The 7 points you present are valuable and should indeed guide the discussion regarding immigration vs: Illegal Invasion. These are to very distinct practices and should never be confused with each other.

I’d like to take a stab at those 7 points, one by one, as they pertain to Illegal Invaders:

1- FAMILY. The legislation which as passed does NOT help these non-identity stealing individuals as suggested. This legislation encourages ever more Illegal Invaders to leave much, or all, of their family in their homeland. However, through the “bond posting” feature, it does enable them to bring an unlimited number of “immediate family” to live with them. Should I be one of these Illegal Invaders I’d bring approximately 117 people by posting a $10,000 bond. Upon failing to honor that bond it would have cost us about 85 pieces of silver per person to betray common sense and simply buy an amnesty from the State. This cheap sellout somehow fails the smell test. If people are to “stay with their family”, maybe they should first look to those they choose to abandon prior to appealing to HB 116 for salve for that wound.
2- SECURITY. Absolutely not. Each encouraged Illegal Invader brings added pressure to existing law enforcement systems which reduces the security of legal Utah families and businesses. Additionally, “security” wears many masks. Each Illegal Invader decreases the availability of jobs, housing, medical services, water and other resource in the State. Each deprivation of those resources decreases the “security” of Utah families and businesses.
3- LAW. This legislation decidedly flies in the face of existing law, both National and State. It honors only those people who choose to violate existing law and Illegally Invade a nation without regard to their “own people” who legally stand in line to become immigrants. Such honoring of law-breakers while denigrating others is NOT honorable nor understandable.
4- FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY. Allowing Illegal Invaders to avail themselves of medical services, special language concessions and myriad other extraordinary benefits is the antithesis of fiscal responsibility. Requiring Utahans and others (via the labyrinthic Federal payments system) to pay for exceptional services to these Illegal Immigrants is akin to theft under color of law.
5- INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY. Since this legislation as passed does not require the Illegal Invader to vacate the State and start on a equal footing to any other individual who would become an immigrant there is ZERO component of individual responsibility in the “law”.
6- HONESTY. Simply put . . . there is precious little honesty, or required honesty, in this legislation.
7- EMPLOYMENT. Allowing the self proclaimed exploitables to take (cheap paying) jobs from Utahans serves only to enrich those who will (including their own countrymen / women) enslave and dishonor them. The unscrupulous exploiters welcome the opportunity which this legislation poses for them to plunder the employment possibilities for their fellow citizens.

From my perspective, this poorly thought out legislation FAILS on all 7 points.

The wise approach taken by Missouri and Arizona should be taken in Utah and all other US States.

Lest anyone suspect my motives, I:
- intermingle with people native of many lands
- served as a missionary for my church in Mexico
- count both immigrants (including my wife) and Illegal Invaders amongst my friends and fellow church members
- have lived in many nations
- have never seen any approach to Illegal Invasion by those host nations which was a foolish as is the current US (and Utah) approach
- am as charitable as anybody I know and willing to give everyone a chance to improve themselves
- would most probably be an Illegal Invader had I been born in Cd. Mante, Tamaulipas, Mexico rather than here in the US . . . However, that I would have been willing to break the law to improve my own personal situation does not make that action “right”. The genesis of all immorality is the willingness to make an exception for oneself or one’s friends.

Common sense should never be overshadowed by self-serving “law”.

7 Principles

1.
FAMILY: Does the legislation help
individuals who have not committed identity theft or any other felony, stay with their family?

2.
SECURITY: Does the legislation increase the security of Utah families and
businesses?

3.
SUSTAINING
THE LAW: Does
the legislation honor and sustain the U.S. and Utah State Constitutions?

4.
FISCAL
RESPONSIBILITY:
Is the legislation fiscally responsible? If it would lead to continued or
additional costs on taxpayers, who will pay these costs?

5.
INDIVIDUAL
RESPONSIBILITY:
Does the legislation encourage families to be self-sufficient? Does it reduce
dependence on government?

6.
HONESTY: Does the legislation reward
honest and ethical choices, and help others to make and keep commitments?

7.
EMPLOYMENT: Does the legislation safeguard
jobs for legal citizens first?

The illegal community is not integrated into our society, and probably never will be integrated. As I live on the West side of Salt Lake City I feel the Whine and Brie crowd who live on the East side spout diversity and multiculturalism but don’t have to live in it as I do. The illegal communityare economic refugees from corrupt and inept governments. They have little or no desire to become “American” as did the previous generations of immigrants, many of our ancestors. It appears to me that they do not value education, nor integration as a body but seem to gravitate to the spokesmen who publicly plead for tolerance, services and public support for their current status.

I do see somethings positive in the present state of affairs: It is a great situation for politicos. People on all sides of the issue have a body of people who can be portrayed as victims. They and their sympathizers can be pandered to, shaken down for money for various causes and candidates, but the illegal community cannot vote so retribution is nil, and the cycle repeats itself in the next election. As money is the mother’s milk of politics, this situation keeps on giving and giving and all sides profit with very little chance of accountability. Ain’t great? Oh I think I like what Missouri has done as reported in the comments.

By taking the pseudo-higher moral position that “families must be preserved” the feel-gooders plant a blind eye to the fact that each Illegal Invader has already broken up a family when they chose to abandon that sacred unit simply to grab a buck or two. Every time we (Utah specifically) encourage one more Illegal Invader to come here because of our foolishly extending “special” benefits to them, and effectively paying them to flock to our midst, we break up one more family in their counrty of origin. If indeed someone honestly holds some moral compunction against “breaking up the family” they should immediately and unequivocally stand with the Missourians and we “round ‘em up” cowboys. To pretend that policies which encourage a breaking up of some foreign family is somehow superior to policies which would “break up an already broken up family” is disingeneous smacks of

As for those who advance the “cheap labor” argument . . . if a nation could be built upon that basis, Mexico would be a much more prosperous nation than it is today. Arguing in this vein is simply self-serving and an expression of a willingness to live off the exploitation of others. Again, a xenophobic basis for grabbing a quick buck from the exploitable.

If pews are to be filled, the largest Church in Utah preaches obedience to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law. Such should be the teaching of all churches. And, if they so teach, they should encourage their members to remain in their homeland and build up the people with whom they live. If laws are to be obeyed, it seems difficult for a religious institution to discriminate as to which specific laws that obedience should be applied so as to remain true to the faith. The pews that should be filled may well be those in the Illegal Invader’s homeland where they could probably lend strength to the building up of the kingdom there.

The essence of all immorality is the willingness to make an exception for oneself or one’s friends. Choices have consequences.

In 1986 the US, and Utah, chose to grant Amnesty to a previous hoard of Invaders. I even helped some of my friends avail themselves of that misplaced largess. The consequences of that mistake are being seen today and will only grow in magnitude if a proper and firm stand against Illegal Invasion is not taken by our political, religious and business leaders.

Recently I read an interesting
article with the intriguing title of “There are no illegal aliens in
Missouri”. While the debate rages
between the enforcement only and amnesty only factions of the illegal alien
issue and while Utah became the nation’s first “sanctuary state” the people of the “show me” state
have “shown us” the way with a common sense, economic, and effective
approach . . . they simply pulled in the “welcome mat” and
“slammed the door” in the faces of illegal aliens (Missouri SB858). How you may ask, well while we in Utah felt it
was important to have an official handgun,
Missouri declared, through a constitutional amendment, that English was its official language and passed
laws requiring all government activity to be conducted only in English and that
no individual had a right to demand government services in any other
language. In other words all state applications,
licensing exams, documents, and pamphlets are produced in English only . . . if
you can’t read and understand English that’s your problem.

Under federal law, unlawfully
present aliens are not eligible for state or local public benefits so while
Utah pondered how best to provide these benefits to illegal aliens, Missouri
passed laws stating that applicants for
benefits shall provide proof of citizenship, residency, or lawful presence in
order to receive benefits.

While Utah debated punishment
for public employees who exposed illegal aliens applying for public benefits,
Missouri passed a law that bared government entities, political subdivisions,
and government officials from interfering with any communication with the
federal government regarding the citizenship or immigration status of any
individual and which says that the state shall not fund government entities,
agencies, or political subdivisions that have policies that would interfere
with such communications.

While Utah proudly became the
nation’s first state to offer a special class of driver’s licenses for illegal aliens,
Missouri’s Department of Revenue was ordered not to issue any driver’s licenses
to illegal aliens nor to persons who cannot prove lawful presence and that a
driver’s license issued to an illegal alien in another state shall not be
honored by the state of Missouri and the Department of Revenue for any purpose.

While
the question of enforcing Federal immigration law was politicized in Utah, the
Missouri Highway Patrol entered into a memorandum of understanding with the
federal government to have members trained to enforce federal immigration laws
and are required, along with other law enforcement officials in the state, to verify the immigration status of any
person arrested, and inform federal authorities if the person is found to be in
Missouri illegally.

While
the chief of police of Salt Lake City and the Utah Attorney General baulked at
enforcing immigration laws, virtually giving illegal aliens sanctuary, Missouri
municipalities were barred from adopting
policies designed to give aliens sanctuary when they are present in violation
of federal immigration laws. Those municipalities that adopt sanctuary policies
are ineligible for any grants provided by the state.

While
the Utah legislature debated how much to charge illegal aliens attending Utah
state funded colleges and universities, Missouri barred illegal aliens from
enrolling in all public universities in the state and those institutions were
required to annually certify that they have not knowingly enrolled any aliens
unlawfully present in United States in the preceding year.

While
Utah passed a cynical, flawed, and virtually toothless “Guest Worker”
law, Missouri employers were barred from employing illegal aliens period.
Violators are subject to the suspension of their business permits and licenses
or exemptions. In order to correct the violation and have permits and licenses
reinstated, the employers need to terminate the employment of the alien or
request a second verification of the alien’s status from the federal
government, sign a sworn affidavit stating that the violation has ended, and
submit documentation confirming the entity is enrolled in a federal work
authorization program. Violators who
were under contract with the state were to have their contracts voided and are barred
from contracting with the state for three years. Subsequent violations result
in a void contract and a permanent bar from contracting with the state.

Missouri
did all these things and, the last time I checked, still exists . . . there is
still produce in its grocery stores, lawns are still being mowed, gardens are still
tended, fast food is still being served, and hotel rooms are still being
cleaned and their beds still being made up.
In short all “the jobs Americans won’t do” are being done in
Missouri. In addition, tourists still
visit Missouri!

Whether
or not there really are “NO” illegal aliens in Missouri I can’t say
but it seems to me that the approach
Missouri is taking, making Missouri an environment which is decidedly illegal alien unfriendly is an
economic, common sense approach to the illegal alien problem that works. I believe Utah should adopt similar policies
and, like Missouri, “pull in the welcome mat” and “slam the door” in the faces of
potential illegal aliens contemplating entering Utah and give those already
here “strong inducements” to leave Utah voluntarily for more illegal
alien friendly states.

I would call on Governor
Herbert to abandon his support of the cynical and flawed “Guest Worker”
law, support its repeal and support a proactive, logical approach such as Missouri’s for resolving the
horrific problem created by illegal aliens in Utah.

The majority of opponents to HB 116 favor the enforcement-only legislation (HB 70, now HB 497). Again, from the post: “But how does strict, enforcement-only policy solve a problem like
identity theft? It doesn’t. Because the federal government will not
deport the vast majority of illegal immigrants presented to them by
state and local agencies, enforcement-only quickly turns into a “catch
and release” program: Detainees are legally held for up to 48 hours in
state facilities and then released when the federal government refuses
to take them into custody.”

Who says that opponents of the (unconstitutional) HB 116 bill are for “enforcement only” (whatever that is)? That’s a pretty flimsy assumption to build on which to build a thesis.

I do not understand why many supporters (including the SI) resort to name calling and exaggerations to try and advance their agenda. There are caring, intelligent people on both sides of the issue. Because the bill violates the US Constitution, Utah Constitution, and US and State law, it should be immediately repealed. We can do better.