Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Utah, the first state to grant amnesty to undocumented workers

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Utah, the first state to grant amnesty to undocumented workers

    Utah governor signs immigration reform bills
    By David Montero

    The Salt Lake Tribune

    Gov. Gary Herbert signed four immigration bills at a semi-private ceremony in the Capitol Tuesday morning, officially putting Utah on a pioneering trajectory on the hot button issue.

    However, if this tactic doesn’t work, Utah will just be another state that ends up in litigation with the federal government.

    Herbert, flanked by House Speaker Becky Lockhart, Senate President Michael Waddoups and LDS Presiding Bishop David Burton, said the signing of a guest worker bill and an enforcement-only bill was putting the federal government on notice.

    “They’ve been on the sidelines way too long,” Herbert said. “They need to get in the game.”

    The bill signings — HB497, HB466, HB116 and HB469 — came more than a week after the Legislature passed them. Herbert has been under great pressure to veto HB116, the guest worker bill carried by Rep. Bill Wright and several tea party groups have put him on notice that he could face political consequences for signing it.

    However, there was a wide breadth of support among those attending the signing ceremony in the Gold Room at the Capitol. Polar opposites on immigration reform — Sutherland President Paul Mero stood not far from Eagle Forum head ***le Ruzicka — when Herbert inked the ceremonial bills.

    Noticeably absent at the signing was Rep. Stephen Sandstrom, R-Orem, who authored HB497, the enforcement-only immigration bill. He had he decided at the last minute not to attend the ceremony because he opposed HB116, the guest worker legislation.

    Also absent was Sen. Luz Robles, D-Salt Lake City, who was involved with aspects of the guest worker bill and carried a similar bill that ultimately died in the Senate. Robles was going to attend, but had to miss the ceremony due to her daughter’s illness.

    By signing the bills, Utah is poised to challenge the federal government on its sovereignty by issuing guest worker visas. However, because it has a two-year lag before it takes effect, state officials are already talking with White House and congressional officials about using Utah’s approach as a model for federal immigration reform.

    Waddoups said it was important to note that all four bills must be considered collectively as the “Utah Solution” to immigration reform.

    “This is not amnesty. This is not profiling,” Waddoups said. “This is not an Oklahoma solution. This is not an Arizona solution. This is not a Missouri solution. Three states that have led out on immigration to a degree. We are not following their path.”

    One of the reasons Utah has forged its own way on immigration reform is the The Utah Compact and it’s endorsement by the LDS Church. The Salt Lake City-based church, which has 14-million-plus members, has been criticized by some for not signing but only endorsing the compact, a set of principles for humane immigration reform. But Burton said “our presence here justifies the fact that we are appreciative of what has happened in the Legislature this session.”

    “We feel the Legislature has done an incredible job in a very complex issue,” Burton said.

    The other two bills signed by Herbert were a migrant worker bill, sponsored by Sandstrom and Sen. Curt Bramble, R-Provo, that would enter Utah into a partnership with the Mexican state of Nuevo Leon with the federal government issuing visas for workers to come to the state legally.

    And Rep. John Dougall’s bill, which would allow Utah families to sponsor immigrants coming here by bearing financial and legal responsibility for them while in the state. His bill ran into opposition due to its conflict with the U.S. Constitution and the federal government’s supremacy clause in granting visas and citizenship.

    dmontero@sltrib.com

    http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/h...-government.html.csp

  • #2
    Utah governor signs immigration reform bills
    By David Montero

    The Salt Lake Tribune

    Gov. Gary Herbert signed four immigration bills at a semi-private ceremony in the Capitol Tuesday morning, officially putting Utah on a pioneering trajectory on the hot button issue.

    However, if this tactic doesn’t work, Utah will just be another state that ends up in litigation with the federal government.

    Herbert, flanked by House Speaker Becky Lockhart, Senate President Michael Waddoups and LDS Presiding Bishop David Burton, said the signing of a guest worker bill and an enforcement-only bill was putting the federal government on notice.

    “They’ve been on the sidelines way too long,” Herbert said. “They need to get in the game.”

    The bill signings — HB497, HB466, HB116 and HB469 — came more than a week after the Legislature passed them. Herbert has been under great pressure to veto HB116, the guest worker bill carried by Rep. Bill Wright and several tea party groups have put him on notice that he could face political consequences for signing it.

    However, there was a wide breadth of support among those attending the signing ceremony in the Gold Room at the Capitol. Polar opposites on immigration reform — Sutherland President Paul Mero stood not far from Eagle Forum head ***le Ruzicka — when Herbert inked the ceremonial bills.

    Noticeably absent at the signing was Rep. Stephen Sandstrom, R-Orem, who authored HB497, the enforcement-only immigration bill. He had he decided at the last minute not to attend the ceremony because he opposed HB116, the guest worker legislation.

    Also absent was Sen. Luz Robles, D-Salt Lake City, who was involved with aspects of the guest worker bill and carried a similar bill that ultimately died in the Senate. Robles was going to attend, but had to miss the ceremony due to her daughter’s illness.

    By signing the bills, Utah is poised to challenge the federal government on its sovereignty by issuing guest worker visas. However, because it has a two-year lag before it takes effect, state officials are already talking with White House and congressional officials about using Utah’s approach as a model for federal immigration reform.

    Waddoups said it was important to note that all four bills must be considered collectively as the “Utah Solution” to immigration reform.

    “This is not amnesty. This is not profiling,” Waddoups said. “This is not an Oklahoma solution. This is not an Arizona solution. This is not a Missouri solution. Three states that have led out on immigration to a degree. We are not following their path.”

    One of the reasons Utah has forged its own way on immigration reform is the The Utah Compact and it’s endorsement by the LDS Church. The Salt Lake City-based church, which has 14-million-plus members, has been criticized by some for not signing but only endorsing the compact, a set of principles for humane immigration reform. But Burton said “our presence here justifies the fact that we are appreciative of what has happened in the Legislature this session.”

    “We feel the Legislature has done an incredible job in a very complex issue,” Burton said.

    The other two bills signed by Herbert were a migrant worker bill, sponsored by Sandstrom and Sen. Curt Bramble, R-Provo, that would enter Utah into a partnership with the Mexican state of Nuevo Leon with the federal government issuing visas for workers to come to the state legally.

    And Rep. John Dougall’s bill, which would allow Utah families to sponsor immigrants coming here by bearing financial and legal responsibility for them while in the state. His bill ran into opposition due to its conflict with the U.S. Constitution and the federal government’s supremacy clause in granting visas and citizenship.

    dmontero@sltrib.com

    http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/h...-government.html.csp

    Comment


    • #3
      Utah has ZERO legal standing or authority to create or enforce immigration policy.

      It seems to me that the pointless grandstanding on this issue by Utah's politicians will result in a whole new batch of legislators in Salt Lake City after the next election.

      Remember: baby-waving, welfare-claiming, lying, cheating, stealing illegals have NO vote.

      Comment


      • #4
        By the same token AZ has no authority to create or enforce immigration policy although it thinks it has.
        "What you see in the photograph isn't what you saw at the time. The real skill of photography is organized visual lying."

        Comment


        • #5
          Actually, Arizona has NOT enacted any immigration laws or policies; those are federal prerequisites.

          Arizona is simply holding those who are in America illegally - as per federal immigration laws - accountable and responsible.

          Comment


          • #6
            It tried to enact it's own immigration laws...until those parts got struck down in Federal court.
            "What you see in the photograph isn't what you saw at the time. The real skill of photography is organized visual lying."

            Comment


            • #7
              Typical leftist hypocites. Utah can give amnesty but Arizona can't enforce federal law. The audacity of their hypocracy is legion.

              Comment


              • #8
                ** NOT A GOOD WEEK FOR BIGOTS **

                Arizona Senate rejects immigration bills

                Howard Fischer, Capitol Media Services Arizona Daily Star | Posted: Thursday, March 17, 2011 4:30 pm


                PHOENIX - Concluding the measures go too far, state senators on Thursday rejected a package of bills designed to crack down on illegal immigration.

                With Republicans joining the minority Democrats, lawmakers refused to approve bills which, taken together, were designed to challenge the notion that someone born in the United States is automatically considered a citizen.

                They also voted down measures to:

                - require hospitals to make an effort to determine if the people they are treating are in this country legally

                - restrict the registration of vehicles to only legal residents;

                - make it a state crime for an illegal immigrant to drive in Arizona;

                - bar admission into state universities and community colleges of anyone who cannot prove citizenship or legal residency;

                - mandate that cities evict all residents of a public housing unit if even one occupant is an illegal immigrant.

                Senators also refused to require parents to provide proof of citizenship or other legal presence for any child being enrolled in school. And they killed a related bill to force schools to produce a count of illegal immigrants in Arizona schools.

                Technically, nothing in either measure would have precluded a child from being enrolled, as the U.S. Supreme Court has forbid public schools from imposing citizenship or legal residence requirements on public school students. But the new requirement, coupled with current laws about what schools have to report to law enforcement, could result in some parents who are illegal immigrants deciding not to enroll their children.

                "The only thing this bill does is would put fear in the families of those that may have someone in their family who's undocumented," said Sen. Steve Gallardo, D-Phoenix. "It has nothing to do with the kids."

                The votes are a major setback for Senate President Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, who wrote or backed each of the five bills.

                He has been at the forefront of Arizona's fight to enact new state laws aimed at illegal immigrants and crafted last year's legislation to give police more power to detain illegal immigrants. Until now, most GOP lawmakers have been willing to go along with anything Pearce wanted.

                Pearce was visibly unhappy about that, lashing out at those who voted against the bills and other foes.

                "The only impediment to enforcing our laws is the lack of political courage on the part of our elected and appointed officials," Pearce said. "You bear the burden and responsibility for the costs and the maimings and the deaths."

                Those rejected bills on what have been called "birthright citizenship" proved the most controversial, with several Republicans unwilling to go along with Pearce and the rest of Senate leadership.

                SB 1308 and SB 1309 spelled out that Arizona citizenship - and by extension, national citizenship - is limited to the children of those who owe no allegiance to any other country. And the state would have issued a different birth certificate if at least one parent could not prove citizenship or permanent legal residency.

                Sen. Adam Driggs, R-Phoenix, said that, if nothing else, the measure is based on the fallacy that citizenship is dependent on a birth certificate. He said even the federal government provides passports with other documentation.

                Pearce said the real purpose behind these measures was to force the U.S. Supreme Court to decide the scope of the 14th Amendment. That amendment says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." Pearce contends that children of illegal immigrants are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of this country because their parents owe allegiance to a foreign power.

                Sen. Steve Yarbrough, R-Chandler, countered that already is a settled issue. And Yarbrough, who said he voted for every prior measure aimed at illegal immigration, said he can't support these two bills because he doubts the U.S. Supreme Court would take up the issue and provide the clear ruling that Pearce wants.

                But Sen. Al Melvin, R-Tucson, said the political future of Arizona is dependent on adoption of these bills.

                "California chose not to address the illegal alien issue," he said. "For all intents and purposes, that state has been lost politically."

                Thursday's votes also came following a plea earlier this week by dozens of business owners to put a halt to further immigration bills.

                In a letter to lawmakers, they said Arizona suffered boycotts in the wake of last year's approval of SB 1070 which is designed to give police more power to detain illegal immigrants. They argued that new moves in this direction would throw new barriers in the path of economic development.

                Pearce ignored the plea.

                "I stand on the side of citizens, not a bunch of businessmen who wrote us a letter," he said.

                Sen. John McComish, R-Phoenix, however, specifically cited his copy of that letter in voting against the bills. At the very least, he said, the fight over illegal immigration has become "a distraction'' from more important issues including the budget, crime and health care.

                "It's something that people don want us to be focusing on,'' he said.

                Sen. Nancy Barto, R-Phoenix, also cited business opposition in saying she could not support the measure which would have required hospitals to make an effort to determine whether their patients have a right to be in this country. SB 1405 also would have mandated that hospital officials call federal immigration authorities when patients could not produce documents.

                Barto said that placed an unnecessary burden on the hospitals.

                Pearce rejected that contention.

                "Is it really that hard to pick up a phone and make a call?'' he asked. He also took a slap at hospitals and other foes, saying they do not care about the impact of illegal immigrants "as long as they get their money.''

                "I don't know how much more the taxpayer can bear,'' he said.

                The decision by senators to sideline the bills came without the help of Gov. Jan Brewer who said she was aware of the letter from the business leaders. But the governor earlier Thursday refused to ask legislators to put a brake on these measures.

                "I believe that illegal immigration is an important subject to the populace in Arizona,'' she said. "It's something that needs probably to be further addressed.''

                And the governor sidestepped questions of whether these bills were the answer to the problem.

                "I don't know,'' she said. "I have not looked at them. I have not seen them.''

                Comment


                • #9
                  Brit: I realize that you're an illiterate fool, and that your liberal bias blinds you to facts...but, just because the New York Times says something doesn't mean that it's actually true (not that you could actually read the New York Times, anyhow).

                  Obviously, you haven't read or understood Arizona's law (SB 1070).

                  I agree with Federale86...the hypocrisy and stupidity of the lefties is legion.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    ...if the legislators in Arizona had listened to their constituents, they would have passed those bills. Roll on the next election!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I have read and well understand what SB 1070 was all about and it wasn't merely to target only illegal immigrants but a broader attempt for AZ to make it's own immigration laws and create a potential police state mentality in the process that would affect all persons in AZ not just illegal immigrants.

                      The law had it been allowed to be enacted in it's original form would have clearly invited racism IMO.

                      Meanwhile, SB-1070 establishes a pretty low threshold for what kind of infractions should elicit immigration questioning. A minor traffic violation or a broken tail light could suddenly catapult into an immigration interrogation. Also, since anything from an accent to “dress or appearance” can be used to establish reasonable suspicion that a person is undocumented,

                      Yet, ABC’s segment suggests that when people actually witness racial profiling, most of them are pretty appalled by it.

                      Watch ABC's “What Would You Do?” segment here.

                      The big difference between UT and AZ is that in UT's version of immigration reform they do accept the reality of the situation and allow a path for legalization. Of course, it would be better if Federal Government did this instead of a piecemeal approach State by State.
                      "What you see in the photograph isn't what you saw at the time. The real skill of photography is organized visual lying."

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Brit: The BIG DIFFERENCE between Utah and Arizona is that YOU AGREE with Utah's proposed law...and, if you agree with it, then - in your opinion - it must be okay!

                        Bottom line: if the federal government is challenging Arizona's law, then it MUST ALSO CHALLENGE Utah's proposed law on exactly the same basis.

                        Of course, liberals and other apologists for illegals know no bounds when it comes to hypocrisy.

                        Further, I doubt that you read Arizona's law. Even if you did read the law, you definitely didn't understand it...I mean, you don't even know the difference between its and it's!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          This is rather interesting. The left was up in arms when all Arizona was trying to do was put a little teeth to laws already on the books by actually enforcing them to some degree.

                          Yet, here we have Utah wanting to create all new laws that actually usurp the congress and left wing whack jobs are ok with it. How can Utah create a path to citizenship when that can only be granted on a federal level?

                          Survey says....NO, they can not. Too much lefty inbreeding going on here.

                          The left is ok just so long as the encroachment doesn't impact their jobs. What if Fed Ex decided to open a hub in Utah and encouraged Mexican pilots to jump the border offering them double Mexico pay (1/3 USC pay)? If they could get away with it I guarantee you they will. Would you still support it Brit? You agree with Utah having the right to legalize these people, Why not? Be careful what you support. You may end up giving away your own.
                          This message brought to you by the vast right wing conspiracy.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Utah's immigration enforcement bill And here is the actual text of the bill.

                            Brit and SunDevil, above is a synopsis of Utah's enfocement bill. After reading the sections, I can see one or two parts which the federal government can make an injunction. However, Arizona's immigration bill went too far in most respects, in some cases actually challenging USCIS, ICE, and CBP, for immigration enforcement. If you read the text of the bill, it actually provides limites with specific reference to federal law. It will be interesting to see whether the Federal government will challenge this law, or whether a private group will challenge this law. And even a federal judge, a Republican I might add, only took out the most controversial sections of SB 1070 while leaving most of the bill in tact.
                            "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." John Adams on Defense of the boston Massacre

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Lets get some things straight here. First of all I believe that immigration should be done on a national level by the Federal Government and not by a State "go-it-alone" approach.

                              While I don't particularly like UT's go-it-alone approach, I do like their attempt at CIR which is very different to AZ's enforcement-only approach. I suspect UT will find parts of their law struck down in the same way as AZ was because parts of it are likely to be found unconstitutional.

                              Davdah, you really should stop and listen to what you say sometimes. Just think for a minute. If UT allowed former illegal immigrants to become legal, they will be paid the same as USCs. As you say, the hub is in UT not in Mexico. That means they would be based in UT and employed by an American company. How could they possibly get away with paying less just because they are Mexicans?? I don't understand your logic.
                              "What you see in the photograph isn't what you saw at the time. The real skill of photography is organized visual lying."

                              Comment

                              Sorry, you are not authorized to view this page

                              Home Page

                              Immigration Daily

                              Archives

                              Processing times

                              Immigration forms

                              Discussion board

                              Resources

                              Blogs

                              Twitter feed

                              Immigrant Nation

                              Attorney2Attorney

                              CLE Workshops

                              Immigration books

                              Advertise on ILW

                              EB-5

                              移民日报

                              About ILW.COM

                              Connect to us

                              Questions/Comments

                              SUBSCRIBE

                              Immigration Daily



                              Working...
                              X