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.

New Bill Would Require Legal Proof of Residency for Issuance of a Driver's License

Jan 22, 2009 by Faroe Robinson

(KCPW News) A new bill aims to allow legal immigrants in Utah to get a drivers license. Currently, a Social Security number is required for residents to get one. Bill sponsor Senator Curt Bramble says this bill would change that requirement so that only legal residency has to be proven.
"One of the differences, if you have a work visa, or a student visa, or you're here legally, but you don't have a social security number, today you can only get a driving privilege card; with this bill, if you can show temporary legal residence status, you can get a temporary drivers license for that period of time under this bill," Bramble said.

Bramble says this bill is in compliance with the federal Real ID Act, which requires proof of legal residency for a drivers license to be issued. He also says this bill clears up licensing issues from last year's controversial immigration bill, Senate Bill 81, set to go into effect in July.

But Bramble says even if the problems in SB81 are fixed, immigration as a whole can't really be addressed until the federal government steps up.

"Across the spectrum of your opinion on immigration, there is a consistent thread and that is that the federal government has been a pathetic and a dismal failure in addressing immigration in any meaningful way. So I question how much a state can really do, if you look at Oklahoma, Arizona and other states who have attempted to have more stringent legal standards on immigration, the federal courts have consistently ruled that there is federal preemption," Bramble said.

The Immigration Interim Committee voted favorably on Bramble's bill, and he's confident it will pass in the upcoming legislative session.

SLC top cop: Immigration enforcement may go to court

By Nate Carlisle
The Salt Lake Tribune
Updated:01/13/ 2009

The Salt Lake City police chief said someone might sue him to enforce federal immigration laws, even if the department doesn't want to.
Chief Chris Burbank pointed to a provision in Utah's new immigration law, SB81, allowing citizens to go to court to if they feel government agencies are not following the bill.
Burbank said the court provision is vague and might allow someone to sue his department to force it to do anything from asking a driver about his or her immigration status during a traffic stop to forcing Salt Lake City police officers to become certified federal immigration agents.
"Our city attorneys feel there's no question someone can take us to court and force us into an action we don't want," Burbank said
Burbank worries that will have a chilling effect when his officers investigate crimes or interact with the public. He said communities with high immigrant populations have expressed similar concerns .
"One of the things they say is, 'Well, are you going to deport us if we call you?' " Burbank said.
Former state Sen. John W. "Bill" Hickman, who sponsored the legislation, said it was not politicians' intent to force police departments to become immigration officers, but a citizen may want to pursue the matter in court. Hickman said the court provision was inserted into the bill to mimic legislation in Oklahoma.
Hickman said Burbank's concerns were a "smoke screen" to keep from enforcing the new legislation, which is scheduled to take effect July 1.
"These people are here illegally," Hickman said. "That's the bottom line. I'm sorry that the chief may not get the cooperation he wants."
Among other things, SB81 limits undocumented immigrants' access to public services, requires government contractors to verify employees' immigration status and allows local police to enforce federal immigration laws.
Burbank has been the Utah police community's most outspoken critic of the legislation. On Monday, he said state politicians and immigration opponents have told him to be quiet.
Burbank did not list any names, but pointed to a legislative hearing where he testified in opposition to the bill. He said he was allowed to be "heckled" by Utah Minutemen -- an anti-illegal immigration group -- in the audience.
ncarlisle@sltrib. com

The Myth of Posse Comitatus

By; Major Craig T. Trebilcock, U.S. Army Reserve
October 2000
-----------------------------------------
Major Craig Trebilcock is a member of the Judge Advocate General’s Corps in the U.S. Army Reserve. He is assigned as an operational law attorney with the 153d Legal Support Organization in Norristown, PA. His area of specialization includes the laws applicable to U.S. forces engaged in operations in both the United States and abroad. Major Trebilcock is a graduate of the University of Michigan (A.B. with high honors, 1982) and the University of Michigan Law School (J.D., 1985). His military education includes the Judge Advocate General Basic Course (1988) and Advanced Course (1992), U.S. Army Command and General Staff College (1997), and the U.S. Navy War College International Relations Seminar (2000). Major Trebilcock is a civilian immigration attorney with the firm of Barley, Snyder, Senft, & Cohen in York, PA.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Posse Comitatus Act has traditionally been viewed as a major barrier to the use of U.S. military forces in planning for homeland defense.[1] In fact, many in uniform believe that the act precludes the use of U.S. military assets in domestic security operations in any but the most extraordinary situations. As is often the case, reality bears little resemblance to the myth for homeland defense planners. Through a gradual erosion of the act’s prohibitions over the past 20 years, posse comitatus today is more of a procedural formality than an actual impediment to the use of U.S. military forces in homeland defense.

History

The original 1878 Posse Comitatus Act was indeed passed with the intent of removing the Army from domestic law enforcement. Posse comitatus means “the power of the county,” reflecting the inherent power of the old West county sheriff to call upon a posse of able-bodied men to supplement law enforcement assets and thereby maintain the peace. Following the Civil War, the Army had been used extensively throughout the South to maintain civil order, to enforce the policies of the Reconstruction era, and to ensure that any lingering sentiments of rebellion were crushed. However, in reaching those goals, the Army necessarily became involved in traditional police roles and in enforcing politically volatile Reconstruction-era policies. The stationing of federal troops at political events and polling places under the justification of maintaining domestic order became of increasing concern to Congress, which felt that the Army was becoming politicized and straying from its original national defense mission. The Posse Comitatus Act was passed to remove the Army from civilian law enforcement and to return it to its role of defending the borders of the United States.

Application of the Act

To understand the extent to which the act has relevance today, it is important to understand to whom the act applies and under what circumstances. The statutory language of the act does not apply to all U.S. military forces.[2] While the act applies to the Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marines, including their Reserve components, it does not apply to the Coast Guard or to the huge military manpower resources of the National Guard.[3] The National Guard, when it is operating in its state status pursuant to Title 32 of the U.S. Code, is not subject to the prohibitions on civilian law enforcement. (Federal military forces operate pursuant to Title 10 of the U.S. Code.) In fact, one of the express missions of the Guard is to preserve the laws of the state during times of emergency when regular law enforcement assets prove inadequate. It is only when federalized pursuant to an exercise of presidential authority that the Guard becomes subject to the limitations of the Posse Comitatus Act.

The intent of the act is to prevent the military forces of the United States from becoming a national police force or guardia civil. Accordingly, the act prohibits the use of the military to “execute the laws.”[4,5] Execution of the laws is perceived to be a civilian police function, which includes the arrest and detention of criminal suspects, search and seizure activities, restriction of civilian movement through the use of blockades or checkpoints, gathering evidence for use in court, and the use of undercover personnel in civilian drug enforcement activities.[6]

The federal courts have had several opportunities to define what behavior by military personnel in support of civilian law enforcement is permissible under the act. The test applied by the courts has been to determine whether the role of military personnel in the law enforcement operation was “passive” or “active.” Active participation in civilian law enforcement, such as making arrests, is deemed a violation of the act, while taking a passive supporting role is not.[7] Passive support has often taken the form of logistical support to civilian police agencies. Recognizing that the military possesses unique equipment and uniquely trained personnel, the courts have held that providing supplies, equipment, training, facilities, and certain types of intelligence information does not violate the act. Military personnel may also be involved in planning law enforcement operations, as long as the actual arrest of suspects and seizure of evidence is carried out by civilian law enforcement personnel.[8]

The Posse Comitatus Act was passed in the 19th century, when the distinction between criminal law enforcement and defense of the national borders was clearer. Today, with the advent of technology that permits weapons of mass destruction—chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons—to be transported by a single person, the line between police functions and national security concerns has blurred. As a matter of policy, Western nations have labeled terrorists “criminals” to be prosecuted under domestic criminal laws. Consistent with this, the Department of Justice has been charged as the lead U.S. agency for combating terrorism. However, not all terrorist acts are planned and executed by non-state actors. Terrorism refers to illegal attacks on civilians and other nonmilitary targets by either state or non-state actors. This new type of threat requires a reassessment of traditional military roles and missions along with an examination of the relevance and benefits of the Posse Comitatus Act.

Erosion of the Act

While the act appears to prohibit active participation in law enforcement by the military, the reality in application has become quite different. The act is a statutory creation, not a constitutional prohibition. Accordingly, the act can and has been repeatedly circumvented by subsequent legislation. Since 1980, Congress and the president have significantly eroded the prohibitions of the act in order to meet a variety of law enforcement challenges.

One of the most controversial uses of the military during the past 20 years has been to involve the Navy and Air Force in the “war on drugs.” Recognizing the inability of civilian law enforcement agencies to interdict the smuggling of drugs into the United States by air and sea, the Reagan Administration directed the Department of Defense to use naval and air assets to reach out beyond the borders of the United States to preempt drug smuggling. This use of the military in antidrug law enforcement was approved by Congress in 10 U.S.C., sections 371–381. This same legislation permitted the use of military forces in other traditionally civilian areas—immigration control and tariff enforcement.

The use of the military in opposing drug smuggling and illegal immigration was a significant step away from the act’s central tenet that there was no proper role for the military in the direct enforcement of the laws. The legislative history explains that this new policy is consistent with the Posse Comitatus Act, as the military involvement still amounted to an indirect and logistical support of civilian law enforcement and not direct enforcement.[9]

The weakness of the analysis of passive versus direct involvement in law enforcement was most graphically demonstrated in the tragic 1999 shooting of a shepherd by marines who had been assigned a mission to interdict smuggling and illegal immigration in the remote Southwest. An investigation revealed that for some inexplicable reason the 16-year-old shepherd fired his weapon in the direction of the marines. Return fire killed the boy. This tragedy demonstrates that when armed troops are placed in a position where they are being asked to counter potential criminal activity, it is a mere semantic exercise to argue that the military is being used in a passive support role. The fact that armed military troops were placed in a position with the mere possibility that they would have to use force to subdue civilian criminal activity reflects a significant policy shift by the executive branch away from the posse comitatus doctrine.

Congress has also approved the use of the military in civilian law enforcement through the Civil Disturbance Statutes: 10 U.S.C., sections 331–334. These provisions permit the president to use military personnel to enforce civilian laws where the state has requested assistance or is unable to protect civil rights and property. In case of civil disturbance, the president must first give an order for the offenders to disperse. If the order is not obeyed, the president may then authorize military forces to make arrests and restore order. The scope of the Civil Disturbance Statutes is sufficiently broad to encompass civil disturbance resulting from terrorist or other criminal activity. It was these provisions that were relied upon to restore order using active-duty Army personnel following the Los Angeles “race riots” of the early 1990s.

Federal military personnel may also be used pursuant to the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C., section 5121, in times of natural disaster upon request from a state governor. In such an instance, the Stafford Act permits the president to declare a major disaster and send in military forces on an emergency basis for up to ten days to preserve life and property. While the Stafford Act authority is still subject to the criteria of active versus passive, it represents a significant exception to the Posse Comitatus Act’s underlying principle that the military is not a domestic police force auxiliary.

An infrequently cited constitutional power of the president provides an even broader basis for the president to use military forces in the context of homeland defense. This is the president’s inherent right and duty to preserve federal functions. In the past this has been recognized to authorize the president to preserve the freedom of navigable waterways and to put down armed insurrection. However, with the expansion of federal authority during this century into many areas formerly reserved to the states (transportation, commerce, education, civil rights) there is likewise an argument that the president’s power to preserve these “federal” functions has expanded as well. The use of federal troops in the South during the 1960s to preserve access to educational institutions for blacks was an exercise of this constitutional presidential authority.

In the past five years, the erosion of the Posse Comitatus Act has continued with the increasingly common use of military forces as security for essentially civilian events. During the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta, over ten thousand U.S. troops were deployed under the partial rationale that they were present to deter terrorism. The use of active-duty military forces in a traditional police security role did not raise any serious questions under the act, even though these troops would clearly have been in the middle of a massive law enforcement emergency had a large-scale terrorist incident occurred. The only questions of propriety arose when many of these troops were then employed as bus drivers or to maintain playing fields. This led to a momentary but passing expression of displeasure from Congress.[10]

Homeland Defense

The Posse Comitatus Act was passed in an era when the threat to national security came primarily from the standing armies and navies of foreign powers. Today the equation for national defense and security has changed significantly. With the fall of the Soviet Union our attention has been diverted—from the threat of aggression by massed armies crossing the plains of Europe to the security of our own soil against biological or chemical terrorism. Rather than focusing on massed Russian intercontinental ballistic missiles as our most imminent threat, we are increasingly more aware of the destructive potential of new forms of asymmetric warfare. For instance, the U.S. Office of Technology Assessment states that 100 kilograms of dry powdered anthrax released under ideal meteorological conditions could kill up to three million people in a city the size of Washington, DC.[11] The chemical warfare attacks carried out by Japanese terrorists in the subways of Tokyo during the 1990s heightened our sense of vulnerability. The Oklahoma City bombing and the unsuccessful attempt to topple the World Trade Center have our domestic security planners looking inward for threats against the soil of the United States from small but technologically advanced threats of highly motivated terrorists. What legal bar does the Posse Comitatus Act present today to using the military to prevent or respond to a biological or chemical attack on the soil of the United States? In view of the erosion of the Posse Comitatus Act in the past 20 years, the answer is “not much.”

The erosion of the Posse Comitatus Act through Congressional legislation and executive policy has left a hollow shell in place of a law that formerly was a real limitation on the military’s role in civilian law enforcement and security issues. The plethora of constitutional and statutory exceptions to the act provides the executive branch with a menu of options under which it can justify the use of military forces to combat domestic terrorism. Whether an act of terrorism is classified as a civil disturbance under 10 U.S.C., 331–334, or whether the president relies upon constitutional power to preserve federal functions, it is difficult to think of a domestic terrorism scenario of sizable scale under which the use of the military could not be lawfully justified in view of the act’s erosion. The act is no longer a realistic bar to direct military involvement in counterterrorism planning and operations. It is a low legal hurdle that can be easily cleared through invocation of the appropriate legal justification, either before or after the fact.[12]

Conclusion

Is the Posse Comitatus Act totally without meaning today? No, it remains a deterrent to prevent the unauthorized deployment of troops at the local level in response to what is purely a civilian law enforcement matter. Although no person has ever been successfully prosecuted under the act, it is available in criminal or administrative proceedings to punish a lower-level commander who uses military forces to pursue a common felon or to conduct sobriety checkpoints off of a federal military post. Officers have had their careers abruptly brought to a close by misusing federal military assets to support a purely civilian criminal matter.

But does the act present a major barrier at the National Command Authority level to use of military forces in the battle against terrorism? The numerous exceptions and policy shifts carried out over the past 20 years strongly indicate that it does not. Could anyone seriously suggest that it is appropriate to use the military to interdict drugs and illegal aliens but preclude the military from countering terrorist threats that employ weapons of mass destruction? For two decades the military has been increasingly used as an auxiliary to civilian law enforcement when the capabilities of the police have been exceeded. Under both the statutory and constitutional exceptions that have permitted the use of the military in law enforcement since 1980, the president has ample authority to employ the military in homeland defense against the threat of weapons of mass destruction in terrorist hands.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Click on an endnote number to return to the article.

[1] “Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both”—18 U.S.C. 1385.

[2] The act as originally passed referenced only limitations upon the Army. After World War II, it was amended to include the Air Force. By DoD Directive 5525.5, the limitations of the act have been administratively adopted to apply to the Navy and Marine Corps as well.


[3] The peacetime law enforcement mission of the Coast Guard has been well recognized since the founding of its parent agency, the Revenue Marine, in 1790.


[4] For the sake of brevity, the term military as employed in this article refers to the Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marines, their Reserve components, and the National Guard when in federalized status pursuant to Title 10. It does not include the Coast Guard or the National Guard operating in state-controlled Title 13 status.


[5] The Uniform Code of Military Justice is an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act. The code gives the military the inherent right to maintain good order and discipline over its personnel through law enforcement activity, prosecution, and punishment. As such, the code gives the military jurisdiction to enforce both military and civilian laws against its own military personnel.


[6] State v. Nelson, 298 NC 573, 260 SE 2d 629, cert den; 446 U.S. 929, 100 S. Ct. 1867, 64 L. Ed. 2d 282 (1980).


[7] Ibid.


[8] United States v. Red Feather, 392 F. Supp. 916 (DC SD 1975).


[9] Pursuant to this mission, the USS Kidd intercepted a drug-smuggling boat in 1983. When the smugglers refused to yield without force, the problem of passive versus active law enforcement was handled by lowering the Navy ensign on the ship and raising the Coast Guard ensign. The Coast Guard asset USS Kidd then fired on the smugglers’ ship, rendering it immobile and leading to its seizure, along with 900 bales of marijuana.


[10] “Business, Capitol Hill Question Military’s Role in Olympics,” Defense Week, 22 July 1996.


[11] U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction: Assessing the Risks (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1993), OTA-ISC-559, p. 54.


[12] The enforcement of a prosecution under the Posse Comitatus Act would necessarily be brought by the Department of Justice, the lead agency charged with combating domestic terrorism. This further suggests that as long as coordination of the use of military forces was part of a coordinated interagency effort that the likelihood of prosecution under the Posse Comitatus Act of any executive branch official would seem remote at best.

Cash-strapped states weigh selling roads, parks

By MARTIGA LOHN, Associated Press Writer Martiga Lohn, Associated Press Writer
Sat Dec 27, 3:39 pm ET

ST. PAUL, Minn. – Minnesota is deep in the hole financially, but the state still owns a premier golf resort, a sprawling amateur sports complex, a big airport, a major zoo and land holdings the size of the Central American country of Belize.

Valuables like these are in for a closer look as 44 states cope with deficits.

Like families pawning the silver to get through a tight spot, states such as Minnesota, New York, Massachusetts and Illinois are thinking of selling or leasing toll roads, parks, lotteries and other assets to raise desperately needed cash.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty has hinted that his January budget proposal will include proposals to privatize some of what the state owns or does. The Republican is looking for cash to help close a $5.27 billion deficit without raising taxes.

GOP lawmakers are pushing to privatize the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport and the state lottery. Both steps require a higher authority — federal legislation in the case of the airport, a voter-approved constitutional amendment for the lottery. But one lawmaker estimated an airport deal could bring in at least $2.5 billion, and the lottery $500 million.

Massachusetts lawmakers are considering putting the Massachusetts Turnpike in private hands. That could bring in upfront money to help with a $1.4 billion deficit, while also saving on highway operating costs.

In New York, Democratic Gov. David Paterson appointed a commission to look into leasing state assets, including the Tappan Zee Bridge north of New York City, the lottery, golf courses, toll roads, parks and beaches. Recommendations are expected next month.

Such projects could be attractive to private investors and public pension funds looking for safe places to put their money in this scary economy, said Leonard Gilroy, a privatization expert with the market-oriented Reason Foundation in Los Angeles.

"Infrastructure is more attractive today than ever," Gilroy said. "It's tangible. It's a road. It's water. It's an airport. It's something that is — you know, you hear the term recession-proof."

Unions don't like privatization deals out of fear that worker wages and benefits will be squeezed as private operators try to boost their profit by streamlining services.

Taxpayers, too, can lose out if the arrangements don't work — and sometimes even if they do, said Mark Price, a labor economist with the Keystone Research Center in Harrisburg, Pa. Higher tolls on privatized roads can push drivers onto state-operated roads, wearing them down faster and raising public costs over time.

"You're privatizing some profits in this process and socializing some losses," Price said.

Selling or leasing public assets can produce an immediate infusion of cash for the state, while foisting the tough decisions, such as raising tolls, onto private operators instead of the politicians.

"The downsides are often after they leave office," said Phineas Baxandall, a researcher with the consumer-oriented U.S. Public Interest Research Group in Boston.

Some states struck major privatization deals well before the economic crisis hit.

Indiana, for example, brought in $3.8 billion in 2006 by leasing the Indiana Toll Road for 75 years. Chicago stands to collect $2.5 billion by leasing Midway Airport, if the federal government approves, and has raised an additional $3.5 billion since 2005 through deals for the Chicago Skyway toll road, parking ramps and parking meters.

But in September, investors walked away from a $12.8 billion bid to lease the Pennsylvania Turnpike for 75 years after legislators failed to act on the deal. And Texas lawmakers uneasy over a proposed private toll road system approved a two-year moratorium on such contracts last year.

David Fisher, who managed Minnesota's state-owned properties a few years ago under former Gov. Jesse Ventura, warned that the state has a hard time finding buyers for properties such as old mental institutions.

Fisher said some public properties belong in private hands, such as Giants Ridge Golf & Ski Resort, a top-rated getaway in Biwabik, and Ironworld, a museum and library in Chisholm. Both are owned and subsidized by Iron Range Resources, a state agency.

"Certainly those things could be privatized, I think without harm to the state, but I don't know that you could find the right buyer," Fisher said.

Will the U.S. Break Up?

George Washington’s Blog
December 25, 2008
The larger and more complex a system, the more likely it is to break down. Something like a simple pendulum with few moving parts could last many years. But very large, complicated things like the Large Hadron Collider break down much more quickly.
America now has some 300 million people, 50 states, and more federal, state and local agencies than anyone can possibly list. It is hard to govern such a large, complex and populous system when anything goes seriously wrong.
And a lot is going wrong right now.
The U.S. military agrees that the chance of a break down in the system is real:
A new report from the U.S. Army War College [here is the report] discusses the use of American troops to quell civil unrest brought about by a worsening economic crisis.
The report from the War College’s Strategic Studies Institute warns that the U.S. military must prepare for a “violent, strategic dislocation inside the United States” that could be provoked by “unforeseen economic collapse” or “loss of functioning political and legal order.” [The report also warns of a possible "rapid dissolution of public order in all or significant parts of the US."]
International Monetary Fund Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn warned last week of riots and unrest in global markets if the ongoing financial crisis is not addressed and lower-income households are beset with credit constraints and rising unemployment, the Phoenix Business Journal reported.
Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma and Rep. Brad Sherman of California disclosed that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson discussed a worst-case scenario as he pushed the Wall Street bailout in September, and said that scenario might even require a declaration of martial law.***
The Defense Department has made plans to deploy 20,000 troops nationwide by 2011 to help state and local officials respond to emergencies.
In other words, the government is predicting that systems will break down. But instead of doing anything to actually fix the underlying problems which are leading to the break down (like making sure that politicians follow the Constitution and making sure that America’s manufacturing base is rebuilt, so that we can make something real, and our workers can make decent wages on a sustainable basis), the government is just planning on implementing police state measures to quell protests.
(Indeed, while most Americans don’t realize it, this already started happening years ago).
Will that help keep the U.S. together?
Maybe in the short-run. But I believe that - especially now that the illusions that we’re in an endless boom economy and that the U.S. is a true democracy following the wishes of its people have started to pop (see this and this) - within the next decade, America will break up, like the Soviet Union.
Note 1: One precipitating factor in the break up of the U.S. may be the bankruptcy of the states. California, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, Ohio and Wisconsin are all in really big trouble, and on the verge of defaulting. The rest of the states won’t be that far behind as the financial crisis intensifies. If the federal government isn’t helping them in their most dire crises since the founding of the country, and if the feds impose the heavy hand of martial law without any benefit to the states, they will have less incentive to remain a part of the union.
Note 2: What would the break up of America mean for the dollar and for gold? It would likely be very bad for the former and very good for the latter. But remember, the U.S. might not break up for some time.

Utah Guest worker program proposed

By Arthur Raymond Deseret News Published: December 4, 2008
As Utah's pending immigration legislation continues to take fire from business leaders and other government agencies, the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce came forward Wednesday at a Capitol legislative meeting and pitched a guest worker program it describes as a "tool to improve the Utah economy."
The plan, presented by Wesley Smith, the chamber's director of public policy, was crafted by chamber president and former Senate President Lane Beattie. Smith said the plan outlines a fundamental shift of the oft-criticized financial liabilities of undocumented workers from taxpayers to the workers themselves and their employers.

"The idea behind the guest worker program is, in most if not all respects, to take the (financial) burden from the public and put it in the private sector," Smith said. "That financial burden will be borne by the guest worker and the guest worker's employer."

The program proposes to create a two-year, renewable guest worker authorization for foreign workers and undocumented immigrants who are currently residing in the state of Utah. Workers would be required to register with a governing body, tentatively identified as the Utah Department of Workforce Services, and successfully pass both a security check (any felony convictions or serious offenses automatically would exclude the applicant from the program), and a medical screening. Further requirements would include the posting of a surety bond that would be forfeited if the guest-worker terms were not met, a 10 percent payroll withholding that would be held in trust until completion of the contract, and requisite health and auto insurance.

Smith said a key obstacle to overcome are federal regulations that would inhibit some provisions of the program, although the chamber had worked with Utah members of Congress, who supported it and would help with waivers. Those federal exceptions would give Utah the right to issue temporary work permits to undocumented persons, to engage in aggressive enforcement of federal and state immigration law and to funnel FICA and Medicare payroll withholdings back to the state to cover health insurance and cover administrative costs.

An outline of the plan Smith distributed to lawmakers said the enhanced law enforcement efforts would be necessary to stem a possible "large influx of undocumented workers who may be attracted to Utah's new program."

Smith contends the residency requirement of the worker permits, in addition to stepped-up enforcement, would somewhat limit this influx. Plus the very nature of the worker permit offer would provide a de facto screening process among undocumented residents.

"The incentive is strong enforcement of immigration law," Smith said. "If you don't register, we assume that you're not registering for a reason ... because you have something to hide and aren't willing to contribute to the state in the way we expect."

Smith said it is the chamber's contention that the preponderance of undocumented workers in the state are already contributing to their communities and this proposal creates an avenue for a new level of engagement.

"It would allow the majority of the people that are here to come forward, to work with us and become part of the community," Smith said.

Sen. Mark Madsen, R-Lehi, questioned how many of the current undocumented workers living in Utah could pass the security screening and how effective that screening process would be.

"How are you going to find enough people who have not engaged in use of fraudulent documents or identity theft," Madsen said. "I get the impression that there is room in this program for those who have committed crimes."

Smith's program outline indicates applicants to the program would be processed through the Interagency Border Inspection System Name Check system, administered by the U.S. Customs and Immigration Service and, if further review is merited, screened for criminal offenses by the FBI.

Sen. Ross Romero, D-Salt Lake, said he took Smith's presentation as a positive alternative viewpoint on the immigration issue and characterized SB81 as an ongoing "work in progress" that could undergo further changes and modifications before its scheduled implementation on July 1, 2009. He noted that President-elect Barack Obama's appointment of Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano to head the Department of Homeland Security could set a new tone at the federal level on immigration issues. A lack of action by the federal government, Romero said, has put individual states, including Utah, in a position of having to create state-level solutions to problems not being addressed in Washington.

In 2006, Napolitano and Governor Jon Huntsman, Jr. crafted a guest worker proposal that successfully passed the Western Governors' Association. Arizona is widely considered to have some of the toughest immigration statutes in the country.


Provisions of Guest Worker Proposal

• Register as Worker

Applicants must register all relevant contact data including name, address, telephone number, etc. to the state. Data must be updated if any changes are made. Failure to update is grounds for revocation of worker status.

• Security Check

Each applicant is fingerprinted and their name run through Interagency Border Inspection System. A criminal history that includes any felony or serious offense results in ineligibility. Further review, if necessary, conducted by FBI.

• Medical Exam/Health Check

Each applicant required to undergo same examination currently required for federal residence status. Utah will apply same health-related ground for inadmissibility.

• Employer Sponsor

Employer can only sponsor an applicant if the position to be filled has been subject to appropriate notice and no eligible domestic workers have been identified for the position. Applicants who are not Utah residents must apply from their country of origin. Applicant must be sponsored within 90 days of registering as a worker.

• Surety Bond

Applicant must provide a minimum security bond with the intent of covering any cost of future enforcement if applicant does not honor terms of guest worker program.

• FICA and Medicare Equivalent Withholding

State of Utah will require employers to withhold an amount equivalent to typical FICA and Medicare withholdings (currently, about 15 percent.) Money will pay for health care and administrative costs of program.

• 10% Additional Withholding

This withholding will be taken out by the state and held in trust until the successful completion of the applicants guest worker status. Applicant is eligible for principle, while interest goes toward administrative costs.

• Health Insurance

All guest workers must be enrolled in a health insurance program. Employers may facilitate this requirement by providing employee insurance.

• Auto Insurance

Proof of valid auto insurance will be submitted to Department of Workforce Services. Expired insurance grounds for revocation of guest worker status. Waiver provided for non-drivers.

Retiring politicos can leave with cash

Utah's Curtis has about $400K in campaign accounts he could keep
By Bob Bernick Jr. and Lee Davidson
Deseret News
Published: November 15, 2008

The 18 Utah legislators who retired this year — either voluntarily or by voters' choice — have nearly a combined half-million dollars sitting in campaign accounts, money that they currently can just give to themselves, spend on a future campaign or dole out to whomever they wish.
By far most of that cash belongs to House Speaker Greg Curtis, R-Sandy, who was defeated Nov. 4 by Democratic challenger Jay Seegmiller. Curtis has $281,865 in his campaign account — and another $99,081 in his political action committee — the latest pre-election financial reports show.
But Sen. Carlene Walker, R-Cottonwood Heights, who also lost in the general election, is no cash slacker — she has $32,000. And Sen. Darin Peterson, R-Nephi, who briefly sought re-election last spring before getting out of his race, has nearly $30,000. Retiring Sen. Dan Eastman, R-Bountiful, has about $22,000.
That is not chump change.
And while Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. and GOP and Democratic lawmakers alike are talking about changing the current campaign funding law to restrict state candidates and officeholders from giving themselves campaign money, it is questionable whether such a new law coming out of the 2009 Legislature could be retroactive to current campaign cash.
Utah allows campaign accounts to be spent on any legal activity. And in years gone by, some candidates and officeholders, and some former officeholders, have given themselves campaign cash.
Considering that among the current crop of 18 retiring legislators, 76 percent of their campaign money in their last year for which disclosure forms are available came from special interest groups, a Deseret News analysis of their latest filings shows, then, in effect, they could be retiring on cash from lobbyists and special interests who sought special favors from them.
Can such a thing really happen, one may ask?
Yep. For example, Rep. Jack Draxler, R-North Logan, gave himself $6,300 last year from his campaign account, telling the newspaper that he is self-employed and he lost more than that through the 45-day general session and other legislative work days when he couldn't earn his regular pay. (Legislators make around $15,000 a year in state pay and expenses.)
And it has become rather regular for some retiring/retired legislators to donate big chunks of their campaign accounts to charities.
Previous bills on restrictions to campaign account expenses — and current talk about putting some limits on such spending — all include exceptions for donating campaign money to a bona fide charity. So it is likely that charitable giving will still be allowed under any new law restricting campaign account spending.
Curtis could not be reached for comment on this story. However, he has previously said that he would not take any of his campaign cash himself, but may give to other candidates, his party or to charity.
And he may seek higher office down the road. Curtis' nearly $400,000 (in PAC and campaign cash) would be a good jump-start for a campaign for governor, Congress or attorney general.
Other high-profile legislators have also raised a lot of cash for a political rainy day. For example, former House Speaker Marty Stephens raised several hundred thousand dollars while he was speaker and spent a chunk of it on his failed 2004 run for governor. And current Rep. Kevin Garn, R-Layton, kept about $45,000 in his Utah House account even after he lost a run for the U.S. House in 2002, and spent that money when he ran successfully for his Utah House seat again in 2006.
Eastman was one of the few retiring members who would comment on plans for his leftover money — about $22,000. He said he plans to give about half to charity, most of the rest to other politicians and maybe some for himself. "But I don't plan to be buying any plasma TVs for myself," he joked.
He said he does not favor restricting how campaign accounts can be used. "You elect honorable people, and they will use it in honorable ways," he said.
Eastman added that while he raised more than he needed in his last election, much of what is left over will go to "several Senate friends and other candidates who are deserving" and have similar political goals as he does.
While Eastman dislikes campaign-fund restrictions, he does support banning all gifts from lobbyists — another controversial political money issue.
Of note, exactly how much money retiring members have is often unknown. If they are not active candidates, they do not need to file disclosure forms — showing how much they are raising and how they have been spending it — until January, or just after they officially leave office.
________________________________________
E-mail: bbjr@desnews.com; lee@desnews.com
© 2008 Deseret News Publishing Company | All rights reserved

All this cash should be donated to children’s charities’. - Alex

Southern Utah residents have say on immigration

ST. GEORGE - A slumping economy may have dominated the headlines of late, but immigration took center stage Wednesday, during a meeting of the Utah Legislature's interim Immigration Committee at Dixie State College.

The committee, assigned by legislative leadership to study immigration issues and make recommendations for future state action, has met throughout the state this year, gathering input from residents and hearing testimony from various community leaders.

In Wednesday's meeting, members of local anti-immigration groups such as the Utah Minutemen and Citizens Council Against Illegal Immigration weren't shy about their takes on the issue, saying undocumented immigrants cost U.S. citizens in a myriad of ways. Some clapped when Rep. Neil A. Hansen, D-Ogden, arguing that undocumented immigrants deserve humane treatment, barbed "Why don't we just shoot people as they come across the border?"

Committee members said they simply wanted to gather information as they consider possible legislation on immigration, and asked for new ideas and thoughts on how the state government could best handle the issue.

Larry Meyers, a local attorney and member of the Citizens Council Against Illegal Immigration, said the issue shouldn't be about race, but about whether someone is legal or illegal. He encouraged the committee to consider ways to improve immigration enforcement through both funding and legislation.

"We care about this issue," he said. "We don't want our community invaded by people who aren't in this country legally."

Aaron Corsi, a St. George resident who has lived in California, said he hopes the gangs and crime he saw there don't engulf Southern Utah. He said it has been difficult finding work in St. George lately, and he sees mostly Latinos doing the construction.

"It's frustrating when I go to some of these places and can't get a job, and the ones working are illegals," he said.

Such concerns have already spurred some local government action. Last week the St. George City Council voted unanimously to include a new clause in business license applications that makes business owners certify that all of their workers are legal.

Retired Sen. Bill Hickman, R-St. George, has sponsored legislation that would make it tougher for undocumented immigrants to get jobs and find places to live in Utah. SB81, set to take effect in July 2009, was toned down from earlier versions as it passed through the Legislature, but still includes provisions that mandate some employers verify their workers are legal and allows police officers to enforce immigration law.

Opponents of such legislation contend these attempts do little in actually addressing the fundamental problems behind the issue, and often lead to profiling and incite racism.

Manny Aguilar, a St. George resident and activist for Latino affairs in the area, said he is concerned that immigration legislation would only be focused toward Latinos, and said the issue has caused divisions among American and Latino cultures.

"We don't see anybody else getting picked on," he said.

If the government pursues Legislation, some residents asked that it also promote a peaceful discourse, said St. George resident Yulma Diaz. She said she has personally been ridiculed and belittled because of her looks, despite being a U.S. citizen.

"As we do this, can we at least promote peace?" she said.

Hansen, who said his district is the most diverse and economically challenged in the state, said his main concern was making sure to prevent discrimination.

"This country of the United States is a United States of immigrants," he said.

The committee heard two presentations on E-Verify, an online system jointly operated by the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration to check the work status of new hires.

Gloria Aitken, management and program analyst with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services under the Department of Homeland Security, said the system, often criticized for technical problems and database errors, has had most of its bugs worked out, citing a "94 percent accuracy rate."

Hickman, also a committee member, said he was concerned that the system is inherently flawed as currently instituted, because employers must voluntarily choose to take part.

"That doesn't solve the problem," he said. "The problem is an attempt to verify the status of the employees, and I can't imagine, if it's on a voluntary status, what benefit that is."

Barbara Szweda, public policy advocate with the American Civil Liberties Union of Utah, gave a presentation on the system as well, calling it a "quick fix" to the problem of undocumented workers that has actually caused enormous financial losses to both businesses and employees because of ongoing technical problems and obvious threats to privacy.

"It's sort of like throwing the baby out with the bath water if we don't take the time to look at the impact it could have on American citizens," she said, arguing that while the system may catch some undocumented workers, it could also hurt legal citizens through unfair errors.

http://www.thespectrum.com/article/20081113/NEWS01/811130320

Sanctuary City Must Report Alien Drug Offenders, Court Rules

Immigration enforcement advocates scored a major victory on October 22nd when the California First District Court of Appeals reinstated a lawsuit against San Francisco's sanctuary city policy that had been thrown out last year. The suit, Charles Fonseca v. Heather Fong, Chief, San Francisco Police Department, challenged that the city's practice of not cooperating with federal immigration authorities violates a state law that requires law enforcement officers who make arrests on drug related charges to notify the federal government if it is suspected that person is not a U.S. citizen. (Opinion of the California 1st District Court of Appeals) The Superior Court judge who heard the case last year dismissed it on grounds that the state statute was itself an invalid law that sought to regulate immigration. The appellate court disagreed, noting that the law intended to fight drug trafficking in California.

The plaintiff, Charles Fonseca, noted that his interest in filing the lawsuit was "making the city comply with the law." (San Francisco Chronicle, October 23, 2008) The court decision requires the city to comply with the state law, which the city maintains will have no "bearing on the city's sanctuary ordinance," noting that written policies for the city already "allow" officials to report drug offenders who appear to not be U.S. citizens to federal authorities. (San Francisco Chronicle, October 23, 2008) However, President Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch remarked: "This landmark ruling strikes at the heart of the sanctuary movement for illegal aliens. San Francisco and other sanctuary cities are not above the law. This court ruling exposes the lie behind the argument that state and local law enforcement cannot help enforce immigration laws." (The Wall Street Journal, October 23, 2008)

This case marks just another instance in a year of troubles for San Francisco's sanctuary city policy. In June, Mayor Gavin Newsom came under fire after the San Francisco Chronicle uncovered a taxpayer-funded program that was flying illegal alien youth gang members back to their country of origin, rather than entering them into the court system. Then, in early October, city officials announced that a federal grand jury was investigating whether the sanctuary city policy violated federal immigration laws that prohibit aiding and abetting illegal aliens. (See Legislative Update, October 14, 2008)

Back to top

Utah Minutemen Head South to Protect More than Just the Border

by Chelsea Warren - 14 Oct 2008

Modern-day Minutemen call Utahns to action and rally people to defend the U.S. border.

The Utah Minuteman Project, an organization of Utah citizens dedicated to protecting the U.S. against illegal immigration, prepares to travel to the Arizona/ Mexico border this weekend to help local border watch groups on patrol.
Utah State House Representatives Stephen Sandstrom (R-Orem) and Chris Herrod (R-Provo) will accompany them.
Eli Cawley, chairman of the board of the UMP, stressed the importance of this event, which is known as a muster, in supporting border watch organizations.
"It is important for us to be aware and to lend a hand," Cawley said.
The Minutemen go down twice a year, in April and October, to help watch the border and receive first-hand education on the issues of border control.
Participants in this event pay their own way, which has an estimated cost between $600 and $1,200. Five-time muster participant Norm Davis said the financial contribution is "no small commitment."
Muster members lend their eyes and ears to border patrol members to cover the wide stretches of desert terrain.
"We provide support as observers for these agents covering 15-20 mile stretches," said Davis, the elected chairman of standing subcommittees for UMP.
Minuteman participation in these musters has drawn criticism from several community groups, including officials in Arizona border patrol.
"We do not support what the Minutemen do and they are not invited to our musters," said Mario Escalante, public affairs officer for the Tucson sector of the U.S. border patrol. "Not only do we have to worry about someone smuggling people or dope across the border, but you have to worry about this civilian putting themselves in harm's way. It makes our job that much more difficult."
Davis said the participants act only as observers and do not participate in the dangerous aspects of suspect apprehension.
Community member Alex Segura founded the Utah Minuteman Project in response to the increased frequency of illegal immigration and its effects on the community, Cawley said.
"This organization is important for people to know about because we are one of the only ones battling for our language, culture and borders for our children and grandchildren," Cawley said. "People say 'diversity this' or 'compassion that,' but it comes down to battling for our nation."
The UMP board of directors comprises Hispanic and other non-white members, which Cawley said defies any ideas that they might be a prejudice-based group.
"La Raza y MIChA say we are terrible monsters and racists," Davis said. "We love Mexican people; we just don't want illegals in our country."
University of Utah MIChA organization member Denise Cantaeda said she personally understands the Minuteman reasoning for going to the border, but that the work is better left to trained professionals.
The forefront issue in illegal immigration is not one of race, Davis said, but one of respecting the law and going about appropriate channels to obtain entry into the U.S.
"I have family members from China and Germany who paid thousands of dollars to get a green card legally," Davis said. "They respected the law and sacrificed to get here."
http://nn.byu.edu/story.cfm/69806

Governors denounce Chaffetz's 'tent cities' idea

PROVO — Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson have distanced themselves from Jason Chaffetz's claim that his idea to detain illegal immigrants in tent cities surrounded by barbed-wire fences came from the Western Governors' Association.
Chaffetz, the Republican nominee for Utah's 3rd District seat in the U.S. House, only regrets using the word "tent."
Chaffetz has been under fire lately for his position that illegal immigrants who have committed crimes should be held in tent cities surrounded by barbed-wire fences. His immigration policy also would detain undocumented immigrants in those facilities if they don't return to their countries of origin.
Chaffetz tied his idea to a proposal by the WGA, which includes Huntsman, who is his former boss, and Richardson.
"What did (Sheriff) Joe Arpaio do in Maricopa County (Arizona)?" Chaffetz said at the state Republican convention. "He put up tents. He put barbed wire around them. Now this isn't some wild Jason Chaffetz plan, this is a concurrent resolution — a joint resolution — between Republican and Democratic governors."
Huntsman, who has endorsed Chaffetz, recently told radio journalist Doug Fabrizio that Chaffetz's suggestion of a tent city was "extreme" and different from the WGA proposal.
"I heard somebody reference the Western Governors' model," Huntsman said on the live broadcast. "I was involved with drafting that with (Arizona Gov.) Janet Napolitano. We talked about a regional correctional facility to handle some of the overload that the states can't handle. Nobody talked about tent cities with barbed-wire fences around (them)."
Richardson, a Democrat, went further.
"Mr. Chaffetz's immigration proposal is offensive and inhumane and should be rejected out of hand," Richardson said. "His statements do nothing more than add more of the same divisive political rhetoric that incites confrontation and does not solve the problem, and is not what the Western Governors' Association supports."
Chaffetz said Thursday his idea is simply a cheaper alternative to the WGA's call for federal correctional facilities in the West.
"We agree on the need and the function if not the form," Chaffetz said. "I recognize the word 'tent' is sensational."
Chaffetz said a company in the 3rd District, Sprung, makes quality tents for the military and correctional facilities that are a far cry from those available at Cabela's. Images of the tents can be found at sprung.com by clicking on "Industry Gallery" near the bottom of the home page and then clicking on "Correctional Facilities."
"These tents are being used in Idaho, Florida, Texas, Hawaii and even in Washington County," Chaffetz said. "I keep getting tripped up by the word 'tent.' I could do better if I called them eco-friendly, highly portable, innovative structures."
Chaffetz continued Thursday to blame the ongoing controversy on misrepresentations from his Democratic opponent, Bennion Spencer, whose staff sent a letter to the WGA requesting a response to Chaffetz's plan.
Spencer was quoted in an Associated Press story saying that Chaffetz would put people "in a tent city because of their ethnic persuasion."
"I've never taken the position I want to round everybody up based on ethnicity and throw them in a tent city," Chaffetz said. "That's a complete fabrication and a lie. If someone said we should, I'd get whipped up over it, too. That's irresponsible. Fortunately, I've never taken that position."
Spencer continued to say Thursday that Chaffetz's plan is offensive, calling it racial profiling. Now, he said, the issue is helping him raise money. The AP story was published around the country and led to radio appearances by Spencer that he said prompted donations.
"When my financial disclosures come out you'll see donations from Florida, New Jersey, Missouri," Spencer said. "People have heard me on the radio, and they're sickened by his immigration position. They go online and give me money. They go, 'Stop the Nazi.'"

© 2008 Deseret News Publishing Company All rights reserved
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,700265411,00.html?pg=2

Immigration Contributing to Economic Crisis, Experts Say

FAIR-Washington

With American financial markets facing severe crises meriting intervention from the federal government, several experts have recently argued that granting subprime mortgages to immigrants - both legal and illegal - have played a role in bringing about the current economic decline. During "the boom years," many immigrants took out high-interest fixed-rate loans or subprime mortgages with a low entry rate that later rose sharply in order to buy homes in the United States that they could barely afford. (Reuters, January 30, 2008)
The National Council of La Raza (NCLR) pointed out in April of last year that recent immigrants often turn to subprime lenders for several reasons. (USA Today, April 25, 2007) According to NCLR, 35% of Hispanic families do not have checking accounts. Furthermore, recent immigrants typically do not have credit histories and are more likely to have undocumented income. This in turn causes immigrants to seek out lenders who do not require income verification. Additionally, subprime lenders have been supported by politicians and community organizations wishing to promote minority homeownership. The subprime crisis led NCLR last year to call for a moratorium on subprime home foreclosures. (Id.)
Subprime loans have been instrumental in bringing about a recent fourfold increase in home foreclosures in Barnstable County, Massachusetts. (Cape Cod Online, July 3, 2007) Pam Parker, a mortgage prevention counselor at the Housing Assistance Corporation in Barnstable County, observed that many immigrants had taken these loans "because they don't know our language and they don't know our culture." (Id.) In 15 San Diego County, California zip codes - where home values have fallen as much as 40% - roughly 45% of home loans granted in 2005 and 2006 were subprime. (The San Diego Union-Tribune, July 20, 2008) According to Gabe del Rio, vice president of lending and homeownership at San Diego-based Community HousingWorks, many of the individuals who come to his agency for financial counseling are recent immigrants who spoke little English and did not understand the terms of their subprime loans. (Id.)

***UMP PRESS RELEASE***

October 1, 2008
Contact: Alex Segura

Since April 2005 members of the Utah Minuteman Project have been involved performing border patrols to subsidize the work of the U.S. Border Patrol.
Our patrols provide any extra set of ears and eyes as well as a voice to help the border patrol and their officers who serve as our country’s first line of defense to keep unauthorized people and cargo from entering into the United States.
We have planned yet another trip to the Arizona Mexico border October 18th to the 20th. We will work in conjunction with the local border watch groups to help patrol in the capacity of neighborhood watch volunteers.
This year a Republican member of the House of Representatives Stephen Sandstrom from District 58 has enlisted us to assist him during this October’s eighth border watch event.
He has also invited Rep. Chris Herrod from District 62 a Republican to join in the October event and he has accepted.They will be joined by Utah Minuteman Project Founder Alex Segura and Director Eli Cawley.
House members will inspect the new fencing, patrol the Arizona Mexico border both during the night and day, will be actively involved in meeting with local residents who live along the border fence, with Tucson sector border patrol officers, Tucson sector legislators as well as with local law enforcement personal.
This trip is planed as a way to have members of the Utah legislature directly involved in the everyday lives of the people who live and work on the border and what they endure.
There are also the indirect effects of Utah laws that encourage illegal immigration from Mexico through Arizona and its ill effects on Arizona as a result, even in the face of Arizona’s new get tough law.
Our hope is to have the House Members bring back their experience and pass it along to their counterparts in the legislature as a guide to understand the effects of the immigration laws they draft here have on other bordering states and their citizens.

Lou Dobbs Headlines 2008 FAIR Hold Their Feet to the Fire

Lou Dobbs, who has added a nationally syndicated radio show to his role as host of the highly rated CNN program, is among 50 or so talk radio personalities participating in the 2008 Hold Their Feet to the Fire event. Broadcasting from the Phoenix Park Hotel on Capitol Hill on September 10 and 11, talk radio hosts from all across the United States will devote their programs to the issue of immigration.
Hold Their Feet to the Fire has become an annual event, attracting some of the leading talk radio programs to the nation’s capital to raise an important issue that many of the nation’s leaders would prefer to ignore: immigration reform that places the interests of the American people first.
The 2008 Hold Their Feet to the Fire event is being organized by the FAIR Congressional Task Force (FCTF), a 501(c)(4) organization affiliated with FAIR. Hold Their Feet to the Fire is co-sponsored by Roger Hedgecock, host of a popular talk radio program on KOGO in San Diego. Hedgecock originated the Hold Their Feet to the Fire concept and has worked with FAIR and FCFT to expand it into a major annual event.
Talk radio has had an undeniable impact on the outcome of the immigration debate. This year’s Hold Their Feet to the Fire event is designed to provide millions of talk radio listeners in every state with a high profile forum to express their views about this vital national issue.
Energized by the highly successful Hold Their Feet to the Fire event which took place in April 2007, talk radio and their listeners generated unprecedented public opposition to the Senate amnesty and guest worker bill that was introduced the following month. The level and intensity of public opposition to amnesty and millions of new guest workers was directly responsible for the defeat of the bill that had the backing of the White House and many congressional leaders. Hold Their Feet to the Fire is designed to ensure that as a new administration and a new Congress take office in 2009 they are fully aware of overwhelming public support for immigration reform legislation without amnesty or guest worker provisions, and for overall reductions in immigration levels.
Arguably no media figure has had a greater impact on the immigration debate than Lou Dobbs. Dobbs’ CNN program carried live feeds from the 2007 Hold Their Feet to the Fire, and his relentless coverage of the clear sell-out of the public interest was instrumental in the defeat of the Senate amnesty bill. Dobbs now has a daily radio broadcast as well, syndicated nationally on the United Stations Radio Network. The inclusion of Dobbs’ radio program to the 2008 Hold Their Feet to the Fire line-up adds star power to an already high profile event.
Like FAIR, the mission of the FCTF is to educate the American public about the importance of adopting immigration policies that serve the public interest. The reputation that FAIR and FCTF enjoy with leading media organizations makes it possible to communicate our agenda for true immigration reform into homes across America. We are honored by the trust many in the media place in us, as exemplified by their willingness to participate in Hold Their Feet to the Fire 2008.

Legislative panel urged to 'hang tough' against illegal immigration

By Christopher SmartThe Salt Lake TribuneSalt Lake Tribune
08/28/2008 06:41:58 AM MDT

KIMBALL JUNCTION - Crime would go down. Taxes would go down. Unemployment would go down. And everyone would speak English. That would be the result if federal officials enforced immigration laws, according to various speakers Wednesday evening before the Utah legislative Immigration Interim Committee. But since that is not going to happen, Utah must enact SB81 - passed earlier this year but not slated to take effect until July 1, 2009 - and make sure police and employers throughout the state enforce it. The committee's third of eight such hearings was held at Ecker Hill Middle School, a stone's throw from Kimball Junction, where Summit County's booming resort economy is underpinned by immigrant labor. Speakers, like retired U.S. Border Patrol officer Eugene Davis, stressed they weren't against legal immigration, but that undocumented workers were crippling the country economy and culture. And Davis added, that porous borders also are an invitation to terrorists. "I have grave concern that we continue to swim in a sea of illegal immigration," he told the committee. "If we cannot control our borders, we cannot control our destiny." The Utah law that outlines, among other things, that local law enforcement be included in immigration policing and that employers be held responsible for hiring undocumented workers, was based on Oklahoma legislation. "I want you guys to hang tough," said visiting Oklahoma Rep. Randy Terrill. "Don't be harassed or bullied or intimidated by the naysayers. There is going to be an outcry from the business community." Oklahoma was sued by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, as well as the Oklahoma Chamber of Commerce. Portions of the law were struck down. But Terrill said lawmakers would prevail on appeal. The new law will save Oklahoma taxpayers $200 million a year in costs incurred in health care, education, welfare and corrections by undocumented aliens, Terrill said. When asked by committee member Utah Rep. Neil A. Hansen what should happen to American-born children whose undocumented parents are deported, Terrill said that lawbreakers of any kind are separated from their families when they go to prison. That comment left Park City outreach worker Shelley Weiss livid. "I find that morally reprehensible," she said in an interview outside the hearing room. "The U.S. Chamber of Commerce will sue Utah, just like they did Oklahoma." Park City businessman Brian Harlig said the testimony Wednesday evening did not reflect opinions in Summit County, where unemployment is practically nonexistent. "Nobody disagrees that immigration needs to be addressed," he said in an interview. "But they want to handcuff them and send them back. It's B.S." But speaker after speaker told the committee that undocumented workers keep wages down. "It's a contemptible statement to say they take jobs Americans just won't do," said Kent Lundgren, president of the National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers. Without a large pool of cheap labor, employers would raise wages and unemployment would go down, Lundgren explained. Others, including Alex Segura of the Utah Minuteman Project, testified that such things as the state's driver privilege card for immigrants is a great aid to undocumented workers and helps them obtain false documents and perpetrates identity theft. Utah Rep. Christopher Henrod, who is not on the panel but was speaking as a citizen who is married to a legal immigrant, said the Beehive State has a reputation of being friendly to undocumented workers. "Do we want to be known as the state that opens its arms to illegal aliens?" csmart@sltrib.com