Thursday, April 28, 2011

Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff Lets the Amnesty-Cat out of the Bag!:

Utah's Attorney General Mark Shurtleff has let the amnesty-cat out of the bag!

In a recent article available at the Salt Lake Tribune, "Immigration: Shurtleff can't find support for Compact" (posted 4/26/11), Attorney General Mark Shurtleff makes a number of very curious comments about HB116 and other immigration issues. 

The comments are rather shocking when one considers they come from the elected Attorney General of Utah. 

Read the comments below, that are either direct quotes from our AG or views attributed to him by the Tribune, and see if you react the way I did - with dismay and anger:

1.  "His [Shurtleff's] next target [to petition for support] is Sen. Mike Lee, the freshman senator who campaigned on eliminating the constitutional amendment that gives any baby born in America automatic citizenship."

“'He’s completely wrong on the 14th amendment," Shurtleff said."

2. "Shurtleff is a big supporter of the guest-worker law [HB116]."

3.  “'There’s a way to do comprehensive reform without having to be worried about the dreaded term ‘amnesty,’ " he said."

4. "Shurtleff is a driving force behind “America’s Compact,” a federal take on the document signed by Utah business leaders, faith groups and law enforcement personnel..."

5. "The attorney general is trying to persuade his colleagues from other states to sign a national version in either June or July and he sees it as a way to restart the congressional debate on comprehensive immigration reform."

6.  "...he sees the Compact as a shield for politicians worried about getting attacked for supporting amnesty if they vote for a bill that includes some path to citizenship or a guest-worker program."

7.  "In his meeting on Monday, Shurtleff downplayed Utah’s enforcement law, saying it essentially was a political move to appease those calling for a tough immigration bill."

The "cat" is this:

The Utah Compact appears to have been used to inhibit public criticism of an amnesty-type bill, get it through the legislature, and then sell it to the public as not an amnesty.

Mr. Shurtleff now proposes a national version of the Utah Compact be created as a way to provide "cover" for national politicians promoting amnesty and to accomplish the same goals as achieved in Utah.

Seeing Mr. Shurtleff's views laid out so plainly and how they are underpinned by either ignorance or arrogance is somewhat unsettling given his position in the Utah state government. 

This Tribune article is available at:

Sunday, April 24, 2011

Police Officer In Alaska Is In U.S. Illegally!

From the Anchorage Daily News (4/23/11):

"An Anchorage police officer who took on a false identity that masked his Mexican citizenship has been arrested and charged with passport fraud, federal officials said Friday.

"At a news conference Friday, U.S. Attorney Karen Loeffler said that patrolman Rafael Espinoza, on the Anchorage police force for about six years, was really Rafael Mora-Lopez, a Mexican national working in the United States illegally."

Police officer?

Somehow I don't think that is a job that "Americans just won't do."

This job, being held by someone who had no right to be in the U.S., would have been of great benefit to an American family - millions of which are struggling due to unemployment and underemployment. 

The true costs of immigration don't seem to become news in the mainstream coverage of immigration issues. 

Thursday, April 21, 2011

Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff's Misplaced Question:

Whoever is writing the talking points for Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff should be fired!

On second thought, they should be given a raise!

He or she or they are turning the AG into his own worst enemy on HB116.

In response to Texas Republican Representative Lamar Smith's letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, in which he called for the U.S. Attorney General to sue Utah over its usurpation of federal authority as he so quickly did in response to Arizona's SB1070 law last year, our own AG Mark Shurtleff claimed that Rep. Smith's arguments were "a regurgitation of lines from the extreme right."

The extreme right?

What criteria now makes previous supporters of Mr. Shurtleff into the extreme right?

It seems that it is opposition to HB116 that now defines one as "extreme."

Labeling former supporters as extreme because you are selling a bad bill to the feds seems a bit extreme to me.

Mr. Shurtleff also had this to say about Mr. Smith's letter:

"My question for Lamar Smith is what are you doing about reform?  This is your purview."

I am sure Mr. Smith is quite capable of responding to Mr. Shurtleff, but the following are some points that crossed my mind.

1.  Did you ask the same question of Mr. Obama, Mr. Shurtleff?  Did you demand to know what he is doing about immigration reform?  Or is this merely an excuse to prod a congressional leader into adopting your position?  The refusal to seriously enforce laws about immigration comes from the executive branch, not Congress.  We would not need immigration reform if our federal government had not been un-enforcing our immigration laws for years and years now. 

2.  That little word, "reform" - shortened from its longer phrases:  immigration reform or comprehensive immigration reform, means what exactly?  It seems that Mr. Shurtleff has the collection of recent Utah illegal-immigrant normalization bills in mind.  For Mr. Shurtleff, reform means allowing illegals to remain in the U.S. and to be granted legal status.  Reform, then, means amnesty.  This is exactly the same meaning that Mr. Obama has when he speaks of a comprehensive immigration reform. 

3.  Congress fails to act toward "reform" because the American people have stopped them so far.  Their lack of action is, therefore, an expression of public will

4.  What does the public want?  Enforcement of our laws. 

5.  Mr. Shurtleff, however, is running to the feds to sell amnesty.  They like him showing up because they are also for amnesty.  They like the Utah-thing about immigration because it has shown them a new angle to sell the same old amnesty to the American people as if it were something new.  It isn't.

6.  It is sad when our Utah Attorney General slams a congressional leader because our AG is busy selling an amnesty plan and Congress is in the way of what he wants. 

7.  Mr. Shurtleff's response is quite bizarre on another front.  Since waivers do not exist for state run guest worker amnesty plans, congressional approval would have to come in the form of a law authorizing such waivers.  If Mr. Shurtleff thinks that insulting and antagonizing congressional leaders is the way to get such waivers put into law, he is probably incorrect.   

The citations of Mr. Shurtleff are from the Salt Lake Tribune article, "House leader: Feds should sue Utah over guest-worker law" (4/20/11).  Republican Governor Gary Herbert falls into the same game as Mr. Shurtleff, as is clear from the article. 

The LDS Position on HB116 and Voting One's Conscience:

Following the LDS Church's public reminder (, 4/19/11) of its principles on how to address the illegal immigration issue, which included an expression of public appreciation for the recent Utah immigration bills, including HB116, as a "responsible attempt" to incorporate the three principles they outline as important, a rather well-known Utah spokesman on immigration issues raised the issue of voting one's conscience on the Facebook group "Repeal HB116."

(To join this Facebook group, go to and click on the Facebook link - if you haven't signed the petition, be sure to do so.)

I think that many people initially reacted to the LDS Church's reminder with some anger and confusion and also disbelief. 

A question arose in my mind about how this public reminder of the LDS position would impact the efforts by many to repeal HB116.  

The clear statement of this individual of the facebook page of the Repeal HB116 group about voting his conscience reinforced my own thinking.

He was right!

This is a strong point and one that should be reinforced at every turn.

The LDS Church has made comments and outlined different ideas and ideals that, as an organization, they felt should be expressed.

At the same time, the right to vote one's conscience is an ideal that I firmly believe that the LDS church upholds.

Therefore, I submit that the drive to put HB116 to a vote of the citizens of Utah is respecting the important values and principles that are the foundation of our republic.

The movement to put the issue before the voters of our state should advance and provide all voters in Utah the chance to cast a confidential ballot for or against HB116 according to each voter's individual conscience.

In that spirit, can any active LDS member not support the drive to put the issue before the voters?

Can those who oppose the effort to repeal HB116 claim they respect our system and deny such a vote?

I do not think that repealing HB116 as a defective law is contrary to the principles that the LDS Church has outlined on their website. 

The confusion which will surely be promoted by certain defenders of HB116 (principally the money-interests who sold it to the legislature and the public) as the debate proceeds can be partially addressed by appealing to this fundamental principle of voting one's conscience.

One wording might be:  "I understand you have strong views on this issue, which I do not share, and I respect your right to have your viewpoint.  But wouldn't you agree that each citizen of Utah should have the right to vote his or her conscience on this issue?" 

Monday, April 18, 2011

Paul Mero's Sweet Gig at the Sutherland Institute

The Sutherland Institute is a key player in the push to normalize the presence of illegal aliens in Utah.

Paul Mero is, of course, the main player representing this organization.

For example, his name, in conjunction with the Sutherland Institute, appears on the advertisement from November 16, 2010 posted at the Utah Compact website:

In addition, he has spent much time in recent months selling the idea of normalizing illegal immigrants - frequently with his sidekick, Senator Luz Robles. 

Portraying some who disagree with him as extremists is certainly an odd way to garner support, but nevertheless he is now on that bandwagon:

It would be interesting to know, therefore, what is in it for Mr. Mero in terms of cold-hard compensation from the Sutherland Institute.

According to the most recent IRS Form 990 (for the period July 1, 2009 - June 30, 2010) for the Sutherland Institute, Mr. Mero received $128,776.00 in reportable compensation.

Not bad.

The Sutherland Institute itself reported $1,304,618.00 in contributions and grants.

Again, not bad.

Wouldn't you like to know who handed over to the Sutherland Institute this nice pile of change?

So would I.

Unfortunately, it may not be required to make this information public.  I am leaning towards that view, even though my own knowledge of this area is limited and I could be wrong.

But, what would have been the result of the immigration debate if those who resist the Utah sell-out on amnesty had the resources of those promoting it? 

It would have been much more difficult for the pro-amnesty-for-illegals crowd to control the public debate and sneak through their unconstitutional amnesty plan.

Considering Mr. Mero's interest in categorizing some as extremists, it strikes me as a rather desperate move to forestall the growing movement to throw out the Utah-amnesty and those who arrogantly promoted it. 

Anyway, the complete IRS Form 990 (without Schedule B) is available at  The document is available if you register with the organization.  There is no charge to view this particular document if you register for the free-level of using their website.  The paid portion is a bit beyond my budget, but probably not beyond Mr. Mero's. 

Sunday, April 17, 2011

Border Patrol - Si! Bureaucrats - No!

Congressman Bishop (R-Utah) on fire at a congressional hearing on border control!

Check out this youtube video of a U.S. Congressman cutting through the baloney on controlling the U.S. border with Mexico:

What's got his ire?

Other U.S. officials holding up the ability of our Border Patrol to do their jobs.

As Congressman Bishop tells us, the Border Patrol can do the job - they need to be allowed to do it.

Saturday, April 16, 2011

Mexican Trucks Rolling Through the U.S.?

This will make you mad.

One of the issues that Luz Robles worked on as a member of the Mexican Advisory Board (CCIME) during her tenure as a "Consejera" (2006-2008) was the Mexican trucks issue.

See the document at for more information about Ms. Robles' links to Mexico.

Of course, she sided with Mexico - in spite of the fact that she is a U.S. citizen.

The issue has returned.

This is how Jerome Corsi, of, described what was in the works last January:

"Department of Transportation officials and the U.S. trade representative's office are in Mexico this week negotiating final details of a renewed Mexican truck demonstration project with the goal of allowing foreign long-haul loads to roam U.S. roads by summer."

(Read more at: Mexican trucks to be rolling across U.S. in 6 months

When Mr. Obama met with President Calderon of Mexico last March, he put it this way:

"I’m especially pleased to announce that, after nearly 20 years, we finally have found a clear path to resolving the dispute over trucking between our two countries. I thank President Calderón and his team —- as well as my Transportation Secretary, Ray LaHood, and our U.S. Trade Representative, Ambassador Ron Kirk —- for reaching this proposed agreement. I look forward to consulting with Congress and moving forward in a way that strengthens the safety of cross-border trucking, lifts tariffs on billions of dollars of U.S. goods, expands our exports to Mexico, and creates job [sic] on both sides of the border." 

Mr. Obama's statement is available at:

Creating jobs on both sides of the border? 

For whom?

An article by Phyllis Schlafly gives a very nice summary of points as to why this is not a good thing for the U.S.

The article is at:

One of the most interesting points of this article is the claim that NAFTA is not a treaty at all, but merely a law passed by Congress.

If that is true, and it appears to be so, then Congress certainly has the ability to curtail this new threat to American jobs and our trucking industry.

At the end of her summary of the issue, Ms. Schlafly reminds us to contact Congress about this outrage.

This is a very good recommendation.

Friday, April 15, 2011

Selling the Utah Sell-out on Immigration (The Utah Compact and HB116):

Former Utah Governor Michael O. Leavitt recently wrote an op-ed piece for the Deseret News about the Utah Compact (see "Utah Compact provides starting point for Congress," 4/10/11 -

Mr. Leavitt, as the article points out, is a member of the Deseret News Editorial Advisory Board.  Considering the consistent stance of the Deseret News regarding accommodating illegal immigrants and the views of the newspaper on other related immigration issues, it is probably no accident that Governor Leavitt's article supports the same views.  Indeed, the Deseret News' coverage of issues related to illegal immigration has the appearance more of a public relations campaign being spun as news than as an objective approach to such issues.  It is possible to view Mr. Leavitt's article, therefore, in the same light - as part of a PR campaign and not as the objective analysis of a neutral observer.  Of course, it is an op-ed piece.  It is supposed to be an opinion.  However, opinions based on experience, learning, thought, reasoning and analysis of the interrelated elements that form the complex of immigration issues are one thing.  Spinning a point of view to achieve the goals of the money-interests or other interests lurking in the background and wanting a cover of high-minded ethical concepts to hide behind is something else. 

The interesting thing to ponder, therefore, is the relationship of the Utah Compact to the HB116.  The Utah Compact ( was proposed as a set of principles to guide the immigration debate in Utah.  Although that document refers to immigrants without distinction as to the legal status of the immigrant, it is important to realize that the debate is primarily about normalizing the presence of illegal immigrants - as is clear when one examines the Utah Compact carefully.   The principles outlined, of course, represent the consensus of those who crafted it.  But does the consensus of this group, no matter how respected the leaders, truly represent a public consensus, or one that represents the totality of issues, or the direction such issues should take when turned into actual policy regarding illegal immigration?  Mr. Leavitt seems to suggest that they do.  He presents the relationship as one in which the policy initiatives are the natural outcome of applying the principles to illegal immigration and other immigration issues.  They may not be perfect, but they can guide policy decisions to an "imperfect but best achievable solution," according to Mr. Leavitt. 

But if any central principle was overlooked, willfully screened out, or somehow never made it into those outlined by the Utah Compact group, then we would, as a result, be left with a deficient policy mix that potentially could have disastrous consequences when policies derived from it are implemented in society.  Additionally, having created a reductionist matrix of principles to follow in creating immigration policy to primarily address issues of illegal immigration in Utah, the natural tendency would be to keep out elements that pointed to deficiencies in the Utah Compact.   Mr. Leavitt's wish to make the Utah Compact a national-model to guide us into national policies (which would be, no doubt, congruent with ones he already supports) is to compound the error. 

Concerning the question of innovation: Mr. Leavitt tells us that the recent Utah immigration bills, without naming any (but we may assume that he primarily means HB116) represent a "breakthrough" in public-policy that Congress should emulate.  But what is the real nature of the breakthrough?  The provisions of HB116 sound suspiciously like components of other "comprehensive immigration reform" proposals that have been rejected by Congress.  They have been rejected because of pressure by the public - that same public which seems to have been mysteriously pushed aside by those who created the Utah Compact.  So, what kind of breakthrough was it in reality? 

The breakthrough was not in the so-called innovative immigration proposals of HB116 - because they are basically rehashed proposals from the past decade for addressing the illegal-immigration question.  The breakthrough was in the unique public relations use of the Utah Compact to garner support for an immigration bill, such as HB116, and in the mix of pressures applied to the Utah legislature.  Even so, it gave the powers pushing the bill what they needed to send state officials scurrying about the nation trying the sell the Utah approach as a national model.

We must ask, a national model of what exactly?

The answer is:  a national amnesty with a few penalties thrown in to create the illusion that it is not an amnesty. 

Mr. Leavitt carefully frames the outcome of these new wonderful innovative policies, which are not new or innovative, so that the underlying basis of what he and his crowd are really after is not too obvious and yet appeals to us in a general way. 

Mr. Leavitt tells us, for example, that the immigration reform stalemate in Congress is "becoming an obstacle to long-term economic resurgence."  This is an important enough point for Mr. Leavitt to expand upon later in the essay when he tells us that a "[l]ack of a sustainable immigration policy is one of the obstacles standing in the way of our nation's economic resurgence."  This is a very general formula being presented:  a sustainable immigration policy leads to economic resurgence.  But what does a "sustainable" immigration policy consist of?  Perhaps the warmed-over and previously rejected provisions of HB116 are what Mr. Leavitt had in mind.  It is not clear and, in any event, any concept of immigration beneficial to those making the money from immigration (through low wages, etc.) could be coded under the term of "sustainable" immigration.  The concept of "sustainable" can include anything, even massively expanding our already historically high levels of legal-immigration or an eventual call to diminish the importance of our borders as impediments to our "economic resurgence."   Cheap-labor, therefore, seems to be one key underlying goal of Mr. Leavitt's views.

We all want an economic resurgence.  But what is needed is a resurgence based on solid economic principles rather than policies crafted to benefit the narrow interests of the few.  Legal immigration, when it forms part of those solid economic principles, can certainly add to our economic resurgence.  The views promoted by Mr. Leavitt, however, will more logically lead  to economic turmoil for the average Utahan and American as well as for those who have already migrated to the U.S. legally and are not yet citizens.   

If an alliance of economic forces seeks "gold" for themselves in HB116 and in even more "gold" for themselves by making it a model for the nation, it seems only fair that we examine how those same proposals would impact Utah's citizens and the future of the United States.  This larger discussion was muted by the PR campaign that took the Utah Compact and used it as a cover to push through a defective law.  In fact, this larger debate is precisely what the money-interests, who are driving immigration policies to benefit themselves, do not want.  Mr. Leavitt's "economic resurgence" seems to be built on a foundation of working the system to benefit the few while passing on the true costs of immigration to society. 

Mr. Leavitt's essay has many dimensions that could be criticized from the standpoint of what is truly in the best interests of the nation as a whole.  It is clearly reductionist in its portrayal of the illegal immigration issue and simplistic in its underlying thesis.  It is, however, a good piece of PR.  But it is a horrible foundation for good public policy.  No doubt, any critical reader will find much to be concerned about in Mr. Leavitt's essay.  Indeed, the critical comments that were posted on the Deseret News website in response to Mr. Leavitt's article show more wisdom and understanding on this issue than does Mr. Leavitt.

Saturday, April 9, 2011

A Mark Levin Quote:

Mark Levin, in his Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto (2009), addresses the immigration issue on pages 147-174. 

If every elected leader took the time to carefully examine just these few pages, much of the baloney thrown into the public debate about immigration would be seen for what it is: baloney.

An example of Mr. Levin's ability to put the issues into perspective occurs on page 172:

"For the Conservative, to say that America is a nation of immigrants and no more is to conflate society with immigration and treat them as equivalents. They are not.  Immigration can contribute to the well-being of society, but it can also contribute to its demise.  The social contract is a compact between and among Americans, not Americans and the world's citizens.  The American government governs by the consent of its citizens, not the consent of aliens and their governments.  Moreover, American citizens are not interchangeable with all other citizens, American culture is not interchangeable with all other cultures, and the American government is not interchangeable with all other governments.  The purpose of immigration policies must be to preserve and improve the American society."

Thursday, April 7, 2011

The Left (as usual) Goes Crazy Over Immigration Comments They Don't Like

Do you wish to challenge the status quo?

You'd better think twice before acting on your impulses to state your own opinions in certain circles.

A college freshman has found out the hard way and has been turned into the person-to-hate du jour at Rollins College in Florida. discusses the events in an article available at:

Her crime, it seems, was to argue against "anchor babies" and to state, in the school paper, that the practice should be ended.

Imagine that...a college freshman argues her point in a school paper.

The horrors of actual freedom of expression must be stamped down!

The original article is available at:

In a rather prescient comment, the author noted that those who are in favor of anchor babies as a national policy say that "intolerance compels people's desire to eliminate it"

Having openly offended the politically-correct gatekeepers of social thought and expression, the author of the op-ed piece then became the target of PhD-level intolerance at the college.

Intolerance in the name of tolerance has always struck me as being a strange thing.

For a fun exercise, read some of the comments posted at the website along with the original article.

The goal of the left to squelch debate rather than engage in it is an attack on the republican values upon which this nation was built.

When all aspects of the immigration debate cannot be considered and evaluated, we will not have good immigration policy.

We will, rather, have politically-driven policy imposed on us regardless of consequences.

Tuesday, April 5, 2011

Senator Bramble's Wikipedia Entry

I came across Curt Bramble's Wikipedia entry today and found it very interesting.

Along with "Pizzagate," which is rather well-known, I found some of the other information very concerning.

It also seems he's very good friends with Rep. Becky Lockhart.

Both from Utah county.

Senator Bramble and the crowd who pushed HB116 are starting to look more like a gang than elected representatives.

If you haven't come across this information about Sen. Bramble before, the link is:

Sunday, April 3, 2011

The Terrorist Element of Illegal Immigration

The terrorism aspect of illegal immigration is an issue that was lost during the recent debates over immigration in Utah.

It was if terrorism was of no concern.

Is this true?  Should terrorism be seen as inconsequential in our illegal immigration debates?

No doubt, there are many articles and materials available on this issue.

One interesting item I came across recently is a flier prepared on the issue and available at

It is hard-hitting and direct.

It is available at:

In Utah, and possibly in other locations, the debate over illegal immigrants has narrowed to a debate about hard-working Mexican families who are illegal versus cold-hearted and evil laws that rip families apart.

This is an unwarranted and reductionistic view of the issues that are part of the illegal immigration problem.

When examining the illegal immigration issue from a larger perspective, we see how our leaders are narrowly focused on serving special interests and not on the welfare of the nation as a whole.

Senator Luz Robles' Links to Mexico

Utah State Senator Luz Robles' links to Mexico are outlined in a document which is posted at:

The extent of the links and the type of work done by Senator Robles should be of concern to all citizens of the United States and especially to the residents of Utah.

This document will be updated with some additional information in the near future.

Friday, April 1, 2011

Is Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff too cozy with Mexico? - (Part 2)

Is Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff too cozy with Mexico?

This question was raised previously and it is important to pursue it further.

Another key question is:  What does Mexico see in Attorney General Shurtleff?

According to a press release from the Utah AG's office (11/9/06), Mr. Shurtleff was scheduled to receive the "Order of the Aztec Eagle" (Condecoracion del Aguila Azteca) award from President Vicente Fox of Mexico on  the following Friday. 

This press release is available at:

According to the press release: 

"The ceremony will be held at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Mexico City and will be followed by a private meeting at the President's home."

Isn't that interesting?

Our own Utah Attorney General received this great honor in the capitol of a foreign nation and followed it with a private meeting with the President of Mexico!

This event received coverage in the Utah media. 

For instance, according to the Deseret News (11/9/06, "Mexico to give Shurtleff its top award"), the award is Mexico's "highest honor for foreigners who serve Mexico or humanity."

Mr. Shurtleff himself was "blown away" and stated that: "It's too big for me to even figure out." 

This article is available at:

The Mexican Consul Salvador Jimenez tells us that Shurtleff's receiving the award is due, in part, to it being a "reflection of his close ties with Mexico and his friendship toward Mexico, our community and our country."

According to Mr. Jimenez, President Fox was very impressed with Mr. Shurtleff's speech and the response to it from the most certainly predominantly Mexican audience in West Valley City where it was given during President Fox's visit to Utah in May 2006.

That must have been quite a speech!

Mr. Shurtleff's own observation was quite interesting, it included linking the award to the idea of immigration.  The Attorney General stated that "...I hope it adds a positive dimension to the immigration debate."

According to an observer at the end of the article, the award usually goes to people who have "done" - which appears to imply having accomplished great things, as foreigners, which are worthy of note to Mexico. 

The observer states further that " they [Mexico] are looking more at possibility of what people can do." 

Returning to our original question, we should once again ask: What does Mexico see in Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff?

Do they see someone who has already accomplished great things for Mexico or humanity?

Or do they see in him someone who can help them to accomplish their political goals for the United States and were schmoozing him for future cooperation?

Perhaps we can find a clue by looking at the official notice of the award in the Diario Official de la Federacion of the Mexican Government.

A key element of the recognition of AG Shurtleff's work, which was recognized by the Mexican government was:

"Que el señor Shurtleff, conocido por su posición a favor de la migración, ha manifestado constantemente una gran afinidad con México, su cultura y la comunidad mexicana en Utah, resaltando la importancia de la participación de dicha comunidad en la sociedad y sistema económico y político de su estado;"

("That Mr. Shurtleff, known for his position in favor of migration, has constantly expressed  a great affinity with Mexico, its culture and the Mexican community in Utah, emphasizing the importance of  the participation of that community in society and the economic and political system of his [or, their] state;")

The document is located at:

The immigration issue was noted by the Mexican government in awarding this honor to Attorney General Shurtleff.

Indeed, in Mr. Shurtleff's press release, the immigration theme was brought to the fore at the end of the release:

"Immigration is a very divisive issue and we should stop fighting and start working together to find rational solutions," says Shurtleff. "We need a uniquely American solution that respects the Rule of Law, the sovereignty of our nations and protects human rights and dignity. Helping Mexico succeed is in our best interest."

Did Mr. Shurtleff need to bring up immigration in his office's press release? 

No.  Yet, it was brought up.   

Again, what was Mexico seeking in Mark Shurtleff?

I will hazard a guess here. 

The answer to that question seems to be that Mexico was seeking an ally in its quest to normalize the status of millions of its nation's illegal immigrants in the U.S.

Having received Mexico's highest award to a non-Mexican...

Having hung out at the Mexican presidential residence with his good friend, President Vicente Fox...

...would our own Attorney General, Mark Shurtleff, be more or less likely to take a stance favorable to Mexico on immigration issues?

5000 non-citizens voted last year in Colorado?

A recent article in The Hill reports on a study done by the Colorado Secretary of State's Office which identified as many as 12,000 non-citizens who were registered to vote in the state and that 5000 may have voted in the last election.

According to the Colorado Secretary of State:

"We don't have a screen for citizenship on the front end when people register to vote."

Does Utah have a similar problem?

The article can be found at:

(The Hill: "GOP says 5,000 non-citizens voting in Colorado a 'wake-up call' for states" by Debbie Siegelbaum)