I don’t want you all to think that I am biased towards Representative Rebecca Chavez-Houck (D – Salt Lake, District 24) simply because she happens to have ranked number 1 last year for best representing my interests…or because she just so happens to be my actual representative on the hill; but the honest truth is, I am biased towards her because, well, she is kinda awesome.

I point to HB 274, Adoption Amendments, as an example of her ability to run unabashedly progressive bills that (gasp) line up with the values of many Utahns.

Now, lets not beat around the bush on this one – this bill would allow homosexual couples to adopt children…but before the far right brings out the torches (which they will anyway), the major stipulation is that the child must already be living with a legal parent.

Currently the law is very specific in saying that the person seeking to adopt the child must be married to the legal adult – Chavez-Houck wishes to extend this out to say that the legal parent has the right to choose who can adopt their children regardless of the legal status of their relationship.

And, in many ways, this is why the far-right should fully agree with this bill. For years we have heard about how important parental rights are and how the state has very few rights to interfere with a parents ability to parent.  Well, I would argue that choosing who can and can not make decisions such as medical treatments and education options is the ultimate exercise in parental rights. As a parent, I should not have the state deciding who should or shouldn’t be able to adopt my child.

Of course, I am presuming that lawmakers will use that logic when voting on this bill…yeah, I can dream.

This is a good bill that does little more than allow healthy and happy families thrive.

To contact Rep. Chavez-Houck, Click Here or call 801-891-9292

Impact: 2

Need: 4

Overall: 4

Questions about the rating system? Click Here

To view other bills in the 2012 Bills to Watch series, Click Here

I have come to a conclusion: Representative John Dougall (R-American Fork, District 27) has no idea how cause and effect, prevention, or general common sense, works.

Why else would he be proposing HB 298, Motor Vehicle Safety Inspection Amendments? A bill that, based on his own arguments in the media, is a bad decision.

HB 298 would eliminate the requirement that automobile owners have to pass a safety inspection in order to drive on Utah’s roads…let that sink in for a moment.  Now, I would at least wrap my head around the concept that a far-right, anti-environment lawmaker may want to do away with emissions inspections…but safety? Really?

Dougall’s justification for this bill is that we have reduced deaths on the road and that people don’t repair their cars anyway until they are forced too come inspection time.

So, your argument is that we have fewer deaths, so getting rid of safety standards would…reduce that…somehow? By that logic Dougall should propose a law increasing the amount of alcohol in “Utah beer” to national levels – after all, we have fewer alcohol related incidents in the state, so adding that back in shouldn’t cause a problem.

The second point is equally perplexing. I know that people tend not to fix mechanical problems such as poor breaks and dangerously cracked windshields until the state forces them to. But I guess Dougall is missing the point that issues such as these DO GET FIXED.

I mean, does Dougall honest want to be on roads where people have bald tires, worn breaks, and broken tail lights?

This logic originates from the Land of Conservatism, where people always have money to fix things and no one struggles to get by.  In this same land people magically just take it upon themselves to do things even when the path of least resistance is far easier and it is much less work to simply ignore problems…until they blow up in your face.

Conservatives like this fundamentally don’t understand the role of regulation.  Regulations such as these force people to do things they are not normally inclined to do.  We don’t impose laws like safety requirements on cars because the DMV gets a kick out of making citizens struggle (despite what people like Dougall might think), we impose regulations because failure to do so puts you, me, and everyone else on the road in danger. Regulations such as these are a requirement for living with other human beings that have as many faults as you do.

This bill, if it were to pass (and I hope it does not), would be putting peoples lives in danger in a very real way. Remember, with this law in place, you may have a perfectly running car, but that does not mean that the person who side-swiped you  because their unsafe car ran a red.

To contact Rep. Dougall, Click Here or call 801-708-5170

Impact: 3

Need: 0

Overall: -5

Questions about the rating system? Click Here

To view other bills in the 2012 Bills to Watch series, Click Here

I am getting sick of the annual attacks Republicans in the legislature lob towards a citizens right to vote. Every year they try (often successfully) to make it just a little bit harder for you to exercise your right to participate in your government. If they are not trying to put the administration of elections into private hands, they are trying to slow down nullify the right to petition the government though possible coercion, force people to prove they are citizens at the polls while making more difficult to do so, or simply remove polling locations all together.

The latest attack comes from Representative Kraig Powell (R-Heber City, District 54).  By proposing HB 253, Voter Registration Amendments, Powell is looking to out and out remove people from the voter file.

Yes, if you miss two general elections, you are out.

You may wonder what the big deal is, after all that is over the course of 8 years. One could argue that this bill is simply a way to make sure voter files are as up to date as possible – removing those who clearly don’t want to participate. But to think this way makes you gloss over one important fact: you are removing people based on an assumption.

Thankfully, the county clerk must make attempts to contact you if your registration is about to be revoked. However, I have to wonder if such notices would not simply get buried under mounds of junk mail.

I suppose my real problem is that the government should not be removing voters simply because they do not meet some sort of “participation” threshold. As it stands right now, you have the right to vote at a certain place, at a certain time, regardless of the last time you showed up to the polls unless there is an overriding factor (such as moving or going to jail) to change that fact – and it should stay that way.

I have worked on many political campaigns, and I can’t begin to tell you how frustrating it is to find out that a registered voter has left a home – but the inconvenience of a political operative is no excuse to simply purge someone from the record. Also, the time and “trouble” the clerk has to go through to print extra pages in the official log does not give them a magical pass to simply start chopping off names.

This is a disturbing trend across the nation – several legislatures are attempting to trim back the voter roles. At this rate, our democracy will die by a thousand little cuts.

To contact Rep. Powell, Click Here or call 435-657-0185

Impact: 4

Need: 0

Overall: -5

Questions about the rating system? Click Here

To view other bills in the 2012 Bills to Watch series, Click Here

I wanted to take a break from my media decisions series for a brief interlude to the events surrounding the Tim DeChristopher sentencing on Tuesday as I have now had an opportunity to gather my thoughts. I suspect that there will be a higher than average amount of discussion in the comments section – so I simply ask that everyone remain civil. Please feel free to disagree with one another, but insults and disrespectful comments will not be approved and/or removed.

***

Dear Peaceful Uprising and DeChristopher Supporters,

When I first heard the news of the protests going on outside of the federal court house and the subsequent blocking of the intersection of 400 South and Main street during rush hour, I snarkally comment on Facebook and Google+ that “I thought it was odd to show you want to protect the Earth by blocking a mass transit line and creating an artificial traffic jam, thus causing dozens of cars to idle.”

Though I stand by that statement, I realize that it was an inflaming comment that did little to advance the conversation. The more I contemplate the place where that comment came from in my own mind, the more I realize that I am not so much angry at you – rather I am disappointed.

I remind you at this point (as I often have to do in these conversations) that I supported the actions of DeChristopher. His actions, though spur of the moment, served to bring new light to the issue of public lands in particular, but also stewardship in general.

Up until that point, the discussion on environmentalism had somewhat plateaued.  Yes, Al Gore had scared us about climate change and we were all starting to switch out our light bulbs, but only a select group of people were out there trying to push back on things like the Clear Skies Initiative (the most impressive piece of double-speak I have ever heard).  With DeChristopher’s actions, the debate about sustainability returned to the headlines.  People were again talking about the environment and an impressive amount of political capital was created.

Out of this new capital, you emerged, and they showed great promise to really advance the debate.

Your opening salvo as an organization was to find an individual to run against a sitting Democratic congressman. Now, I would be remiss if I didn’t say that he had not all rubbed us the wrong way from time to time, however it did seem odd that you chose to attack the most friendly member of the Utah Congressional delegation.

This, I believe, is where my disappointment started to emerge.

Yes, these actions upset me, but what was lost in the conversation was that I did respect what you were doing.  As a point of fact, I made it a point to come to your candidates election night party in order to give a heart felt congratulations to campaign staffers for putting up a good fight – I know how hard it is to work on a campaign, and I certainly know how hard it is to loose after all that effort.

But during that time accusations ran wild of payoffs, litmus tests were verbally administered, and graffiti (albeit in chalk) defaced the entrances of the Democratic Party. It soon appeared that as a group (or prominent members of your group) either lacked basic civility towards your opponent or chose to purposefully ignore it.

Soon, you would refocus on the DeChristopher trial. Standing outside the federal courthouse in vigil, I again supported the solidarity you displayed, but as your members disrupted the court proceedings by shouting during the trial and reading of the verdict, it again became clear that civility and respect was simply not part of your plan.

During the time between the verdict and Tuesdays sentencing of DeChristopher, members of your organization split off from a peaceful protest in order to disrupt the workings of the peoples house in Washington D.C. As the saying goes, the third time is a charm – and I grew tired of trying to defend your actions.

Although it may be unspoken, the ethos of the group is clearly one of disruption rather than discussion.

In the end you lost an initial supporter. But, who am I? Well, I am an informed citizen who reads the paper and stays up to date on issues; but I am in the minority.  Most people are too busy to really pay attention to politics and you had not really connected with the general public.

Then Tuesday happened.

DeChristopher was finally sentenced, and the reaction of many of your supporters was to block that mass transit line and snarl traffic in downtown Salt Lake during rush hour. Suddenly you made your presence abundantly clear to hundreds of people that night and thousands more as they watched the news, read the paper, and hopped online. Most people will not look at that action with much goodwill. Why? Because most people will see that you caused people to miss time with their family or made it harder to relax after a hard day.

This is where my disappointment becomes complete.

Time after time you have been handed opportunities to advance your case, and time after time you seem eager to not only squander those opportunities, but go out of your way to do so. Time after time you are given golden opportunities to shed light on some serious issues and raise awareness of those issues to the general public, but you seem to squander them on poorly executed publicity stunts. Time after time you have been put in a unique position to change the debate, and time after time you come up with ways to alienate allies and potential converts.

My disappointment comes from squandered potential.

At this point, one has to wonder what good you have done. Ideally, if you really want to make the change to the planet and the way we function, you have to know that you need to cause people to want to make that change. You have to know that this will only be achieved through social and political means. This is where you differ from those you claim as your own: King, Gandhi, Milk, Anthony, the Founding Fathers, they all knew that civil disobedience was just one part of social change, not the entire strategy and that you need to persuade just as much as you prod. All too often you seem eager to cause disruption for disruptions sake, but no strategy to change policy is apparent.  You appear both as a rudderless ship and a boxer wildly swinging.

Some have said to me “What would you prefer? Writing letters has not worked, protesting has not worked, getting people we like has not worked. Would you prefer that people stay at home and simply accept our fate?” To these people I say no. You should be harassing elected individuals, you should be raising hell, you should try to get people you like elected – what you shouldn’t do is assume that change will happen overnight and become petulant children when doesn’t. You must fight, but you must not be naive.

For better and for worse, our democracy was designed to be slow. Nothing happens overnight or in a vacuum. Things take time. But, one of the amazing things about our democracy is that things can and do change; but change only happens when you have enough people on your side.

So, please, go forth and fight, but for heavens sake, be smart about it. Stop, breathe, and think about a real strategy for advancing your agenda to preach beyond the choir. I have read your goals and ideals, heard your speeches, and talked to supporters – and it all seems like a wish list, not a plan.  Remember, the victor in politics is the one who has the better plan to gain a majority.

I know you have the ability to do so. You have very smart and very capable people who have already stepped forward.  Smart people like Ash Anderson, Deb Henry, and Claudia Wright are just some the individuals I know and respect within your organization.

We do need to fight for our future, and we should care about the pressing environmental issues facing ourselves and our children. This issue is a deep and pressing one, but we are on the right side of history.  The key to victory is to ensure that we present a common narrative that all can get behind and creating a majority.

In the end, make it so that I can defend your ideals, rather than your actions, to those who may be open to joining the majority.

The verdict of the Casey Anthony trial took many by surprise. I, for one, even began to follow the events more closely as a verdict drew near (I squarely blame MRW for that one), and honestly felt Anthony was guilty as sin. Though the anger many are expressing is understandable, we must stop for a moment and realize that the system really does work despite the apparent injustice that took place yesterday.

I have always felt that it is preferable to let 100 guilty people walk free rather than have one innocent person be imprisoned; indeed, our justice system is supposed to do just that. We purposefully impose high standards and burdens of proof on the state because we want to ensure that the innocent are indeed protected from the potential damage the state can do to an individual.

And that is what people should really be considering before they begin to condemn the criminal justice system.

Some have wanted to compare this to the OJ trial, claiming that an guilty person has walked free – but it is worth noting that the anger surrounding the OJ trial was based more on the fact that it felt that an elite was able to ignore the rule of law (and I am not even going to touch the race issue). Anthony, for all intents and purposes, was the person who lived down the street and didn’t have the fancy team of lawyers and throngs of fans behind her, no no, she was just like you and me. If we lived in a system where you and I constantly had to fear being locked up for crimes we did not commit, our world would be a different place indeed.

There is a reason why juries in our justice system say that the individual is “not guilty” rather than “innocent” of the charges and evidence the state has presented – it is a sort of verbal back door that allows people to say “hey, I think the person is probably guilty, but there just was not enough there to make me feel comfortable saying it.” Innocent would imply that we all know the defendant didn’t do it, whereas not guilty implies that a reasonable amount of proof simply did not exist to pin things down.

I would also like to point out that we have various levels of “proof” required for cases (known as standard of evidence). Proof beyond a reasonable doubt means that, based on the evidence presented, a reasonable person would say that the events took place as the prosecution described. This standard is extremely high because it means that the evidence is so substantial that, short of being there, you are reasonably sure  the events took place as the state said it did – sure there may be doubt; perhaps aliens really did come down and shoot someone; but a reasonable person would not suspect this.

Frankly the state should have to live up to this extremely high standard when seeking to convict a person of a crime of such a serious nature, any lower standard and abuse can become much more common. Justice, under this a system with lower standards is a farce and happenstance, and those in power really do have opportunistic to circumvent the system.

But yesterdays frustrations actually go to show that our system really is designed to protect the innocent rather than the guilty.

Our courts, just like everything else, are human creations. This means that mistakes, inefficiencies, and abuses can and do take place. However to put it in such simplistic terms also discounts the fact that we (hopefully) are always trying to improve this imperfect institutions. Can and should reform take place in our justice system? I would say so. But, from a mechanical and prudent viewpoint, the Casey Anthony trial shows that the workings of the court are true and that we value equal protection and logic over passion when it comes to the state charging its citizens.

And, perhaps, that is where the frustration comes in. We all want true justice, and the majority of the time I feel it is honestly served. But that imperfection of a human system, combined with the imperfection of passion over logic, means that, from time to time, the mechanical and methodical nature of the system will upset and even anger us.

Yesterday an individual did not prove the system is broken, if anything it proved that it works all too well.

With the recent outbreak of measles across the Salt Lake Valley, the debate has began to once again heat up over the rights of parents immunize their children. Those touting parental rights point to flawed science that finds tenuous connections between immunization and various developmental disorders. They also point to cases where individuals, having been exposed to a very weak form of the disease due to the nature of immunization, do indeed fall ill and sometimes die from the very shot that was designed to protect their life.

But those who claim that it is wrong for the state to impose strict immunization rules are far more dangerous than any shot will ever be.

We live in a very privileged age, one where a simple cough could have meant death less than 200 years ago could have spelled certain death. We live in an age were we have the luxury of assuming that, if we are exposed to communicable diseases, we will either not fall sick at all or be able to take a barrage of medication and eventually be cured. We tend to forget that the idea of being “cured” is a relatively new invention.  We have the luxury of pointing to the small amount of cases where something goes wrong, rather than having to deal with the very real repercussions of a pandemic.

And so the result is lawmakers and celebrities with no medical background whatsoever standing up and demanding that the rights of the parent to choose what is best for their child should supersede the right of the public from suffering from devastating epidemics. They claim that mandating immunizations is tantamount to a crap shoot where we decide that it is acceptable to allow some people to die. They claim that is wrong for the state to purposefully know it is going to harm some of its citizens.

What these same individuals tend to forget, however, is that, although the death of any child is truly a sad event, the death of thousands has a much worst effect on the world we live in.

They also claim that it is not the governments right to tell parents what to do; ignoring the fact that our very constitution, in its preamble,  says that the purpose of government is to insure domestic tranquility and promote the general welfare. It seems very convenient that these same individuals seem to ignore this fact when discussing the rights of individuals.

But lets take it down to a more personal level. There is a saying – “the right to throw your fist ends where my face begins.” Certainly government should not interfere with every aspect of a persons life, but by loosening immunization requirements in the name of personal freedom, your fist will very much hit my face.

The same non-doctors will claim that if they choose not to immunize a child and it does fall sick, the only people that will be harmed are the child and others who also made the same decision. These same non-doctors are wrong.  One can receive an immunization and not know if the immunization actually took or not, furthermore, the effectiveness of the immunization may decrease or disappear in some cases.  Let us also not forget that children often do not receive full protection from immunizations immediately at birth – the schedule for vaccinations takes place over the course of a year and requires many boosters to ensure protection.

Let us suppose a 12 year old child is infected, but is not showing the immediate signs of measles (a slight itch being treated with lotion, say), and is brought around an infant to babysit. The baby soon falls ill and may die – all this because a parent felt that it was their right to refuse immunizations.

Extreme? Perhaps, but your fist suddenly hit my face and you have put another persons life in danger because of unproven science.

Let us also consider the fact that protecting family values often as part of the backdrop of these debates, there are very few things more harmful to a child and their family than an unimmunized child. Opponents to required immunization may demand that we “think of the children” in other cases, but seem to woefully ignore that mantra when it comes to this issue.

In the case of the recent measles outbreak, the Granite School District suffered losses of $8,600 when it had to hire substitutes to protect teachers whose immunizations had failed, a total that would have been higher if the outbreak would have occurred before or after spring break. The Utah Department of Health has dolled out $75,000 while the Salt Lake Vally Health Department needed to devote more than 2,200 man hours and $107,000 to contain the infected, administer tests, and protect other citizens from disease (source). Yes, over  $190,000 in taxpayer dollars have rightly been spent because some individuals may have had philosophical objects to being protected, thus creating a preventable emergency in the most populous county in the state.

Where is the philosophical objection to that?

We as a people must, through government, decide to sacrifice personal liberties for public good. We should decide to do this only when the danger to the public is greater than the rights of the individual. There are reasons, for example that we ban the personal freedom to drive drunk because of he social cost it may create; likewise it is illegal to pollute beyond determined amounts because of the negative effects on a public. We even have laws prohibiting garbage on properties because excessive amounts create negative effects for not just the individuals with garbage, but also those who surround the home. There are times when government needs to step in to protect us from those who do not wish to think of others and, indeed, actively or passively harm them.

Of course, there are always exceptions to the rule. If a doctor, in their learned and medical opinion feels that an immunization poses to great of a risk to a patient, they should absolutely have the ability to supersede a general government mandate. But make no mistake, immunizations save lives – and an unprotected public poses a greater threat to us all. We must recognize that with something as important as the communal health, ideologues with agendas must step back and do what is truly best for us all.

It is true that government should not create a so called “nanny state,” but isn’t also true that government should to what it can to ensure that we are protected from the harms others can impose on us? Indeed government is charged with protecting not just liberty, but life and the pursuit of happiness.

I must take my hat off to Representative LaVar Christensen (R-Draper, District 48) for crafting a bill that looks like another stupid pro-religion bill, but is actually concealing something much more dangerous when proposing HB 109 – Religious Liberty Recognition.

The bill itself states that “the state or political subdivision may not infringe or substantially burden a persons religious liberty, including compel, restrain, or burden a person in their goods and civil capacities.”

Now, on first blush we can just brush this off as Christensen just trying to prove, once again, just how much of a God-fearing man he is and how he clearly has never read the First Amendment to the Constitution stating that Congress (and by extension the states) can pas no law infringing on the free exercise of religion. But to take this sole interpretation of the law is a dangerous one.

What this law would do is allow people to practice what is tantamount to religious bigotry and go unpunished, even if they are violating state law in the process. Take, for example Salt Lake City’s non-discrimination ordinance. If someone were to violate  the equal housing clause of the ordinance, they would be able to say that their religion denounces homosexuals and would, therefore, be protected. Likewise if a pharmacist was opposed to prescribing the emergency contraception, even after a rape had occurred, because the pharmacist’s religion was opposed to the idea of birth control, they would, again, face no repercussions.

This bill, under the guise of religious freedom, is actually encouraging a more theocratic state. It takes away from the rule of law by allowing people to pick and choose which laws they want to follow – so long as they can claim that it goes against their religion to do so. By saying that my “sincerely held religious belief” is to lie cheat and steal, I could get away with anything. This is not good policy, and it is not good governance.

Urgency Score:

Click here to contact Representative Christensen.

One of the issues I am continually worried about is the usage of undue police force. Although many cops are fine and upstanding, only having the best interest of the public in mind, the thought of giving them too much power is a very concerning one, if only because of the position of power they are in.

That is why HB 59 – Arrest and Requirements – With or Without Warrants is quite concerning to me.

Representative Stephen Handy (R – Layton, District 16) is giving police the ability to arrest anyone they suspect has committed any sort of misdemeanor.

But, you may ask yourself, isn’t this already the case? As a matter of fact it is not, only those suspected of committing a class A misdemeanor (things such as theft, for example) can actually be “arrested” without having some sort of evidence to warrant an arrest. Right now, you can not be arrested if an officer simply suspects you have committed a crime that is class B (say shoplifting) or class C (an invalid drivers license, for example).

So now, if an officer “reasonably suspects” that those things in the back of your car are stolen, they could haul you away without so much as a second thought. Hey, that badge on your shirt says you are an “official breast inspector,” I, as a cop reasonably suspect that you intend to defraud people with that – off to a holding cell for you bub.

The potential for abuse is simply too high. Although it is important to ensure that the cops are able to detain someone when greater evidence comes in, the reason this law restricts arrests to class A misdemeanors is due to the fact that crimes of these natures are much higher – near felonies – that the risk of letting the bad go free is simply too high.

This bill would, in theory, allow police officers to arrest protesters because they “reasonably thought” that someone matched a description of a shoplifter or were drunk in public – sure it would be hell to pay after, but at the time free speech would suffer.

This bill is a step in the wrong direction for civil liberties and is not necessary to public safety.

Urgency Score:

Click here to contact Representative Handy

AP Photo/Jim Urquhart

So, rather than talk about the protest that took place and if was effective way to improve relations or awareness, I would like to draw your attention to an interesting little tidbit.

Last night I noticed that Channel 2,4, and 13 stated that there were upwards of 4,500 protesters who “circled Temple Square” and Channel 4 said they circled it twice. Organizers stated that it was three and a half times. Ok, impressive, but I found it interesting that KSL trotted out Carole Mikita who stated that there was around 600 protesters.

Hrm, quite the difference there… As an added note, for the two of you who don’t know, KSL is owned by the LDS church, the target of the protests.

So who is correct?

Assuming news outlets mean the area from State to West Temple and from North to South Temple, to circle Temple Square, you would need to travel 4400 feet (thank you Google Earth). Assuming that some people sat while others laid down, it is safe to say that the average person took up 5 feet. 4400/5 = 880. Double that and you have 1,760. At the high end, 3 1/2 “circles” would equal 3080 protesters.

The picture above shows multiple people, however, in the same “spot” – a trend probably repeated around Temple Square. But we can also assume that organizers will probably over estimate, so a number of 2,000 - 3,000 protesters is probably close to accurate. Still very impressive but not quite as high as they stated.

But 2,000 is a long way away from 600, even for the worst of estimators. Now I am not saying that KSL didn’t do an accurate job of reporting, I am saying that KSL out and out lied to downplay the protest.

Shame on KSL. They have a commitment as newscasters to report the news as accurately as possible and they violated the public trust for private interests. I know why they did it, but their position of influence places them in a special position, a position the organizers simply don’t hold. I admit that the protest organizers likely overestimated by 1,500 while KSL underestimated by the same amount, but, again, their position as a news source puts their error in a different classification.

For what it is worth, the Tribune stated that there were “thousands” of protesters and the AP quoted the police as stating there were ”roughly 1,000″ protesters, but cited the 4,500 number as well.

You may or may not be following the debate currently taking place in our own back yard.  Arizona just passed sweeping immigration legislation that has ruffled a few feathers (to put it mildly). The most controversial provision allows law enforcement to question any individual about their immigration status, regardless of why the officer initially wished to speak to the individual.

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.