SALT LAKE CITY -- Utah forged ahead today with another new approach to the heated debate over immigration. Attorney General Mark Shurtleff hosted the first Mountain West Immigration Summit, another step in a process started with the Utah Compact a year ago.

People from across the spectrum of our community came together early last November to sign the Compact: a statement to influence the tone of the immigration debate. Since then, other states have taken notice, the New York Times applauded the approach, and now, this summit it taking it to a broader audience.

Principles supported in the Utah Compact

Federal solutions
Law enforcement
Families
Economy
A free society

It urges the public and leaders to commit to a rational debate on immigration. Shurtleff says it's already done that here, and in other states.

"It's not worth anything unless it actually helps form good policy," Shurtleff said.

The compact declares five principles to guide the immigration debate, among them a commitment to federal, rather than state solutions, and a focus on keeping families together.

When the compact started to get national attention, Shurtleff started to work on America's Compact, until he realized that was too hot to handle in Washington.

"We regrouped and said, states are doing something, let's do a state by state compact and we're getting great response already," Shurtleff said.

Wednesday's Mountain West Immigration Summit was one of the results.

Syndicated columnist and keynote speaker Ruben Navarrette thinks Utah's legislature should use the compact as a model for future legislation. And he hopes the principles will reduce the harshness of the rhetoric nationwide.

“We are not made a better country by deporting people who play by the rules, who are grandparents, who have been here forever.”
–Ruben Navarrette

"We are not made a better country by deporting people who play by the rules, who are grandparents, who have been here forever," Navarrette said.

"I'm hopeful that that ugliness we've encountered in places like Arizona and around the country is running its course and people are coming back to a more realistic approach to the issue."

Shurtleff has met with leaders in many other states, which are looking at similar compacts. Indiana has one, Iowa will sign one soon, and some cities have created compacts too.

---

Email: jboal@ksl.com

Top Department of Justice attorneys meet with Utah leaders over controversial immigration law

Top Department of Justice attorneys meet with Utah leaders over controversial immigration law



Published: Tuesday, Oct. 25, 2011 4:55 p.m. MDT


SALT LAKE CITY — A top Department of Justice attorney described Tuesday's meetings with Utah leaders over a controversial immigration enforcement law passed by the Utah Legislature earlier this year as "productive."

However, assistant attorney general Tony West, who heads the DOJ's Civil Division, gave no indication whether the federal government will intervene in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of HB497.

West said the meetings, held at the state Capitol, were among "a series of productive meetings we have had with the state of Utah.

"We continue to have some good conversations," he said.

West was joined by Thomas E. Perez, head of the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division, in a meeting with Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff and assistant attorneys general. DOJ officials also met with legislative leaders, including Rep. Stephen Sandstrom, R-Orem, sponsor of HB497; Senate President Michael Waddoups and Sen. Luz Robles, D-Salt Lake.

The ACLU of Utah and the National Immigration Law Center have filed a lawsuit against the state over the law, challenging its constitutionality. The ACLU wants the federal government to challenge the law as well.

The law requires police to verify the immigration status of people arrested for felonies and class A misdemeanors as well those booked into jail on class B and class C misdemeanors. The law also says officers may attempt to verify the status of someone detained for class B and class C misdemeanors.

The plaintiffs have maintained that the law will turn Utah into a "show-me-your-papers" state.

Shurtleff said he and attorneys from his office explained provisions of HB497 and discussed aspects of the law of concern to DOJ attorneys. Shurtleff has twice traveled to Washington, D.C., to meet with DOJ officials regarding the Utah law.

Shurtleff, who described the visit as "a great meeting," said the DOJ offered no indication how it will proceed.

"We don't know if we satisfied them. They'll let us know," Shurtleff said. Utah officials also discussed aspects of HB116, the so-called guest worker bill, which was one of four bills passed by lawmakers in 2011 and signed into law in March.

If the DOJ plans to intervene, Shurtleff said he hopes it does so soon, because a federal court hearing on HB497 is scheduled for early December. State attorneys plan to ask U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups to allow Utah's immigration enforcement law to take effect.

Ideally, the state would like an answer from the federal court before the start of the 2012 Legislature, Shurtleff said.

Presently, the Department of Justice is challenging state laws passed by the legislatures of Arizona and Alabama.

While HB497 started as measure very similar to Arizona's contentious enforcement measure, the Utah bill was refined using U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton's ruling that halted portions of Arizona's SB1070 as a guide, Shurtleff said. Bolton issued a temporary injunction against a portion of the law that would have required police to check the immigration status of anyone they suspected of being an illegal resident. Other parts of the law were allowed to take effect, however.

Utah officials have maintained that Utah's legislation is considerably different than the Arizona law.

Meanwhile, the ACLU of Utah called on the DOJ to challenge the constitutionality of HB497. "We'd like them to file a legal challenge," said executive director Karen McCreary, Tuesday.

McCreary said Utah's law has similar impacts and consequences to the Arizona law.

"It's why we filed the lawsuit," she said.

E-mail: marjorie@desnews.com

© 2011 Deseret News Publishing Company | All rights reserved

GUN CONTROL IN 2009?? - What You Need To Know

Posted February 26th, 2008 by arizona steve
The History of Gun Control throughout the World, says it all.

Our Congress has already prepared Gun Control Bills to be submitted for approval in the spring of 2009 and the votes to stop it from passing will just not be there. Our own Government will be doing this to protect us, as Governments did throughout history.

The following are a few examples of this history:

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to
1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were
Rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5
Million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
Exterminated.
------------------------------
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a
Total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves
Were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million
Political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
Exterminated
------------------------------
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981,
100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
Exterminated.
------------------------------
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000
Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
Exterminated.
------------------------------
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one
Million educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded
Up and exterminated.
-----------------------------
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century
Because of gun control: 56 million.
------------------------------
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced
By new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by
Their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more
Than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:
List of 7 items:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent Australia-wide,
Assaults are up 8.6 percent Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes,
44 percent)!

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent.
Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the
Criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in
Armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in
The past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey
Is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of
The ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how
Public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense
Was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns
The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.

You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians
Disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes,
Gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.
Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.
With guns, we are 'citizens'.
Without them, we are 'subjects'.

During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they
Knew most Americans were ARMED!

If you value your freedom, Please spread this anti-gun control message.

Last year's immigration reform back in spotlight

SB81 » Lawmakers want to change or delay the law
Sheena Mcfarland

The Salt Lake Tribune



The comprehensive immigration reform bill passed last year is yet again at the center of debate at the Legislature, with lawmakers either attempting to clarify or delay the law.

SB81 takes effect July 1, but two legislators are leading the fight to push that back to July 2010.

Rep. Stephen Clark, R-Provo, wants to delay the bill by a year and do a $150,000 study assessing the fiscal impacts of illegal immigration on the state.

"We should know every piece of data out there," Clark said. "We need to know the upside and downside of illegal immigration."

Sen. Pat Jones, D-Holladay, also has a bill that simply pushes back the implementation date by a year.

Jones hopes Clark's bill passes, as she'd like to have more information on the impacts of illegal immigration, but she worries a bill with a fiscal note this year will have a difficult time passing.

"It's not to say these people ought to be here, but it's about the process and how we do it thoughtfully and carefully," Jones said, adding that SB81's $1.8 million price tag may give her bill more traction.

But Speaker of the House Dave Clark, R-Santa Clara, sees "no appetite" for postponing the measure.

"There are a few edges to round out, but the desire to make major changes to the bill hasn't shown itself," he said.

The most aggressive addition to SB81 is being proposed by Rep. Brad Dee, R-Washington Terrace, who cochaired the immigration task force. He wants to create an immigration strike force to address major crimes committed by undocumented immigrants.

"The fact is, we have a lot of illegal immigrants causing problems with crime, with felony crime," Dee said, citing drug running, rape, murder and human trafficking as examples. "This isn't to replace SB81, but to strengthen it by adding another dimension."

The strike force, which would cost $1 million to implement, would be overseen by local agencies and would incorporate Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers and involve creating a special pool of lawyers from the Attorney General's Office to prosecute such cases.

"This will focus the state on the cases that cause the most concern about illegal immigration," he said.

But other proposed changes are minor tweaks.

In SB81, state contractors must verify the residence status of all their employers. A bill by Sen. Scott Jenkins, who cochaired the immigration task force for the past year, would define a contractor as a company that goes through a formal bid process with the state to provide services. His bill also would allow undocumented workers who were employed by the state to receive retirement benefits, though SB81 takes away all other state public benefits to undocumented workers.

Jenkins also is running a resolution requesting a federal waiver for the state to form a guest worker program, as proposed by the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce. The resolution wouldn't change state law, but would rather show support for a state-run program.

Sen. Curt Bramble, R-Provo, also is running a bill to clarify language dealing with driver licenses and state identification cards. The bill, which would take effect in 2010, would require Utahns to show proof of U.S. citizenship to obtain a driver license, which Utahns will have to do under upcoming federal RealID requirements. Applicants for driving privilege cards, however, will have to show proof of residency, but not of U.S. citizenship.

Bramble says that while some argue the privilege card encourages illegal immigration, they actually benefit Utahns and U.S. citizens.

"We don't have legal authority to remove illegal aliens. They're here and there's nothing the state can do," Bramble said. "But with this privilege card, 75 to 80 percent of them have [auto] insurance, which helps U.S. citizens because there are more drivers out there with insurance."

smcfarland@sltrib.com

Immigration bills
» SB81 Illegal Immigration

A bill passed in 2008 that requires all public employers to verify the residency status of their workers, allows local law enforcement to carry out immigration law, requires the sheriff to verify the residency of inmates and makes it a criminal offense to transport an undocumented worker more than 100 miles. It takes effect July 1.

» HB64 Deterring Illegal Immigration, Rep. Brad Dee, R-Washington Terrace

Creates a multi-agency task force to crack down on felony crimes committed by undocumented immigrants, with a cost of $1 million.

» HB107 Economic Impact of Illegal Aliens, Rep. Stephen Clark, R-Provo

Funds a $150,000 study to determine the fiscal impact of undocumented workers and delays implementation of SB81 until July 1, 2010.

» SB39 Immigration Amendments, Sen. Scott Jenkins, R-Plain City

Clarifies the definition of a contractor in SB81, and also grants retirement benefits to undocumented workers who were employed by the state.

» SB40 Lawful Presence Verification for Issuance of a Driver License, Sen. Curt Bramble, R-Provo

Requires Utah residents to show proof of residency to obtain a driver license or ID card, and allows those with a temporary visa to have a driver license for the length of the visa. The bill does not affect driving privilege cards.

» SB113 Delayed Effective Date for Illegal Immigration Legislation, Sen. Pat Jones, D-Holladay

Delays implementation of SB81 until July 1, 2010.

» SCR1 Resolution Requesting a Federal Waiver to Establish an Employer-Sponsored Work Program

Requests federal waivers needed to start a state-run guest worker program, as outlined by the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce.

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_11595440

Lawmaker wants driving privileges for illegal immigrants repealed

Utah is one of a handful of states that allows people who are in the U.S. illegally to operate motor vehicles

Patrick Parkinson, Of the Record staff
Posted: 01/30/2009 04:21:53 PM MST


A state representative from Utah County has proposed legislation that would repeal all existing driving privilege cards for illegal immigrants, Dec. 31.
House Bill 137, sponsored by Republican Rep. Steve Sandstrom, would also stop the issuance of more driving permits to people who are in Utah illegally.

Immigrants apply for driving privilege cards using individual tax identification numbers issued by the IRS, which do not sufficiently identify the person who is receiving the license, critics claim.

Illegal immigrants can drive legally in only a handful of states, and by offering driving privilege cards Utah attracts illegal immigrants from places with harsher immigration laws, said Alex Segura, founder of the Utah Minuteman Project.

HB 137, which was first read Thursday in the House of Representatives, would ban non-U.S. citizens who cannot get a Social Security number from legally being behind the wheel.

"I think it's a magnet that is going to bring more people that are unauthorized to be in the country, up here to Utah, and in this hard economic time that's the last thing we need," Segura said about the driving privilege card in a telephone interview Friday. "It's a bad thing and we need to do away with it."

Utah was the first state to issue driving cards to illegal immigrants, according to Latino activist Tony Yapias.

Republican Summit County Councilman David Ure was instrumental in the creation of the cards while he served Park City as a state representative.

"So if we repeal them what we're going to do is we're going to make all these people drive illegally," Ure said when reached Friday. "They're not going to have insurance, so therefore when they hit somebody on the road they're just going to take off and run."
The cards have cut the number of uninsured drivers on Utah roads, he claimed.

"It has been a way of tracking criminals, and the amount of uninsured motorists on the road has decreased by about 70 percent," Ure said.

Meanwhile, efforts are underway on Capitol Hill to delay the implementation of Senate Bill 81, a sweeping set of immigration reforms that would require local officers and deputies begin enforcing federal immigration measures in Utah.

That means Summit County would have to hire more deputies, Summit County Councilwoman Sally Elliott said.

"We'd have a hard time pulling people together," Elliott said. "We can't afford to pay for it in Summit County."

SB 81 could also require government employers register to use a system that verifies the work status of new employees. The law may mean governmental entities must verify the immigration status of people who apply for state or local benefits.

"It'd be great to get rid of it," Summit County Councilman Chris Robinson said about the law.

SB 81 passed last year but state lawmakers delayed its implementation until July 2009.

"As far as deputies actually going out and trying to enforce immigration and naturalization issues, that's something that is better left to the federal government," said Summit County Sheriff Dave Edmunds, who is against SB 81.

The law could impact the willingness of illegal immigrants to report crimes, Park City Police Chief Wade Carpenter said.

"We obviously worry about that chilling effect," Carpenter said. "[Illegal immigrants] have a right to be protected under the law just like anybody else does."

House members who represent Summit County on the Hill can be contacted by e-mailing Democrat Christine Johnson at christinejohnson@utah.gov and Republican Mel Brown at melbrown@utah.gov.