The Tribune's Empty Immigration Argument

The Salt Lake Tribune recently published an editorial promoting amnesty  ("Hatch leads the way").  If you are looking for reasons, backed up by evidence, for supporting amnesty, you are out of luck.  There aren't any.  It is an empty appeal.

We are told by the Tribune, for instance, that Senator Hatch knows how to read writing on walls, polls and letters from campaign contributors.  

These remarkable abilities, developed over 36 years, apparently make Hatch a "savvy" politician.  When this savvy is combined with his expertise on immigration, Hatch is also able to discern that now is the time for amnesty and we need to act before the current window of opportunity closes.

But this is not an argument for amnesty.  It merely assumes that amnesty is good policy.  

The key to Hatch's new realization:

"And now, Hatch says he sees what many others have seen. There are an estimated 11 million human beings who are living, working, going to school, buying things and paying taxes who continue to live lives completely or partially in the shadows. It would be neither humane nor practical to send them home, especially when a great many of them came here as children and truly have no home other than the U.S.A."

We are not told why it would not be humane to send them "home."  We are not told why it would be impractical.  Again, the editorial merely assumes the truth of these statements.  

Any debate about exceptions should follow adequate border and interior enforcement - not grant amnesty now with empty promises for future enforcement.  

Regarding the path to citizenship for illegal aliens and its proposed 13-year wait:  

"Hatch rightly notes that such a long wait hardly gives anyone an unfair advantage over those who have entered, or sought to enter, the United States legally."

This incredible statement wants us to believe an absurdity:  that someone who entered the nation illegally, not with the permission of the United States (but on his or her own whim) and has remained here for years, is the same situation as someone patiently waiting for years to enter the nation legally and is willing to abide by our laws even if it means they are never permitted to reside in the United States.  One is here, the other is not.  One is rewarded while one patiently waits.  Are these equivalent?  

Yes, Mr. Hatch, it does give illegal aliens an unfair advantage and invites others to do likewise.  

There are other problems with this editorial.  

The editorial ends by telling us that leading the way on immigration reform is right for Hatch.  Embedded in this idea is the interesting notion that Hatch is providing "political cover" for other senators:    

"Leading the way toward reform — and providing inspiration and political cover for other senators to follow — is something that is both the right thing for Hatch..."

Presumably, the earlier mentioned polls were telling Hatch that the public wants amnesty.  Why do senators need "political cover" if this is true?  

The actual situation is more in line with "writing on the walls" and letters from campaign contributors.  In other words, special interests are pushing this bill, not public opinion, and they know it - thereby creating the need for the mental gymnastics on the part of the Tribune in this editorial and by other other amnesty promoters (such as Senator Hatch).  

We should expect a lot of assumptions to be presented as established facts by the amnesty crowd and by their political spokesmen.  It is the only way they can create enough confusion in the public to pass the Gang of Eight amnesty. 

Is Amnesty a Conservative Position?

Politico recently ran an article about conservative groups pushing for amnesty.  This is how they put it: 

"High-profile conservative groups are taking on an unexpected cause: passing immigration reform."

The article continues:

"A diverse mix of the Washington consultant class is cutting TV ads, revving up the grassroots and advising lawmakers on messaging and strategy in hopes of getting a bill across the finish line this year."

Sounds like this "diverse mix" of the "consultant class" can really move amnesty along.  But, why should they have to work so hard if amnesty really is a conservative issue?  Wouldn't it be an easy sell if it is an obvious conservative position?

The answer is that it is not conservative.

Conservatives tend to oppose amnesty.  Conservative opposition creates the need for extraordinary measures to convince congressmen and senators that this opposition doesn't really exist.  Even so, opposing amnesty is a position that cuts across political lines.  Many from all political persuasions oppose amnesty.

Grover Norquist, a leader in the effort, adds this as his motive: 

“We’re doing it to make sure…that Republican congressman and senators feel comfortable,” said American for Tax Reform’s Grover Norquist in an interview. “They look out and hear the guys on talk radio, and they go ‘Oh my goodness, everybody out there thinks this. That’s not necessarily where I was, but I guess if everybody thinks that way, I’ll either be quiet or go along, or I’ll listen to them so they can convince me.’ They’re now hearing the other side of the issue.”

Making congressmen and senators feel "comfortable" may be an admirable goal, but Norquist's comment betrays the true mood of much of the country - one doesn't have to make congressmen and senators "comfortable" if they are respecting the will of the citizens.  In this case, that means refusing to go along with amnesty.

Furthermore, those talk radio "guys" opposing amnesty are giving a public voice to millions of Americans - a voice that the mainstream media generally ignores in favor of the point of view being promoted by Mr. Norquist.  Our elected representatives are not hearing "the other side of the issue" from the "Washington consultant class."  They are hearing the other side from talk radio, their constituents, and those organizations that oppose amnesty.

Norquist is sticking to this theme of telling us that a "handful" of talk show hosts are the block to amnesty while working hard to push conservatives in Congress into the amnesty camp.  In another recent article we are told about Norquist's Friday meetings devoted solely to amnesty strategy and coordinating activities.

These meetings include powerful organizations devoted to amnesty along with "staffers from some of the offices of members of the Senate's Gang of Eight."  The group coordinates "strategy" and "messaging."

Sounds like a very cozy bunch.

But, who is Grover Norquist that we should listen to him? 

Mr. Norquist participated in a secret amnesty strategy session in 2009.  He has recently participated in left-wing National Immigration Forum conferences as a featured speaker in October 2012 and again in February of this year.

In addition, the Washington Post has mentioned Mr. Norquist in connection with a campaign against the three main anti-amnesty groups.  Frontpagemag.com labels the effort a "smear campaign."  Other responses to the smear can be found at the Center for Immigration Studies, National Review Online, Townhall.com, and Immigration Utah.

Even more troubling are Mr. Norquist's connections to and work on behalf of Islamic radicals in promoting their influence in conservative circles.  For more on this issue, see articles by Pamela Geller, Brian Fitzpatrick, Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., discoverthenetworks.org, and Michelle Malkin.

If Grover Norquist and other Republican insider elites give Obama and the left an amnesty victory, what will be the ultimate outcome for conservatives? 

In stark political terms, amnesty would create a large pool of new Democratic voters and make it increasingly difficult for a Republican to ever be elected president in the future. 

The Democrats understand this and are anxious to get the GOP to go for amnesty - they know it will benefit them in increasing and maintaining liberal power in America. 

Conservative columnist Ann Coulter understands the stakes.  In a recent column titled, "Rubio's Amnesty: A Path to Oblivion for the GOP," she says:

"Strangely, some Republicans seem determined to create more Democratic voters, too. That will be the primary result of Sen. Marco Rubio’s amnesty plan."

Later in the essay, she lays out the political reality of amnesty:

"...With Hispanics on track to become the largest ethnic group in California this year, the state that gave us Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan is incapable of electing any Republican statewide anymore. Taxes keep going up, and there’s no one left to pay the bill.

That will be our entire country if Republicans fall for Rubio’s phony “Enforcement First!” plan. Perplexingly, some Republicans seem determined to turn the whole nation into California, in the foolish hope of winning one last election."

Given this reality, it is hard to understand why many Republican insiders are pushing so hard for amnesty. 

Amnesty is not a conservative position and an amnesty would do serious damage to the conservative movement. 

Did Utah State Senator Luz Robles Receive Free Travel to and From Mexico?

Did Luz Robles receive free travel to and from Mexico while serving as the Director of the Utah Office of Ethnic Affairs?

The quote below is from a previous post on this issue:

"It appears, therefore, that Luz Robles was likely reimbursed for her travel to Mexico City to serve the Mexican government at a time in which she served as an appointed official of the Utah state government."

More information has been found that supports the above point.

From an article by Carlos Gonzales Gutierrez ("The Institute of Mexicans Abroad"), we are told:

"The IME Consultative Council is made up of 128 consejeros or council members.  The council members are independent community leaders who reside either in the United States or in Canada and are elected by the communities they represent.  The position of consejero is unsalaried; the government of Mexico covers only their travel expenses to two plenary sessions every year.  They serve for a term of three years; reelection is not permitted."

Recall that these are conferences where the President of Mexico is frequently present - as well as other high level Mexican officials.

The complete source for the above quote is:

Carlos Gonzales Gutierrez, 2009, “The Institute of Mexicans Abroad” in Dovelyn Rannveig Agunias, ed., Closing the Distance: How Governments Strengthen Ties with Their Diasporas, Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute, pp. 87-98. (the citation above is on p.89)

Senator Hatch Preaches Amnesty!

Utah Senator Orrin Hatch, according to a recent Salt Lake Tribune article,  holds the following position on the Gang of Eight amnesty bill:

"Sen. Orrin Hatch says now is the time to reform the immigration system for the economy, for his Mormon faith and for the people here illegally."

Hatch is not yet ready to endorse the Gang of Eight bill, but is planning to make some "tweaks" to it. 

While amnesty clearly would benefit illegal aliens, Hatch's support for immigration reform for the "economy" and for his "Mormon faith" are especially curious.

Since Hatch sees his Mormon faith as central, it would seem a foregone conclusion that he had discussed it with LDS leaders.  But, we have this astonishing admission:

 

"The senator said LDS officials haven’t talked to him about the proposal but "they know I know how they feel." 

Is Hatch saying that he should subordinate his position to whatever he thinks the LDS Church's view is? 

Most Utahns would find that problematic - especially non-LDS citizens.  The LDS position, as that of any large and important institution in the state, ought to be carefully considered as part of a larger social dialogue.

However, it is doubtful that Hatch is merely adopting what he claims is the LDS position.

Why then is Hatch bringing his "Mormon faith" into the discussion?

This brings us to the economy.  The Tribune article also cites Arturo Morales-Llan, a voice for immigration sanity:

"He [Morales-Llan] said in a rough economy Washington should be looking out for U.S. citizens, not illegal immigrants, and he said the nation should not take actions to legalize anyone until the border is locked down and employers are checking the immigration status of each worker." 

Is Hatch's appeal to his "Mormon faith" meant to divert attention and criticism away from what the Tribune calls Hatch's "work on business-friendly portions" of the Gang of Eight monstrosity?

Morales-Llan is right.  Washington should be "looking out for U.S. citizens, not illegal immigrants."

Amnesty and other components of this bill do not do this. 

Another odd issue presents itself in this article:

"He [Hatch] believes some of the opponents in his party and some of the supporters among Democrats are motivated by electoral politics. Obama received 71 percent of the Latino vote in 2012 and many expect newly minted citizens to follow a similar pattern."

What is Hatch's response to the fact that most amnestied Latinos will ultimately vote Democratic?  Hatch says: 

"There’s no doubt most of them will," Hatch said "Republicans have a job ahead of us to try to win them over, but I think we are up to the challenge."

Hatch and other Republicans seem to be following an electoral suicide pact to curry the favor of the cheap-labor interests influencing the Gang of Eight bill:  amnesty now - figure out how to make them Republicans later and hope the Republican Party is not destroyed in the process. 

If Hatch and others who support the Gang of Eight bill are  truly serving the national interest, and not the more narrow interests of the cheap-labor lobby and others, they would reject the bill.   

More on the "Call Them Racist" Strategy - The Amnesty Movement Gets Nasty:

Former Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff recently joined the board of the National Immigration Forum (NIF) - a leftist organization pushing for amnesty.  In fact, the forum is one of the key organizations in the current amnesty-push.  It was also a central partner in the shadowy Utah Compact operation that led to Utah's state amnesty bill, HB116. 

Ali Noorani is the Executive Director of the organization.

In July of 2009, Mr. Noorani outlined a three part strategy to push for amnesty that consists of:

- Mobilize the base

- Persuade the middle

- Marginalize the opposition

Regarding the third of these areas, Mr. Noorani included this as an acceptable tactic:  

"How do we make sure that the opposition is seen as driven by racist elements?"
How this strategy may be related to the shadowy Utah Compact operation is described in a recent post on this blog.

The astonishing idea that opponents to amnesty should be labelled racists is not a fluke. 

Further evidence of this strategy comes from a secret amnesty strategy session held just a few weeks prior to the July 9, 2009 speech by Mr. Noorani.

This is how NumbersUSA's Jim Robb described the setting:

"The setting? The Marriott convention hotel in the fashionable Dupont Circle district of Washington, D.C. Date? June 15, 2009. Participants? A coalition of big-business oriented, pro-Open Borders dedicated groups, corporations, and lobbyists. Organizer? Tamar Jacoby and her newly-formed ImmigrationWorksUSA lobbying group.
 
The doors were closed. Reporters and members of the public barred. Confidence that their words were private and their plans secret loosened the tongues of most speakers. Embarrassing admissions were made. Several preposterous claims were forwarded. Numerous shameful methods and motivations admitted to"

An attorney who attended took detailed notes, which NumbersUSA published along with some commentary by Jim Robb. 

The notes include a section for Ali Noorani of the National Immigration Forum, which attributes to him the following:

"We need 279 votes and that means we need Republicans. New immigrant voters affected 20-25 house races where voted pro-immigration. Talks about 20% are with us, 60 % are undecided or inactive, and 20% are against us. We need to work on those 60%. We will handle the 20% against by marginalizing them. CIS and NumbersUSA are funded by racists—so we constantly make them deal with that question, that they are funded by racists. Now the 60% we need to convince that CIR is in their best interests."

It is not completely clear who Mr. Noorani is referring to here - whether he means Americans in general or those serving in Congress.  But from the context of the other statements, it seems he had Congress in mind.

The strategy, when applied to Congress, is to marginalize the 20% in Congress who oppose amnesty from the start.

How will that 20% be marginalized?

Part of the strategy outlined by Mr. Noorani, Mark Shurtleff's good friend and ally, appears to be to run around Congress tainting two of the largest and best respected anti-amnesty groups (CIS and NumbersUSA) with "racism" so that those in Congress who use information from these groups will be on the defensive and not be listened to by those in the middle 60%.

Two other participants in this secret strategy conference are worth noting.

One is Craig Regelbrugge of the American Nursery & Landscape Association. Mr. Regelbrugge is listed as a National Immigration Forum board member on the 2009 Impact Report of that organization.

The other is Grover Norquist.


Was the "racism" smear used in Utah?: 

Read the following, which is the first paragraph of a Salt Lake Tribune story from December 2010 about Rep. Sandstrom's immigration enforcement bill:


"The legal affiliate of a designated "hate group" provided assistance for Rep. Stephen Sandstrom's enforcement-only Arizona-style immigration bill — a partnership that has raised a red flag for those who see the measure as racist."

The story appeared just weeks before the bill was to be considered by the Utah legislature.

I do not wish to leave the impression that David Montero, the author of the story, was colluding with anyone to write this story and I cannot say that Mr. Montero's article was meant to smear Rep. Sandstrom as part of any pre-conceived plan.

 Even so, it is a harsh story that seems designed to drive support away from the bill through a similar mechanism as the tactic described by Ali Noorani of the National Immigration Forum.    


Fast-forward to the current amnesty push:

The "call them racist" strategy has mutated. 

It has become the "they're not really conservatives and they're trying to sneak in a radical philosophy" strategy.

From the Washington Post (2/13/13): 

"A new battle has flared inside the Republican Party in recent days as supporters of more-liberal immigration laws wage a behind-the-scenes campaign to discredit the influential advocacy groups that have long powered the GOP’s hard-line stance on the issue."

Notice that the strategy is not to engage the arguments of those who oppose amnesty, but to "discredit" them.

Sound familiar?

Replacing "racism" with other ways to discredit has led some Republican heavy hitters to use the following:

"Now, Republicans pushing the party to rethink its approach to the issue are accusing those groups — Numbers USA, the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), and the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) — of masquerading as conservative. Critics say the groups and some of their supporters are pressing an un­or­tho­dox agenda of strict population control that also has included backing for abortion, sterilization and other policies at odds with conservative ideology."

From the Washington Post article, it is difficult to determine what role, if any, is being played by Grover Norquist in this operation , but the following is suggestive:

"Another testy moment occurred recently at the weekly conservative strategy session hosted by Norquist when Lopez stood to present his arguments. Hans von Spakovsky, a former Justice Department official in the George W. Bush administration who now works at the conservative Heritage Foundation, spoke up to defend the credibility of the Center for Immigration Studies.

“I haven’t heard folks take on the substantive arguments CIS is making and saying why they’re wrong,” said von Spakovsky, who declined to discuss details of what happened in the off-the-record meeting. “Instead you just get these scurrilous attacks.”

The movement for amnesty in 2009 was promoting a smear strategy and it appears that the amnesty movement of 2013 is willing to smear as well.  

The beginning point of the smear was a recently published article in the Human Life Review, in which Mr. Lopez, mentioned above, smeared the anti-amnesty groups.  This was one National Review commentator's reaction:

"The HLR article concludes, “Organizations that would limit population growth through abortion, drugs, sterilization, and other methods are pursuing a radical anti-life agenda that undermines our country, freedom, prosperity, and morality” and calls for pro-lifers to denounce CIS and other groups. It presents zero evidence that CIS has promoted any of the methods mentioned."

Additional suggestive information about the potential connection between Grover Norquist and the smear is that Mr. Norquist sits on the board of the group that Mr. Lopez represents.  The quote below is from a response to the attack by Mark Krikorian, who is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies:

"Both the SPLC and the current smear campaign started with the publication of a report that served as the focal point for other groups. The SPLC published a report designating FAIR a “hate group” (as it did later with the Family Research Council), just as Human Life Review published the above-mentioned article, written by one Mario Lopez of the Hispanic Leadership Fund (whose board includes Norquist, Chavez, Cardenas, the governor of Puerto Rico, former senator Mel Martinez, and others). Other organizations then pointed to the reports in follow-up op-eds, press releases, panel discussions, and closed-door meetings. The SPLC report was key to the National Council of La Raza’s “We Can Stop the Hate” campaign and to the establishment of America’s Voice as a “war room” for the open-borders Left. The Human Life Review article has served the same purpose at Norquist’s Wednesday Meeting and for presentations by Alfonso Aguilar of the Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles."

Notice how the strategy works: a key article or item is placed in the media and then follow-up commentary and reports build on it as the information begins to permeate into the public sphere. 


Is Grover Norquist one of the driving forces behind this strategy?

That is not an easy question to answer.  But other signals regarding Mr. Norquist are not reassuring.  For example, his connections to Islamists is troubling - as is the fact that Pamela Geller, a well-known writer on the dangers of Islamism, was kept out of the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) this year and the conditions placed on Robert Spencer (not to criticize Norquist and another American Conservative Union board member for their Islamist ties) that led him to not appear this year to accept an award for his blog, jihadwatch.org, is also concerning.  CPAC is a project of the American Conservative Union - on whose board sits Grover Norquist.   

Mr. Norquist also participated in a conference in 2011 sponsored by the Arab American Institute - a conference where Ali Noorani, Executive Director of the National Immigration Forum, also participated.  Mr. Noorani was part of a workshop about defeating "hate" legislation.  From the conference schedule:

"Defeating Hate Legislation: From Arizona Copycats to Sharia
 
In this workshop we will discuss the rampant emergence of hate legislation, including the Arizona copycat laws and Sharia bans now in nearly two dozen states across the country. We will examine why it is important for the Arab American community to be an integral partner and voice in the campaigns against these dangerous initiatives."

Mr. Noorani's organization also had Mr. Norquist participate in the October 2012 pro-amnesty conference: "Midwest Summit: Forging a New Consensus on Immigrants and America."

Mr. Norquist was the featured keynote speaker and was introduced by Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff. 

Apparently, he did a good enough job to be invited back this past February to speak at the Texas Summit of the "Bibles, Badges and Business" amnesty campaign (the National Immigration Forum's latest name for its amnesty push).  A video of his somewhat rambling and disjointed speech is available at: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HjCW465HlQ

Indeed, the National Immigration Forum must really like Mr. Norquist as they posted another short video interview with him just a few days ago on their facebook page.

All this points to a good working relationship between the National Immigration Forum and Mr. Norquist. 
But, going back to the February Texas speech for a moment: 

In the video of his Texas speech, Mr. Norquist points to those he thinks halted immigration reform over the years.  He begins by pointing to labor unions.  At about 9:00 in the video, he makes the following statements:

"...the zero-population growth people, the guys who just don't like people at all,  the population control folks, these are the guys who all live on the left, who set up some organizations, front groups, pretending to be on the right. But we're gonna need to have a united center-right to come up with reasonable pro-immigration policy because the heart and soul of the modern left is hostile to that."

It seems that this reference is to the smear initiated by the Human Life Review article.  It has the same elements: population control people who don't want immigration and who set up front groups to masquerade as conservative groups.  We only have two choices here.

This may have nothing to do with the smear strategy being employed - but it was Ali Noorani of the NIF, after all, who brought up the idea of smearing opponents on at least two different occasions in 2009 - one of which Mr. Norquist was present for.

So, I will leave it an open question as to whether or not Mr. Noorani or Mr. Norquist is part of a smear campaign against the principal organizations which believe that amnesty would not be good for the United States.


The many perspectives of those opposed to amnesty:

The strategy of smearing those who want immigration enforcement goes back a few years now. 

The latest expression of it is to target, yet again, those groups which provide good information about immigration issues to both Congress and the public.  This time with a new line of attack: that they are only front groups for a message inimical to conservative political philosophy.

The immigration issue itself cannot be said to be either a left or right one, but crosses all types of political boundaries and pulls concerned citizens into alliances to work for the best interests of the nation as a whole.

For example, in another response to the smear, James R. Edwards, Jr., of the Center for Immigration Studies, had this to say: 

"As it happens, immigration is one of those issues on which individuals from all political persuasions and walks of life find themselves allied with people with whom they may not agree on much else.

The immigration control movement draws supporters motivated by fiscal concerns, economic concerns, environmental concerns, cultural concerns, security concerns, patriotic concerns, population concerns, and religious concerns, to name a few. Hence, one can marshal an argument and interpret the facts from all of these perspectives." 

The problem with the current smear tactics is that the goal is to ensure that these diverse perspectives are not heard from, not considered, and are kept out of the public debate so as to produce a pro-amnesty consensus by working to make sure that those who raise objections are marginalized. 

If immigration policies are to be created that serve the national interest, and not the more narrow interests of advocacy groups, then these voices, indeed the voice of the American people, need to be heard. 

Utah Compact Problem Points:

1.  The Utah Compact was created by a group of people who were already in agreement, for the most part, on how to address illegal immigration issues.  The general public and those holding opposing views were not heard from in its creation.   Therefore, it is one-sided in its approach to illegal immigration, but attempts to mask that fact by pointing to the diverse areas of public life it's creators represent.

2.  The Utah Compact uses manipulative language and text structure in an attempt to bring the reader into agreement with it and buy into amnesty.

3.  The actual workings of the group that created the Utah Compact are shrouded in mystery - as if the public had no right to have a clear statement about the process, who was involved, and whether or not any outside group, such as the left-wing pro-amnesty National Immigration Forum, was pushing the process to achieve a political agenda that most Utahns might object to.

4.  The Utah Compact was designed to be a way to sell the idea of amnesty to conservatives.  It is part of a national campaign to lead to amnesty.  Part of the campaign is to create a "conservative" face for amnesty and draw in conservative supporters that the left-wing amnesty and cheap-labor groups know are necessary to achieve a national amnesty. 

5.  The Utah Compact embodies a concept of the rule of law that stands it on its head.  It attempts to place the perceived needs of those who should not be in the United States above the law by implying that the law, when it comes to illegal immigrants, should be ignored and illegal immigrants accommodated.  The Compact promotes no mechanism for assisting the federal government in discouraging increased numbers of illegal immigrants from moving to Utah in the future - who, according to the Compact, should be welcomed.

6.  The Utah Compact has been used to work against enforcement legislation and played a role in the recall election that removed Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce from office.  The support for the Compact by the LDS Church has been used by amnesty proponents in a manipulative way to create a "no-win" trap for LDS politicians to either support amnesty or be seen as going against the Church.  This "trap" leads to an unacceptable religious-test for public service.

7.  The Utah Compact sets up a false "no-win" choice for people who want to enforce our immigration laws.  Either you are for the Utah Compact and its set of values in addressing illegal immigration or you are outside of the realm of responsible options and are, therefore, an extremist.  This is a ploy to limit the debate, not enlighten it.  By screening out everything that isn't part of the Utah Compact's model for addressing illegal immigration, the debate becomes limited, simplistic, and directed towards the specific policy agendas of those who created the Compact.  Such reductionism cannot adequately deal with the complexity of the immigration issue.

8.  The Utah Compact falsely implies that states have no role in immigration enforcement.  In the face of federal inaction in enforcing our very reasonable immigration laws, states do have room to work to restore integrity to our immigration laws.

9.  One goal of the Utah Compact is to provide political cover so that reluctant legislators/politicians can be pulled toward supporting amnesty.

10.  The Utah Compact was the end point of one deceptive process (creating the Utah Compact) and part of another (creating and passing HB116).

11.  Those behind and promoting the Utah Compact may have ulterior motives for pushing it,  yet it is sold as a collection of noble principles.  These motives may include financial interests, promoting cheap-labor flows into Utah, and leftist political power goals.

12.  The uses to which the Utah Compact has been put and the types of laws created are indicators of the purpose for which it was created. 

13.  The Utah Compact makes no distinction between legal and illegal immigrants.

14.  The Utah Compact was signed and subsequently celebrated on Veterans Day - subtly implying, although perhaps not intentionally, that the call to legalize illegal immigrants is more significant to the Utah Compact backers than honoring the nation's veterans.

15.  The Utah Compact implies that a humane approach to illegal immigration means ignore the law and grant amnesty.  Welcoming the "stranger," however, does not mean accepting illegal immigration.  Christian charity should be granted to those in need, but such charity does not mandate ignoring immigration laws. 

16.  The National Immigration Forum (NIF) was a central force in the creation of the Utah Compact.  The NIF finds its home among leftist amnesty groups that are funded to a large extent by left-wing sources.  The Utah Compact is part of  a national amnesty campaign to benefit the leftist amnesty movement and their cheap-labor allies.  The NIF's ties to radical leftist organizations cannot be ignored.

17.  The Utah Compact mixes general principles with statements indicating specific policies.  This mix is unjustified if the Utah Compact intends to be a guide to an open and free discussion about how to respond to illegal immigration.    By incorporating specific policy guidelines into itself, the Utah Compact lays bare that it is a document in service of a particular approach to illegal immigration and that the principles are window dressing to sell the policy points of the Compact.

The Utah Compact's Bad Approach to Illegal Immigration:

The Utah Compact is an interesting collection of interrelated statements that, when examined closely, reveal a number of serious problems in its approach to illegal immigration.  One central problem is that the Compact serves more as a way to control and limit the debate about illegal immigration than as a way to "guide" it - in other words, open discussion is discouraged and reasonable avenues for finding solutions are cut off from consideration.  

Image courtesy of xedos4 at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

The restrictive set of propositions of the Compact also create an unwarranted reduction of the overall immigration picture and the myriad associated issues.  The Compact, therefore, poses a fundamental block to creating effective policy to address the totality of issues surrounding illegal immigration.

If the Compact cannot be trusted to provide guiding principles for an open discussion, then it should be rejected as a guiding instrument for policy - as it shuts off discussion instead of encouraging a free and open exchange of ideas in this area of critical public concern.

Below is a brief examination of the general principles and more specific statements of the Compact.  The Compact's statements are bolded and numbered.

Many of the Compact's assumptions are not overtly expressed, but are to be found lurking in the unexpressed premisses of its statements.  The wall the Compact constructs to keep out unwanted considerations also serves to protect its views from careful examination.  

The purpose of the discussion below is to outline, in a general way, some of the shortfalls of the Compact so that people interested in the critical issue of illegal immigration can decide if the Compact is or is not a good guide for making policy.  

At the time this article was posted, the official website of the Utah Compact, theutahcompact.com, was not functioning.  Because of this, the official text of the Utah Compact available at the Deseret News website was used for this analysis.  This is found at:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700080758/Official-text-of-Utah-Compact-declaration-on-immigration-reform.html?pg=all

The Utah Compact official site has been restored and is currently available. 

________________________________


The Utah Compact

1.  A declaration of five principles to guide Utah's immigration discussion

This statement of purpose declares to us that the goal of the Utah Compact is to "guide Utah's immigration discussion."

Does this use of "guide" mean to provide ground rules for conducting a conversation, i.e., rules that encourage open discussion and participation by all?

Or does it mean making sure the immigration conversation remains controlled and limited by its propositions?

If the latter, then issues and information not already organized by the Compact will be kept out of the discussion.

Does it also mean that the the propositions of the Utah Compact, once accepted, are no longer open to challenge on any basis?

As you read the Utah Compact's statements, keep in mind that they are meant to apply to immigration - or more specifically and clearly than the Compact writers stated it: illegal immigration.



FEDERAL SOLUTIONS:

2.  Immigration is a federal policy issue between the U.S. government and other countries — not Utah and other countries.

While most would accept that the federal government has the right to create immigration laws and the primary responsibility for ensuring that the integrity of those laws is upheld through enforcement, the right of the states to assist in the enforcement of immigration laws through appropriate and constitutional state action needs to be recognized and respected.

An extreme view on this issue leads to the rather strange legal argument that states should not be permitted to support, through state law, the federal immigration laws that were duly passed by Congress and signed into law by the President if such state action conflicts with the joint foreign policy objectives of the United States government, i.e., the executive branch, and a foreign power.  This is essentially the argument of the amicus curiae brief filed in the lawsuit against Utah's enforcement bill, HB 497, by the Mexican government.  The governments of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Columbia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay agree with the notion and have added their nations to Mexico's amicus curiae brief.  In other words, if the executive branch chooses to ignore enforcement in the furtherance of bi-national or even multinational policy goals, the states are duty bound to go along with the program regardless of the express wishes of Congress as embodied in actual federal law.  Such a view would essentially subordinate vast areas of domestic law and life to presidential foreign policy objectives.  Granting to the president such broad powers to bypass congress through such a foreign policy mechanism would create a serious threat to our constitutional order.


3.  We urge Utah's congressional delegation, and others, to lead efforts to strengthen federal laws and protect our national borders.

Most Americans agree that greater protection of our national borders is needed and that such protection may entail different things.

But, what did the Utah Compact writers have in mind when they called for our congressional delegation to "strengthen federal laws"?

Did they have in mind better enforcement mechanisms?

Did they envision simplified immigration laws that dramatically increase the number of legal immigrants by making it easier to immigrate?

Do they wish to create much simpler and easier ways to significantly raise the number of "guest workers" in America?

Are they seeking a reliable labor flow into the United States in order to keep wages low enough to compete in the global economy?

A significant number of illegal immigrants did not enter the nation illegally, they merely overstayed their visas and remained.

Do the Utah Compact writers propose adequate ways to address this aspect of illegal immigration?

Do the writers of the Utah Compact wish to see enforcement prove itself to be effective before granting amnesty to illegal immigrants?


4.  We urge state leaders to adopt reasonable policies addressing immigrants in Utah.

We all agree on the idea that policies should be reasonable.

But, do we agree on what reasonable means when addressing illegal immigration?

If this statement is referring to legal immigrants, then it seems silly to mention it.

If this statement refers to illegal immigrants, and it apparently does, then we are entitled to ask what it means to "adopt reasonable policies" addressing illegal immigrants in Utah, are we not?

This statement is so general as to be meaningless - unless its writers had something in mind that they thought should be intentionally not mentioned.

"Reasonable," in the minds of the Utah Compact writers, most likely means accomodating illegal aliens residing in Utah.



LAW ENFORCEMENT:

5.  We respect the rule of law and support law enforcement's professional judgment and discretion.

This seems to grant to law enforcement broad discretionary authority - perhaps too broad.

When applied to illegal immigration it implies that law enforcement, or more specifically local law enforcement, should not participate in any enforcement of immigration laws.

This is an unfortunate position to advocate.

Local law enforcement should be open to being tasked appropriately and constitutionally to assist in restoring integrity to our immigration laws.


6.  Local law enforcement resources should focus on criminal activities, not civil violations of federal code.

I think most would agree that local law enforcement should focus on criminal activity and not on civil violations of federal code.

But what is being left out here?

Someone crossing the border illegally has committed a crime.

Someone who illegally crosses the border after deportation has committed a more serious crime.

Why does the Utah Compact leave this out?

Many crimes are committed in conjunction with illegal immigration, in addition to illegal entry or overstaying a visa - does the Compact encourage us to downplay and ignore such crimes because they are committed in furtherance of maneuvering in society for illegal immigrants?

Some rather misleading analogies have been used by some pro-amnesty advocates and Utah Compact supporters regarding the law and illegal immigration.  Comparisons of illegal immigration to a traffic violation, for example, ignore the fact that laws are not built on arbitrary whims.  They are the result of our constitutional systems and are responsive to areas of critical concern.  Changing laws requires engaging those same systems - not in simply ignoring laws that one finds inconvenient.  Different areas of human activity that fall within the legal domain require different types of laws and responses for violations.  The appropriate endpoint for illegal entry into the U.S. or for overstaying a visa is to be required to leave the nation.  Focusing on the act of physically crossing the border as the only real offense is a willful distortion of the illegal immigration picture.  Traffic laws organize and respond to a different area of activity.  No one argues, for example, that traffic laws lack validity, should be done away with, are mere arbitrary restrictions on driving behavior, or are part of a "broken traffic system" that can only be fixed through "comprehensive traffic reform," when they challenge a ticket in court.  Pretending that our immigration laws are arbitrary, trivial, and designed to unfairly restrict people in other nations from freely migrating into the United States ignores the fact that immigration laws are meant to accomplish a variety of purposes that serve our interests as a nation, as a people, and as individuals.  Downplaying the law and trivializing it when addressing the illegal immigration issue is misguided and ignores the consequences that derive from ignoring the foundational principles that guide our immigration laws.

When someone enters the U.S. illegally or overstays a visa, we have no idea as to why they have done so.

This specific proposal removes local law enforcement from any responsibility or role in this important issue - except, perhaps, in those situations in which someone has become the victim of a serious crime.  

If other cities, such as Los Angeles and San Francisco, are indicators of where this is headed, it is towards refusing to cooperate with federal law enforcement in all but the most egregious of cases - to the detriment of public safety.

If the Compact were about open discussion, it would not prematurely push out exploring reasonable and constitutional avenues for local law enforcement to cooperate and coordinate with the federal government to restore integrity to our immigration laws.



FAMILIES:

7.  Strong families are the foundation of successful communities.

This is a good general statement that few would disagree with.


8.  We oppose policies that unnecessarily separate families.

This is another example of a general statement that few would disagree with.

But remember, the Utah Compact is talking about illegal immigrants.

When we are told that we should oppose "unnecessarily" separating families - we are talking about illegal immigrant families.

What does "unnecessarily" mean?

What are the principles that underlie that term?

Does it argue against enforcement when somehow a family is involved?

Does it negate the idea that people are responsible for their actions in relation to our laws?

Does it ignore the fact that many illegal immigrants left families behind in order to come here?

Do the Utah Compact writers want an open discussion on this issue?

Or is this another example of an area where they want us to accept the immigration position they are proposing without thinking about it too much?


9.  We champion policies that support families and improve the health, education and well-being of all Utah children.

This is another general statement which few would disagree with.

Aside from the obvious emotional argument being used here, we have to point out again that the Utah Compact is proposing a view that refuses to distinguish between illegal and legal immigration.

We are also being manipulated.

Who can refuse to do what is best for children?

No one.

And the writers of the Utah Compact know it - so they chose to use children as a cover for their amnesty proposal.

What do we see when we examine the family proposals in the Utah Compact?

We see a model for state action regarding illegal immigration - a model calling for no action.

Can this model be examined, discussed, and considered in relation to the overall situation of illegal immigration in the United States?

Or do the Compact writers want to avoid such a discussion?

Can humane principles be derived for addressing these legitimate concerns raised by the Utah Compact within a strong-enforcement policy?

Certainly.

That is, if the Utah Compact actually wants an open discussion.

Should the family proposals be seen as a call to ignore enforcement of our immigration laws?

No.

But they do need to be considered as part of an overall strategy for addressing the issue.



ECONOMY:

10.  Utah is best served by a free-market philosophy that maximizes individual freedom and opportunity.

Another general statement that most would accept.

Applied to illegal immigration - what does it mean?

Does it mean that anyone in any part of the world who can make it to the United States falls within its application?

Some who advocate amnesty also advocate for open borders and no work restrictions.  Others who advocate amnesty also advocate for dramatic increases in legal immigration and guest workers.  Many who advocate for amnesty also work hard against any type of enforcement of immigration laws.

Is the Compact group willing to lay their cards on the table and have a conversation about how illegal immigration, legal immigration, and guest worker programs might impact the ability of American families to sustain themselves and move ahead economically?  Or do they want us to ignore the issue?


11.  We acknowledge the economic role immigrants play as workers and taxpayers.

The Compact group is stating nothing here while making it sound like something.

Any group in the United States has an economic role as workers and taxpayers.

The issues here are whether that role is a net gain or loss for the economy and whether or not the net gain or loss warrants ignoring our immigration laws.

The Compact group clearly is promoting  the idea that it is a net gain and, therefore, an argument for amnesty.

But, this idea has been challenged by many and should not be considered a closed question.

The Compact presupposes a net economic benefit from illegal labor and is subtly closing off the issue from further examination.

Have they considered all aspects of that question?

For example, have they considered the economic impact of a father struggling to find a good job in construction after having been replaced by an illegal immigrant?

Even if we were to accept the Compact's underlying assumption about a net gain from illegal immigrant labor, is it justifiable to accept another implicit assumption of the Compact: that we should look the other way if illegal immigration is a net gain?

Are there other important considerations that are equally as significant as the economy in the illegal immigration debate?

Should the many illegal immigration issues be reduced to the economic question?

I personally believe that the economic case against illegal immigration and other programs designed to flood America with cheap labor, while benefiting the few, create enormous economic problems in both the short and long term.

If the Compact group has its way, however, we may never examine such questions - because it has been decided for us already.

Which is very strange when you think about it - as the Utah Compact is supposed to guide the discussion - not choke it off and exclude everything not congruent with its immigration model.


12.  Utah's immigration policies must reaffirm our global reputation as a welcoming and business-friendly state.

This is a very nice-sounding idea.

Again, notice that the word "immigration" here really means illegal immigration.

Does it still sound so nice when we make the following clarification:  "Utah's illegal immigration policies must reaffirm our global reputation as a welcoming and business-friendly state"?

Clarifying this concept jars the mind.

Are we now inviting illegal immigrants to Utah?

The Compact writers seem to suggest here that we can't have the state trying to help solve the problem of illegal immigration through enforcement because we will get criticized for it in other nations.

There is, however, no clear reason why this is some sort of sacred principle for guiding our immigration debate.

It's not on the same level, for instance, as the idea that "Strong families are the foundation of successful communities."

It is just accepted by the Compact writers - driven as many of them are by business concerns.

But, what are they really saying?

Are they not implying that Utah, if it wants a good international business reputation, must look the other way on illegal immigration?

Are they not also saying that, if we have state measures against illegal immigration, we will impact negatively our prospects for international business?

Is this not a subtle form of manipulation encoded in the Utah Compact?  The idea seems to be: ignore illegal immigration or Utah business will suffer and by extension, the economy of Utah.  If you are for the Utah Compact's amnesty call, you are for economic prosperity.  If you are opposed to the Utah Compact's amnesty call, you are destroying the Utah economy.

Shouldn't this issue be openly debated and not just have its validity assumed in the Utah Compact?

Again, the Utah Compact, while pretending to "guide" the discussion actually wants to control it by placing policy planks into its structure and calling them principles.



A FREE SOCIETY:

13.  Immigrants are integrated into communities across Utah.

This statement is so obvious that its lack of relevance to the discussion is easy to overlook until we, again, clarify what is really being said by replacing "immigrants" with "illegal immigrants."

The sentence now reads:  "Illegal immgrants are integrated into communities across Utah."

If we examine it in this light, there is some truth to it.  But it also hides a lot of differing circumstances.

For example, is a twenty-year old illegal immigrant, who arrived a few months ago, really integrated into a Utah community?

Should we accept previously deported criminals and passively wait for them to commit another crime - a crime that may take the life of someone?  

Does being integrated into a Utah community exempt illegal immigrants from immigration laws?

The Compact seems to be suggesting that it does.  


14.  We must adopt a humane approach to this reality, reflecting our unique culture, history and spirit of inclusion.

Does our "unique culture, history, and spirit of inclusion" now mean that we must accept illegal immigration?

Does our "unique culture, history, and spirit of inclusion" suggest that we are distinct enough from the other 49 states to justify a state amnesty that encourages more illegal immigraiton - thus impacting other states?

Why is it considered inhumane to send someone back to their nation of origin?

Why are laws that seek to maintain order in our immigration system, consider the impact of immigration on American families and communities, and serve our national interest, considered inhumane?

We are not told the answer to any of these questions.  The Compact merely controls the discussion by moving us away from them.

True, there are a variety of circumstances and situations that many people are in that may warrant exceptions.

But, granting exceptions, when enforcement remains too weak to discourage illegal immigration, is to invite more of it and an increase in the problems associated with it.

The government needs to convince us that enforcement is effective and will prevent further illegal immigration before the question of exceptions can be considered.


15.  The way we treat immigrants will say more about us as a free society and less about our immigrant neighbors.

Again, the tiresome and misleading use of "immigrants" when the Utah Compact crowd means "illegal immigrants."

So, it should read: "The way we treat illegal immigrants will say more about us as a free society and less about our illegal immigrant neighbors."

If we firmly, but humanely, enforce our immigration laws, it will say that we are serious about our laws and we will discourage further illegal immigration.

If we ignore enforcement, we send the message to all that we will look the other way - that includes those who would intentionally do us harm.

This statement also implies that illegal immigrants are not responsible for their actions and that almost any justification for violating our immigration laws should be accepted.

It also subtly implies that it is our duty, and one which defines good citizenship, to welcome any and all who violate our immigration laws.  The message is a cloaked invitation to ignore our immigration laws.  It further suggests that illegal immigrants can expect that immigration laws will be ignored and that they will find a local populace who will agree that ignoring them is a good thing.


16.  Utah should always be a place that welcomes people of goodwill.

Yet again, by "people of goodwill," the Compact group clearly means "illegal aliens."

The statement should actually read:  "Utah should always be a place that welcomes illegal immigrants of goodwill."

This is surely a very strange proposition.

No one rejects the idea of welcoming people of goodwill - provided they come here legally.

However, many, if not most, would have a hard time accepting the idea that Utah should now be inviting people of goodwill to come here illegally.

The Compact does not merely call for an amnesty for those already here, it calls for accepting illegal immigrants in perpetuity.

Did the Compact writers merely make a mistake?  That's a good question.

Perhaps it's one we could discuss - that is, if the Utah Compact as a "guide" to our immigration discussion will permit it.


_______________________________________


Conclusion:

From the above discussion, it appears that the Utah Compact has many serious problems, some of these are as follows:

It leaves too many important questions unanswered - some because it doesn't want them considered.

It does not guide the illegal immigration discussion; it seeks to control it by channeling the discussion into its concepts and closing off discussion to ideas not already embodied in the Compact's set of propositions.

It reduces the number of issues involved and the complexity of those issues into a small set of statements that create the illusion of having solved something because they look good on paper.

It sneaks in specific policy directives, while hiding them behind more general concepts that make them appear more reasonable and noble than they really are when examined closely.

It seeks to create an unconstitutional state amnesty.

It promotes illegal immigration.

It challenges us to ignore legitimate law enforcement issues that can be addressed by the state, in cooperation with the federal government, and seems to rely on a fundamentally flawed sense of the purpose of law.

It asks us to accept its premises without examination.

We can certainly list additional problems with the Utah Compact.

When we closely examine the Utah Compact, we are faced with an obvious conclusion: the Utah Compact is a deficient tool for addressing the complexity of issues surrounding the problem of illegal immigration.

The Utah Compact has some good points, but they need to be extracted and considered within a truly open and comprehensive immigration debate - a debate that the Utah Compact as a "guide" fails to create - but one that is necessary for finding good solutions to the problem of illegal immgration.