If there was one debate that truly became contentious this year, it was the immigration debate. Representative Sandstrom (R – Orem – District 58) launched the opening salvo by proposing HB 70 – Illegal Immigration Enforcement Act. Although this bill would ultimately fail, its existence created more than enough problems for the legislative session.

Despite Democrats pointing out that a very similar law in Arizona has cost that state millions, far right Republicans were still eager to pass the law because they wanted to prove that they were tough on the issue and that Utah would not become a “safe-haven” for those who illegal cross the border by basically harassing anyone who was a shade darker that alabaster.

With that in mind, the logical conclusion was that this bill would fly through the session with little to no resistance.

…But that turned out not to be the case.

Senator Luz Robles (D – Salt Lake City, District 1) proposed a much more moderate SB 60, a bill that favors documentation and acknowledges the true situation on the ground. Though this bill had its flaws as well, it did protect the basic rights that, yes crazies, even illegal immigrants have.

Through skillful maneuvering, Robles was able to ensure that her bill was on the table as well. Though the bill would ultimately fail, it too would affect the debate in a very real and overall positive manner.

The end result would be what was known as the “Utah Solution.” Comprised of two main bills, the Utah Solution consisted of HB 116 and HB 466 and better addressed the reality of the immigration debate. Though far from perfect, these two bills did seek to find a compromise between the two very disparate parties on the immigration debate and avoided the national outcry an backlash Arizona received when it passed its immigration reform.

HB 116 has been panned by arch-conservatives as proof of the end of days, because it has the audacity to realize that there is no way the state is going to be able to round up every single illegal immigrant and place them on a bus headed for the border. They claim that it creates an open door that will create a flood of new  imm’a'gants that will take our ‘jerbs. In reality, the bill places very severe restrictions on illegal immigrants residing in Utah and does many of the things these same arch-conservatives have been complaining about for years, namely that we tax those in the country illegally, set standards to learn English, track where illegal immigrants are working and living, and punishes those living here by imposing a $2,500 fine for living in the state illegally.

HB 466 would then monitor the results of bills such as HB 116 as well as the general status of illegal immigration in Utah, making suggestions to the legislature as well as working with the feds and state agencies to assimilate aliens and establish systems to make these aliens legal. It would also put into place mechanisms that would allow potentially illegal aliens to obtain work visas and come to Utah legally, contributing to the economy in a way that (up until now at least) no one has objected to.

But, of course, having your demands met is not enough for many of these far-righters who refuse to accept reality…no, no, nothing short of tar and feathering these individuals will make them happy.

And therein lies the problem with the immigration debate here in Utah (and indeed across the nation). People refuse to educate themselves as to why we have illegal immigrants in the first place, preferring to make assumptions and not listen to reason. The state has met almost every demand of the far-right, but had the audacity to treat them like people in the process. Now I am not going to pretend that these two main immigration bills were perfect – and I do have a problem with how these bills treat people as a commodity that is bought and sold depending on the needs of business; but what I will say is that it is far more humane than anything that would have normally passed through the legislature had no intervention taken place.

By providing clear standards, as well as a path to citizenship and acknowledging that a crime took place and punishing those who broke the law, the Utah solution does provide some framework for the federal government to work with as it creates its own immigration laws. Hopefully this will kick-start the debate in a more healthy and productive way that what conservatives have been proposing in the past. Heck, if we can pass something like this in the Utah legislature, there is a chance we could get it through Congress.

My grade for the 2011 Utah State Legislature on Immigration: B+

Up next: Citizen Participation

I am truly bothered by the hypocrisy many on the right have towards illegal immigration – and their inability to think through the rhetoric they often spew.

Often, they complain that we make it “too easy” to enter the country and that we incentivize people to come here. This argument came up during the initial discussion of driver privilege cards a few years back wherein an undocumented person can receive what amounts to a drivers licence, though with many restrictive measures in place. The main idea behind this was twofold: 1) we would at least have some means of knowing who is illegally in the country, and 2) officers and other individuals would be able to identify individuals with greater ease.  The whole idea behind this, of course, was that illegal aliens were already driving on the street – regardless of if they are doing it legally, so we might as well make it easer on everyone involved by giving them the same licence everyone else has.

Well Senator Steve Urquhart (R – Saint George, District 29) wants to ignore all of these facts by proposing SB 138 – Driver License Qualification Amendments. The bill would eliminate driver privilege cards, plain and simple.

Senator Urquhart, no doubt, thinks that this will solve illegal immigration. He is, most likely, under the naive impression that this will prevent people from coming to Utah and take our jobs – because when people cross the border, the reason they are doing it is to be able to legally drive on our roads. Those who have lived in other states illegally long to drive on our streets as well but, sadly, the walk here is simply to far for most, and they dare not drive on the highway to get here without some sort of state sponsored support.

This bill does nothing to solve the problem of illegal immigration, and it would make law enforcement more difficult.  Furthermore, this bill would cost the state over a million dollars if enacted, presumably from the loss of fees associated with the privilege – a million dollars that currently goes to improving the roads illegal immigrants will drive on regardless of having a laminated card in their pocket.

Urgency Score

Click here to contact Senator Urquhart.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, this is the infamous ”Arizona” immigration law that you have heard so much about. The delay in providing you with such sensationalistic posting is largely due to the fact that I make it a point to actually read a bill before I pass judgment on it.

Representative Sandstrom’s (R – Orem – District 58) HB 70 – Illegal Immigration Enforcement Act is the knee-jerk reaction you would expect from someone of his caliber. Rather than go into the moral and ethical problems associated with the bill (something I have already done in the past), lets just talk about the legal issues.

The bill, however, does exactly what I suspected it would do: allow, nay require, officers to check the immigration status of someone arrested or detained if they “reasonably suspect” the person is an illegal alien. Furthermore, an officer can check the status of any passenger in a vehicle as well. But, in the same breath, the bill states that the “officer may not consider race, color, or national origin” when determining if they think a person is illegal.

Lets just stop there for a second. So, an officer check a persons immigration status if they suspect that the suspect is an illegal alien, but they can’t consider their race, color, or national origin…how exactly is an officer supposed to decide that a person may be illegal? Can’t use an accent because that would be considering national origin, can’t use a common physical, social, or economic trait because that is racist, and you certainly can’t use the color of their skin. What does that leave, then? Well, the only thing I can think of is that an officer may “reasonably suspect” that a person matches the description of a known illegal immigrant – but that can’t cause any problems, right?

Moving on. The law states that a person is considered “lawfully present” in the US if they provide some sort of legal document with their photo or thumb-print on it. But, of course, a person would only present those documents if the officer has presumed that they are an illegal alien; in other words, an officer can accuse someone of a crime, and the suspect is guilty until proven innocent. Don’t have your papers on you? Well, it is time to book you and haul you away – you prove to us you didn’t commit a crime.

We can talk about the frustration associated with illegal immigration, we can talk about ways to improve enforcement, we can even talk about ways to prevent illegal immigration in the first place; but this bill does not address any of that, or rather, if it does, it does it at too great an expense to our civil liberties and rights. Not only do we loose the basic civil liberty of being innocent until proven guilty, but there is no way to enforce this law without some element of racism, spitting in the face of the idea that all men are created equal. Finally, lets consider the purely economical and social impact this bill will have on the state. Arizona has been shunned by many Americans, and many companies have chosen not to provide business to Arizona in protest.

Bad law Representative Sandstrom, bad law.

Urgency Score:

Click here to contact Representative Sandstrom

To those of you who think that it is enough to just build a wall and kick em’ out is enough:

Oh, it just wouldn’t be a legislative session without me (and many of us lefty liberal bloggers) frantically mashing our keyboards in disgust of whatever Representative Carl Wimmer (R-Herriman, District 52) pulls out of his magic bag of tricks. Although there are a few floating around, today I am going to discuss HB 191 – Nonresident Tuition Waver Amendments.

In short, currently the law states that if you attended high school for three or more years and got a high school diploma, you are allowed to receive in state tuition if you choose to attend a public college or public university, regardless of immigration status. Representative Wimmer’s bill seeks to overturn this.

In many ways, I can only rehash what many readers have already heard. But I honestly believe they are worth repeating. This, in and of itself, is a difficult topic as immigration itself is so heated; however I will take the point of view that Wimmer simply wants to deincentivise illegal immigration in Utah.

Point 1: I am willing to bet that no illegal immigrant has come to Utah to be a criminal and a college grad, most likely they are here in an attempt to improve their life and the life of their children.

Point 2: Assuming this, it is safe to say that they will attempt to put their children through school, so that they have a better chance at receiving a public education. Now, before you say that we should deny public education to illegal immigrants, I point you to Plyler v. Doe (1982) which says that students, regardless of citizenship status, can not be denied an education based on citizenship status because it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Point 3: One of the reasons this law is difficult to challenge is that it is an Equal Protection Clause issue. If two people follow the same rules regarding in state tuition and pay into the same system that justifies such a system, to deny one class of people of this based on a non-relevant issue (which, legally, immigration is in this case), it is quite possible that removing this law will result in legal challenges and might be over turned anyway.

Point 4: On a more intellectual point, why, exactly, are we so eager to deny people an education? Presumably, if a illegal immigrant wants an education, they also intend to get a job and settle down. Now you can’t get a white collar job with out some sort of legal immigration status, so to pursue an education would be pointless unless they intend to do so. Do we want to deny someone, in the prime of their educational life, the opportunity to learn and give back to the community simply because they were not born here?

If you are honestly concerned that they will use up the system and leave, the only logical conclusion is to but the same restrictions on legal students who receive in state tuition. Got a degree in Political Science from the U and used in state tuition? Never leave the state or else pay the difference.

I ask Representative Wimmer to tell me why educating illegal immigrants (who most likely entered this country when their parents brought them here) why we need to put these students in a different class – what makes them so different from other families who also pay their taxes and attend the same schools?

Click Here to Contact Representative Wimmer.

I have been thinking about the recent uproar surrounding the immigration debate and the anger being generated by the far right about how them illegals are ruining the country – I am looking at you tea-baggers. But, sometimes in the same hate-filled rants, they tout how the free market is the savior of all our problems and that the government just needs to step out of the peoples business.

My first question is this: how is it, far righters, that you are able to so gracefully speak out of both sides of your mouth like that?

You do know that illegal immigration is a direct result of the free market? Immigrants, both legal and illegal, are a result of the very basic free market principals of supply and demand. On the producer side, the owner of a company demands labor at the cheapest price possible and, in many cases, that demand is supplied by immigrant labor.  On the consumer side, we demand our products and services to be as cheep as possible, and this is only made possible due to the cheep labor immigrants provide regardless of their citizenship status.

Next question: is it possible that your dogmatic thought has no thought behind it?

Then, if that logical fallacy isn’t enough, the vitriol is often followed up with some sort of statement about claiming that the founding fathers, through the Constitution, are the solution to all of our problems and that this is evidenced by the fact they included the 10th Amendment to ensure that the states would be able to regulate certain powers and that the government would not be able to stop the states from protecting themselves.

Problem is that, naturally, these zealots probably have not read the 10th Amendment and/or are unfamiliar with the Constitution. Here is a brief recap of the 10th Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Now the funny thing is immigration is, indirectly, delegated to the United States by the Constitution. Article 1, Section 8 states that:

(The Congress has the power) To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.

Now it is true that immigration rules are not directly naturalization rules, but, thankfully, the Supreme Court has said that it does not make sense for the government to make laws regarding how an immigrant becomes a citizen, but can’t regulate how that person came here in the first place.

I will grant you that the U.S. government has not done a bang-up job regarding immigration, but it is still their job.

Lets recap: the free market will fix everything, except for immigration and that the government is too big to handle this issue even though it is expressly written into the Constitution as is never wrong.

So my last and honest question to the far right: how do you reconcile these obvious flaws in your thinking?

Is it possible that this is a more complex issue that requires more thought than just kickin’ em’ out?

Utah as an image problem.

For far too long, our state has been viewed as a backwater hole where religious fundamentalism and the problems associated with it rule the day. As a native Utahn, I know that this is not the case, and I don’t know how many times I have heard visitors confide in me that they changed their views of our beautiful state and its people after visiting.

Indeed, the state saw this issue as well, and has poured millions of dollars into tourism advertising to encourage people to give Utah a try. Progress, I feel, was being made to show people that Utah is a wonderful place to play. As perception grew, so to would people wishing to stay – from there they set up businesses and create jobs. In short, the state knew that changing the perception of Utah was vital to its economic growth.

And then a rouge group of state workers compile the names of some 1,300 people who they believe to be in this country illegally.

Arizona’s immigration law has gone a long way in harming its reputation, but, at the very least, it was done in the open, in public, by lawmakers that will be held accountable to the citizens come November. This, however, was done by bureaucrats who abused their power and violated the public’s trust. To compound the horrendous PR nightmare, the Governor seems unable to say that the list is, in and of itself, a bad thing – only that it was wrong for workers to use records that way.

Immigration is an inherently thorny issue because, unlike most crimes, the only major complaint victims have is that perpetrators are trying to improve their lives. Yes, it is called illegal immigration, but the very nature of the crime stems from the American ideal of trying to work hard to improve your life and the life of your family. Furthermore, solutions that are even remotely humane require an exceptional amount of resources and time. Finally, most people realize our despicable past when it comes to race and minorities and will do all they can to make sure we stick to the ideals that all men (not just citizens) are created equal.

The ramifications of this list will be both immediate and long lasting.  Not only does it take one of those 13,000 people to sue the state for a possible defamation lawsuit to open up Pandora’s box, but this process only drags out the pain and perception our state will receive from the world. Because of the actions of a handful of individuals, Utah could be perceived as a state where vigilante justice rules and where lists of individuals are compiled in a manor similar to McCarthy style witch hunts.

The irony, of course, is that the individuals who put the now infamous list together honestly felt that they were improving our state.

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.

Every year, there are a few no brainer bills that sometimes have the hardest time passing.  One example of this is Jen Seelig’s perennial strangulation bills. I hope, hope that Julie Fisher’s (R – Fruit Heights – District 17) HB 230 – Human Trafficking Amendments.

This bill is one of those bills that is straight forward and, hence, has a uncertain future in the legislature.  The bill basically says that if you are charged with human trafficking, you will be charged for each individual you smuggle or traffic across the border as opposed to just receiving one blanket charge.

This is a sound immigration bill as well as a sound human rights bill. Certainly it acts as an actual deterrent to illegal immigration (as opposed to silly drivers license laws that just inconvenience citizens), but it also recognizes the fact that some people are brought across the border to serve as either sex workers or indentured servants.

I hope this bill passes, but the legislature has a history of screwing this sort of thing up.  I hope it does pass, but we will see what happens.

Click here to contact Representative Fisher.

I don’t know why I am surprised whenever Mike Noel (R-Kanab-District 73) opens his mouth, but sure enough, he has done it again.

That’s right, when not being anti-woman, anti-environment, and anti-schools, he is also anti-immigration.  Ok, I get that, you are a conservative from Southern Utah who is so red that stop signs comment on it, but boy howdy, his comment today in the Salt Lake Tribune amazed me.

You see, new laws were put into place that require a birth certificate when apply for and renewing your drivers license so that Utah complies with the REAL id act – an act that basically makes it more difficult to get a government ID so that Osama does not just waltz into an airport and board a plane. Well this has resulted in long lines (up to six hours) and frustrated citizens who just want to get in and out of the DMV as soon as possible.

The connection to Noel? Well he sponsored the bill that would put Utah in compliance with the federal mandate. Still no problem there, as Utahns would get much more upset if they could not board an airplane to see mom and dad because the state refused to comply with the unfunded mandate. I will even believe that Noel did not “anticipate the long waits” when he sponsored the bill.

No, what bothers me is that the section of code that requires compliance was part of sweeping legislation in 2008 that was intended to crack down on immigration and Noel’s defense of the law.

In his xenophobia, he sponsored the bill and defends it – not as a way to ensure that Americans and Utahns are safe, but as a way to prevent illegal immigrants – his logic being that illegals would know that they can’t get government ID here and, therefore, not come to Utah. Now this is where the doozie comes in. People need to put up with the long lines and hickups in the computer system because Millard County Sheriff’s Deputy Josie Greathouse Fox was allegedly shot by an illegal immigrant and Noel points to this as proof of the dangers of illegal immigration.

Yup, you have to stand in line because one person shot another person and shooter just so happened to be brown. No citizen of these United States have ever shot an officer, and, come to think of it, no citizen has ever committed any crime what-so-ever.

Shame on you, Mike Noel, for taking advantage of the death of one of Utah’s finest just to push your own political ideologies.  Not only is equating the death of an officer of the law by an illegal immigrant proof of the need to crack down a bit of a stretch, it is downright absurd to link it to long lines at the DMV.  Your blatant disregard for facts is astounding.

Click here to contact Representative Noel