What was the Church doing lobbying for H.B. 116?

[oxcoug]

I've now had this confirmed from some pretty direct sources in the Utah legislature and it blows my mind. Can anyone contradict what they are claiming?

HB 116 is a clear violation of the federal prerogative to define naturalization policy (spare me the line about the Constitution not addressing immigration - there was no "illegal" immigration in 1789, there was simply naturalization policy).

The challenge for those who try to make the case that the 10th amendment is a free play zone that clears the way for this bill:

(1) Naturalization is delegated to the feds.
(2) Determining the legality and work status of a foreign national within your borders is an indisputable subset of naturalization standards.
(3) Defining your borders is an essential hallmark of sovereignty.

The 10th amendment applies to all powers not delegated to the feds nor barred to the states. This power is clearly delegated to the feds, both in the the text and by sheer logic--defining your borders may be the one indispensable attribute of sovereignty.

So what gives? If the Church did lobby for this bill, how exactly is that working with "obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law"?

[wuapinmon]

I've now had this confirmed from some pretty direct sources in the Utah legislature and it blows my mind. Can anyone contradict what they are claiming?

HB 116 is a clear violation of the federal prerogative to define naturalization policy (spare me the line about the Constitution not addressing immigration - there was no "illegal" immigration in 1789, there was simply naturalization policy).

The challenge for those who try to make the case that the 10th amendment is a free play zone that clears the way for this bill:

(1) Naturalization is delegated to the feds.
(2) Determining the legality and work status of a foreign national within your borders is an indisputable subset of naturalization standards.
(3) Defining your borders is an essential hallmark of sovereignty.

The 10th amendment applies to all powers not delegated to the feds nor barred to the states. This power is clearly delegated to the feds, both in the the text and by sheer logic--defining your borders may be the one indispensable attribute of sovereignty.

So what gives? If the Church did lobby for this bill, how exactly is that working with "obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law"?

Well, there's nothing wrong with working inside the law to try and change the law, or force the federales to do the right thing. However, I just wish the Church would stay out of politics.

[Uncle Ted]

It sounds like to me that these bills (HB116, Dougall's "Sponsor" bill, etc.) are contingent on the federal government granting waivers:

HB 116 includes provisions for a guest-worker permit allowing an illegal immigrant to stay in the state as long as he or she is employed. The bill also picked up provisions allowing in-state tuition rates for certain children of illegal immigrants.

The legislature also passed an immigration bill that would allow businesses to import migrant workers if no U.S. workers want to fill the jobs the businesses have open. This would be part of a partnership with the Mexican state of Nuevo Leon. Immigrants would be issued a non-immigrant visa and would only be allowed to be in the U.S. for a limited amount of time.

It also passed Rep. John Dougall's "sponsor an immigrant" bill. The Highland Republican's idea was to allow Utah residents to sponsor an immigrant from a country that is considered friendly to the U.S., and allow that immigrant to come to this state. The sponsor would be financially responsible for the immigrant during the visit.

All the immigration bills face an interesting road ahead. For the guest-worker and sponsor bills to become legal, the state will need approval from the federal government. The federal government alone has constitutional authority to deal with immigration issues, but Utah lawmakers hope it will grant the necessary waivers.

[Uncle Ted]

Well, there's nothing wrong with working inside the law to try and change the law, or force the federales to do the right thing. However, I just wish the Church would stay out of politics.

This is actually pretty smart for the church. Missionary work is expensive and this lowers the cost by bringing in the potential converts to Utah rather than sending the missionaries out to find them.

[wuapinmon]

This is actually pretty smart for the church. Missionary work is expensive and this lowers the cost by bringing in the potential converts to Utah rather than sending the missionaries out to find them.

Wrong! It's probably vastly cheaper to do missionary work in Latin America than in the USofA.

[Uncle Ted]

Saw this on FB and thought it was pretty good.

HB 116: Amnesty or Guest Workers?

There has been much intense passion and emotion regarding Utahs’ recently passed bill HB 116, which has been dubbed by opponents as the “amnesty” bill and by proponents as the “guest worker” bill. Legislators who voted in favor of this bill are under fire from angered constituents. The Governor is being bombarded by phone calls, email, and petitions to veto the bill. Most of these people are so intent on punishing people for breaking the “rule of law” that they have blinded themselves from seeing solutions to the very problems they have been complaining about. Most of these are Republicans who have forgotten the fact that their very platform calls for a free market, and that Utah itself is a state with borders of its own.

There is an obvious demand for immigrants to be here or we would not be having this discussion. While we try our hardest to deter illegal immigration by a crackdown of federal immigration law, it will not stop the demand for immigrants to come. We can try to punish those who commit identity fraud, but why not prevent the fraud from happening in the first place? Instead of punishing people for harming children by stealing their identity, why don’t we eliminate the need to steal an identity? We can protect children instead of make restitution to them. The guest worker program has created a legal way for immigrants to obtain a legitimate ID without having to resort to fraud. Isn’t it often said that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure?

The guest worker program also addresses other complaints by allowing immigrants to get on an official payroll to pay taxes and obtain insurance, and to be checked for criminal background. It requires them to learn English and allows them to live out of the shadows so they can more easily assimilate and participate in our culture.

Opponents complain that this bill rewards illegal aliens and unfairly allows them to cut in line at the expense of those who have been waiting to come here legally. Not true. Through a guest worker program immigrants both here and in their home countries have equal opportunity. There is no cap. If there is no cap, there is no line to cut in, and the sponsor takes on the financial burden the immigrant may pose. This bill shows compassion for ALL people who are trying to come here looking for a better life.

Some opponents of the guest worker bill also argue that this bill is not in compliance with the Republican platform. Quoting the Utah Republican Party Platform, ratified in 2009:

"We believe government properly exists by the consent of the governed and must be restrained from intruding into the freedoms of its citizens. The function of government is not to grant rights, but to protect the unalienable, God-given rights of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness."

Preventing people from living, hiring, and being hired through strict immigration is in direct conflict with the above statement. If there is a problem with HB 116, it is restricting how employers can manage their own property through the E-Verify program. If we demand that American citizens be given first consideration over foreigners for employment we are implementing our own version of affirmative action. We are telling someone they cannot hire the best chef for their restaurant because he is not American. This type of control belongs under the platform of some other party.

Additionally, the Platform states:

"We recognize that government regulation can be a major impediment to productivity and to competition. We must rely more on market forces and less on government. Regulatory power now exercised by the federal government must be eliminated or returned to state and local governments…. We believe that citizens’ needs are best met >through free enterprise, private initiative, and volunteerism."

Market forces are more than just the freedom to purchase that which we desire. It is our freedom to work for and hire whomever we choose. If central planning does not work when it comes to food production, health care, or the real estate market, what makes anyone think it will work for immigration and the work force? It will not. It cannot. Either we believe in a free market or we don’t. Our immigration problems were created by government regulation and the only way to return to a proper balance is to leave regulation (or lack of it) to the more responsive local governments or to the people.

We are a nation of individual states. The identities of the states have been lost as the United states of America (as spelled in the Constitution) has been replaced with the UnitedStatesofAmerica. While I am proud to be an American, I recognize that it was formed of independent states and that independence was essential to the survival of our nation and retaining a balance of powers. Patrick Henry, who ironically is the namesake of the caucus organized by the strongest opponents of HB 116, was particularly leery of the Constitution causing the states to lose their identities. He stated that consolidated government was, “abhorrent to [his] mind.” (http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_va_04.htm#henry-01)

As a state we are much better able to respond to the needs of our economy and work force. The bottom line of the federal government is not directly affected by immigration. The bottom line of the state government is. It is the state who pays for the public education, emergency room care, cost of crime and disease, job displacement, and other problems caused by immigration. There is no direct pressure for the federal government to make any changes. Increasing or decreasing the cap on immigrants who enter the United States does not really affect the United States as a whole, it affects individual states.

The point is proven by states such as Arizona and Utah who are so affected and tired of waiting for a federal solution that they are taking matters into their own hands. Yes, their hands are somewhat tied by the federal government. But there is a Constitutional case to be made for immigration being regulated at the state level, which has been explored by this author elsewhere.(http://www.youralabastercity.com/ii.htm#_Toc271401286) Rather than giving more rope to the federal government to tie our legs with, we need to cut the rope and free ourselves. Let’s assert our sovereignty and start taking control of our own borders.

[SoCalCoug]

This is actually pretty smart for the church. Missionary work is expensive and this lowers the cost by bringing in the potential converts to Utah rather than sending the missionaries out to find them.

I just noticed this, but that's quite a shadow Uncle Ted's left nipple is casting.

[Uncle Ted]

Wrong! It's probably vastly cheaper to do missionary work in Latin America than in the USofA.

It doesn't cost $400/mo when one does it from the comfort of his own home.

[Paperback Writer]

This is actually pretty smart for the church. Missionary work is expensive and this lowers the cost by bringing in the potential converts to Utah rather than sending the missionaries out to find them.

Perhaps a better argument can be made that it is a more effective method of doing missionary work as opposed to less expensive. I'm not sure if it is less expensive but probably more effective to host or otherwise support migrant labors in the US than try to track out those same people in Mexico.

But like many, I'm not too supportive of the LDS church getting involved in politics. Perhaps there will be some future benefit to Mexico. In my view, it would be hard to mess up Mexico more than it already is, but I suppose it's possible. There's several families in my ward that are economically successful and are native Mexican. There are many reasons why they immigrated to the US and experienced this success. And somewhat unfortunate that they had to immigrant to the US from Mexico to do so. I think the leadership of the church would prefer that the conditions were such that these same families could be economically successful in Mexico where their leadership could also be leveraged in the church in Mexico (where it is needed more than it is in the US).

[Uncle Ted]

Perhaps a better argument can be made that it is a more effective method of doing missionary work as opposed to less expensive. I'm not sure if it is less expensive but probably more effective to host or otherwise support migrant labors in the US than try to track out those same people in Mexico.

Yes, that is a better argument. When I was a WML in Utah County there were three or four non-member families in our ward boundaries. My job as WML was pretty easy. Utah County WMLs could use a little more work, IMHO.

[Uncle Ted]

I just noticed this, but that's quite a shadow Uncle Ted's left nipple is casting.

It doubles as a sundial.

[wuapinmon]

It doesn't cost $400/mo when one does it from the comfort of his own home.

Sure it does. It was cheaper for my parents to send me on a mission than to pay insurance, electricity, food, etc.

[oxcoug]

WTF?

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/51439173-76/bills-burton-church-immigration.html.csp

It's official. The Church endorsed it.

WTFF?

Where is this leading? We've now added immigration to a list that previously included abortion, drug use and homosexuality. What's next - an energy policy? And education policy?

The stunning thing about the article is that there isn't a SINGLE argument presented as for WHY they endorsed it.

The Church supports it because they support it because they support it.

Is there an elevator speech? Can we at least get that?

[TripletDaddy]

WTF?

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/51439173-76/bills-burton-church-immigration.html.csp

It's official. The Church endorsed it.

WTFF?

Where is this leading? We've now added immigration to a list that previously included abortion, drug use and homosexuality. What's next - an energy policy? And education policy?

The stunning thing about the article is that there isn't a SINGLE argument presented as for WHY they endorsed it.

The Church supports it because they support it because they support it.

Is there an elevator speech? Can we at least get that?

This has to be a stunning blow to Mormon xenophobes everywhere. Hating illegal aliens and referring to all Latinos as "Mexican" just became a lot harder.

[Uncle Ted]

WTF?

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/51439173-76/bills-burton-church-immigration.html.csp

It's official. The Church endorsed it.

WTFF?

Where is this leading? We've now added immigration to a list that previously included abortion, drug use and homosexuality. What's next - an energy policy? And education policy?

The stunning thing about the article is that there isn't a SINGLE argument presented as for WHY they endorsed it.

The Church supports it because they support it because they support it.

Is there an elevator speech? Can we at least get that?

Maybe the Church thinks families are important...

The guest-worker law established by HB116, which won’t take effect for two years and gives the state time to work with the federal government before engaging in legal tangles, would allow any of the roughly 110,000 undocumented people in the state to acquire permits by paying either a $2,500 fine or a $1,000 fine if overstaying a visa.

It would also allow permits to cover families and keep them together, an important component endorsed by the LDS Church. The visas would be issued through the Utah Department of Public Safety and would require criminal-background checks. Learning English would be encouraged but not mandated.

I have a neighbor that is living here illegally because she couldn't do it legally. It is a long story but she really didn't anything illegal other than making sure her T's were crossed and I's were dotted on some of her paperwork. She is married to U.S. citizen and they have two kids but lives under the constant fear she will be separated from her family. When I see stuff like this I can't help think how screwed up the immigration policy of this country is.