Utah's immigration debate

Utah's immigration debate
A better way
Utah may offer a better model than Arizona for dealing with illegal immigrants

Aug 5th 2010 | Salt Lake City

AS ARIZONA’S lawyers prepare to enter more federal courtrooms to defend SB1070, the state’s new law against illegal immigrants and the harshest of its kind, the other 49 states are watching for clues. But SB1070, partially blocked by a federal judge, looks decreasingly likely to become a model. That may come instead from a neighbouring state. “I want to have a Utah solution; we are not Arizona,” says Gary Herbert, Utah’s governor. And he thinks Utah is close to finding one.

Utah might seem very similar to Arizona. Historically, both once belonged to Mexico, then to the cowboy West. Demographically, both are very white, with significant Latino populations. Politically, both are conservative—a recent Gallup poll found Utah to be the most Republican state in the country. Both have nativists who dislike migrants and occasionally forget to distinguish between illegal and merely brown. And both have Republican governors who stepped into office because their predecessors got better jobs from Barack Obama, and who both now have to win re-election on their own terms.

So it was not surprising that a Utah state representative, Stephen Sandstrom, started working on similar legislation as soon as Arizona passed SB1070 in April. Mr Sandstrom, hitherto obscure, instantly became a darling of right-wing groups, including Utah’s Minutemen. But Mr Sandstrom ran into strong opposition from an interesting quarter.

That was Chris Burbank, the police chief of Salt Lake City, a liberal island by Utah standards. Mr Burbank has been railing at any attempt to make cops enforce immigration laws. He considers this racist, because the police would have to consider ethnicity (he laughs at claims that this could be avoided) and dangerous because Latinos, as crime witnesses or victims, would stop co-operating with the police. This has taken some courage. Mr Burbank has been getting bags of hate mail calling him a “spic lover”, “traitor” and worse. He has received a picture of a noose.

Thus the debate deteriorated. It reached its nadir when two women working for Utah’s main welfare agency stole the names, addresses, Social Security numbers—and even the due dates of expectant mothers—of some 1,300 mostly Latino people whom they suspected of being in Utah illegally. They sent this list to government officials and also, last month, to newspapers, with a ranting letter urging immediate deportation of all 1,300. Those on the list now live in fear.

Ironically, however, the list changed the debate for the better. Almost all of Utah’s political elite, Mr Sandstrom included, were thoroughly embarrassed by it. The attorney-general, Mark Shurtleff, may bring criminal charges against the women who compiled it. Governor Herbert convened a round table on immigration demanding “respectful dialogue”.

One of those at the table, Tony Yapias, Utah’s most prominent Latino activist, thinks it helped that almost everybody at the table was Republican. They realised that the onus is upon them, as the governing party, to elevate the debate, he says.

It might also have helped that virtually everybody at the table was Mormon. The Arizona state senator who sponsored SB1070, Russell Pearce, is also Mormon, which has led to speculation that this is why the Mormon Church has not yet expressed a moral opinion on the matter. But as Mormons, many of Utah’s politicians have either been in Latin America as missionaries in their youth or have loved ones who were. Mr Herbert’s son has been to Puerto Rico. Mr Sandstrom once proselytised in Venezuela and says he even has a permanent-residency permit there (through a fluke of paperwork). He once sponsored a Venezuelan family to come to America legally.

In this more civil conversation, an idea by Mr Shurtleff, the attorney-general, has been gaining favour (although he, too, is getting bags of hate mail for it). Mr Shurtleff proposes an arrangement between Utah and individual Mexican states such as Nuevo Leon, in the north-east. Employers in Utah could request workers and the Mexican authorities would screen applicants. Utah would issue these Mexicans a guest-worker card similar to the driving permits it already gives illegal immigrants. It would separate “the work line from the immigration line,” says Mr Shurtleff.

He calls this the “Golden Spike initiative”, which is emotionally potent. It reminds Utahns of the transcontinental railroad, completed in Utah with a golden spike in 1869. What the Chinese and Irish labourers were then, Mr Shurtleff implies, Mexicans are today.

The irony in his proposal is that such a guest-worker programme would necessarily encroach upon a federal prerogative. The workers would still have to cross an international border, so the feds would have to carve out an exception for Utah, which might lead to 49 other exceptions. Avoiding just such a “patchwork” is officially the reason the Obama administration is suing Arizona over SB1070.

Paired with a state enforcement law better written than SB1070, however, such an approach might amount to a compelling compromise. Mr Sandstrom, for his part, says he is “undeterred” by last week’s federal court decision to suspend parts of SB1070 and will next week unveil an improved bill for Utah. He is sceptical about a guest-worker programme with just one or two Mexican states, but open to it.

In January Utah’s legislature will reconvene. By that time, thinks Mr Herbert, it is quite possible that Utah’s Republicans will have reached sufficient consensus for a “hybrid between worker permits and Arizona-style enforcement”. And that might be the model for the rest of America.

Arizona opened a can of worms. It's going to get to the point that any state not controlled by the 'open border' crowd (ie; Democrats) will be drawing up legislation similar to AZ's.

There's no such thing as an "open border" crowd, except for those Latinos who don't want loved ones to be deported. Everybody else wants a solution for the immigration debate, which is why Obama made that speech not that long ago. I think he had some valid points, and some of them are even proposed in Utah. A guestworker program for example is the best way to curb illegal hiring while ensuring that workers aren't abused and underpaid.

BubbleBliss wrote:
There's no such thing as an "open border" crowd, except for those Latinos who don't want loved ones to be deported. Everybody else wants a solution for the immigration debate, which is why Obama made that speech not that long ago. I think he had some valid points, and some of them are even proposed in Utah. A guestworker program for example is the best way to curb illegal hiring while ensuring that workers aren't abused and underpaid.

I "quotationed" the open border crowd, btw. It appears to be that way to a majority of people. It seems that there are some who don't want anything done with the problem. Others worry about discrimination against Mexican_Americans. But what i see (and i truthfully stand by this) is that there's a huge faction of the left that want to legitimize people here illegally... giving them a "pathway" to citizenship. It's bullshit. It's plying for future votes much in the same way corporate American wanted the same thing... cheaper labor. The Democrats will have a huge influx of voters instantaneously which would put conservative minded people in the minority politically for generations to come.... and then corporate labor will have the huge profits.

Enforce the damn laws on the fucking books, deport those whom you can identify as illegal, fine business and get on with it.

It's really a huge slap in the face to anyone who came here legally. Big time.

Well, the way they look at it is that it's logistically impossible to deport 10 mio. illegals. And if they have no criminal record, a decent education, etc. why shouldn't they be given a chance of citizenship? Granted, they did break the law but in this case it's picking the lesser of 2 evils.

BubbleBliss wrote:
Well, the way they look at it is that it's logistically impossible to deport 10 mio. illegals. And if they have no criminal record, a decent education, etc. why shouldn't they be given a chance of citizenship? Granted, they did break the law but in this case it's picking the lesser of 2 evils.

Nobody says we have to deport 10-12 million. I really get tired of hearing that tired line. It's logistically impossible and the money isn't there to do it. But there's ways of "starving" them out of here by enforcing the laws on the books. I keep saying that and people just make more excuses. Most liberals want the onus on business. I want it on them and the illegals themselves.

Why give citizenship to people who came here lawlessly? They broke the law. Would you allow this in Germany? Do they?

One of Obama's key points, and something I've said time and time again, is cracking down on businesses. That will starve them out, like you said, but I don't think many of those people can honestly afford to cross the border back into Mexico. It's very unlikely that most of those 10 mio. illegals will even be able to leave if they don't have a job.

Yeah, they broke that law but what are you gonna do? If they can't afford to go back to Mexico, what are you going to do then? What if you try to starve them out of jobs and most of them don't leave?

Germany has never had mass immigration like this, and Germany's economy isn't nearly as dependent on immigrants (even illegal ones) as the economy is here.
Taking out 10 mio. source of cheap labor will cripple the economy more than it's crippled right now. That's why people support a guest worker program.

And how are you going to enforce the laws on the books? How do businesses know whether the SS# the applicant has just given them is his and not somebody else's? And who is going to enforce the laws? The Feds? The problem with the laws present already is that the Feds don't have the manpower and authority to crack down on businesses, and neither do the states. If you were to prevent businesses from hiring illegal immigrants, you'd have to introduce some kind of national ID that you can only obtain by proven that you are a legal citizen.

BubbleBliss wrote:One of Obama's key points, and something I've said time and time again, is cracking down on businesses. That will starve them out, like you said, but I don't think many of those people can honestly afford to cross the border back into Mexico. It's very unlikely that most of those 10 mio. illegals will even be able to leave if they don't have a job.

Bullshit. They got here without money, they can go home with money. In fact, with all the money they send back home, that would make a nice down payment for transportation. I don't give a flying fuck if they have no money or not. Send them home.

BubbleBliss wrote:Yeah, they broke that law but what are you gonna do? If they can't afford to go back to Mexico, what are you going to do then? What if you try to starve them out of jobs and most of them don't leave?

Send them back to Mexico.

It's unreal the excuses you come up with. Absolutely unreal.

BubbleBliss wrote:Germany has never had mass immigration like this, and Germany's economy isn't nearly as dependent on immigrants (even illegal ones) as the economy is here.
Taking out 10 mio. source of cheap labor will cripple the economy more than it's crippled right now. That's why people support a guest worker program.

Oh poor me. With 18 million unemployed people here and you make that excuse? Unreal. Oh yeahhhh! Prices of goods will go up if we kick them out. Yepper. Why? because employers have to pay more for workers. Then at the same time, liberals say business don't pay people enuff.

PLONK!

BubbleBliss wrote:And how are you going to enforce the laws on the books? How do businesses know whether the SS# the applicant has just given them is his and not somebody else's? And who is going to enforce the laws? The Feds? The problem with the laws present already is that the Feds don't have the manpower and authority to crack down on businesses, and neither do the states. If you were to prevent businesses from hiring illegal immigrants, you'd have to introduce some kind of national ID that you can only obtain by proven that you are a legal citizen.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:One of Obama's key points, and something I've said time and time again, is cracking down on businesses. That will starve them out, like you said, but I don't think many of those people can honestly afford to cross the border back into Mexico. It's very unlikely that most of those 10 mio. illegals will even be able to leave if they don't have a job.

Bullshit. They got here without money, they can go home with money. In fact, with all the money they send back home, that would make a nice down payment for transportation. I don't give a flying fuck if they have no money or not. Send them home.

Most of those people save a long time to cross the border into the US, I wouldn't be so sure whether they can afford to go back. Many times when they cross the border the stop in cities along the US to work for a bit and then move on. They couldn't do that if there are no jobs for them. If they have no money and you send them home, the taxpayer has to pay for it. And haven't we already established that that's logistically impossible?

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:Yeah, they broke that law but what are you gonna do? If they can't afford to go back to Mexico, what are you going to do then? What if you try to starve them out of jobs and most of them don't leave?

Send them back to Mexico.

It's unreal the excuses you come up with. Absolutely unreal.

Excuses? We already established that it's impossible to send them back to Mexico. 10 mio. people! How can you send even half of them back to Mexico? That would cost a fortune! I don't see how considering whether or whether not most of those people can afford to migrate back to Mexico is an excuse.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:Germany has never had mass immigration like this, and Germany's economy isn't nearly as dependent on immigrants (even illegal ones) as the economy is here.
Taking out 10 mio. source of cheap labor will cripple the economy more than it's crippled right now. That's why people support a guest worker program.

Oh poor me. With 18 million unemployed people here and you make that excuse? Unreal. Oh yeahhhh! Prices of goods will go up if we kick them out. Yepper. Why? because employers have to pay more for workers. Then at the same time, liberals say business don't pay people enuff.

So what's your solution? Replace all the cheap labor with people who have to get paid at least $7.25 an hour plus benefits instead of guest workers who will only receive a portion of that salary? Talk about ruining consumer confidence.

And Conservatives always say that paying workers more would lead to a price increase, yet they find it acceptable to replace people who are working for $3 an hour with people who have to be paid more than double that.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:And how are you going to enforce the laws on the books? How do businesses know whether the SS# the applicant has just given them is his and not somebody else's? And who is going to enforce the laws? The Feds? The problem with the laws present already is that the Feds don't have the manpower and authority to crack down on businesses, and neither do the states. If you were to prevent businesses from hiring illegal immigrants, you'd have to introduce some kind of national ID that you can only obtain by proven that you are a legal citizen.

That attitude is going to get you placeS!