Today, the Salt Lake Tribune is reporting that Representative Stephen Sandstrom (R – Orem, District 58) wants to pass a similar law for Utah.

Before ripping into Rep. Sandstrom, some history. In 2008, the Utah State Legislature passed SB 81 – a law that, among other things, deputizes police officers as immigration officers. Now, I am not going to harp about that law, as it has already passed (mostly because it has already passed into law – but expect more criticism if this pushes forward).  No, let us focus on the current proposed bill and its potential impact.

If a law similar to Arizona were to pass in Utah, not only would police officers be able to question you for any reason about your immigration status, they could immediately arrest you based on your answer. “Well, how is this different from any other questioning police officers do?” you may rightfully ask.

First of all, immigration control is not a state issue. Indeed, if there is any issue that is a national one, it is protecting its boarders – people (not just citizens) are free to move within the boarder with no resistance.  This concept is outlined in the commerce clause of the Constitution. Second we need to consider not just the word of the law, but also the nature of the law as to why it is not right for officers to have this extra power.

Now, not many people know this, but when I was younger I actually trained to be a police officer. I only stuck around one day, but they taught me something very important: all murderers have black hair, large ears, dark eyes, and like to wear ties. If I am to see anyone matching this description, I should immediately question them and possibly arrest them if I think there is a slight chance they could have committed a crime.  Is it fair? No, but almost every murderer (I was told) matches this description.

This, of course, is absurd.  But when I say “illegal immigrant” do you think of someone who looks like Representative Sandstrom? Or do you think of someone who looks like Representative Rebecca Chavez-Houck? And be honest. Both are citizens, both are law makers, but if you knew nothing about either individual aside from their name and face and you were told to start questioning people about their immigration status, who would you harass?

Congratulations, you just committed racial profiling. It is part of human nature and it is not how our justice system should work.

This law leaves the door wide open for mass “questioning” of individuals as part of a systematic way to get rid of individuals. Now, Representative Chavez-Houck could, in theory, be caught up in such raids numerous times, only to be released – but not before being away from her friends, family, job, and life in general. What if we started rounding up murderers who matched my description? Would you still say the law was fair?  After these individuals were rounded up, they could immediately be hauled off to a federal jail, despite the fact that this is well beyond the Herriman City Cops jurisdiction.

This leads me to my next point. Why is it that Representative Sandstrom, a member of the far right Patrick Henry Caucus, is so eager to enact such a law? After all, he just spent an entire legislative session trying to buck off the federal government, stating that they have overreached their bounds in almost every aspect of our daily lives. Now, he seems more than happy to have the state take on this particular aspect of federal regulation even though, again, it is not within Utah’s jurisdiction to even touch this matter thereby overreaching its boundaries.

We are required to provide basic services to everyone within our boarders, whether or not  they are here legally. Illegal immigration is, therefore, a fundamentally different issue than murder. Laws, such as Arizona’s take us down a very real path of racial profiling, fueled by distrust, hate, and anger, towards a future that very much looks like Nazi Germany before the start of the Holocaust. Our history shows that rounding up individuals and interning them is not a foreign concept in America – indeed, we do not even need to leave this states boarders to see Japanese internment camps a mere 100 miles away from the Capitol building.

I am a firm believer that we have become better since those days, but I am also a firm believer that we could easily go back if we are not careful. There needs to be a solution to the illegal immigration problem, but it needs to come from the federal level. Legislation is on deck (after the Wall Street reform bill) to discuss this very issue.

Representative Sandstrom, let the feds do their job – provide input, but don’t make Utah look backwards and don’t send us down this rabbit hole.

Sure enough, we are now hearing of examples of such harassment. But first, a little back story.

Less than a week ago the Deseret News reported that State Republican Party chairman Dave Hansen will “probably” start a campaign to convince some GOP signees to remove their name from the Utahens for Ethical Government petition but that they “won’t harass anyone; (they’ll) ask them to consider taking their name off.”

Indeed, the next day, a federal judge (presumably seeing how such a law could be abused) issued a court order to keep the names of signers off the public record for at least ten days. This, however, does not appear to be enough.

While listening to the Nightside Project on KSL, a caller stated that they were being harassed by an individual to remove their name from the UEG petition. Now I am not accusing the Utah Republican Party of initiating the process of harassment, but who is to say if an individual member, perhaps one who works for the county clerk, acted on their own accord to harass this signer?

Of course this is all pure conjecture, but the Utah GOP certainly has the most vocal in their opposition to the peoples initiative (though some Democratic lawmakers have raised concerns as well). They are the ones who work in the majority of the clerks offices, and they are the ones who passed this law in the first place.

I am not opposed to allowing people to remove their signature, but this is proof that lawmakers are not interested in letting the process work properly. What I predicted would go wrong has, and it did not even take a week to prove it.

One of the reasons the “Main Street Kiss” received so much attention in the first place is that it seemed so contradictory to the Churches apparent tolerance of homosexuality as a lifestyle – even though they fully admit to not supporting gay marriage.  The churches words of love and inclusion for gay couples were directly contradicted by its actions of detaining a couple for showing that lifestyle.  Furthermore, we have seen many members of the Mormon faith openly hostile to the gay community over the years; this recent controversy served to support these prejudices, not dispel them.

Indeed, the Church must take advantage of these actions to start a dialogue between the GLBT and LDS communities if they do indeed care about seeing equal rights for all the people of this state, nation, and world.

For far to long the Church has attempted to play both sides of this issue, and they are beginning to pay the price for it. Soon the City Creek Center will open its doors to the citizens of Salt Lake City and this Church owned property will have a flood of people wishing to reside in the 20 acres of land it occupies. It is inevitable that a gay couple will wish to live in one of the 750 condominium units to be built.  What then?

As of right now it is not illegal to deny housing to someone because they are gay. The Church would be well within its rights to say no to a couple on these grounds – just as they are well within their rights to expel a couple for expressing their love on Church grounds.  But just because it is legal does not mean that it is right.  The bad publicity the Church has received now and that it will receive when this unavoidable scenario takes place are undeniable – yet the Church still remains mostly silent. Furthermore, Salt Lake City or County will undoubtedly pass an equal rights ordinance that will force the Church to accept GLBT couples into the City Creek Center…or at the very least not deny them housing because of this fact, again placing the Church in a very public and harsh spotlight.

The Church can no longer afford to kowtow to both sides of the isle; it is obvious now, more than ever, that they are being ingenuous to both sides and that no one is happy with their words or actions. Therefore, I challenge the LDS church to come out with a strongly worded statement that either supports gay rights and accept the internal conflict associated with that or to state (what appears to be the obvious) that the LDS Church does not support homosexuality in any form and that they oppose the existence of those who have a different lifestyle from their own – accepting the inevitable blow back and bad publicity this Church has tried to avoid for years.

In many ways,  the Church is a victim of its own success. Its efforts to become part of the mainstream means that they open themselves up to criticism they are not used to. Over the years the Church has evolved with the politics of this state and is, therefore, used to getting its way – now that they are fully entering the national and international stage, they must learn to adapt to the realities that they are not listened to and are not respected…indeed they are openly challenged and criticized. A statement now (along with actions) must take place to either support the growing public opinion that the GLBT community deserves equal rights if the Church wishes to grow outside of the Intermountain West.

And so, LDS Church, get ready.  GLBT issues are going to be your defining moment for decades to come – what decision will you make?

Written by Derek Jones:

My boyfriend and I were walking home from the Gallivan Center concert series and naturally had to walk down the pedestrian mall (it was a direct path to our house and we have walked it many times together).  We were holding hands.

Matt paused to say something to me and hugged and kissed me.

At that moment, several LDS church security guards came up to us and asked us to leave because we were being inappropriate.

Matt moved in closer to me and put his arm around me and asked the security guards loudly “what are we doing wrong?” We were obviously annoyed that they singled us out, especially since we were just passing through and not spending considerable time there. And there were no other people on the easement that we could see.

At this point they said that they wanted us to leave because of the public display of affection and that they do not allow any sorts of public displays of affection on the easement whatsoever. This especially irked the both of us because having walked through on a frequent basis (we often walk to work through there) and every time I have been through there are either marriage ceremonies going on, young mormon [sic] couples cuddling in front the fountain, hugging, holding hands, etc.

Matt then tried to get them to admit they were singling us out because they just didn’t approve of “gay” public displays of affection, baiting them into revealing their bigotry.

As all this was going on, several more security guards began showing up. I didn’t make an actual count but I would guess about 10 security guards were now surrounding us.

One of the security guards then got in Matt’s face and expressed very forcefully that “we (meaning straight people?) don’t come to your house and make-out on our property.” At this point Matt called him on his [expletive deleted] and mentioned that every time he has been through, he’s seen brides and grooms, couples holding hands on the pavement etc.

The security guards then changed their strategy and went the route of telling us that the easement is privately owned by the church and they can basically kick-out anyone they deem being offensive or inappropriate. This is technically true, but at the time I thought that it was a public easement and they had no rights to kick us out for holding hands (I didn’t really follow the controversy back in 2003 when the City ended up caving into the Mormon Church’s request to make the easement private property).

At this point they then split us up and forced me onto the ground on my stomach. They put my face against the pavement and handcuffed my hands behind my back. They then did a search and took everything out of our pockets. They did the same to Matt, although he resisted (not violently) and they weren’t able to get him on the ground because he’s a big guy and it took four or five of their guys to get him handcuffed. Matt remembers asking “what are you doing? Why are you doing this?” Then Matt launched into them verbally, telling them that they were hypocrites and did not have the authority to be arresting us.  Matt never threatened them, nor was he ever violent. He even explicitly told them that we were not being violent and that handcuffing was completely unnecessary. Neither of us are violent people. We were just trying to get them to have a civil conversation with us about the real reasons they wanted us to leave. Matt then asked if what they are doing was legal.  The security guards tried to claim that they were the cops. One of them even pulled out a fake badge and said he used to be a cop.

Matt then asked where the real cops were and they then said we could either leave, or they would get the cops. While we waited for the cops to arrive, the security guards kept trying to take pictures of us with their digital cameras. They also tried to accuse us being intoxicated although we were not. I admitted to have A beer at the gallivant, but that was hours before.

The cops finally showed up and talked to the church security away from while we still sat in cuffs. The police then escorted off the easement and took off our cuffs. We answered their questions and the one cop tried to shame us by pointing out we had been drinking, at which point Matt said “of course I have been we were at the Gallivan and took the responsible route by walking
home.

The cop then dropped that line of attack that [sic].

The cops then issued us both citations for trespassing and let us go.

Update: Some of the commenters seem to be under the impression that I, as author of this blog, was one of the victims of the preceding incidents – I wish to clarify that I am simply reporting the information as I have received it from the two directly.  It is for this reason that I have not answered what I plan to do because I have no direct connection to the case – other than the fact that people I know and care about have been directly affected by it. My appologies for any confusion.

So a friend of mine informed me, by way of Facebook status updates, that he was, he claims, illegally detained and charged with a Class C Misdemeanor for trespassing on the Main Street pedestrian mall in Downtown Salt Lake. The reason, he claims, is that he was holding the hand of his gay partner.

As I said, this is breaking and the facts are not in – however I would not be surprised to hear if it was entirely true.

For those of you who don’t recall, the Salt Lake City approved the sale of a section of Main Street in Downtown in April 1999 to the Mormon church from South Temple to North Temple, effectively connecting the LDS Temple grounds with the LDS Offices. The debate was heated as the land would effectively become private property and events, such as this, could (in theory at the time) be prosecuted. In the end the Church won and we see the symptoms of this victory today – assuming it is true.

But is it right?

Unlike the block housing the LDS Temple, the area is completely open and accessible to the public – indeed, I have cut through the area from time to time with no trouble whatsoever.  The area offers no physical restrictions and to someone who knew nothing of the Mormon culture, would assume it was a park area (all be it with an interesting choice in architecture).  Now these two are long standing residents of the state and city, but my point still stands.

How would we be viewed by the national press if this had been a couple from another city our country? Is this how the Church really wants to be perceived – especially after the the whole Proposition 8 dust up? Furthermore, it should not be forgotten that the Church “does not object to rights for same-sex couples regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family.”

One would reasonably assume that holding hands is far less of an attack against “traditional marriage” than, say, allowing gay couples to enter into mutual contracts. Yet, if these allegations are true, here we are.

So what is more important, your First Amendment right to peaceably assemble and pass through an area, unknowingly trespassing, or arresting people because you think they are ookie? I have no doubt that they broke the actual law, but did they break the spirit of it?

P.S. Any posts that reference a religious verse or doctrine directly will be blocked – this is a legal issue and, therefore, requires a legal response. Furthermore, morality is not the dependant on any particular religion, rather it is the concept that we should be good to one another; therefore, replies regarding morality in a religious context, too, will be blocked.

Update: Read the account of this from one of the individuals arrested by clicking here.

Update: Salt Lake Tribune reporting, Deseret News reporting (the only one who acknowledged this blog directly – thanks Clayton), Q Salt Lake reporting, CBS 2 Reporting, ABC 4 Reporting, KSL 5 Reporting, Fox 13 Reporting.

You see, Representative Chaffetz is co-sponsoring a bill that would restrict birthright citizenship to the children where at least one parent is already a citizen.  In other words the children of illegal immigrants would not be granted citizenship under the bill.

I am sure Representative Chaffetz is proud of his co-sponsor and feels that he is doing what is right for the nation;  indeed Chaffetz says it is what most Americans want. One problem, there is this pesky little thing called The Constitution of the United States of America and, more specifically, the 14th Amendment.  Here, let me point you to Section 1:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Do ya see that, Jason? All persons, not just the ones you want, get to become citizens of the United States if they are born here. I don’t know how much more plain the language can be – if you are born here and you have to obey the laws of our country, you are a citizen – no if, ands, or buts.

Furthermore, this will do nothing to prevent illegal immigration – do you honestly think illegal aliens are intimately familiar with the laws of our country? Do you think they know much of anything about immigration law when they come to this country? Do you think that their primary goal is to upset you and take away your job picking fruit and cleaning bathrooms?

Of course not – what they do know is that this country offers them something more, something better, indeed this country offers the American Dream.

Chaffetz says this will be difficult because of the Democratic Congress – this is a blatant grandstanding to make Dems look like evil obstructionists who want nothing more than to take away your jobs.

Jason, step away from this one.  You are going to loose and you deserve to.

P.S. Fun fact: did you know that the 14th Amendment was ratified 141 years ago today? And you know why it was written? Because states were trying to deny newly freed slaves the right to participate in our system as free men.  Just, ya know, something to think about.

This made her drop her jaw in amazement and bewilderment.

“You are going to help me out?” She asked, befuddled. “Sure, why not?” I replied.

As I was planning on writing about something on this blog anyway, I had my computer faithfully by my side and whipped it out without hesitation and logged in for her. It was about this time that she said something that made me pause:

“But you are white.”

Me, somewhat stunned, did not quite know how to respond – she filled in the rest:

“I can’t believe a white man would help out a black woman. What is making you do this? Is it Obama? I never would have expected this in Utah.”

Still not quite knowing what to say I simply replied that I had no reason not to let her use my computer, just so long as she didn’t screw anything up on it (as far as I can tell she didn’t).

Naturally this got me thinking about race in America.  I am saddened that we live in a world where this woman was genuinely surprised that a white man would help her out, and I am equally hopeful that we live in one where a white man has no problem helping a black woman out.

Perhaps this is why I am a liberal – There is no need for us to live in the world that is in that woman’s mind, but I do see the need to fight for a world where a random act of kindness does not take on added meaning. This mindset carries over to other evil liberal agendas such as equality, environmental protection, health care, civil rights, a woman’s right to choose, and education just to name a few, where I choose to stand up for the rights of the individual, not the “traditional” way things should be done.

For those of you who don’t know, full body scanning technology has been implemented in a hand full of our countries airports as another level of security screening. The technology employs radio waves that pierce through clothing but are stopped by skin just like how x-rays can go through skin, but be stopped by bone. Hidden ceramic weapons (used to thwart metal detectors) are obviously more dense than skin and, therefore, pop up on the imager if present. The problem is, for the 99.9999 percent of us not trying to hijack an airplane when flying, the only image that pops up is a full scan of your naked body.

Some privacy issues have been addressed to try and mitigate this problem, such as making these scans voluntary, blurring the face of the individual, and having the person reviewing the scans in a separate room – but the point still stands: someone is looking at your naked body in the name of homeland security.

What concerns me is not so much the opposition to this bill in the name of security – indeed it is a powerful and effective tool; no, what concerns me is the utter lack of concern people have for being effectively stripped down to get on a plane. Not only do we live in a society where people are forced to give up their right to privacy, but society is happy to do so.

My generation in particular is notoriously unconcerned by these sorts of technologies.  We, as a group, are used to having our lives peered into – Facebook pages, twitter accounts, text messaging, hell, even blog writing, are all part of a generation that is used to divulging information to the world, not knowing or particularly caring who reads about you. More on to the point, we want people to know everything about us. It is only natural then that we are unphased by these sorts of technology – it is just another way to have someone know you are who you say you are, in this case you are not a terrorist.

This is where I become concerned: just because someone willingly gives up a civil liberty does not mean it is not still lost. Furthermore, if history is any guide, it is easy to lose rights, but gaining or regaining rights require long fought battles.  On top of that, let us not forget that government works in waves – one law leads to another, and another, and another.  The cliche of the slippery slope holds true.  If society allows a toe-hole (as I believe it already has through things such as the PATRIOT ACT), lawmakers get the green light to take more and more rights away from you.  Never forget that the largest mines in the world started with a single pick-axe in the side of a mountain.

It can be argued that we do not have a right to fly, therfore we have no or few grounds to complain on.  I direct you to the 13th article of the UN Universal Declaration of Human rights that states:

• Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
• Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

We have the right to move about this country and between countries freely.  You do have other options to travel, but is it any less of a violation of your rights when one option is restricted?

So, in the end, I hope that Chaffetz’s bill passes.  I am concerned about security, but I am more concerned about my rights as a human.