If you are one of those who believe all the nice-sounding ideas about illegal immigrants and refuse to believe that one of the main objectives of the non-enforcement of our laws is to preserve the cheap labor pool for certain business owners, please explain the video below.
These individuals, illegal aliens, are working construction jobs in Pennsylvania. If it isn't about paying them less and keeping more money for the contractor, then how does one explain the fact that the crew consists of illegal aliens?
Could it be that the pro-illegal immigration impulse in Utah, being run by people in the shadows, is also all about money?
Cheap labor leads to bigger profits for those running the game.
A big part of the problem is the pressure it then puts on honest businesses to also sell out.
The video below is from the youtube.com site, standwitharizona - videos are also posted on their website, standwitharizona.com as well as on their facebook site:
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Video: Drug Cartels, Violence, Distribution - "It Is a Part of Your World"
Agent Borland of the DEA tells us in the video below that cartel drug distribution and violence is part of our world.
The video also makes clear that it is all over the U.S.
A central question for us in Utah is this: Does HB116 make it easier or more difficult for drug cartels to maneuver within our own state?
Another question to ask ourselves is this: are those promoting HB116 so naive that they can't see the increasing power, brutality, and corruption of drug cartels in America and how that power, brutality and corruption will also increase in Utah?
Or are they so blinded by greed that they simply don't care?
The video also makes clear that it is all over the U.S.
A central question for us in Utah is this: Does HB116 make it easier or more difficult for drug cartels to maneuver within our own state?
Another question to ask ourselves is this: are those promoting HB116 so naive that they can't see the increasing power, brutality, and corruption of drug cartels in America and how that power, brutality and corruption will also increase in Utah?
Or are they so blinded by greed that they simply don't care?
Monday, June 27, 2011
Why Won't the Sutherland Institute Answer This Letter?:
The letter below was sent on June 1, 2011 to the Sutherland Institute. As of June 25, 2011, I had not received a response. Maybe it just takes them a while to respond to letters. I patiently wait for their reply.
The letter reads:
"I have looked through your website and cannot locate any information as to who your major donors are and what amounts they have contributed to your organization for the current year or for past years.
I am very interested in knowing this information.
Are you able to provide me with this information or direct me to where I can find it?
Any assistance in this regard would be greatly appreciated."
The letter reads:
"I have looked through your website and cannot locate any information as to who your major donors are and what amounts they have contributed to your organization for the current year or for past years.
I am very interested in knowing this information.
Are you able to provide me with this information or direct me to where I can find it?
Any assistance in this regard would be greatly appreciated."
Friday, June 17, 2011
Representative Sandstrom Calls for Repeal of HB116:
Representative Stephen Sandstrom has issued a press release calling for the repeal of HB116.
The press release is available at:
http://stephensandstrom.com/
He makes the following comments as part of his press release that say much about who is really behind HB116:
The press release is available at:
http://stephensandstrom.com/
He makes the following comments as part of his press release that say much about who is really behind HB116:
"As I am now proceeding with a comprehensive E-Verify law for the State of Utah that will have real penalties and consequences for those that hire illegal aliens, I am troubled that the same organizations that supported HB 116 and who say that they want to end all new illegal immigration to the State of Utah and the rampant identity theft that it brings with it are now lining up to fight my proposed comprehensive E-Verify legislation.
This only shows that their previous assertions that they support the rule of law and sincerely want to end illegal immigration while protecting Utah’s children from identity theft was only political posturing and untruthful.
They want to keep the status quo in Utah that turns a blind eye to companies that want to hire illegal immigrants, to continue to sacrifice Utah children to identity theft for profits and to ensure that Utah employers have an unlimited source of poorly paid, illegal immigrant labor."
Excellent job, Rep. Sandstrom!
I urge all to contact their state delegates and encourage them to vote for the repeal HB 116 resolution at the state Republican convention tomorrow.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
HB116 Fact Sheet
Keri Witte compiled and posted the fact sheet below at the Repeal HB116 Facebook Group. It contains a lot of good information for delegates to consider before Saturday's vote on the repeal resolution for HB116. Delegates are being inundated with materials by e-mail, etc., to get them to support HB116 and to vote against the repeal. Keri Witte's fact sheet makes a strong case for voting for the repeal resolution. I urge all delegates to consider the information below and to vote for repeal.
The fact sheet:
_______________________________________________________
Someone sure wants to make sure HB116 isn't seriously challenged.
Who could that be?
The money-powers who want cheap labor, I am willing to bet.
The fact sheet:
_______________________________________________________
HB116 Q/A / Fact Sheet
Want the facts about what's in HB116? Why should it be repealed and fixed? Here are the details - complete with line numbers from the bill for your reference. Read on - you may be surprised by what's in the bill. (For more info visit Repeal116.com)
Here you can access a copy of the resolution entitled "Uphold the Constitution of the United States and Republican Immigration Platforms: Repeal HB116 and Replace":
http://www.utgop.org/media/files/2._Uphold_the_Constitution_of_the_United_States_and_Republican_Platforms
Here you can access the text of HB116:
http://le.utah.gov/~2011/bills/hbillenr/hb0116.htm
HB116 Fact Sheet
HB 116 Q&A
What does HB116 do?
HB116 implements a state-run work permit program only for those who are here illegally, ignoring federal guest-worker visas that already exist for skilled, unskilled and migrant workers. The program requires a fine of $2,500 (HB116 line 823) for each person who has violated our sovereign borders and come here illegally, and offers a reduced fine of $1,000 (line 820) for each person who has overstayed a visa (regardless of any other violations of law they have committed, such as identity theft and document fraud).
Does it grant legal status to illegal immigrants?
YES. The bill specifically redefines an illegal immigrant’s status as legal within Utah (line 1555 – definition of illegal alien “does not include an individual who holds a valid permit”).
Is it amnesty?
YES. Amnesty is giving someone the very thing they broke the law to obtain – the privilege of living and working in the US. That is precisely what HB116 does in Utah. The bill also turns a blind-eye to identity theft and document fraud committed prior to permit application, ignoring equal treatment under the law. This bill has been rightly dubbed "Utah's Amnesty Bill", and states around the nation are understandably shocked that conservative Utah would pass liberal amnesty legislation.
Is HB116 constitutional?
NO. Both naturalization and migration are specifically enumerated in the Constitution as being the responsibility of Congress. These are not constitutional rights reserved to the individual states. The Utah Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel (the legislature's lawyers) included a review note on HB116 on 3/4/11 advising the legislature that:
"The Constitution of the United States grants authority to the federal government to regulate foreign commerce and to adopt a uniform rule of naturalization. The United States Supreme Court has also found inherent federal authority to regulate immigration on the basis of federal sovereignty and the power to engage in foreign affairs, this is sometimes referred to as the 'plenary power,' which in more recent years has been made subject to certain constitutional limits."
-- and more specifically:
"In the absence of an effective waiver recognized as valid by the courts, under current law, there is a high probability that a court would find that portions of this bill unconstitutional because they are preempted by federal law as applied through the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States."
(Reference U.S. Constitution, Articles 1:8:4; 1:8:18; 1:9:1; 6:2)
Additionally, the Chair of the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee has asked the federal government to sue Utah over the constitutionality of this bill, which will cost taxpayers millions in legal expenses (“Smith to DOJ: Utah Immigration Law is Unconstitutional”, judiciary.house.gov, April 18, 2011).
Does it violate the Platform?
ABSOLUTELY. Utah's amnesty bill clearly violates the Utah state and national Republican Party Immigration Platform Planks; just a few of Platform principles violated include:
• We oppose illegal immigration and all forms of amnesty, or legal status, for illegal immigrants;
• Control of our borders is an urgent national security interest and our national sovereignty depends on those secure borders;
• We support efforts to enforce the law while welcoming immigrants who enter America through legal avenues;
• Taxpayers should not be covering state benefits for illegal aliens;
• Enforcement of the law against those who overstay their visas;
• Real consequences, including denial of federal funds, for self-described sanctuary cities, which stand in open defiance of federal and state statutes that prohibit sanctuary policies ;
• Opposition to government policies that encourage or reward illegal activity.
Does this bill violate federal law?
YES. Because the work permit program is in violation of federal law, this bill requires the governor to seek a waiver from federal law (line 651). There is currently no mechanism for granting waivers from following the law. Additionally, while HB116 redefines a person's legal status within the state, the federal government will not recognize this status, leaving both workers and employers participating in the Utah program subject to all the penalties of breaking federal immigration and employment law (including fines, arrest, and deportation for illegal aliens holding the Utah guest worker permit).
As long as there's no waiver, there's no problem, right?
WRONG. This bill goes into effect on July 1, 2013, with or without a waiver (line 672). This results in a 2-year gap between the date by which illegal immigrants must arrive in Utah (May 10, 2011) and when the program starts. Utah taxpayers will pay for the education, medical expenses and public safety expenses of this influx of illegal immigrants for the next two years. Senator Mike Lee said, “I don’t believe there is any possibility that the state is going to get any kind of a waiver. I know of no process in federal law that suggests that such a waiver could even be granted, nor do I know of any political inclination in Washington to let that happen.” (Salt Lake Tribune, 3/22/11)
Does it make Utah a magnet for illegal immigration and a sanctuary state?
YES. This bill makes Utah a magnet in 3 ways:
1) Any illegal immigrant who has ever lived or work in Utah before May 10, 2011, can apply for the work program (line 746). This bill was signed March 15, 2011, leaving our doors wide open for 2 months.
2) Not only is this an enticement to enter the US illegally, it further entices illegal immigrants who have left Utah for other states to return to Utah when the program is implemented on July 1, 2013 (line 672). Many will simply stay in Utah to await the implementation date.
3) There is no cutoff date for participants to bring their immediate family members (spouse and both single adult and minor children age 21 and younger) illegally in to the U.S. and into Utah (line 797). Additionally, there is no limit to the number of work permits than can be issued, the number of times they can be renewed, nor any limit to the job sectors eligible for the work program - this will hurt the 100,000 Utah citizens who are currently searching for work in an already depressed economy.
Is HB116 a solution?
NO. HB116 was never meant to be a solution. Legislators publicly call HB116 “a resolution on steroids” and an attempt to “get the government’s attention”. It is a message bill -- but is an unconstitutional amnesty bill the message Utah wants to send? Because it makes Utah a magnet for illegal immigration and a sanctuary state, this bill actually makes our immigration problems worse. History has shown that granting amnesty to illegal immigrants does not solve the problem. If anything, it makes the problem worse by creating expectations of similar actions in the future.
Is the bill full of holes?
YES. In a process reminiscent of Obamacare, the final version of this bill was rushed through the legislature in approximately 4 hours late on a Friday night. When asked, only 6 Representatives said they had read the bill. There are many flawed provisions that need to be fixed. For example:
Does the bill improve safety and security in Utah?
NO. The fingerprint background check required for the primary permit applicant (line 772) will only identify crimes for which the person has already been convicted – this will neither catch nor prevent identity theft currently being perpetrated. The background check does not screen for crimes committed outside of the USA, leaving the permit process open to violent criminals and even terrorist (line 783). There is no background check required for anyone covered by the family permit (line 796), which includes a spouse, and both single adult and minor children ages 21 and younger (line 520).
Why should I defend the Platform?
As Republican delegates, we have the right and responsibility to defend our Party Platform, which contains the principles and values that define our Party. The Platform was written and ratified by us, and it defines and unifies us as a Party. Our platform is like a contract with our voters – it tells them ‘if you elect Republicans, these will be our guiding principles.’ If we do not abide by it and defend it, we will lose our support, identity and purpose, and our Party will become irrelevant.
Why should I support the resolution to repeal HB116?
When badly flawed bills are passed, delegates and voters have the right and responsibility to call on the legislature to correct these bills. The resolution “Uphold the Constitution of the United States and Republican Immigration Platforms: Repeal HB116 and Replace" simply asks the legislature to put this bill back on the table and replace it with a bill that is viable and constitutional.
Please join me in defending the Republican Party Platform, the rule of law and the Constitution of the United States. Please vote to adopt the resolution entitled “Uphold the Constitution of the United States and Republican Immigration Platforms: Repeal HB116 and Replace".
Here you can access a copy of the resolution entitled "Uphold the Constitution of the United States and Republican Immigration Platforms: Repeal HB116 and Replace":
http://www.utgop.org/media/files/2._Uphold_the_Constitution_of_the_United_States_and_Republican_Platforms
Here you can access the text of HB116:
http://le.utah.gov/~2011/bills/hbillenr/hb0116.htm
HB116 Fact Sheet
- Violates U.S. Constitution (Articles 1:8:4, 1:8:18, 1:9:1, 6:2). A state cannot make its own immigration & naturalization policy. What are the consequences of 50 different state policies? (See bill’s Constitutional note)
- Favors hiring of illegals over legal Utah citizens. There are over 103,000 unemployed Utahns & 107,000 families on food stamps. What are the consequences of unemployment rising?
- Redefines the status of illegal aliens as legal in Utah. (line 1555)
- Requires Utah to seek non-existent waiver to violate federal law & U.S. Constitution. (line 651)
- Rewards illegal aliens who violate our national borders & come to Utah for sanctuary. (line 746)
- Negatively Impacts Utah’s Economy: Forces Utah taxpayers to cover financial burden of educating, medicating and incarcerating illegal aliens before start date. (lines 672, 746)
- Redistributes wealth through subsidizing illegal alien health care. (line 758)
- No Background check required for the family permit. (line 796)
- Identity thieves will not be prosecuted because of loopholes. (line 754)
- Utah becomes Safe-Haven for international criminals, gangs and terrorists because of no background check outside USA. (line 783)
- Puts employers at serious risk of committing felonies under federal law by hiring permit holders.
- Does nothing to prevent ID theft & restore credit worthiness of victims. (lines 1428, 1437, 1451)
- 2-yr permit has unlimited renewals with one-time fee, resulting in de facto amnesty. (lines 817, 832)
HB 116 Q&A
What does HB116 do?
HB116 implements a state-run work permit program only for those who are here illegally, ignoring federal guest-worker visas that already exist for skilled, unskilled and migrant workers. The program requires a fine of $2,500 (HB116 line 823) for each person who has violated our sovereign borders and come here illegally, and offers a reduced fine of $1,000 (line 820) for each person who has overstayed a visa (regardless of any other violations of law they have committed, such as identity theft and document fraud).
Does it grant legal status to illegal immigrants?
YES. The bill specifically redefines an illegal immigrant’s status as legal within Utah (line 1555 – definition of illegal alien “does not include an individual who holds a valid permit”).
Is it amnesty?
YES. Amnesty is giving someone the very thing they broke the law to obtain – the privilege of living and working in the US. That is precisely what HB116 does in Utah. The bill also turns a blind-eye to identity theft and document fraud committed prior to permit application, ignoring equal treatment under the law. This bill has been rightly dubbed "Utah's Amnesty Bill", and states around the nation are understandably shocked that conservative Utah would pass liberal amnesty legislation.
Is HB116 constitutional?
NO. Both naturalization and migration are specifically enumerated in the Constitution as being the responsibility of Congress. These are not constitutional rights reserved to the individual states. The Utah Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel (the legislature's lawyers) included a review note on HB116 on 3/4/11 advising the legislature that:
"The Constitution of the United States grants authority to the federal government to regulate foreign commerce and to adopt a uniform rule of naturalization. The United States Supreme Court has also found inherent federal authority to regulate immigration on the basis of federal sovereignty and the power to engage in foreign affairs, this is sometimes referred to as the 'plenary power,' which in more recent years has been made subject to certain constitutional limits."
-- and more specifically:
"In the absence of an effective waiver recognized as valid by the courts, under current law, there is a high probability that a court would find that portions of this bill unconstitutional because they are preempted by federal law as applied through the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States."
(Reference U.S. Constitution, Articles 1:8:4; 1:8:18; 1:9:1; 6:2)
Additionally, the Chair of the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee has asked the federal government to sue Utah over the constitutionality of this bill, which will cost taxpayers millions in legal expenses (“Smith to DOJ: Utah Immigration Law is Unconstitutional”, judiciary.house.gov, April 18, 2011).
Does it violate the Platform?
ABSOLUTELY. Utah's amnesty bill clearly violates the Utah state and national Republican Party Immigration Platform Planks; just a few of Platform principles violated include:
• We oppose illegal immigration and all forms of amnesty, or legal status, for illegal immigrants;
• Control of our borders is an urgent national security interest and our national sovereignty depends on those secure borders;
• We support efforts to enforce the law while welcoming immigrants who enter America through legal avenues;
• Taxpayers should not be covering state benefits for illegal aliens;
• Enforcement of the law against those who overstay their visas;
• Real consequences, including denial of federal funds, for self-described sanctuary cities, which stand in open defiance of federal and state statutes that prohibit sanctuary policies ;
• Opposition to government policies that encourage or reward illegal activity.
Does this bill violate federal law?
YES. Because the work permit program is in violation of federal law, this bill requires the governor to seek a waiver from federal law (line 651). There is currently no mechanism for granting waivers from following the law. Additionally, while HB116 redefines a person's legal status within the state, the federal government will not recognize this status, leaving both workers and employers participating in the Utah program subject to all the penalties of breaking federal immigration and employment law (including fines, arrest, and deportation for illegal aliens holding the Utah guest worker permit).
As long as there's no waiver, there's no problem, right?
WRONG. This bill goes into effect on July 1, 2013, with or without a waiver (line 672). This results in a 2-year gap between the date by which illegal immigrants must arrive in Utah (May 10, 2011) and when the program starts. Utah taxpayers will pay for the education, medical expenses and public safety expenses of this influx of illegal immigrants for the next two years. Senator Mike Lee said, “I don’t believe there is any possibility that the state is going to get any kind of a waiver. I know of no process in federal law that suggests that such a waiver could even be granted, nor do I know of any political inclination in Washington to let that happen.” (Salt Lake Tribune, 3/22/11)
Does it make Utah a magnet for illegal immigration and a sanctuary state?
YES. This bill makes Utah a magnet in 3 ways:
1) Any illegal immigrant who has ever lived or work in Utah before May 10, 2011, can apply for the work program (line 746). This bill was signed March 15, 2011, leaving our doors wide open for 2 months.
2) Not only is this an enticement to enter the US illegally, it further entices illegal immigrants who have left Utah for other states to return to Utah when the program is implemented on July 1, 2013 (line 672). Many will simply stay in Utah to await the implementation date.
3) There is no cutoff date for participants to bring their immediate family members (spouse and both single adult and minor children age 21 and younger) illegally in to the U.S. and into Utah (line 797). Additionally, there is no limit to the number of work permits than can be issued, the number of times they can be renewed, nor any limit to the job sectors eligible for the work program - this will hurt the 100,000 Utah citizens who are currently searching for work in an already depressed economy.
Is HB116 a solution?
NO. HB116 was never meant to be a solution. Legislators publicly call HB116 “a resolution on steroids” and an attempt to “get the government’s attention”. It is a message bill -- but is an unconstitutional amnesty bill the message Utah wants to send? Because it makes Utah a magnet for illegal immigration and a sanctuary state, this bill actually makes our immigration problems worse. History has shown that granting amnesty to illegal immigrants does not solve the problem. If anything, it makes the problem worse by creating expectations of similar actions in the future.
Is the bill full of holes?
YES. In a process reminiscent of Obamacare, the final version of this bill was rushed through the legislature in approximately 4 hours late on a Friday night. When asked, only 6 Representatives said they had read the bill. There are many flawed provisions that need to be fixed. For example:
- An illegal immigrant participating in the program must have health insurance, OR just say they won't incur any health debt (line 758) - how nice would it be to tell your insurance company you don't need their services because you'll never get sick or never get in a car accident? And when those things happen to uninsured illegal immigrants, we end up paying for it through taxes and our own skyrocketing health insurance premiums.
- Another strange provision is that the illegal immigrant must have a Driver Privilege Card, OR they just have to say they won't drive (line 762).
Does the bill improve safety and security in Utah?
NO. The fingerprint background check required for the primary permit applicant (line 772) will only identify crimes for which the person has already been convicted – this will neither catch nor prevent identity theft currently being perpetrated. The background check does not screen for crimes committed outside of the USA, leaving the permit process open to violent criminals and even terrorist (line 783). There is no background check required for anyone covered by the family permit (line 796), which includes a spouse, and both single adult and minor children ages 21 and younger (line 520).
Why should I defend the Platform?
As Republican delegates, we have the right and responsibility to defend our Party Platform, which contains the principles and values that define our Party. The Platform was written and ratified by us, and it defines and unifies us as a Party. Our platform is like a contract with our voters – it tells them ‘if you elect Republicans, these will be our guiding principles.’ If we do not abide by it and defend it, we will lose our support, identity and purpose, and our Party will become irrelevant.
Why should I support the resolution to repeal HB116?
When badly flawed bills are passed, delegates and voters have the right and responsibility to call on the legislature to correct these bills. The resolution “Uphold the Constitution of the United States and Republican Immigration Platforms: Repeal HB116 and Replace" simply asks the legislature to put this bill back on the table and replace it with a bill that is viable and constitutional.
Please join me in defending the Republican Party Platform, the rule of law and the Constitution of the United States. Please vote to adopt the resolution entitled “Uphold the Constitution of the United States and Republican Immigration Platforms: Repeal HB116 and Replace".
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Monday, June 13, 2011
Video: "Facing the American Future: A West Coast Retreat"
FrontPageMag.com has a video posted on its website about a retreat sponsored by its parent organization, The David Horowitz Freedom Center. The video is interesting and presents some great soundbites from key conservatives. These soundbites, however, are not fluff. They are indicative of the great conservative values that underlie them. The overall focus is the battle over the future of America.
The video is available at youtube.com as well at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?
The video is available at youtube.com as well at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?
Saturday, June 11, 2011
The Immigration Propaganda Matrix - Part 2: Positioning and Demonizing & HB116:
One goal of propaganda is to position the opposition so that they are effectively silenced.
Silenced, however, may not be quite the right term for the process.
They are certainly capable of still proclaiming their point of view - but may hesitate to do so.
The process is also directed towards those who will interpret the words and actions of those expressing the targeted point of view.
The purpose is to create a response, on the part of those who may not be too familiar with the other point of view, so that they essentially refuse to consider the other position.
The positioning itself creates a negative view of those holding the view under attack.
Throw in some additional demonizing and the marginalization becomes even more secure.
The case of HB116 illustrates this process.
Two recent articles from the Salt Lake Tribune contain examples of members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) who are key players in the pro-HB116 efforts and who are using the Church as a wedge to push LDS state Republican delegates away from their determination to repeal HB116 and pass a resolution to that end at the state Republican convention on June 18.
Those determined to repeal the bill will most likely not be swayed. However, they may be positioned in such a way as to be hesitant to speak out on behalf of their position.
Those not having a strong view of HB116 are certainly targets of this propaganda process.
In the first article ("Supporter of Utah guest-worker law launch campaign," June 7, 2011 - http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/
"If there are delegates who are willing to openly fight against the LDS Church..."
Mr. Roberts equates support for HB116 as the only proper position one can have because he equates supporting the bill as having official sanction of the LDS Church.
Delegates who are LDS members are, therefore, obligated to support that position.
LDS members who are involved in the political process opposing the bill are thus seen to be openly opposing, not just HB116, but the LDS Church itself.
Mr. Roberts may be sincere in his views.
On the other hand, he may also be engaging in a type of characterization intentionally designed to take advantage of many state delegates' religious attachments to the LDS Church and to use those attachments as a way to try to subtly coerce LDS members into rejecting the repeal of HB116.
Additional details of Mr. Roberts' view were described earlier in the article:
"Roberts scoffs at opponents of the bill who still doubt the church’s support for the measure, saying that there is no way top Mormon leaders are "letting their [public relations] department go off the reservation."
"I think the [Republican] Party’s anti-establishment arm has gotten to the point where it has carried over from their politics to their religion," he said."
Mr. Roberts creates a strong characterization of those opposing HB116. He essentially positions both sides in the fight over HB116 as either "good" or "bad." Those who are pro-HB116 are "good" because they support the LDS Church. Those who oppose the bill are "bad" because they oppose the LDS Church.
The question to ask is whether or not it is appropriate, in any sense, to portray the Republican Party in Utah as if it were an auxiliary of a single religious organization.
Certainly, in Utah, many state delegates and opponents of HB116 are LDS. But many are not. Many may participate in other churches and many may not participate in any church at all or may be non-religious. They are all part of the Republican Party and deserve to have a voice in it.
In a recent development, the LDS Church released another statement about immigration on June 10, 2011. The LDS Church has presented us with a thoughtful document which warrants careful consideration as to how it applies to any particular political action regarding immigration. Indeed, thoughtful statements by all religious and other groups presenting us with important principles to consider should be welcomed. The question for this blog entry, however, is not directly related to this new statement. My purpose here is to consider how the LDS Church is being used as part of a campaign to marginalize opponents of a particular bill, HB116.
Is this use justifiable? It is not.
Referencing this new LDS Church statement, State Senator Curt Bramble, R-Provo, also gets into the act. In the Salt Lake Tribune's article, "Latest LDS statement on illegal immigration is murky," (June 10, 2011 - http://www.sltrib.com/
"For Sen. Curt Bramble, R-Provo, who is Mormon and a key architect of Utah’s new guest-worker law, there was no question the statement came from the top, and a vote to repeal HB116 would run counter to the LDS leadership’s wishes.
"This statement leaves no doubt," Bramble said. "None."
Senator Bramble, it seems, is willing to position opponents in the same fashion as Mr. Roberts.
Again, Senator Bramble may be sincere in his views or he may be intentionally using the Church's statement as a way to marginalize those who oppose HB116.
These are strong statements by the pro-HB116 spokesmen.
But, by themselves, are they a strong enough marginalization and demonizing of opponents of HB116?
Apparently not.
Mr. Roberts' quote continues:
"If there are delegates who are willing to openly fight against the LDS Church and there are delegates who sincerely think we should reopen places like Topaz [an internment camp for Japanese-Americans in WWII] and begin rounding up brown people … then maybe there are people who should think about getting [politically] involved and replacing those delegates."
Enforcement, therefore, means brutalization.
The anti-HB116 delegates now, not only openly oppose the LDS Church, but they also want a brutal rounding up of "brown" people?
Who could support such a view?
Mr. Roberts should certainly know better than to leave out any alternative enforcement mechanisms in his portrayal of enforcement as the rounding up of "brown" people. Leaving out any other option for enforcement is a serious omission. It delegitimizes his own point of view through the presenting of a false choice - either you are for a compassionate approach, such as HB116, or you support a brutal rounding up of illegal aliens. His implied racist charge against opponents is equally out of place. His own position must be weak or he would not feel the need to engage in such demonizing of his opponents' views through suspect rhetorical tactics.
Will the delegates fall for the propaganda of the HB116 proponents?
Thankfully, there are clearly those who see through the effort, whether intentional or not, to demonize the anti-HB116 delegates. In the Tribune article, "Latest LDS statement on illegal immigration is murky," one delegate tells us:
"Dan Deuel, a state GOP delegate from Weber County, said a signature by the First Presidency — as had been done when the church dived into the Proposition 8 anti-gay marriage debate in California — wouldn’t make a difference to him, but mentioning HB116 might have.
"The church doesn’t dictate my vote," he said. "I look for my own answers, and there are other ways to do what the church is asking."
Indeed, as important as such statements by the LDS Church are for consideration in the public domain of politics, we also need to remember that delegates were elected by Republicans in their precincts. The delegates, therefore, represent all Republicans within their precincts. This, of course, includes individuals of various other faiths as well as of non-religious Republicans.
For Senator Bramble and Mr. Roberts to imply that a delegate is obligated to follow a Bramble-esque interpretation of LDS Church statements as calling for a specific action, which then represents one's devotion to the LDS Church on the matter, is to pull the delegate away from his or her commitment to that precinct's Republican voters and to subordinate that obligation in a way that cannot be done without being dishonest to those same voters.
Mr. Deuel's thoughtful approach represents the best in the delegate-system.
If all the delegates follow his approach, the convention on Saturday (June 18) will fulfill its duty to represent the Republican voters of Utah.
Silenced, however, may not be quite the right term for the process.
They are certainly capable of still proclaiming their point of view - but may hesitate to do so.
The process is also directed towards those who will interpret the words and actions of those expressing the targeted point of view.
The purpose is to create a response, on the part of those who may not be too familiar with the other point of view, so that they essentially refuse to consider the other position.
The positioning itself creates a negative view of those holding the view under attack.
Throw in some additional demonizing and the marginalization becomes even more secure.
The case of HB116 illustrates this process.
Two recent articles from the Salt Lake Tribune contain examples of members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) who are key players in the pro-HB116 efforts and who are using the Church as a wedge to push LDS state Republican delegates away from their determination to repeal HB116 and pass a resolution to that end at the state Republican convention on June 18.
Those determined to repeal the bill will most likely not be swayed. However, they may be positioned in such a way as to be hesitant to speak out on behalf of their position.
Those not having a strong view of HB116 are certainly targets of this propaganda process.
In the first article ("Supporter of Utah guest-worker law launch campaign," June 7, 2011 - http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/
"If there are delegates who are willing to openly fight against the LDS Church..."
Mr. Roberts equates support for HB116 as the only proper position one can have because he equates supporting the bill as having official sanction of the LDS Church.
Delegates who are LDS members are, therefore, obligated to support that position.
LDS members who are involved in the political process opposing the bill are thus seen to be openly opposing, not just HB116, but the LDS Church itself.
Mr. Roberts may be sincere in his views.
On the other hand, he may also be engaging in a type of characterization intentionally designed to take advantage of many state delegates' religious attachments to the LDS Church and to use those attachments as a way to try to subtly coerce LDS members into rejecting the repeal of HB116.
Additional details of Mr. Roberts' view were described earlier in the article:
"Roberts scoffs at opponents of the bill who still doubt the church’s support for the measure, saying that there is no way top Mormon leaders are "letting their [public relations] department go off the reservation."
"I think the [Republican] Party’s anti-establishment arm has gotten to the point where it has carried over from their politics to their religion," he said."
Mr. Roberts creates a strong characterization of those opposing HB116. He essentially positions both sides in the fight over HB116 as either "good" or "bad." Those who are pro-HB116 are "good" because they support the LDS Church. Those who oppose the bill are "bad" because they oppose the LDS Church.
The question to ask is whether or not it is appropriate, in any sense, to portray the Republican Party in Utah as if it were an auxiliary of a single religious organization.
Certainly, in Utah, many state delegates and opponents of HB116 are LDS. But many are not. Many may participate in other churches and many may not participate in any church at all or may be non-religious. They are all part of the Republican Party and deserve to have a voice in it.
In a recent development, the LDS Church released another statement about immigration on June 10, 2011. The LDS Church has presented us with a thoughtful document which warrants careful consideration as to how it applies to any particular political action regarding immigration. Indeed, thoughtful statements by all religious and other groups presenting us with important principles to consider should be welcomed. The question for this blog entry, however, is not directly related to this new statement. My purpose here is to consider how the LDS Church is being used as part of a campaign to marginalize opponents of a particular bill, HB116.
Is this use justifiable? It is not.
Referencing this new LDS Church statement, State Senator Curt Bramble, R-Provo, also gets into the act. In the Salt Lake Tribune's article, "Latest LDS statement on illegal immigration is murky," (June 10, 2011 - http://www.sltrib.com/
"For Sen. Curt Bramble, R-Provo, who is Mormon and a key architect of Utah’s new guest-worker law, there was no question the statement came from the top, and a vote to repeal HB116 would run counter to the LDS leadership’s wishes.
"This statement leaves no doubt," Bramble said. "None."
Senator Bramble, it seems, is willing to position opponents in the same fashion as Mr. Roberts.
Again, Senator Bramble may be sincere in his views or he may be intentionally using the Church's statement as a way to marginalize those who oppose HB116.
These are strong statements by the pro-HB116 spokesmen.
But, by themselves, are they a strong enough marginalization and demonizing of opponents of HB116?
Apparently not.
Mr. Roberts' quote continues:
"If there are delegates who are willing to openly fight against the LDS Church and there are delegates who sincerely think we should reopen places like Topaz [an internment camp for Japanese-Americans in WWII] and begin rounding up brown people … then maybe there are people who should think about getting [politically] involved and replacing those delegates."
Enforcement, therefore, means brutalization.
The anti-HB116 delegates now, not only openly oppose the LDS Church, but they also want a brutal rounding up of "brown" people?
Who could support such a view?
Mr. Roberts should certainly know better than to leave out any alternative enforcement mechanisms in his portrayal of enforcement as the rounding up of "brown" people. Leaving out any other option for enforcement is a serious omission. It delegitimizes his own point of view through the presenting of a false choice - either you are for a compassionate approach, such as HB116, or you support a brutal rounding up of illegal aliens. His implied racist charge against opponents is equally out of place. His own position must be weak or he would not feel the need to engage in such demonizing of his opponents' views through suspect rhetorical tactics.
Will the delegates fall for the propaganda of the HB116 proponents?
Thankfully, there are clearly those who see through the effort, whether intentional or not, to demonize the anti-HB116 delegates. In the Tribune article, "Latest LDS statement on illegal immigration is murky," one delegate tells us:
"Dan Deuel, a state GOP delegate from Weber County, said a signature by the First Presidency — as had been done when the church dived into the Proposition 8 anti-gay marriage debate in California — wouldn’t make a difference to him, but mentioning HB116 might have.
"The church doesn’t dictate my vote," he said. "I look for my own answers, and there are other ways to do what the church is asking."
Indeed, as important as such statements by the LDS Church are for consideration in the public domain of politics, we also need to remember that delegates were elected by Republicans in their precincts. The delegates, therefore, represent all Republicans within their precincts. This, of course, includes individuals of various other faiths as well as of non-religious Republicans.
For Senator Bramble and Mr. Roberts to imply that a delegate is obligated to follow a Bramble-esque interpretation of LDS Church statements as calling for a specific action, which then represents one's devotion to the LDS Church on the matter, is to pull the delegate away from his or her commitment to that precinct's Republican voters and to subordinate that obligation in a way that cannot be done without being dishonest to those same voters.
Mr. Deuel's thoughtful approach represents the best in the delegate-system.
If all the delegates follow his approach, the convention on Saturday (June 18) will fulfill its duty to represent the Republican voters of Utah.
Thursday, June 9, 2011
Latino Gang and Ethnic Cleansing of Blacks in Azusa, California:
A recent article available at judicialwatch.org presents some very disturbing information about the "Azusa 13" gang in the city of Azusa in Los Angeles County in California.
The gang, to show it's loyalty to the Mexican Mafia prison gang, engages in intimidation tactics and outright violence in an effort to push African-Americans out of the city. Judicial Watch describes it this way:
"To demonstrate its loyalty to the notoriously violent Mexican Mafia prison gang, an affiliate Latino street organization has worked to cleanse a southern California city of black residents by terrorizing, threatening and intimidating them."
Details of the criminal activities are available in the federal grand jury indictment which indicts over fifty Latino gang members. Judicial Watch comments on it as follows:
"Details of the decades-long genocide operation in the Los Angeles County city of Azusa are laid out in a huge grand jury indictment issued by the Department of Justice this week. More than 50 Latino gang bangers, many of them surely in the U.S. illegally, have been charged for targeting blacks by beating, robbing and threatening them."
The Judicial Watch article is available at:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/
The indictment is available at:
http://s3.documentcloud.org/
Utah's Attorney General Mark Shurtleff and others believe that we should not worry about illegal aliens until a serious crime is committed by an illegal.
We must ask ourselves, however, how the city of Azusa got to the point where a Latino gang is actively seeking to ethnically cleanse another ethnic group from its boundaries.
Did the attitudes of certain leaders in certain cities, i.e., "sanctuary cities," have anything to do with the situation as it has developed in Azusa?
Are many of our own leaders following the same logic in approaching the illegal alien issue in Utah?
Again, from the article:
"Latino gangs have for more than a decade targeted blacks in the sprawling southern California County, which is an illegal alien hotbed that has long offered sanctuary."
By looking the other way on illegal immigration and sugar-coating and downplaying the illegal alien elements that are not just "hard-working people looking for a better life," this part of our nation now has a problem that may be unsolvable without extreme measures being employed to clean up the crime and corruption.
By following the same logic and "look the other way" proposals that led to Azusa becoming a gang-infested hellish nightmare, our own local leaders will lead Utah into a future of increasing corruption, violence, and perhaps even intimidation of ethnic groups who are deemed to be outsiders by gangs.
And all so the money-powers selling HB116 and similar proposals can make money for themselves.
Senator Bramble, the Sutherland Institute, the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce, Governor Herbert and the rest of those promoting HB116 should be ashamed.
HB116 is, pure and simple, a cover for those making the money from cheap labor.
The true costs will be borne by the rest of society.
The gang, to show it's loyalty to the Mexican Mafia prison gang, engages in intimidation tactics and outright violence in an effort to push African-Americans out of the city. Judicial Watch describes it this way:
"To demonstrate its loyalty to the notoriously violent Mexican Mafia prison gang, an affiliate Latino street organization has worked to cleanse a southern California city of black residents by terrorizing, threatening and intimidating them."
Details of the criminal activities are available in the federal grand jury indictment which indicts over fifty Latino gang members. Judicial Watch comments on it as follows:
"Details of the decades-long genocide operation in the Los Angeles County city of Azusa are laid out in a huge grand jury indictment issued by the Department of Justice this week. More than 50 Latino gang bangers, many of them surely in the U.S. illegally, have been charged for targeting blacks by beating, robbing and threatening them."
The Judicial Watch article is available at:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/
The indictment is available at:
http://s3.documentcloud.org/
Utah's Attorney General Mark Shurtleff and others believe that we should not worry about illegal aliens until a serious crime is committed by an illegal.
We must ask ourselves, however, how the city of Azusa got to the point where a Latino gang is actively seeking to ethnically cleanse another ethnic group from its boundaries.
Did the attitudes of certain leaders in certain cities, i.e., "sanctuary cities," have anything to do with the situation as it has developed in Azusa?
Are many of our own leaders following the same logic in approaching the illegal alien issue in Utah?
Again, from the article:
"Latino gangs have for more than a decade targeted blacks in the sprawling southern California County, which is an illegal alien hotbed that has long offered sanctuary."
By looking the other way on illegal immigration and sugar-coating and downplaying the illegal alien elements that are not just "hard-working people looking for a better life," this part of our nation now has a problem that may be unsolvable without extreme measures being employed to clean up the crime and corruption.
By following the same logic and "look the other way" proposals that led to Azusa becoming a gang-infested hellish nightmare, our own local leaders will lead Utah into a future of increasing corruption, violence, and perhaps even intimidation of ethnic groups who are deemed to be outsiders by gangs.
And all so the money-powers selling HB116 and similar proposals can make money for themselves.
Senator Bramble, the Sutherland Institute, the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce, Governor Herbert and the rest of those promoting HB116 should be ashamed.
HB116 is, pure and simple, a cover for those making the money from cheap labor.
The true costs will be borne by the rest of society.
Saturday, June 4, 2011
The Salt Lake Chamber of Kings:
In an article briefly describing the vote in favor of repealing HB116 at the Washington County Republican Convention, the Salt Lake Tribune also described some elements of a new immigration plan by Ron Mortensen. Mortensen's plan warrants careful consideration and more details of the plan will certainly be forthcoming.
However, the most revealing aspect of the article was not about the very responsible and civic-minded vote asking for repeal of HB116 or the brief description of elements of a new approach to immigration, it was the unmitigated arrogance of the spokesman of the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce.
This is how the Trib presented it:
"Marty Carpenter, spokesman for the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce — which supported HB116 — said that bill was a balanced approach.
"We understand there will be enhancements to the legislation as we go forward,” Carpenter said. “We welcome input that adheres to the principles of The Utah Compact without retreating from the significant progress we have made as a state toward a workable solution.”'
Just for my curiosity, Mr. Carpenter, who are you representing when you say such things as:
"We understand there will be enhancements..."
"We welcome input..."
"...without retreating from the significant progress we have made as a state toward a workable solution."
The impression I get is that the Chamber sees itself as some sort of quasi-government that is in charge of immigration laws for the state of Utah.
Where does that leave our actual elected officials?
In the Chamber worldview, I suppose, as subordinates to the royal will of those who have anointed themselves as our rulers without the inconvenience of an election.
In short, the Chamber seems to see itself as our master and king and us as serfs.
No doubt, royalty finds the questioning of motives and the questioning of the wisdom of its preferred program initiatives inconveniences thrust upon them by the rabble.
Only in the case of immigration, the rabble is correct and those with the royal attitude, wrong.
The good citizens of Washington County know the true costs of illegal immigration and voted to reject it.
It is time for the Chamber to see themselves as part of society and not as its master and follow the wisdom of the electorate.
The Trib article and quote from Mr. Carpenter ("Guest-worker bill encounters more resistance") are located at:
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/
However, the most revealing aspect of the article was not about the very responsible and civic-minded vote asking for repeal of HB116 or the brief description of elements of a new approach to immigration, it was the unmitigated arrogance of the spokesman of the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce.
This is how the Trib presented it:
"Marty Carpenter, spokesman for the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce — which supported HB116 — said that bill was a balanced approach.
"We understand there will be enhancements to the legislation as we go forward,” Carpenter said. “We welcome input that adheres to the principles of The Utah Compact without retreating from the significant progress we have made as a state toward a workable solution.”'
Just for my curiosity, Mr. Carpenter, who are you representing when you say such things as:
"We understand there will be enhancements..."
"We welcome input..."
"...without retreating from the significant progress we have made as a state toward a workable solution."
The impression I get is that the Chamber sees itself as some sort of quasi-government that is in charge of immigration laws for the state of Utah.
Where does that leave our actual elected officials?
In the Chamber worldview, I suppose, as subordinates to the royal will of those who have anointed themselves as our rulers without the inconvenience of an election.
In short, the Chamber seems to see itself as our master and king and us as serfs.
No doubt, royalty finds the questioning of motives and the questioning of the wisdom of its preferred program initiatives inconveniences thrust upon them by the rabble.
Only in the case of immigration, the rabble is correct and those with the royal attitude, wrong.
The good citizens of Washington County know the true costs of illegal immigration and voted to reject it.
It is time for the Chamber to see themselves as part of society and not as its master and follow the wisdom of the electorate.
The Trib article and quote from Mr. Carpenter ("Guest-worker bill encounters more resistance") are located at:
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/
Must See Video of 10-Year Old Singing National Anthem at NBA Finals:
At game 2 of the NBA finals, the national anthem was sung by a 10-year old!
Her rendition is inspiring and a must see.
From the Yahoo sports blog site, "Ball Don't Lie":
"When 10-year-old Julia Dale was rehearsing the Star-Spangled Banner before Game 2 of the NBA Finals in Miami, her soaring rendition caught the ear of the man who would be directing the game later that night on ABC. She had done so well, he decided, that the performance would be carried live on the national broadcast."
The link to the story with the video is:
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/
Her rendition is inspiring and a must see.
From the Yahoo sports blog site, "Ball Don't Lie":
"When 10-year-old Julia Dale was rehearsing the Star-Spangled Banner before Game 2 of the NBA Finals in Miami, her soaring rendition caught the ear of the man who would be directing the game later that night on ABC. She had done so well, he decided, that the performance would be carried live on the national broadcast."
The link to the story with the video is:
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Utah Amnesties and the Utah Corruption Question:
Will HB116 bring corruption to Utah?
Will Paul Mero and the Sutherland Institute's new proposal to resurrect the Robles-Amnesty plan bring corruption to Utah?:
http://www.deseretnews.com/
In the past month, Utah has seen the arrest of individuals connected to the Sinaloa Cartel in Mexico:
http://www.fox13now.com/news/
We have also seen the arrest of an individual who was running what was described as "one of the most sophisticated fake ID mills" in the history of Utah:
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/
We have also learned that several members of Sheriff Arpaio's department in Maricopa County, AZ have been arrested for drug and human-smuggling:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/
The article about the Arizona situation tells us:
"Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio said a deputy and two female detention officers at the sheriff's largest jail facility were among 12 people taken into custody and accused of being in a Phoenix-based international drug smuggling ring."
The information also shows just how close one of the individuals is to the Sinaloa Cartel:
"One of the detention officers, Marcella Hernandez, told authorities that she is eight-months pregnant with the child of Francisco Arce-Torres, the alleged drug ring's leader who court documents say is also a member of the Mexican Sinaloa cartel."
The allegations against one officer include that he passed information to the ring about the sheriff's departments crime prevention operations. The officer also worked with a separate human smuggling operation.
Arpaio's reaction:
"We have enough violence without having moles in my own organization that put my deputies in danger," Arpaio said."
The County Attorney, Bill Montgomery, had this to say about the situation:
"No one is above the law, and apparently no one if [is]beyond the reach of drug trafficking organizations in Mexico," Montgomery said. "It's just one more illustration ... that the border is not secure. We have cross national transportation of drugs and illegal aliens that has now involved law enforcement officials here. And they've been able to do this and be ongoing in their efforts."
If this is the level of infiltration and corruption of a department run by one of the best law enforcement officers in the nation, what will be the level of infiltration and corruption of law enforcement agencies in Utah - especially one run by the naive Chief Burbank of Salt Lake City?
Let's add up the information and see where it leads us:
1. Utah has HB116, which will allow illegals to remain and work in Utah when it takes effect. If HB116 doesn't do the job, we still have the Robles-Amnesty plan (to be pushed, it seems, should HB116 get too bogged down in challenges). The Robles-Amnesty plan will accomplish the same thing as HB116 - allow illegals to remain in Utah and work.
2. The Utah Amnesties will provide a cover for those who can fool the system into thinking they meet the requirements of the amnesties to remain and work in Utah.
3. Sinaloa cartel operations are already linked to criminal operations in Utah.
4. Producing fake documents appears to be on-going in Utah.
5. Pulling law enforcement officers into cartel influence has already been demonstrated in the department run by one of the most astute individuals in terms of understanding how to deal with the crime problems associated with illegal aliens.
6. The Sinaloa Cartel and other criminal operations will surely be looking for ways to advance their operations in Utah. The Utah Amnesties will help to facilitate their ability to operate through providing a legal cover for their presence in Utah.
7. To further protect their operations, criminal organizations will start to corrupt individuals at key points in the legal system to aid them, cover for them, and to even work for them.
The type of corruption that will be brought to Utah through the folly of our amnesty-minded leaders and self-appointed public spokespersons will be violent and aggressive.
If law enforcement can be corrupted in Arizona, it can be corrupted in Utah.
Will Paul Mero and the Sutherland Institute's new proposal to resurrect the Robles-Amnesty plan bring corruption to Utah?:
http://www.deseretnews.com/
In the past month, Utah has seen the arrest of individuals connected to the Sinaloa Cartel in Mexico:
http://www.fox13now.com/news/
We have also seen the arrest of an individual who was running what was described as "one of the most sophisticated fake ID mills" in the history of Utah:
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/
We have also learned that several members of Sheriff Arpaio's department in Maricopa County, AZ have been arrested for drug and human-smuggling:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/
The article about the Arizona situation tells us:
"Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio said a deputy and two female detention officers at the sheriff's largest jail facility were among 12 people taken into custody and accused of being in a Phoenix-based international drug smuggling ring."
The information also shows just how close one of the individuals is to the Sinaloa Cartel:
"One of the detention officers, Marcella Hernandez, told authorities that she is eight-months pregnant with the child of Francisco Arce-Torres, the alleged drug ring's leader who court documents say is also a member of the Mexican Sinaloa cartel."
The allegations against one officer include that he passed information to the ring about the sheriff's departments crime prevention operations. The officer also worked with a separate human smuggling operation.
Arpaio's reaction:
"We have enough violence without having moles in my own organization that put my deputies in danger," Arpaio said."
The County Attorney, Bill Montgomery, had this to say about the situation:
"No one is above the law, and apparently no one if [is]beyond the reach of drug trafficking organizations in Mexico," Montgomery said. "It's just one more illustration ... that the border is not secure. We have cross national transportation of drugs and illegal aliens that has now involved law enforcement officials here. And they've been able to do this and be ongoing in their efforts."
If this is the level of infiltration and corruption of a department run by one of the best law enforcement officers in the nation, what will be the level of infiltration and corruption of law enforcement agencies in Utah - especially one run by the naive Chief Burbank of Salt Lake City?
Let's add up the information and see where it leads us:
1. Utah has HB116, which will allow illegals to remain and work in Utah when it takes effect. If HB116 doesn't do the job, we still have the Robles-Amnesty plan (to be pushed, it seems, should HB116 get too bogged down in challenges). The Robles-Amnesty plan will accomplish the same thing as HB116 - allow illegals to remain in Utah and work.
2. The Utah Amnesties will provide a cover for those who can fool the system into thinking they meet the requirements of the amnesties to remain and work in Utah.
3. Sinaloa cartel operations are already linked to criminal operations in Utah.
4. Producing fake documents appears to be on-going in Utah.
5. Pulling law enforcement officers into cartel influence has already been demonstrated in the department run by one of the most astute individuals in terms of understanding how to deal with the crime problems associated with illegal aliens.
6. The Sinaloa Cartel and other criminal operations will surely be looking for ways to advance their operations in Utah. The Utah Amnesties will help to facilitate their ability to operate through providing a legal cover for their presence in Utah.
7. To further protect their operations, criminal organizations will start to corrupt individuals at key points in the legal system to aid them, cover for them, and to even work for them.
The type of corruption that will be brought to Utah through the folly of our amnesty-minded leaders and self-appointed public spokespersons will be violent and aggressive.
If law enforcement can be corrupted in Arizona, it can be corrupted in Utah.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)