Unofficial Voice of the Utah Senate Majority
Welcome to The Senate Site
Monday, February 18, 2008Immigration
By Margaret Dayton
Utah State Senator I appreciated Representative Chris Herrod’s perspective on immigration in debate on the House floor (read here on Rep. Frank's blog). In a nutshell, he argues that those who support the lenient enforcement of our current immigration laws are often considered “compassionate.” This “compassion,” however, effectively discriminates against legal immigrants who oftentimes wait several years to come to the United States, then wait several more years to become naturalized citizens. Are legal immigrants foolish for obeying our laws? Rep. Herrod’s views, in the context of H.B. 241 “Repeal of Exemptions from Non-Resident Tuition,” can be heard here (please note that Real Player is required, which is available for free download here).
posted by The Senate Site at 5:18 PM | Link
|
Radio Free SenateYour Government 2.0 Lab
Keep in TouchCurrent Discussions
Senate Site Feed
|
© 2008. All rights reserved. Designed by Jeremy Wright & His Brother-In-Law
10 Comments:
Excuses, excuses. Just admit it, Sen. Dayton, you're not willing to listen to, let alone uphold and sustain the words of your own LDS Church leaders. By definition, "compassion" means "a feeling of deep sympathy and sorrow for another who is stricken by misfortune, accompanied by a strong desire to alleviate the suffering." I see none of that in your posting.
Illegal immigration serves no one. HB 241 and SB 81 are just as ineffective as our current immigration laws. Utah legislators most opposed to undocumented families should be confronting the U.S. government to do their job of securing our borders. As it is, they are simply going after the easy target of poor, uneducated and vulnerable people so it looks like they're doing something.
Demand that your legislator makes a real difference and stops bullying the weak. Vote for those who can lead compassionately and with wisdom, we're not seeing much of that from our conservative Republicans this session.
I will gladly vote Democrat this fall if these bills pass.
One word: Illegal. Bottom line.
Three more words: polygamy, white, Mormon.
Thank you, Margaret. I appreciate your and Chris Herrod's perspective and experience. I'd like to add mine and hope it will be helpful in this debate.
I recently moved to Utah thinking it would be a safer place to live than my previous residences in the New York City metropolitan area and Southern California.
I was wrong.
In 2005, my car was stolen in Utah County. The police told me that an illegal alien had stripped its VIN plates, dumped all the belongings (including my daughter's entire course of completed BYU Independent Study assignments) and mementoes of a special Nancy Reagan tribute I had intended to give to my Utah California Women Board, into a dried-up aqueduct, drowned it in gas, and torched it.
Luckily the car was found two weeks later. According to police, it was on its way to Mexico.
At the time, I was a single mom struggling to care for my family, working three jobs and saving every penny. During those two weeks, this illegal alien caused my daughter and me enormous stress and sleepless nights. We were without adequate transportation. It took my time and attention away from my work, which caused a loss of vital income.
This illegal alien also caused fear, not knowing whether the perpetrator would return to do more damage. My daughter, a beautiful, intelligent and talented young woman who had just been named Miss Utah’s Outstanding Teen and was grateful for the college scholarship she received, was beset with anxiety that the perpetrator would return. Until the car was found, she worried that the crime had been committed by an emotionally disturbed student from school, stalking and terrorizing her.
The crime forensics team explained that "90%" of crime in Utah is committed by illegal aliens. Has the Senate requested these statistics as part of its analysis?
Where is the rule of law, not to mention the equity, logic and compassion, behind forcing legal in-state citizens to compete for college admission against illegal aliens who pay no taxes into the system?
This rationale reminds me of the reverse discrimination that resulted from the student quotas that rejected the more-qualified students in order to accept less- or equally- qualified students, based solely on their ethnic background.
But this time, the discussion is about allowing those that break the law to go to the front of the line while the law-abiding go to the back.
Our lawmakers have demonstrated a lack of compassion across the board for allowing this elephant to grow bigger and bigger in the living room in the first place. (But we can rest assured that PETA will label my analogy against this endangered species uncompassionate and prejudicial.)
Our lawmakers' inaction now risks causing more emotional and financial harm to everyone, legal and illegal, no matter what direction they face.
To vote for the rule of law means that illegal families will be split or required to return to their homeland to face corruption and a climate of economic depression.
To vote for amnesty (falsely labeled compassion), illegal immigration will get a boost and will encourage more to break the law.
Those already patiently standing in line will get bumped to the back of the line, and legal citizens will continue to be violated and terrorized.
Perhaps the most uncompassionate act of all is to admit immigrants without requiring basic education of our political process, citizen responsibilities in a free society, and basic language skills, all of which will improve their success rate.
Compassion is a two-way street.
Without respect for the rule of law, there is no compassion. The laws of nature, upon which our Founders established our government, are set at naught, and natural consequences result.
Someone’s going to be hurt. So shall we hurt those that obey our laws or those that break them?
We have put our trust in those we elected to uphold the laws and not to bend the laws of nature to suit their political ends. Herein lies our answer.
Senator Dayton,
You wrote: "[T]hose who support the lenient enforcement of our current immigration laws are often considered ‘compassionate.’ This ‘compassion,’ however, effectively discriminates against legal immigrants who oftentimes wait several years to come to the United States, then wait several more years to become naturalized citizens."
I take issue not only with your apparent definition of the word "compassion," but also of the alternate courses of action which may be taken to address the issues relating to illegal immigrants.
Current numbers from the Center for Immigration Studies report the nation’s immigrant population (legal and illegal) “reached a record of 37.9 million in 2007.” Nearly one in three of those 37.9 million immigrants are here, illegally. To be sure, illegal immigration is a major issue facing this and most other states in the Union. Therefore, in order to formulate the most even-handed, compassionate method for dealing with this issue, we must evaluate a number of groundwork issues.
Before any constructive immigration debate can proceed, we must acknowledge the implausibility of actually deporting 12.6 million people – the current estimated number of illegal immigrants residing and working within the United States. Recent estimates claim the cost of mass deportation of illegal immigrants is between $206 and $230 billion dollars – and that is assuming there is no recidivism or new arrivals in the meantime. In reaction to these number releases, Rep. Tom Tancredo (R, Colorado) stated any discussion regarding a mass deportation is merely an academic exercise otherwise “useless … because no one’s talking about [mass deportation].”
If there really is no serious option of conducting an effective mass deportation ( and assuming that would even be in the nation’s best interest), there can only be one of two courses of action: (1) pass prohibitive and punishing laws to create disincentives for continual residence within the State of Utah and further immigration into the state or (2) implement programs whereby further influx of illegal immigration is slowed (if not halted) and current illegal immigrants are dealt with in a manner that fits the better economic and social interests of the public. The State of Utah would benefit by taking the second course of action rather than the first.
While keeping in mind the ineffectiveness of deportation, we must concede the fact that the large majority of immigrants here in the United States are here to stay. Taking away social provisions such as Medicaid would be counter-productive because those who were going to the doctor for pregnancies, diseases, major medical treatments and/or common sicknesses will be forced to either go to the local emergency rooms for treatment (which, under EMTALA, the hospital would have to treat them at a much higher premium than any expenditures under Medicaid), to self-treat or to not treat at all. Failure to treat diseases and common illnesses only puts the public at-large further at risk when, in the long run, provision of cost-effective, preventative health care for the needy could have helped to prevent the harm.
Taking away opportunity for higher education is also unhelpful. I think most any reasonable person could stipulate that, generally, the answer to providing economic stability and upward financial mobility is through education. What does a middle-aged office worker do when they lose their job? They go back to school. What does a factory worker whose job just became obsolete do? Get further training. My point is that we should encourage anyone who certainly has successfully completed high school within the State to attend an institute of higher education to further their earning and tax-paying capacities. After all, it is not as if those illegal immigrants who graduate from our high schools are given full-ride scholarships upon graduation. They have to meet the same admission standards as a citizen, pay the same tuition, take the same classes and jump through the same hoops to establish a productive transcript.
If someone, anyone, wants to go through this process to better themselves, their families or their community, why wouldn’t the State want to encourage it? Is this not a worthy investment? Are these the people we are REALLY concerned with when it comes to the negative secondary effects of illegal immigration?
It is understandable proponents of the first alternative, to pass prohibitive laws which punish those who are here illegally, support such measures because they believe doing so will create severe disincentives to the end they will outweigh the financial enticements of coming here illegally. I take issue with that premise because I seriously doubt the primary reasons most illegal immigrants come to the United States is to take advantage of in-state tuition or our Medicaid system. In other words, regardless of any laws you pass that provide these disincentives, you are not effectively undermining the in-flow of illegal immigrants.
Furthermore, these laws also make conditions worse for those who are already here who are truly in need of assistance and, at the very least, whose children (many of whom are here through no choice of their own) could have a greater opportunity for social and financial advancement by obtaining advanced degrees at lower, in-state tuition rates. Let’s face it, the actual number of currently-enrolled university students who are illegal immigrants is so small that this could hardly be seen as any realistic measure of cracking down on illegal immigration or the secondary effects of illegal immigration.
Ultimately, without stronger border patrol that prohibits individuals from gaining illegal access to our country and with deportation “off the table,” as Rep. Tancredo claims it is, such prohibitive anti-illegal immigration laws only make matters (on so many levels) worse, not better.
Furthermore, taking away in-state tuition and Medicaid is not going to stop a car thief, however sad, from stealing someone’s car or committing other crimes. After all, we do have systems of deportation currently in force. If deportation is the answer, why is the crime rate among illegal immigrants not only high, but climbing? Let me guess, it’s because a few kids are getting a break on tuition at the local university, right? Of course it isn’t. These short-sided, cosmetic, emotionally-based, knee-jerk reactions proposed by legislators do not face the real challenges this serious issue precipitates. It may help the angry vigilantes looking for vindication. (And re-election.) However, in the end, nothing is accomplished and we are still in the same position we were before the laws were passed.
To the second issue, we first must agree that, without efficient border patrol, no initiative to “crack down” on illegal immigration will be effective. A more lenient treatment and permissive attitude toward illegal immigrants without border patrol and standards by which all are required to follow would also be counter-productive, as the system would be so flooded with new-comers, nothing could be accomplished.
This second option is not amnesty. Amnesty is an obliteration of any offenses against the state on behalf of a previously-recognized law-breaker. In this option, those who come forward would be registered, given an identification number for tax and other administrative purposes, assessed fines for entering the country and, ultimately, given a period of time, whereby they must legally obtain citizenship or the appropriate workers visa. In the interim, these individuals who are registered would have access to state benefits as a citizen would. Convicted felons (or those equivalently convicted in their country of origin) would not be eligible. After individuals have been given the opportunity to register, but fail to comply, then prohibitive measures should be employed to either (a) require compliance or (b) induce deportation proceedings.
At no time would anyone be given a “free ride” or “amnesty.” However, this is at least a way to address the needs of those who truly did come to this country for the purposes of finding a better life and drink from the fountains of liberty as our immigrant ancestors have.
Compassion is not permission to disregard the law. Compassion is not forgiveness. Compassion is recognition of the need to temper justice with mercy. We are a society, united by laws which reflect our values as good, loving, God-fearing people. Strict justice, in the sense of “eye for an eye,” is not how most people would want their government to be run. We are not a police state. In fact, our justice system daily employs compassion to mitigate undeserving mandatory minimum sentences and punishment. Having compassion has as much to do with being an American citizen than having the ability to recite the Bill of Rights from memory.
To be sure, we must be mindful, if not deferential, to those who have abided by our immigration laws to enjoy the liberties that we, as citizens, too often take for granted. It is unfortunate that circumstances have come about where we have allowed so many to cross our borders, illegally. It is unfortunate that we are now forced to deal with our predecessor’s failure to take immigration enforcement seriously. Nevertheless, as Thomas Jefferson so aptly put it when he spoke of continuing the practice of slavery, we are dealing with an issue as a man holding a ravenous wolf by the ears – we don’t dare let go, but we don’t dare hold on either. “Letting go” of our immigration policy through laws which accomplish nothing or that maintain the status quo will lead to a world of hurt in the immediate future. Worse, “holding on” to ideas of mass deportation and immigration reform via oppressive, punishing laws takes us backward to a sort of police state, the likes of which McCarthyism could never have imagined.
Amnesty is not compassion, but neither is the option you are advocating. I invite you to consider passing laws that actually work toward damming up the flood of illegal immigrants and provide remedial measures, whereby those who are already here may find the path to legitimacy or, in the event they fail to do so, the path to deportation with the protection of due process.
Wow, Marshall. Tell us how you really feel...
The 12th Article of Faith has been quoted a number of times in this debate.
Well, what about the 2nd Article of Faith: "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins ..." Seems to me repealing tuition for the children of illegal immigrants directly violates this faith principle. The children who want to attend college weren't the ones breaking the law; it was their parents. The children are now trying only to make the best of a bad situation by seeking an education.
I also wonder why some church members rigidly abide by the words of church leaders who are Republican, but if its a general authority who is a Democrat, there are excuses and dismissal. Can true faith -- let alone compassion -- be so selective? Sen. Dayton, Rep. Frank?
This post has been removed by the author.
Wow Cherilyn! It amazes me how mmisguided some people can be while have no clue to it. If you make an outrageous, borderline racist comment like "illegal immigrants commit 90 percent of the crime in Utah", you better have some hard research to back that up, and not just the hearsay you offer. Without hard, credible research, it's just hatemongering.
Fact: People who steal cars are bad people, regardless of their citizenship status. Fact: most illegal aliens are not car thieves. In fact, most are honest, hardworking people who faced unreasonable poverty in their native country. They made a hard decision to do what they could to offer a better life for their family. Sure, they technically could have done it legally, but let's be realistic. Most the people coming here have neither the money nor the knowledge to work through the red tape such legal immigration requires under the current system. Most importantly, they don't have the time to allow their kids to grow up in poverty while they wait for authorization from a broken immigration system. They assessed the situation realistically as you and Senator Dayton should: There are jobs Americans won't do and there are people in other countries who will do them. Our economy cannot function without importing low-skill employees. Until we make it easier for businesses to quickly get those employees, I will always prioritize compassion and economic strength before the rule of law.
Post a Comment
<< Home