Wednesday, September 19, 2012

Who Paid For Luz Robles' CCIME Mexico Trips?

Who paid for Luz Robles' CCIME Mexico trips?

Recall that before Luz Robles became a Utah state senator, she filled a three-year term as an advisor on the Consejo Consultivo del Instituto de los Mexicanos en el Exterior (CCIME).

This was 2006 - 2008.

During much of that time (January 2006 - September 2007), she also served Utah as the Director of the Utah Office of Ethnic Affairs (OEA) - a position she was appointed to by Governor Jon Huntsman.

During her time as the Director of the OEA, Luz Robles made three trips to Mexico City to participate as an advisor on the CCIME.  The President of Mexico participated at all three of these meetings.  President Fox was at the first two and President Calderon was at the third.

Serving Mexico on the CCIME and holding a Utah government position were in conflict.  This conflict issue was also raised regarding an Illinois state senator seeking a CCIME position in a 2005 Chicago Tribune article:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2005-09-22/news/0509220226_1_mexican-cabinet-mexican-government-mexican-immigrants

The conflict issue, in the case of Luz Robles, was considered in a more extensive report about Luz Robles which is available at:

https://sites.google.com/site/ufirenow/Home/misc-information

It was also considered briefly in a recent blog post about Luz Robles:  

http://immigrationutah.blogspot.com/2012/09/serving-two-nations-conflict-for-luz.html

Service on the CCIME is non-paid.  Luz Robles was not, therefore, paid a salary for her time and service to Mexico on the CCIME.

But were her travel expenses paid by Mexico?

The issue of reimbursement for travel expenses for CCIME advisors was also briefly raised in the Chicago Tribune article:

"But the advisory council is part of the official flowchart of the Institute for Mexicans Abroad. And the Mexican government reimburses advisory council members for two annual meetings in Mexico City and two other meetings at various U.S. locations.

Mexico solicits private sponsorship for most of the reimbursement but government funds cover part of the expenses, Gomez said."


This article appeared prior to Luz Robles beginning her term on the CCIME.  But it raises an interesting issue.

Was Mexico paying the travel expenses of those on the CCIME advisory board?

Even if part of the funds came from outside sources, as suggested by this article, reimbursing travel expenses stands out as a type of perk.  If Luz Robles was indeed reimbursed by Mexico for travel, then that perk was going to a Utah public official in order to permit her to serve the nation of Mexico at a time she was employed by the state of Utah.  


This information comes from a third-party source (Chicago Tribune), is there more direct evidence that Luz Robles received travel subsidies to Mexico City to serve the nation of Mexico?

Indeed there is.

Three brief notes about being reimbursed for travel appear in issues of Informe - CCIME (a newsletter of the CCIME) during 2008. They are reproduced below.

From March 2008:

"The IME hereby urgently requests counselors who have not done it, to confirm your attendance at the XI Meeting of the CCIME; and report the total cost of your plane ticket to the email: ccimexterior@sre.gob.mx

Failure to do so before April 8, 2008, you will be subject to space availability."


("Por este medio el IME solicita urgentemente a los consejeros que no lo han hecho, confirmar su asistencia a la XI Reunión del CCIME; así como informar sobre el costo total de su boleto de avión al correo electrónico: ccimexterior@sre.gob.mx

De no hacerlo antes del 8 de abril de 2008, quedarán sujetos a disponibilidad de espacio.")

Available at:  http://www.ime.gob.mx/images/stories/ime/CCIME/informes/2008/08marzo.pdf

From September 2008:

"In preparation for the XII Ordinary Meeting of the CCIME to be held next 9 to 12 November, we will be very grateful to you:

1. To confirm your participation by email ccimexterior@sre.gob.mx before Oct. 20

2. To buy your ticket to the Mexico City as soon as possible. In your consulate inform them about the maximum authorized reimbursements."

("
En preparación de la XII Reunión Ordinaria del CCIME a realizarse del 9 al 12 de noviembre próximo, mucho les agradeceremos:

1. Confirmar su participación al correo electrónico ccimexterior@sre.gob.mx antes del 20 de octubre

2. Comprar su boleto de avión a la Ciudad de México lo más pronto posible. En su Consulado les informarán sobre los importes máximos de reembolsos autorizados.")

Available at:  http://www.ime.gob.mx/images/stories/ime/CCIME/informes/2008/08septiembre.pdf

From October 2008:

"As for the XII Ordinary Meeting CCIME, we hope you have already purchased your plane ticket bound for Mexico City, on the understanding that upon your return you will be reimbursed according to the amount you reported to your respective consulate."

("En cuanto a la XII Reunión Ordinaria del CCIME, esperamos que hayan comprado ya su boleto de avión con destino a la Ciudad de México, en el entendido de que a su regreso les será reembolsado de acuerdo a la cantidad que les informó su respectivo Consulado.")

Available at:  http://www.ime.gob.mx/images/stories/ime/CCIME/informes/2008/08octubre.pdf

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.

Such reimbursements appear to be the practice for members of the CCIME.

Whether the money did or did not come exclusively from the Mexican government (part of it may have come from solicited funds), the money appears to have been handled through some accountability process administered through the Mexican consulate system.

Of course, it is possible that Luz Robles paid for her own travel to and from Mexico City and to any other CCIME meetings she may have attended.  Even though this would have been a significant cost to her, it remains a possibility.

So, I will leave it an open question - with the evidence thus far pointing towards Mexico as being the most likely source of much of Luz Robles' travel expenses to and from Mexico or other locations for CCIME meetings.

If she would care to confirm my conclusion, contradict it, or to clarify this issue, I would be happy to post her reply on this blog.  

It is a significant ethical issue.

The voters of her current senate district deserve to know about Luz Robles' service to Mexico on the CCIME and whether or not Mexico paid the bulk of her travel costs to and from the meetings - especially those she attended while Director of the Utah Office of Ethnic Affairs.

Saturday, September 15, 2012

Serving Two Nations a Conflict for Luz Robles?

An interesting article appeared in the Chicago Tribune in September of 2005 that examines the appropriateness of an elected state senator (of Illinois) seeking a simultaneous position as an elected representative of the Mexican government on an advisory board representing Mexicans living in the United States.

The article, "Cicero lawmaker's hat in Mexico race,"  is available at:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2005-09-22/news/0509220226_1_mexican-cabinet-mexican-government-mexican-immigrants

The article raises the issue of a conflict of interest - an issue applicable to the case of Luz Robles.

Ms. Robles was seeking, at the same time as Illinois state Senator Martin Sandoval (the subject of the article), a position on the Consejo Consultivo del Instituto de los Mexicanos en el Exterior (CCIME).

The issue is actually more important in the case of Luz Robles because she went on to win her election and serve for three years on the CCIME (2006-2008), whereas Sandoval was not elected. 

Regarding the CCIME itself, the article states:

"...As president, he [Fox] formed an Institute for Mexicans Abroad to coordinate all Mexican Cabinet agencies that serve immigrants in the United States.

As part of the institute, Fox also created an advisory council of 115 U.S.-based representatives to float policy suggestions to the Mexican government."


The CCIME, therefore, is an advisory board made up of Mexicans (and Mexican-Americans) who are elected by geographic region in the United States.  The group meets twice each year as a body to work on recommendations to the Mexican government on issues of importance to Mexicans living abroad - primarily in the United States.  How far the advisors drift from that innocuous sounding goal is an issue for another time. 

For more background on this board and Luz Robles' role on it, see the "Luz Robles Report" available at ufire.net at:

https://sites.google.com/site/ufirenow/Home/misc-information

One key issue raised in the Chicago Tribune article that applies to Senator Luz Robles, therefore, is the conflict of interest issue.

You may recall, Luz Robles, prior to her taking office as an elected state senator in Utah, held an appointed position in the Utah state government as Director of the Utah Office of Ethnic Affairs.

She held this position from November 2005 to September 2007.   For most of that time, she also served on the CCIME (for the period of January 2006 - September 2007). 

In the Illinois debate on this issue, the article tells us:

"Sandoval would be the first elected official in the U.S. to serve on the advisory council. That raises the peculiar prospect of the Cicero Democrat offering policy advice in an official capacity to Mexican Cabinet members while creating laws in Illinois.

The possibility has some observers praising his vision while others blast his judgment, calling the potential moonlighting arrangement a conflict of interest."


Indeed, Mr. Stanley Renshon is quoted as follows in the article:

 "The idea that somebody can hold two responsible positions in two governments at the same time is a psychological and political absurdity," said Renshon, who is scheduled to testify before Congress this fall about the dangers of dual citizenship. "It's worse than a conflict of interest. It's a conflict of community responsibility."

That incompatibility, noted by Mr. Renshon, is the same incompatibility that would have applied to Luz Robles holding her position as Director of the Utah Office of Ethnic Affairs while serving the Mexican government on the CCIME. 

Thursday, September 13, 2012

Is the UCIM Required by Law to Recommend the Repeal of HB116?

Is the Utah Commission on Immigration and Migration (UCIM) required to recommend the repeal of HB116?

HB116 supporters will, of course, say it does not.

But let's examine the law a little more closely to see if the law requires it.

Utah Code 63G-13-202 mandates, among other things, that the UCIM develop an immigration plan for the state and make recommendations for implementing such a plan.  From the law:

"(1)(c) develop a comprehensive, coordinated, and sustainable state plan to address:

      (i) immigration and the use of migrant workers in the state..."

The law further states:

     "(d)  make recommendations to the governor and the Legislature as to proposed legislation to implement the state plan described in Subsection (1)(c):"

One of the functions of the commission is, therefore, to make recommendations to facilitate the implementation of a state immigration plan. 

The law further specifies, in subsection (i) of (d) that such recommendations be:

"consistent with the respective constitutional powers, rights, and responsibilities of the United States and of the state..."

The recommendations for laws to put into place the state plan, therefore, should be consistent with the Constitution and the laws of the United States and Utah that are constitutional. 

If HB116 is to form part of the state immigration plan, then it seems that the law mandates that the commission recommend that its unconstitutional provisions either be brought into line with the Constitution or that it be scrapped altogether. 

By extension, any state law which contains unconstitutional elements regarding immigration would need to be altered or abandoned if it is to form part of the state immigration plan. 

I am not an attorney, so I may be perhaps interpreting the law in an unwarranted fashion, but I do think it bears considering and paying closer attention to. 

With this in mind, the law that governs the commission also includes a provision to advise the governor and legislature regarding proposed immigration legislation.  Subsections (e)  and (e)(i) read:

"(e) advise the governor and the Legislature on proposed legislation related to immigration:"

      (i) for the purpose of encouraging a comprehensive, coordinated, and sustainable state response to issues related to immigration;"

The language of section (c) is so close to the language of section (e)(i) that is seems that the provision to advise the governor and others about proposed immigration laws is meant to imply that the advice should measure proposed immigration laws against the "comprehensive, coordinated, and sustainable state plan" called for in section (c). 

Section (c) reads:

"(c) develop a comprehensive, coordinated, and sustainable state plan..."

Section (e)(i) reads:

"(i) for the purpose of encouraging a comprehensive, coordinated, and sustainable state response to issues related to immigration"

When these two phrases are placed back in the context of the law and the logic of this law is examined, it seems that a case can be made that the commission is obligated to recommend that HB116 be either altered to make it constitutional or scrapped.


A portion of Utah Code 63G-13-202 is reproduced below:

     63G-13-202.   General powers and duties of the commission.

    (1) The commission shall:     (a) conduct a thorough review of the economic, legal, cultural, and educational impact of illegal immigration on the state and its political subdivisions;
     (b) conduct a thorough examination of Utah and federal laws relating to immigration, migration, and guest worker programs;
     (c) develop a comprehensive, coordinated, and sustainable state plan to address:
     (i) immigration and the use of migrant workers in the state; and
     (ii) integration of immigrants;
     (d) make recommendations to the governor and the Legislature as to proposed legislation to implement the state plan described in Subsection (1)(c):
     (i) consistent with the respective constitutional powers, rights, and responsibilities of the United States and of the state; and
     (ii) to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the state;
     (e) advise the governor and the Legislature on proposed legislation related to immigration:
     (i) for the purpose of encouraging a comprehensive, coordinated, and sustainable state response to issues related to immigration; and
     (ii) upon request of:
     (A) the governor;
     (B) the president of the Senate;
     (C) the speaker of the House of Representatives;
     (D) the minority leader of the Senate; or
     (E) the minority leader of the House of Representatives; and
     (f) comply with Part 3, Migrant Worker Visa Pilot Project.

The entire law can be accessed at:

http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE63G/63G13.htm

Conflict of Interest Problem on the Utah Commission on Immigration & Migration

Below is an e-mail I sent to most of the state senators and representatives.  The e-mail also included a copy of a letter I had sent to Lt. Governor Bell and the e-mail response from his office (which are also below). 

The issue raised is the presence of two immigration attorneys from the same law firm on the Utah Commission on Immigration and Migration (UCIM). 

This has the appearance of a conflict of interest. 

This is especially so when Mr. Kuck's call for pro-illegal immigration advocacy on the part of immigration attorneys is considered. 

The information below contains information that should be cause for one or both attorneys to be asked to leave the commission:


________________________

Dear Representative:

I am writing to voice my concern about the Utah Commission on Immigration & Migration.


My personal view is that this commission should be eliminated in the next legislative session.

It appears that the commission was conceived of and has become a voice, with a few exceptions, for a single perspective on state involvement in immigration - that of the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce.

Ron Mortensen has written a very helpful article on this issue, which is available at: 

http://www.examiner.com/article/utah-commission-on-immigration-and-migration-a-puppet-of-the-salt-lake-chamber

According to Mr. Mortensen:

"A review of the Commission’s membership reveals just how effectively it has been stacked in favor of the Salt Lake Chamber’s position on illegal immigration."

I firmly believe that the commission is ill-conceived, unnecessary, and will serve as a mechanism to control public policy on this issue.

Even so, my principle concern in this e-mail is the clear conflict of interest of having two immigration attorneys, especially from the same law firm, on the commission. 

I outline my concerns below in a letter (which was also sent as an e-mail) to Lt. Governor Bell in July.  The e-mail response from his office is also reproduced below. 

At the very least, I would ask that you find a way to remove one or both of these attorneys from the commission.

I am not criticizing any particular act on their part and this should not be seen as an attack on their character in any way.   

My concern is with the public perception of having them both on the commission and the potential conflict of interest that presents.

The public deserves to have confidence that special interests are not the driving force in setting immigration policy.  

Best regards,

Darrell Robbins


------------------------------
------------------------------------------

Darrell Robbins
P.O. Box 58923
Salt Lake City, UT  84158-0923

The Honorable Gregory S. Bell
Lieutenant Governor of Utah
P.O. Box 142325
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-2325

July 17, 2012


Dear Lieutenant Governor Bell:

I am writing to express my concern about two members of the Utah Commission on Immigration and Migration.

I believe there are two problems with having Ms. Barbara Melendez and Mr. Timothy Wheelwright serve on the commission.

The first is that both have recently moved from their respective law firms to that of Kuck Immigration Partners LLC.  Mr. Charles H. Kuck is the head of this company. 

This means that a single immigration law firm has two employees serving on the same commission. 

In terms of the commission holding and examining a diversity of views about immigration in Utah, this fact seems to narrow the range of opinions while giving a stronger voice to a particular perspective - that of immigration attorneys.

I do not wish to imply any type of unacceptable action on the part of Ms. Melendez or Mr. Wheelwright, but having immigration attorneys serve on the commission brings me to the second problem: the potential conflict of interest.

Immigration attorneys have a vested financial interest in the outcome of state immigration policy and how state policy might impact federal immigration law.   

The presence of immigration attorneys, therefore, seems to be out of place on such a commission.  Their expertise can be valuable to the commission, but should more properly take the form of providing information upon request about issues related to understanding federal visa programs, etc. 

The possible conflict of interest can perhaps be seen more clearly by considering briefly how Mr. Charles H. Kuck, for whom Ms. Melendez and Mr. Wheelwright ultimately work, approaches the role of immigration attorneys in the domain of public policy.

Mr. Kuck is the Managing Partner at Kuck Immigration Partners - which is a national immigration law firm.  He is a former National President of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA).  In early 2009, Mr. Kuck sent out an urgent message to AILA members which included the following:

"As you are undoubtedly aware, the immigration debate in the new Congress is breaking out at every turn; demanding our re-commitment to advocacy. We all need to be actively engaged."  [Emphasis added]

Mr. Kuck's view is that immigration lawyers should be advocates - and active ones.

His motive becomes quite clear further along in his urgent message:

"Our practices, our livelihood and our country's future depend on it! I appreciate your diligence and all your efforts to ensure our voice is heard and that those who oppose immigration at every turn, those who fear immigrants, and those who simply would close the doors to America and hang out a shingle that says “closed for business” do not and cannot win the day."  [Emphasis added]

When Mr. Kuck so openly appeals to the preservation of the law practices and livelihood of immigration lawyers, we are entitled to consider whether or not those concerns are not the driving force behind his particular views on immigration.  In other words, is he promoting the interests of immigration attorneys above the national interest?

Mr. Kuck definitely practices what he preaches. 
For example, he was a co-host (as was Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, among others) of the recent Southeast Summit on Immigration held in Atlanta, GA. 

In addition, at the most recent AILA meeting, Mr. Kuck participated on a panel entitled, "Protecting Our Clients: How to Combat Anti-Immigrant Legislation." 

The interesting thing about this panel is that it also featured Timothy Wheelwright and Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff - both of whom sit on the commission.

I am greatly concerned that Mr. Wheelwright, like his employer, sees his role as an immigration attorney as one of advocacy. 

To appear in a panel discussion on "Protecting Our Clients: How to Combat Anti-Immigrant Legislation" at the national conference of the AILA is a giant red flag.

Ms. Melendez also raises concerns because she has worked as legal counsel for the Mexican Consulate. 

According to a 2009 article from Utah Business:

"She [Melendez]...originally developed international expertise through serving as counsel for the Mexican consulate and the honorary Brazilian consulate in Utah. She gained knowledge of immigration law to service those clients, and then began handling related issues, such as transferring employees between divisions of multinational companies located in different countries."

A profile of Ms. Melendez, available at the website of her former employer, Kirton McConkie, tells us that Ms. Melendez served as legal counsel to the consulate from 2003 to the "present."  I do not know when this particular listing was posted, but it seems valid to assume that Ms. Melendez served the consulate as legal counsel for at least several years.  

I would not wish to imply that Ms. Melendez is not capable of separating her interests in serving the American people from her legal work for a foreign nation, but it does create a potential perception problem for the public.  The interests of Mexico are clearly directed towards a certain set of immigration policies and those policies may or may not be congruent with what is best for the United States.  In terms of perception, it might be better for Ms. Melendez to not be on the commission. 

I believe that the public needs to be able to look at the commission and to not walk away thinking that it is merely a tool of special interests. 

When Mr. Kuck, the employer of both Ms. Melendez and Mr. Wheelwright, publicly calls for immigration attorneys to be advocates, will Ms. Melendez and Mr. Wheelwright heed the call of their employer and use their positions to advocate for a certain immigration stance?

Keeping Mr. Wheelwright and Ms. Melendez on the commission invites suspicion from the public, i.e., that special interests are the driving force behind the commission and its decisions. 

I appreciate your kind consideration of my concerns.

Best regards,





Sources for the information outlined above:

1.  Press release about Ms. Melendez and Mr. Wheelwright moving to Kuck Immigration Partners LLC:
http://www.prweb.com/releases/immigration/kiputah/prweb9258538.htm

2.  Mr. Charles H. Kuck as head of Kuck Immigration Partners LLC and former National President of the AILA:
http://immigration.net/about/

3.  Mr. Kuck's 2009 urgent message to the AILA:
http://cis.org/node/1057

4.  Mr. Kuck and Attorney General Shurtleff as co-hosts, with others, of Southeast Summit on Immigration:
http://immigrationforum.org/media/today-first-ever-southeast-summit-on-immigration

5.  AILA download/cd for sale of "How to Combat Anti-Immigrant Legislation" and AILA program listing:
http://agora.aila.org/Product/Detail/899
http://www.aila.org/content/fileviewer.aspx?docid=38359&linkid=247426

6.  Ms. Melendez worked for the Mexican consulate:
(http://dev.utahbusiness.com/articles/view/representing_the_world)

7.  Ms. Melendez' profile at Kirton McConkie listing work for Mexican Consulate (see "Experience" section):



--------------------------------------------------------------------


Eric Ellis EEllis@utah.gov
Jul 18


to me
Mr. Robbins,
Your comments, thoughts and concerns regarding the individuals who make up the Commission on Immigration and Migration are much appreciated. Creating a commission with a partisan slant to deal with any issue, and especially immigration would likely produce some devastating legislative proposals regardless of which side it leaned--left or right.
Fortunately, with the insight of Lieutenant Governor Bell, the commissioners for this commission were selected for their expertise, education, and experiences from both sides of the immigration issue. Regardless of their position on immigration, these individuals were also selected for their ability to think rationally, and collectively as part of a balanced group and together have the ability to generate sound proposals for future legislation designed to deal with both legal and illegal immigration. These meetings are open to the public, and I encourage your to attend regularly if this is something you would like to see in action. By attending you will quickly recognize that the group contains a great mix of people all working towards smart solutions to this particular policy arena. 
I hope to see you at the next meeting August 13th at noon in the Capitol Board Room. I also hope this response resolved some of your concerns regarding the body of the commission.
Sincerely,
  
Eric Ellis
Advisor to Lt. Governor Bell
State of Utah
>>> <support@utahinteractive.org> 7/17/2012 6:26 PM >>>

Friday, March 16, 2012

Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff Wants the World to Know He Has a Meeting with Mexico's Ambassador to the United States:

Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff really wants the world to know about his upcoming meeting with Mexico's ambassador to the United States.

He posted the tweet below on Facebook:

"Mark Shurtleff
Great honor to meet today with el Embajador de México en Estados Unidos @Arturo_Sarukhan!
Like · · @MarkShurtleff on Twitter · 9 minutes ago via Twitter"

Here's is what Mr. Sarukhan said in 2008 at a meeting of NALEO, with newly elected State Senator Luz Robles in attendance:

"As the community organizer and writer Saul Alinsky once said: “change means movement, movement means friction, friction means heat, and heat means controversy. The only place where there is no friction is outer space.” Sometimes NALEO has generated controversy, and if we believe Alinsky, and I do, controversy is a good thing.

I know Adolfo and Arturo need no encouragement, but my message to all of you tonight is continue rocking the boat!"

He was calling for newly elected Latino leaders in the United States to serve "their people" by "rocking the boat" in the United States.

Will there be press coverage of Mark Shurtleff's meeting with the Mexican ambassador?

Given AG Shurtleff's work to promote amnesty nationwide, does this meeting have anything to do with promoting U.S. immigration policies beneficial to Mexico?

Or is it just a nice way for Mexico to maintain its friendship with a recipient of Mexico's highest award to a non-Mexican for service to Mexico's people?

Tuesday, March 13, 2012

"Utah Compact Information Sources" Page - New Listing Added (3/13/2012):

A new article by Ron Mortensen at cis.org has been added to the "Utah Compact Information Sources" Page:

Mortensen, Ron  (3/13/2012) 
"Why You Should Be Concerned About Utah's Key Role In The Amnesty Movement"
cis.org. 
http://cis.org/mortensen/why-you-should-be-concerned-about-utahs-key-role-amnesty-movement

"In 2011, the pro-amnesty movement implemented a hostile takeover of Utah, beginning with the disingenuous Utah Compact and following up with the passage of HB116, Utah's guestworker program. Both the compact and the guestworker programs are described by amnesty advocates as models for the nation."

The "Utah Compact Information Sources" Page is at:

http://immigrationutah.blogspot.com/p/utah-compact-information-sources.html

Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Senator Luz Robles' Former Associate, Joe Reyna, and the CCIME Mexican Advisors' Plan to Lobby the LDS Church

It is now several years past the events described below.  However, given the current debate swirling about the role of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS or Mormon Church) in immigration issues, especially in Utah, I found it interesting to come across the information below.

At the beginning of the 2005 Utah legislative season, Luz Robles and Joe Reyna co-authored an op-ed in the Deseret News.  In the article they tell us: 

"As we begin this new legislative session, Utah Hispanic leaders from both Republican and Democrat parties are united once again to lobby and fight for common legislation that will affect the Hispanic community. Rare are the occasions when Latinos from both parties put political differences aside in order to support common ideals and work for common goals."

The article is not too specific about what those common ideals and goals are, but we get a strong clue from their following comment:

"During the 2004 session, a sleeping giant, the Hispanic community, awoke and was forced to become active in the legislative process and take action against anti-immigrant groups."

Mr. Reyna must have found it difficult to use such a subdued term as "anti-immigrant groups." 

This usage is quite different from how he described Utahns for Immigration Reform and Enforcement (UFIRE) during the battle over House Bill 109 in 2004 (a bill to restrict the use of Mexican Matricula Consular ID cards in Utah):

"The group, Utahns for Immigration Reform and enforcement [sic], led by Mr. Matt Throckmorton, have one objective in mind and one only -- to promote hatred against the Mexican people living in the state of Utah."


("Illegal Immigration and House Bill 109 Stir Up Controversy" -  http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=86164)


That's quite a statement. 

It is both irresponsible and inflammatory. 

Be that as it may, as a result of this awakening during the 2004 session, the Utah Hispanic Legislative Task Force was created.  Luz Robles and Joe Reyna were co-chairs of this task force at the time they wrote the op-ed in 2005.

It appears that one purpose of the task force was to monitor proposed illegal immigration enforcement bills in the legislature and to work against those they saw as counter to the interests of the Hispanic community. 

The distinction between legal and illegal immigrants seems to have escaped the co-chairs as they characterized those working to end illegal immigration as "anti-immigrant groups" and not as "anti-illegal immigration" groups.

The Deseret News op-ed is available at:

("Utah Hispanics Talking Charge" - http://www.deseretnews.com/article/600106988/Utah-Hispanics-taking-charge.html)

Aside from being co-chairs of the task force during the 2005 legislative session, is there anything else, looking back from the present, that creates a common experience for the Democrat Luz Robles and the Republican Joe Reyna?

Indeed there is.

They both filled three-year terms as representatives of the Mexican community, geographically served by the Mexican consulate in Salt Lake City, on the Consejo Consultivo del Instituto de los Mexicanos en el Exterior (CCIME - Advisory Council/Board of the Institute of Mexicans Abroad). 

The CCIME is an elected advisory board organized by the Mexican government that makes recommendations to the Mexican government about issues of concern to Mexicans living abroad - mostly in the U.S.   Members meet as a body bi-annually to discuss and make recommendations to the Mexican government.   The meetings are generally in Mexico. 

Mr. Reyna served the Mexican government as a member of the CCIME during the years 2003 - 2005.

Ms. Robles served the Mexican government as a member from 2006 - 2008.

For roughly half the time of her service on the Mexican advisory board, Luz Robles was also employed by the state of Utah as Governor Huntsman's appointed Director of the Utah Office of Ethnic Affairs. 

She was elected to the CCIME to hold the position that was previously held by Joe Reyna. 

For more information about this Mexican government advisory board, see the article about Luz Robles (currently a Utah State Senator) at ufire.net (click on "Luz Robles Report") in which the CCIME is described in detail.  Luz Robles' role in the CCIME is the primary focus of that article. 

Jumping back in time just a bit to late 2002, when Joe Reyna was first elected to the CCIME, we see that the Deseret News (12/6/02) thought the event to be significant enough to do an article about it, which is available at:

("Reyna in position to help Utahns, Mexicans relate" - http://www.deseretnews.com/article/952442/Reyna-in-position-to-help-Utahns-Mexicans-relate.html)

The Deseret News tells us that Reyna already had a list of "hot topics" to deal with and that:

"Most urgent among them: Granting legal-resident status to Mexican nationals working in the United States. "

How did the Mexican consulate view Mr. Reyna's new position?:

"We want him to be a voice for the community here," Salt Lake Mexican consular Martin Torres said of Reyna."

The Mexican consulate in Salt Lake City wanted Joe Reyna to be a voice for the Mexican community?

It appears to be so.

That's an interesting view to have for a foreign consulate. 

At the very time that Joe Reyna was writing an op-ed with Luz Robles about working against those working for immigration enforcement and was serving as the co-chair, with Luz Robles, of the
Utah Hispanic Legislative Task Force, a group dedicated to influencing the state legislature, Mr. Reyna was also working with the Mexican government as part of the CCIME. 


While going through some of the records of the CCIME recently, I came across an interesting discussion about a plan to try to influence the LDS Church by either getting them to share a political consensus or as part of a larger concern about shaping public opinion.  

The discussion took place during the fourth bi-annual meeting of the CCIME, which was held in early December 2004.  The meeting took place in San Luis Potosí in Mexico.

Utah's Joe Reyna was there and was part of the discussion.

But who is Joe Reyna? 

A bit more information about him will allow us to see that he is a person of influence and accomplishment who would be listened to in other venues. 

Mr. Reyna is a prominent Utah businessman and Republican political activist. 

For example, among the positions he has served or worked at are the following:

- Regional President for Zions Bank

- Deputy Mayor of Ogden, Utah

- Chairman of the Utah Hispanic Chamber of Commerce

- Chairman of the Utah Republican Hispanic Assembly

- Board Member of the Westminster College Board of Trustees

- Advisor/Counselor in Mexican President Vicente Fox’s Consejo Consultivo del Instituto de los Mexicanos en el Exterior (CCIME).

Less than two months before the 2005 op-ed with Luz Robles appeared, in December 2004, Mr. Reyna attended a CCIME conference in Mexico. 

As part of the bi-annual CCIME conferences, the council breaks into various commissions and considers recommendations by topical focus.  For example, the commission of which Joe Reyna was a part focused on economic and business issues.  Sometimes they also met by geographic region. 

At one such geographic regional session, in December of 2004, Joe Reyna met with other advisors of the southwest region.

The relevant record which documents the discussion is at:

("IV Reunión Ordinaria del Consejo Consultivo del Instituto de los Mexicanos en el Exterior - Minuta de la Reunión de la Región Sur Oeste" - http://www.ime.gob.mx/images/stories/ime/CCIME/reuniones_ordinarias/iv/4_min_so.pdf)

The quotations from the CCIME meeting below are from the minutes of the meeting.  The minutes appear to be notes about what was said and not actual transcribed statements of the participants.  Some of the context is thus missing, which leads to some confusion when trying to follow the conversation and to attach precise meanings to the notes.  Quotes are, therefore, of notes which occur in the document and not of verbatim statements.

A variety of issues were brought up in the meeting.  Among them was how to use the media to influence U.S. public opinion about, for instance, the "militarization" of the border and how that created hardships.  The assumption seems to have been that an improved perception would work against certain border policies that were instituted after 9/11.  Amid this discussion, the name of Jeffrey Jones was brought up.  Jeffrey Jones, at that time, was a Mexican senator representing the state of Chihuahua and was also president of the Mexican senate's Border Affairs Commission. 

He would be a natural ally for any plans the group might have regarding the border.

Joe Reyna proposed an additional avenue to aid in the generating of a more positive public opinion in the U.S. - get the Catholic church and other religious leaders on board:

"It would be good to dedicate time to getting the support of religious leaders - such as the council of Catholic bishops - to help make a positive change in public opinion."

After some more points are raised by other advisors, Henrique Valdovinos brings in the idea of seeking political consensus before involving the media:

"I think that the most important [thing] right now is to bring political consensus to the situation, it is not the moment to bring the media, the important [thing] is to get people who want to participate." 

After some points are made by Isabel Garcia from Tucson, Reyna brings up the Mormon church.  It is not clear, in what follows, if the discussion has turned to seeking political consensus or is still focused on creating a more positive public image.  It is also not clear if Mr. Reyna is referring to the leaders of the LDS Church, as being in favor of Proposition 200 (which had recently passed in Arizona), or the general membership, or both: 

"The Mormons are in favor of Arizona's Proposition 200.  Undersecretary Geronimo Gutierrez was there in Salt Lake City and met with leaders of the Mormon Church."

After more discussion, Reyna adds:

"Jeffrey Jones is a Mormon, from Chihuahua.  Why not invite him to speak with the Mormons?"

Another advisor, Henrique Valdovinos from New Mexico, who appears to have been in charge of the meeting, adds this:

"In late December, he [Jeffrey Jones] will be in New Mexico, there he has his ranch.  Maybe when he is in New Mexico we could meet with him.  Let Guillermina and I make contact, and say when he could meet with the group."

The notes for Mr. Valdovinos also contain the following:

"Point of Agreement: "Make talks with leaders of the Mormon church to open doors for the humanitarian immigrant agenda."

And:

"Request the cooperation and participation of Secretary Luis Ernest Derbez and Undersecretary Geronimo Gutierrez."

It is not clear if this final note was meant as a call to have Secretary Derbez and Undersecretary Gutierrez talk with the LDS Church or was meant to solicit from them other types of help.  Mr. Derbez, at the time, was Mexico's Secretary or Minister of Foreign Affairs (equivalent of the U.S. Secretary of State). 

Opening doors for a "humanitarian immigrant agenda" is an interesting goal.

What exactly did this group of CCIME advisors have in mind by this term? 

It could include a variety of proposals. 

In the context of this discussion, it possibly relates only to the border issues being discussed.  But, it also could refer to a broader immigration agenda. 

But, what does it imply for how the group sees the LDS and other churches? 

One advisor (Isabel Garcia, from Tucson), during the discussion, says this:

"...They [the churches] are as unions already having ready-made constituencies, then it is very important to establish communication with them."

If this perception was shared by the other advisors, then it implies seeing the churches as speaking for their memberships.  Public statements by the churches, therefore, would be seen as representing or influencing the memberships and would create a perception in the larger public of broad support and would thereby create pressure to change border policies - regardless of whether or not the membership of any particular church shared the viewpoint of its leadership. 

Without more information, it is difficult to say exactly what this group of CCIME advisors had in mind in the plan to approach the Mormon Church.  But, clearly, they saw in the Mormon Church a potential ally. 

In the case of Joe Reyna, this discussion shows that he was meeting in Mexico as a representative of the Mexican government (on the CCIME) and discussing enlisting a prominent LDS Mexican official as part of an effort to get the LDS Church to help open doors for a "humanitarian immigrant agenda" - less than two months before writing about working against proposed state immigration enforcement laws as a co-chair with Luz Robles of the Utah Hispanic Legislative Task Force

It is unknown at this point if the group's plans were actually carried out or what the end results were - that is, if they were successful in having Mr. Jones or the other Mexican officials talk with LDS leaders and what the outcome of such a meeting might have been.

As a side note, it is interesting to note that Mr. Jeffrey Jones is a current member of the National Presidential Advisory Board of Utah Valley University:

http://www.uvu.edu/president/organization/national.html
So, is that all Mr. Reyna was up to at the end of 2004 and in 2005?

In January of 2005, Jon Huntsman, Jr. began his first term as Utah's governor. 

Within a few months, with his feet barely wet as governor, Mr. Huntsman traveled to Mexico. 

During the trip, according to the Salt Lake Tribune (7/11/05):

"Huntsman also plans to discuss immigration, but it's not clear with whom or at what meeting, said a governor's spokeswoman."


("Huntsman aims to bring Utah, Mexico a bit closer" - http://www.sltrib.com/ci_2851041)

The article tells us that Huntsman was only traveling with a handful of people.  Among them was Joe Reyna, who, according to the article, was paying for his own trip. 

Later in the article:

"He [Reyna] said he helped organize Huntsman's Mexico trip because he wants to see leaders start a dialogue about trade and immigration. He also hopes the trip encourages Fox to visit Utah."

Recall that, in July of 2005, that Reyna was an advisor on the Mexican government's CCIME (which was mentioned in the Salt Lake Tribune article), had worked on a plan to try and influence the LDS Church during a recent CCIME conference in Mexico, and was currently, or had been recently, a co-chair of a group whose goal was to influence the state legislature on immigration issues,

And Mr. Reyna was now helping to plan Governor Huntsman's Mexico trip and trying to advance immigration discussions between Huntsman and the Mexican government?

Mr. Reyna was, indeed, busy.

Was Governor Huntsman aware of Mr. Reyna's immigration interests and relationship to the Mexican government prior to the trip and, if so, did he care? 

Or did he and Mr. Reyna already share a similar set of outlooks and goals for immigration issues? 

Another interesting side note - it was in July of 2005, the same month that Joe Reyna accompanied Governor Huntsman to Mexico, that  Luz Robles, Joe Reyna's co-chair of the Utah Hispanic Legislative Task Force earlier in the year, was chosen to be the Interim-Director of the new Utah Office of Ethnic Affairs.  She would go on to appointed its first director in November. 

So, how did that trip to Mexico go?

In terms of working on immigration issues, it seems to have been a great success.

According to the Deseret News ("Huntsman tells Fox of plan to push immigration issue" - http://www.deseretnews.com/article/600148392/Huntsman-tells-Fox-of-plan-to-push-immigration-issue.html?pg=1), in Huntsman's closed-door, 40-minute meeting with President Fox:

"Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. sweetened the deal for his Utah-Mexico "Alliance for Prosperity" Wednesday, telling Mexican President Vicente Fox and other officials here that he'll take on the immigration issue with the help of America's Western governors."

The governor also spoke with Mexico's Undersecretary for North America, Geronimo Gutierrez, and had this to say:

"The governor said Mexico's undersecretary for North America, Geronimo Gutierrez, told him the country is not looking for blanket amnesty but a "workable solution going forward to better identify those who are crossing the border" for employment."

The Deseret News adds this from Mr. Gutierrez:

"Migration is a great opportunity for both countries, if we're able to establish a mechanism that allows for legal, safe borders and secure migration. That will help us take advantage of the fact that we have complementary labor markets," Gutierrez said."

Let's recap.  Governor Huntsman goes off to Mexico with Joe Reyna only months after taking office.  While in Mexico he planned to talk about immigration and seems to have had some very interesting discussions on the issue.  These discussions appear to have led him to the position of wanting to pursue the issue with the Western Governors Association. 

How did the governor come to focus so heavily on immigration?  From the same article:

"That just came out of discussions with senior officials," Huntsman said of his decision to tackle the issue. "I think there's a serious need to reinvigorate the whole discussion on immigration. It's falling victim to politics here in Mexico and maybe to some level of indifference at home. I think it's one of the most critical issues of our time and requires a good public policy solution."

And:

 "Immigration, he said, came up repeatedly throughout his four-day visit. "I don't think we had a conversation where it didn't come up in some form or fashion." Creel, who belongs to the same political party as Fox, talked of little else during the hour and a half he spent with Huntsman over breakfast Wednesday."

So, Governor Huntsman goes to Mexico, has a number of little chats and just happens to come out swinging for policies Mexico likes?

This is a problem. 

The odd thing about these particular comments from Governor Huntsman is this:  if he is accurately describing how he came to his immigration focus, then that position seems to have been arrived at in an environment where he was heavily lobbied by foreign officials seeking to bring him to their views while the governor was in their nation. 

Shouldn't the policies pursued by an American governor of be arrived at through high level discussions about what is best for the United States and with the national interest of the United States foremost in mind - not the interests of a foreign nation while visiting that nation's president and meeting high level officials of the foreign government?

Governor Huntsman's immigration views seem to rely on a basic assumption that is certainly challengeable:  that the national interest of the United States is best served by pursuing an immigration agenda set in Mexico. 

Either Governor Huntsman went to Mexico already with a policy agenda in mind, that he was seeking to fine-tune through his discussions with Mexican leaders, or he went there rather naively and was easily influenced by those promoting the Mexican position.

The choice for us is to decide if Governor Hunstman is either easily influenced or he was working in the shadows prior to his trip, regarding immigration matters, and used the trip as a way to begin a push for a not-quite-amnesty for illegal aliens in the U.S.    

A few short months later, Governor Huntsman went on to convince the Western Governors Association to allow him to draft an immigration proposal.  According to the Deseret News: 

"Just last week, Huntsman persuaded members of the Western Governors' Association to let him draft a proposed stand on immigration for the organization, the first time they've agreed to tackle the issue."

What might his proposal include?:

"He [Huntsman] hasn't said what position he'll propose the governors' association take, but his draft will offer solutions to protecting the nation's border with Mexico, some type of guest-worker program, and ways to improve the process by which immigrants can become citizens."

("Put brakes on Mexican job seekers, Utahns say" - http://www.deseretnews.com/article/635162142/Put-brakes-on-Mexican-job-seekers-Utahns-say.html)

The rather strange thing about this article about Huntsman's position is that it is also reporting on a poll of Utahns who overwhelmingly think that it should be more difficult to bring Mexican workers to Utah. 

In an interesting moment of candor, Joe Reyna as quoted in the same article, said this:

"There's no way to focus on a 'Berlin Wall' on the border to keep them out if the demand is still high for cheap labor," Reyna said, praising the governor for getting involved in the issue. "Even though it's not his responsibility, he's taking the initiative."


A Berlin Wall? 

The Berlin Wall was meant to prevent people from escaping a communist tyranny. 

Mr. Reyna's extreme rhetoric here, as with his earlier description of the UFIRE group, is out of place and offensive.   

Reyna's view of Mexican labor coming to the U.S. also seems to echo Subsecretary Gutierrez' view of Mexico as having a complementary labor market with the U.S. - only Reyna is more specific about what "complementary" seems to mean: cheap labor.   

Praising the virtues of cheap labor without examining the larger picture is, to say the least, a simplistic approach to economics and the impact such a proposal would have on a host nation.  It also downplays both the responsibility of Mexico to care for its own citizens and the effects the outflow of Mexicans has on families and communities in Mexico. 

In another interesting side note:

Jumping to August of 2009, we find Mexico opening a consulate in Boise, Idaho. 

In what seems just a bit strange, it was Zions Bank that hosted a "grand opening party" for the new consulate.

Although the article linked below does not specifically state that Joe Reyna attended, it does quote him in his position as a regional president of Zions Bank:

"Zions Bank hosted the party, and the company's regional president Joe Reyna says the consulate will not only provide documentation services for Mexicans and Idahoans, but will help the business community as well."

("Idaho's Mexican consulate opens in Boise" - http://www.ktvb.com/news/local/64172517.html)

A U.S. bank hosting an opening party for the consulate of another nation in, of all places, Idaho?

Aside from that interesting fact, what does Mr. Reyna mean by "documentation services"?

It is not specified in this very brief article. 

But, it does seem reasonable to assume that Matricula Consular ID cards would be included.  The acceptance of such cards was the focus of the 2004 controversy in the Utah legislature mentioned earlier.  Indeed, the use of such cards has been controversial for a number of years throughout the country. 

Some final thoughts;

The purpose of this article has been to demonstrate certain linkages of one individual, Mr. Reyna, in his efforts to promote a particular view of how to address the illegal immigration issue.

Mr. Reyna's representing Mexico, through his service to the CCIME, and the discussion to seek LDS Church help in advancing the perspective of the southwest region's advisors ought to concern us. 

Mr. Reyna's work on the Utah Hispanic Legislative Task Force at a time he was a member of the CCIME ought to concern us.  An individual who represents a foreign power while seeking to influence the laws of Utah, especially in an area of great concern to the CCIME and Mexican government, is very concerning. 

Additionally, the fact that Mr. Reyna was close enough to Governor Huntsman to accompany him on a trip to Mexico where immigration issues were discussed, while he was a member of the CCIME, ought to also concern us. 

Finally, Governor Huntsman's actions regarding immigration ought to concern us as well. 

We have far too many leaders who know the public opposes amnesties in any form and want increased enforcement of our very reasonable immigration laws and yet work against those same very reasonable positions.

The public-at-large has a better intuitive grasp of these issues and how they should be addressed than many of our leaders.   

It is time for our leadership to get on board and to work for the benefit of our national interest.