both parties) see only political loss in passing a bill. All they need to work their will on the executive and to take the pen from his hand is to PASS A BILL! But if they did that, no matter what they passed they would risk losing votes for their next election, so the smart move is to blame someone else, sue, stamp your feet, impeach, shut the government anything but the one they they can do today and the executive can't stop them: PASS A BILL!

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Nov. 24, 2014 10:56 a.m.

    Does 30 years make any difference when a crime has been committed? Sure, the statute of limitation applies to citizens, just like the Constitution protects citizens from the government's overreach into our lives.

    How many Americans are out of work because illegal aliens slipped across the border and took jobs from citizens? How many Americans are paying outrageous doctor and hospital fees because illegal aliens used those doctors and hospitals without paying for the services received? How many illegal aliens voted, especially in those states where Obama and Holder outlawed the use of photo I.D.?

    How many robberies, burglaries, rapes, home invasions, and gang related violence were committed by illegal aliens?

    There is a way for entry into the United States. Honorable people follow the rules. Honorable and trustworthy people are welcome when their turn comes.

    Whether the crime was committed yesterday or thirty-years-ago, until full restitution has been paid and until that person is square and honest, a debt is still owed to America and to those Americans who suffered because of illegal entry.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Nov. 24, 2014 10:51 a.m.

    "That is what this issue is really about, helping our fellow human beings. It's about people."

    No. The issue is about controlling immigration into this country. We can't possibly take the entire world in. And most of the entire world would come, looking for and food stamps other government handouts if our immigration program was not controlled. We have laws on the books to manage immigration that must be enforced to control immigration.

    What Barack Hussein Obama is doing by letting in millions of illegals is building his democrat vote base for the 2016 election. He wants to have a one party government, democrat. No Republicans allowed.

  • sally Kearns, UT
    Nov. 24, 2014 10:38 a.m.

    Obama's actions are in direct response to Large Corporations and the Elite who are running this country. America does not need these illegal immigrants. We have enough American Citizens to fill the quotas for employment. America is being fed a big lie by using the word "compassion" by our politicians. If we didn't have the illegal immigrants, we would need and use less resources. It is because we have these immigrants, more restaurants, schools, etc are needed because of the increase in population. Without them, we would need less. The immigrants are using up finite resources such as water, etc. in the U.S. The idea that the more people you have the better the economy is, is a farce. With more people, comes more disease and poverty unless it is carefully planned. The invasion of illegals is planned only for the benefit of the large corporations, lawyers and the elite.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Nov. 24, 2014 10:24 a.m.

    There has always been a proper and lawful way for people to immigrate to the United States. No one forced anyone to sneak across the border, to hide amongst us, to use our schools, our hospitals, our identities. No one forced anyone to break the law, yet Obama is so full of "compassion" that he refuses to honor his most solemn oath, to protect and defend our Constitution.

    When I was just a boy, I saw my dad agree to a contract and then shake hands to seal that contract. When I asked him if he would be signing papers, he simply said, "If I don't keep my word, no piece of paper would change who I am". Dad always kept his word. It was his bond. He expected the same from everyone.

    Obama broke his "bond". His word is worthless. Nothing he says can be trusted. If you think that I'm being unduly critical, Obama was the one who told us that he had no authority to legislate.

    No person who crept across the border believes in upholding our laws. We don't need illegal aliens to tell us about law and order.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Nov. 24, 2014 10:04 a.m.

    We hear over and over "the law is the law"

    Ok, For a minute, turn on your logic hat.

    2 Scenarios

    Scenario 1

    18 year old sneaks in from Mexico 30 years ago to pick lettuce. Gets married, buys a house and a couple of cars. Has 3 kids who have always lived in the USA. They have jobs and houses and families

    Scenario 2

    18 year old sneaks in from Mexico last year to pick lettuce. Sends money home to help is family or his parents. No wife or kids or house or car

    Does is seriously make sense in both cases to "round em up and ship em back to Mexico" because the law is the law?

    Think about it.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    Nov. 24, 2014 9:43 a.m.

    @ prelax

    Re: the impact of illegal immigration on your family - I see it frequently here in Houston, but it takes two to tango. Yours, mine, and ours may be losing in this game, but someone is profiting and the lion's share is going into the pockets of our fellow U.S. citizens, isn't it? It's in businesses' best interest to hire at the lowest wage possible.

    "The issue is really about honoring, upholding, and sustaining the law."

    I don't believe those forwarding this argument truly mean it. Reason: The example of Cliven Bundy comes to mind...

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    Nov. 24, 2014 9:34 a.m.

    The people who will benefit from this action are those who clean our toilets, mow our lawns, make our hotel beds, roof our homes, pick our lettuce, and mop up after us when we get sick.

    Until the President's courageous decision, these fine human beings had more than backbreaking work and poverty to deal with. They also had to deal with a loud crowd of white people who want them gone. Thank heaven they can now come out of the shadows and enjoy a little more security.

  • checonieto Oaxaca, 00
    Nov. 24, 2014 9:28 a.m.

    Some people says we should be merciful. My dad raised me to be obedient to the law. And that is something it has been with me. For people with children this example would work: "lets say you make up a rule that if they keep their rooms clean you will buy them an ipad each. One child does nothing, his or her room is always a mess. On the other hand your other child keeps his room spotless. By the middle of the month you buy the ipad for the messy child for mercy´s sake. Is that fair? What Obama did is exactly that. There are thousands of people waiting in line, law-abiding citizens that would not dare to break the law and cross illegally. What do you say to them? I think this sends the wrong message, it says: "break the law, America will reward you for that." discourage the law-abiding citizens. About mercy, I think the system is merciful enough. I had to pay about 5000 for my children´s birth, whereas my neighbor (undocumented lady) paid nothing for her two deliveries and the government paid for it with the taxes I and everybody else paid.

  • No One Of Consequence West Jordan, UT
    Nov. 24, 2014 9:27 a.m.

    What this issue is really about:
    1 - Maintaining the pool of exploitable labor.
    2 - Continued availability of street drugs.
    3 - Easy access for terrorists into the United States.
    4 - The weakening of the U.S. economy.
    5 - Ongoing disruption of our social norms.

    In my humble opinion these people who are illegally here trying to build a better life for themselves and their families are pawns in a much bigger game than they imagine, as are people like the letter writer. The people running the game have no loyalty to their supporters, only to themselves. The illegal immigrants, the newly legalized, and their supporters will all be discarded once they are not longer useful to the game-masters.

  • dave4197 Redding, CA
    Nov. 24, 2014 9:25 a.m.

    Great letter. The people at the center of the wrath of the tea party are in need of our help, our compassion, our resources. Let's roll up our sleeves and find ways to help and do the help. Enough spouting off politically, enough of building a fence - er sieve, enough of turning a blind eye to our friends and neighbors needing help. This is not about opening borders or airports to the world, this is about our southern border friends who share living space with us in the (now) US southwest.
    I could go on, I have. The letter is better than I've written. Great letter!

  • joe5 South Jordan, UT
    Nov. 24, 2014 9:22 a.m.

    Typical that the "party of blame" still want to make this a Republican problem. What about the two years when the Dems held the WH and both houses of Congress? Are we conveniently forgetting that?

    The real argument against this letter is that to help these people, other people have to be hurt. Just like an earlier responder, I personally know people who have been hurt economically, and in other ways, by the flood of illegals into our country.

    In my 60+ years of life, I've learned that you cannot lift others by lowering yourselves to their level whether it be in economics or any other area. You lift from above which means that we must maintain a robust economy to be able to help others. While immigration issues are not the sole economic problem we face, they are certainly contributors. In the 1960s, Eldredge Cleaver said "you can't worry about the wolf at the door when you are in bed with the cobra." Let's fix ourselves before we try to heal everyone else.

  • checonieto Oaxaca, 00
    Nov. 24, 2014 8:35 a.m.

    This executive decision is a reward for those who are willing to break the law. Not only they crossed the border illegally, but they had to buy fake documents and lie constantly in order to obtain employment. What about the honest people who, after their visa expired, returned to their country because they would hate to break the law?, What about those who are law-abiding and wait in line to get a visa through a relative? They were not included in this deal. This decision discourage people to follow the legal procedure, and encourage illegal behavior.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Nov. 24, 2014 8:31 a.m.


    so, All the blame on Reid?

    How about when the Senate passed a comprehensive immigration bill and the House refused to even vote on it.
    Isn't that what you are blaming Reid for doing?

    I blame both parties for not coming together. But many (you perhaps?) want to play the political blame game. All Harry Reid? Hardly. I see plenty of blame to go around.

    According to Lindsey Graham - Graham mind you. Not some shrinking violet.

    “Shame on us as Republicans for having a body that cannot generate a solution to an issue that’s national security, that’s cultural, that’s economic,” Graham said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

    The Senate has passed an immigration bill three times, Graham said, adding that he “loves” his GOP colleagues in the House.

    “I’m close to the people in the House, but I’m disappointed in my party. Are we still the party of self-deportation?” he asked.

  • Bifftacular Spanish Fork, Ut
    Nov. 24, 2014 8:30 a.m.

    I can't stand Obama's policies and I hate how this immigration "executive order" came about but...I have to mostly agree with the outcome. It would not be humane... or just... or right... or moral... or even financially or logistically possible to ship back millions of illegal immigrants that have natural born children and that are contributing to our society. We were never going to ship back all five million anyway - let's quit kidding ourselves with our tough rhetoric. With that said, if we don't button down the borders then all of this is for naught and in five more years we'll be talking about the same issue again.

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    Nov. 24, 2014 8:27 a.m.

    Obviously the most Christian thing we can do is to welcome everyone in the world who has Ebola to come here to get treatment. We should send hundreds of planes to Africa and bring them all here. Let's set up a huge treatment facility in New York City where we can take care of all of them.

    Nothing could go wrong with such a Christian act, could it? The health of American citizens should not be a consideration when it comes to helping others around the world. Right?

    Likewise, opening our borders to everyone in the world who wants to come here and enjoy the generous benefits of our welfare state is just the Christian thing to do. The economic well-being of the U.S. and its citizens should not be considered. There can't be a downside, right? Laws that get in the way, should just be ignored.

  • Confused Sandy, UT
    Nov. 24, 2014 8:04 a.m.

    Tim and JoeBlow....

    Let's put the blame where it belongs, stop using the "Political" rants of either party...

    the blame is not because the GOP would do nothing, nor it is the fault of the democrats...

    One person created this stalemate that has been going on since mid-term of GWB second term...

    The man responsible? Sorry GOP, it is not Obama... Sorry Democrats it is not GWB... the man's name is Harry Reid...

    Even members of his own party is upset at the lack of action this man has taken, but because Politics creates strange bedfellows, he was allowed to retain the position...

    This whole stalemate was because Harry Reid lack Integrity of his office.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Nov. 24, 2014 7:47 a.m.

    This is a really great letter. It's too bad that conservatives will take an un-Christian response. Their arguments against immigration reform and the President's actions are based on false arguments that ignore reality, compassion, and our American tradition.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Nov. 24, 2014 7:40 a.m.

    Joe has it right "Those who scream the loudest for immigration enforcement did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING when they were in complete control of Congress and the Presidency for 6 years."

    It's the same thing with health care. How many opportunities were there over the last 70 years to "make it better" and nothing. Dems tried and were rebuffed. Now something happens and oh my, the world has ended.

    Let us not forget that the six years under Bush when something could have happened he personally favored action, and he issued nearly 500 signing statements where, he openly flaunted his opinion that he may or may not enforce the law he had just signed because it was his prerogative to choose.

    This whole Obama has destroyed the world theatre is really getting tiring.

  • Sal Provo, UT
    Nov. 24, 2014 7:39 a.m.

    Why didn't Pres. Obama do something for the illegals when Democrats had full control of all three branches of government the first six years of his presidency? It wasn't politically expedient; he might have lost the 2012 election. He doesn't care about Hispanics; he cares about power.

    He has now freed up any future presidents to act like dictators, too, and ignore the constitutional process. Bad for Hispanics as well as all citizens. We are becoming another corrupt Mexico.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    Nov. 24, 2014 7:30 a.m.

    Sure, let's abandon the rule of law. What could go wrong?

  • Utefan60 Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 24, 2014 7:29 a.m.

    Tim, your comments mimic the LDS Church's stance on the subject. I'm sure you will get all the do nothing, constitution spouting Obama haters out in droves about your letter.

    They will spout The Constitution, dictatorship and all other sort of Fox News speaking points.

    Your comments are honest and are what is at the heart of true American Values.

    The haters have no solutions! At least someone in our three branches of government used their lawful powers to get this issue to the forefront. The funny part is the GOP response! Of course, after more than 10 years, still no solution out of that group!

  • E Sam Provo, UT
    Nov. 24, 2014 7:15 a.m.

    Outstanding letter! Absolutely right.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Nov. 24, 2014 6:01 a.m.

    Good thoughts Tim.

    you write "by this unnecessary six-year congressional stalemate"

    By my count, the inaction has been far far longer than "six-years"

    Those who scream the loudest for immigration enforcement did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING when they were in complete control of Congress and the Presidency for 6 years.

    It only seems like "six-years" because many only started to loudly complain when Obama got elected.

  • Thid Barker Victor, ID
    Nov. 24, 2014 5:41 a.m.

    This issue is about the constitutional separation of powers, not immigration. The President can not legislate, period! Obama has made congress irrelevant and that is very dangerous and illegal. Obama won't be the last President we have and when we get a conservative President, he can just follow Obama's lead, ignore congress and strike down all gun control laws, mandate traditional marriages, repeal Obamacare, and do what ever else he darn well feels like and who is going to stop him? Under Obama, what is congress' role?

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Nov. 24, 2014 5:27 a.m.

    Sometimes a president just has to do the right thing. President Lincoln did something similar when he signed the Emancipation proclamation.

  • randyclapper Elyria, OH
    Nov. 24, 2014 5:02 a.m.

    Please consider the following: 1) This executive action supercedes existing laws (yes, they are in serious need of overhauling), and bypasses some checks and balances that are in place for various reasons (i.e., protecting USA citizens from criminals & terrorists). 2) The POTUS has walked on the slippery slope of superceding his authority (he, himself, has said so many, many times), wherein this is Congresse's perogotive.

    So, you see, it really isn't about being kind to the less fortunate. One can still feel for, and want the best for those poor souls, which is one of the reasons that this nation does have a living policy to accept immagrants - but let us do so through the front door, not the back door. And let us have them get in line, as do peoples fropm all nations, as they should have equal opportunity to immigrate to this land of opportunity. And finally, let us screen them for our own people's sakes, as we have an sacred obligation to protect our own, our wives, our children, our aged parents, and our communities.

    Just my two cents...

  • BrentBot Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 24, 2014 4:53 a.m.

    The issue is really about honoring, upholding, and sustaining the law. When a government or Chief Executive flouts the law as in gun-running on the border, using the IRS to punish political enemies and throw an election, lie about the reason for Benghazi, lie about the Affordable Care Act, not enforcing border security, etc. everyone believes they needn't obey the law.

    Either we are a nation of laws or we aren't. Let's hope after this disastrous administration, the Republicans do not continue in the path of the Democrats to flout the law.

    Nov. 24, 2014 4:29 a.m.

    Of course it is about helping people. I can rob a bank and claim it was to help people too. Enough bleeding heart drivel. Let's also remember that without law we become a nation ruled by anarchy. We cannot select which laws we will obey nor can the executive branch of government change and/or make law in this republic. Making/changing law is the responsibility of the congress and no amount of excuses (e.g. they wouldn't do it so I had to) will give the POTUS authority to do that. His job is to enforce ALL laws not just the ones he likes.

  • PeanutGallery Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 24, 2014 3:55 a.m.

    No, Tim, this issue is really about whether we’re going to respect the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. Our Constitutional lawmaking PROCESS is important, not merely the ends. If the president is going to violate his oath of office by circumventing that process and issuing his own laws, then we’re moving toward dictatorship and away from government by the people.

  • SLars Provo, UT
    Nov. 24, 2014 2:42 a.m.

    Why couldn't you go home with them, and come back together as a family? You're right, it is about the people, what about those who come here legally? Do you think they have been treated fairly? People come here because we are a nation of laws, why do some feel they are above following them and should be rewarded for breaking them?

  • SLars Provo, UT
    Nov. 24, 2014 2:37 a.m.

    Why couldn't you go home with them, and come back together as a family? You would have citizenship in your parents country.

    You're right, it is about the people, what about those who come here legally? Do you think they have been treated fairly? People come here because we are a nation of laws, why do some feel they are above following them and should be rewarded for breaking them?

  • prelax Murray, UT
    Nov. 24, 2014 1:37 a.m.

    Unemployment, drugs and gangs are a way of life for Americans in the poor parts of the inner cities, it's no excuse to break the law.

    Your parents could have chosen to come here legally and made their lives and the lives of the people affected by their unlawful presence here better. Instead, like many people in our prisons, they chose to break multiple laws by coming here illegally.

    My brother in law lost his business when he refused to hire people here illegally, my brother worked construction until he was replaced by a $7.50 worker, here illegally. A family friend use to clean 3 houses in the Cottonwood area, until a cleaning service, using illegal help took her clients from her. And I dealt with id theft when a man in San Diego took my Social Security number and tried use my credit.

    What makes your parents so special that they should be rewarded for their in proper actions? That's the issue isn't it, everyone thinks they should be the exception, instead of taking responsibility for their actions.