The Utah Commission on Immigration

Happy Independence Day!  A day for reflection on Freedom - and Security - and the Rule of Law - an Illegal immigration  (and noticing my personal failure to post anything of the recent events of  Supreme Court decision on AZ immigration law and executive Obamnesty)

This, however caught my attention at the local level (Utah) of the continuing effort loosely based on the "Utah Compact" toward "legalizing the illegals."

The Utah Commission on Immigration, in their recent meeting presented (but did not vote) this proposal, apparently in preparation for presenting a report:

"Proposed Policy Language:

1)     Any research or findings the Commission reviews shall be factually based and verifiable.  The Commission will focus on data that comes from academic sources and quantifiable research.

2)     As the Commission “develop[s] a comprehensive plan to address immigration, use of migrant workers and integration of immigrants in Utah,” the Commission’s recommendations and findings shall be based on the impact of any comprehensive plan to Utah’s economy, legal system, law enforcement efforts, and educational system.

Note:  This language is for formal vote to establish guiding principles to help delineate boundaries for future Commission discussions, findings and recommendations to the Legislature.  This language should help prevent the Commission from being pulled in too many directions which will detract from the Commission’s ability to make positive recommendations and fulfill the intent of the legislature.  A set of broad-based and consensus driven principles will help us focus our attention and increase our value to legislators."

Obviously, basing findings on verifiable facts is an admirable goal.    However, not all "facts" come from academic sources or are quantifiable:  Chis Herrod's book "the Forgotton Immigrant" has a great deal of quantifiable research and could be used as a source.     Limiting "facts" to academia, would presumably preclude NumbersUSA, CIS, FAIR - as well as the Sutherland Institute.

"Social Issues" in and of themselves tend not to quantifiable. 
The more important issue is the idea that the Commission is making "recommendations and findings shall be based on the impact of any comprehensive plan to Utah’s economy, legal system, law enforcement efforts, and educational system."

That, I believe, is far beyond the scope of their charter as any "comprehensive plan" should concern only the Migrant Worker Visa Pilot Program and NOT the full consideration to the problem and plight of illegal aliens, which is generally where comprehensive plans tend to lead.  IMO, the biggest job, at this point, may be to try to keep the Commission focused on its primary functions. 

Why is this commission creating a comprehensive plan to Utah's . . . education system?   Does the proposed Migrant Worker plan include families?  Should it? - That might be a valid subject for discussion, then a plan might be needed - such as the employer would be responsible for the payment thereof.   

Is the Migrant Worker going to be a permanent resident, on the path to citizenship?  My understanding is that it would be a temporary visa for a limited time for a specific job.   Is this being discussed?    

How about the eligibility of current illegal residents in Utah, is THAT being discussed?

In short is the Commission focusing on the Pilot worker visa plan or comprehensive immigration reform and "amnesty."   Have they lost the focus on the set goal or refocused efforts on legalization of the illegal?

It might be very helpful to review the committee and floor discussions to better determine the sense of the legislature.

As you may recall, the Commission was created by HB 466 in 2011 which was created for:
 "19 . providing for the creation of the Migrant Worker Visa Pilot Program;
20 . requiring monitoring of the pilot program and reporting on information gained;
21 and
22 . providing for implementation of similar migrant worker visa pilot programs."

The function basically are: 

(1) A study of current state and federal immigration law. 

(2)  The ONLY function as far as illegal immigration is to study its IMPACT on Utah:

"(1) The commission shall:
149 (a) conduct a thorough review of the economic, legal, cultural, and educational impact
150 of illegal immigration on the state and its political subdivisions;"

(3) The function pertaining to MIGRANT workers is limited to the Nuevo Leon Pilot project and developing a possible plan from it.

"(c) develop a comprehensive, coordinated, and sustainable state plan to address:

154 (i) immigration and the use of migrant workers in the state;

171 (f) comply with Part 3, Migrant Worker Visa Pilot Project."


The function is NOT to create a guest worker program, (aka HB116), nor is it to legalize the current illegal aliens in Utah.

Further, I think it was NOT within these defined function to suggest to the 2012 legislature that no 'immigration' bills should be considered.

I would also point out that:             
180          (3) (a) In performing its powers and duties, the commission may invite testimony from
             181      the governor, legislators, state agencies, and members of the public.
AND   (c) The commission may hold one or more public hearings that it considers advisable
             186      and in locations within the state that it chooses to afford interested persons an opportunity to
             187      appear and present views with respect to any subject relating to the commission's powers and
             188      duties under this section.

Illegal Aliens and Income Taxes

The DNews published "Thousands of undocumented workers in Utah file taxes" last week promoting the idea that illegal aliens are actually "law-abiding" residents just waiting for citizenship.

There was, of course, no comment about the illegality of her employment, merely that she had a Social Security issued before she overstayed her student visa.  She says,  "You have to pay taxes,"  "That's the way that you know that you have for sure some kind of security."

Two questions, how much taxes might she have paid?  What type of security is she concerned with?  One could assume FICA taxes for Social Security retirement.   (Though that payment possibly won't provide any benefit)

How about Income Tax?    In a quick analysis with an online Income tax calculator (TTax), it shows a divorced illegal alien declaring a $30,000 income with three dependents a standard deduction and without any tax withheld would receive a REFUND of $5,270 for federal income taxes!!!
That's a fairly good incentive to file.    (With a $40,000 income she only gets a refund of $1,936, at $25K the refund goes to $6,825) 

The article refers to them as "invisible taxpayers" - but, they may very well be paying an "invisible" tax!!

Worried about legality of dependents? The site declares "The person MUST BE a U.S. citizen, resident, national, a resident of Canada or Mexico . . ."

However, just to be fair TTax says the illegal alien filer would be responsible to pay $466 to the state of Utah  -  which would not quite cover the $18,000 for educating the three dependents. 

More Illegal Aliens Found Working in PKC

Here we go again. 

"One of Park City’s largest employers, the Stein Eriksen Lodge, recently lost about 10 percent of its workforce of more than 580 after a federal audit found those employees were ineligible to work in the United States."

This is quite similar to the Grand America Hotel last year, except that one took more time.   Same results:

• Illegal aliens found employed in jobs Utahns could do.
• No penalties to the employer
• AFTER the audit, they begin to use E-verify, which has been required in Utah for a couple of years now.

The Deer Valley Resort where the lodge is located uses E-verify.  Two other large Park City hotels St. Regis and Marriott use E-verify, why not Stein Eriksen Lodge?  Could it be because there is no penalty for not doing so and cheap labors might increase the profit margin? 

For other E-verify users in Utah, check the list here. www.ufire.net

Where have all Utah jobs gone?
Long time passing
Where have all the teen jobs gone?
Long time ago
Where have all workers gone?
Illegals took them every one
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?

(Apologies to Pete Seeger) 

Legislature Kills the last Illegal Immigration Bill

The last attempt to pass an illegal immigration law in this legislative session appears to have killed any hope of anything being passed to protect Utahns in lawful employment and other costs and problems associated with illegal aliens.

From the official journal:

MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS   (27 Feb Journal)
Representative Herrod made a motion, under suspension of the rules, to lift H.B.
300 from the Rules Committee and refer it to the Law Enforcement and Criminal
Justice standing committee. Representatives Draxler and Harper commented. 

Paraphrased transcript from the recording of the session:

Herrod: We should not be afraid to tackle tough issues.
Draxler: against motion  - survey ranked immigration - highest points were the facets of guest-worker HB116, it's a mistake to lift bill at this time of the session   (HB 300 was introduced 27 Jan) 
Harper: proper motion, but against motion -   failed in rules with other immigration bills,  part of process;  if we do this, what other bills will we have to hear    (11:20) "what other games might be played?"  shouldn't be done this late in this session  (It's been sitting in rules for two weeks)
Dougall: Motion to "saunter'  (12:05)
Herrod: I warn this body about process; the legislature has lost the faith of Utahns;  Have you on rules even read the bill?:  We have high unemployment  for teenagers, high suicide rate;  21% of rape of child are by illegal aliens, murder rate up; but we won't even hear a bill that is constitutional (HB300)   Lincoln quote  “To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men.”, don't use a ploy to saunter to stay away of vote
Dougall:  This is not a motion of cowardice      He (Herrod) issues a tirade day after day, very bitter about many things,  we need to cool down.

Chair: Voice vote - passed   division =  vote:
Comments by chair of what are we voting on -  not on bill, but to saunter.   
pause (long)  16:45  17:42 
Mel  Brown:  Point of order, need recess or adjourn- not to saunter, motion not debatable.  18.22   motion is to recess for 15 min.

Representative Dougall made a substitute motion to recess for 15 minutes.
Representative Herrod commented.

The motion to recess for 15 minutes passed on the following roll call:

Yeas, 40; Nays, 31; Absent or not voting, 4. 

Voting in the affirmative were: Representatives
Anderson Arent Barrus Bird Briscoe Chavez-Houck Cosgrove
 D Brown Daw Dee Dougall Doughty Duckworth Edwards Fisher
 Handy Harper Hemingway Hendrickson King Kiser Litvack
 M Brown McCay McIff Menlove Moss Newbold Poulson Powell Sagers
 Sanpei Seelig V Peterson Watkins Wheatley Wiley Wilson
 Wright Lockhart

Voting in the negative were: Representatives
Barlow Butterfield Christensen Cox Draxler Dunnigan Eliason
 Frank Froerer Galvez Gibson Greenwood Grover Herrod
 Hutchings Ipson Ivory J Peterson Last Mathis Nielson
 Noel Oda Painter Perry Pitcher Snow Sumsion Vickers Webb
 Wilcox

Absent or not voting were: Representatives
Hughes Morley Ray Sandstrom

So ends 2012 Utah immigration enforcement, not with a bang, but a whimper   

House - 2012 General Legislative Session Day 35 Part 2 Feb 27, 2012 00h 19m   Video MP3 Audio

If the link does not work, scroll through the archives on the home page.  When you get to the video click on "Lift Bill"   (about 8 min in) 

Grand America Caught in DHS Audit

The Grand America Hotel is an excellent example of the need for Everify and the protection it can afford both businesses AND employees. 

Utah Law requires all businesses, with over 15 Employees, to use Everify and both federal and state law prohibit the hiring of “unauthorized aliens.” Regrettably, no penalties were attached for noncompliance in Utah, but its use might have provided some escape from punishment if it had been used.  

According to the SL Tribune article, the five-star Salt Lake hotel in a DHS audit showed that the hotel could NOT “provide legal documentation to work in the United States.“ 

The Deseret News report stated “DHS determined that some hotel employees did not have valid documentation to work in the United States even though they had presented facially valid documents when they were hired.” 

No further explanation was given, but it is well known the the State of Utah issued Driver's License to illegal aliens for several years before changing “Driver Privilege Cards."   Both documents might be considered "facially valid documents" as they are official Utah Photo "identification" cards, which are not supposed to be used for identification. 

Apparently, the Hotel may have been using the I-9 form which requires NO verification by the employer when hiring.  The Tribune article reports that "The documentation of all new hires is checked against federal databases under the E-Verify system."  The Grand America Hotel was not found on UFIRE's  DHS provided Utah E-Verify users databases

through June 2011.  The use of E-Verify in Utah was mandated beginning July 2010

A later database showed they finally signed up for E-Verify in July around the time of a controversial protest over "the Grand America Hotel’s attack on immigrants."

According to this article "The Grand America Hotel bosses set a July 6 deadline for all of the employees. The bosses require that all workers reapply and either show the necessary documentation or face immediate termination. However, the bosses extended this deadline one month, to Aug. 6 in order to ensure staffing at the Governors’ Conference."



Utah Valley University Revolutionary Students Union said, “Defending workers, especially those who are immigrants is a top priority. Grand America is attacking the right to receive a living wage and enforcing racist systems of verification. An attack on one worker is an attack on all of us.”

After the DHS audit, a total of over 100 undocumented employees lost their jobs because of lack of  proof of legal status.  Nothing has been reporting concerning replacements, but as of the end of July there were 41,290 unemployed people in Salt Lake County. 

Although the Hotel association reported a $12 wage for the hotel jobs, Workforces Services has several listed a $8.25/hr.

 

Grand America Hotel is a GOLD member of the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce which was the primary proponent of the Utah Guest Worker Permit (HB 116) which attempts to “legalize the illegal” or in their words

Advocacy Journalism for illegal aliens

Anyone following the Utah media should recognize the bias toward illegal aliens, guest workers, HB116, etc.   Here's a more subtle one in the SL Trib, you may have missed, which reported "Utah’s independent voters are cooling to the state’s tea party movement, with support dropping by more than half over the last several months, according to a newly released (BYU) poll."

Reporting on a few answers, the article failed to report the main points of the 25 questions in the April Utah Voter Poll by BYU's Center for the Study of Election and Democracy:  

• 62%  disapprove of how the Utah State Legislature is handling its job
• only 12% believe "illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay permanently in the U.S."
• 17% wanted illegal aliens "to go home immediately"
• 40% allowed 'most' to stay as temporary workers.
• 
  58% support the AZ enforcement bill
  
• 79% supported Sandstrom's HB 497 enforcement bill


• 63% supported HB 469 (sponsoring immigrants)


• 45% "did not know" the LDS church's stand on any of the 'immigration' bills


• 84% wanted the GRAMA bill repealed


• respondents were 39% GOP, 13% Dem and 42% "independent"


• 61% conservative, 24% liberal


• 96% had attended college


• Huntsman and Romney got the most favorable rating at 63%


• The current Congressmen form Utah were all about 50%

But the Trib decided the important item was the Tea Party. The response actually was 48% of voters thought favorably of the tea party. 
 

Can Employer be Held Responsible for Illegal Alien Crime?

It appears that an employer CAN be held liable for the crime of an Illegal Alien Employee. 

Here is a case: 
HUNTSVILLE, Ala. (AP) - The family of slain Huntsville police officer Daniel Howard Golden was awarded $37.5 million in punitive damages Tuesday by a Huntsville jury.
Golden's family had sued his convicted killer, Benito Ocampo Albarran along with the El Jalisco Mexican restaurant where Albarran worked. The jury awarded the Golden family $25 million from Albarran and $12.5 million from the restaurant.


Golden was killed in 2005 after answering a domestic dispute call at the restaurant in Northwest Huntsville. According to evidence and testimony from Albarran's murder trial, he shot Golden twice in the head, killing him. Court records indicate Albarran was intoxicated at the time of the shooting. He was sentenced to death for the crime in 2008.
 
Click here for an extensive paper on the subject:
Excerpt: "The amended RICO definitions added a violation of section 274 of the INA.codified in 8 U.S.C. § 1324.to the list of prohibited conduct qualifying as a predicate offense under 18 U.S.C. § 1961. Under the expanded definitions, .racketeering activity. for purposes of a civil RICO suit includes .any act which is indictable under the Immigration and Nationality Act, section 274 (relating to bringing in and harboring certain aliens). This section bears the title Bringing in and harboring certain aliens. and appears targeted at people that smuggle or conceal aliens in the United States.  In contrast, section 274A is entitled Unlawful employment of aliens and qualifies several prohibitions on employment of illegal aliens in the United States. The amendments opened the door for the use of federal racketeering law against companies that knowingly violate the INA.   Although relatively obscure, the amended definitions did not go unnoticed for long."

Any lawyers out there who want to take up the cause in Utah?

Mandatory Everify for Nation??

I have wondered why the US Chamber of Commerce supports HR 2164 "Legal Workforce Act" which would mandate the use of Everify nationally over a period of time. 

 Kris Kobach   has reservations about the bill based on the ideas that the federal government would not actually enforce it, if passed, and states have the enforcement right as noted in the recent Supreme Court case. 

Kobach: "The goal of the state laws is to encourage illegal aliens to self-deport. If Washington gets a clue and joins the states in this strategy of attrition through enforcement, so much the better. But the ideal enforcement environment is one in which both the states and the feds are on the field."  
"The states are actually enforcing these laws, in sharp contrast to the federal government’s lax enforcement approach under President Obama."

These comments (below) from Phyllis Schlafly add a little more grist to the mill.   Her proposed amendment, re tax deductions for wages , is an excellent idea. 

The comment on restricting states to mandatory use of everify only to government employees
was not readily found in HR2164, unless it's this proposal  (which it doesn't seem to say): -

"(2) PREEMPTION- The provisions of this section preempt any State or local law, ordinance, policy, or rule, including any criminal or civil fine or penalty structure, insofar as they may now or hereafter relate to the hiring, continued employment, or status verification for employment eligibility purposes, of unauthorized aliens. A State, locality, municipality, or political subdivision may exercise its authority over business licensing and similar laws as a penalty for failure to use the verification system described in subsection (d) to verify eployment eligibility when and as required under subsection (b)."

On the subject of  forbidding the states the right to punish, here is the proposed change to current law (read the highlighted text, the italicized words were added for clarification) :

Proposed: `(3) GOOD FAITH DEFENSE-
`(A) DEFENSE- An employer (or person or entity that hires, employs, recruits or refers for fee, or is otherwise obligated to comply with this section) who establishes that it has complied in good faith with [Everify] the requirements of subsection (b)--
`(i) shall not be liable to a job applicant, an employee, the Federal Government, or a State or local government, under Federal, State, or local criminal or civil law for any employment-related action taken with respect to a job applicant or employee in good-faith reliance on information provided through the system established under subsection (d); and
`(ii) has established compliance with [hiring legal employees] its obligations under subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1) and subsection (b) absent a showing by the Secretary of Homeland Security, by clear and convincing evidence, that the employer had knowledge that an employee is an unauthorized alien.

Compared to the current law:  ORIGINAL : "(3) Defense   A person or entity that establishes that it has complied in good faith with the requirements of subsection (b) of this section with respect to the hiring, recruiting, or referral for employment of an alien in the United States has established an affirmative defense that the person or entity has not violated paragraph (1)(A) with respect to such hiring, recruiting, or referral."

Phyllis Schlafly   "Lamar Smith's E-Verify Bill Must Be Amended"
(Excerpts):

E-Verify, a computer process that makes it fast and easy for employers to check the validity of employees' Social Security numbers to ascertain if they are legal, was created by Congress as a voluntary system. It demonstrates its utility by verifying individuals within a few seconds with 99.5 percent accuracy, but only about 2 percent of businesses actually use it. Arizona passed the Legal Arizona Workers Act in 2007 to require the use of E-Verify by businesses in that state and to allow the state to revoke the business license of any companies that knowingly employed illegal aliens.

On May 26, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a five-to-three decision (Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting), upheld the Arizona law. The Court rejected the pro-amnesty claque's argument that immigration enforcement is exclusively the federal government's responsibility. . . .

The pro-amnesty U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which was the loser in the Arizona case, conspired with House Judiciary Committee chairman Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, to introduce H.R. 2164, which unless amended, will reverse Arizona's significant victory. This bill sounds helpful because it pretends to make E-Verify mandatory nationwide, but it actually ties the hands of the states.
H.R. 2164 pre-empts the states from requiring use of E-Verify unless employees work for state or local governments. That's equivalent to giving amnesty to millions of illegal aliens who are currently employed in our country.
H.R. 2164 forbids the states from using their constitutional power to revoke licenses from businesses that hire illegal aliens unless there has been "a showing by the Secretary of Homeland Security, by clear and convincing evidence, that the employer had knowledge that an employee is an unauthorized alien." There is no likelihood that an Obama administration will prosecute employers who use E-Verify but fail to fire the
illegals, or who contract out part of their workforce to circumvent the system.

The arguments for Lamar Smith's H.R. 2164 are fallacious. We are told that only the federal government can do anything about the immigration issue, but the recent Supreme Court decision provides the definitive rebuttal to that. We're told we need a nationwide congressional law because states like California and New York will never pass an Arizona-style law.
Now that states have the go-ahead from the Supreme Court to implement mandatory E-Verify and voluntary attrition is taking place, there's a better chance that many more states will imitate Arizona than that the Obama administration will ever enforce E-Verify.

Since Arizona's law went into effect, 80,000 illegal aliens have already left that state, and Georgia has seen a similar exodus. Their voluntary departure is without cost to the taxpayers.

An additional way to get employers to obey the law against employing illegal aliens would be to amend H.R. 2164 with Rep. Steve King's, R-Iowa, proposal to make E-Verify a condition for the employer to take a tax deduction for wages paid, a provision already adopted by Alabama. That would put the incentive on the employer where it belongs, and we would not need prosecutions or deportations.

Solving the Utah Illegal Alien Problem

A few items concerning the situation with the Guest Worker program in Utah and a better way to SOLVE the illegal alien problem 

First:  The Arizona 2007 Everify Law which was recently affirmed by the Supreme Court, provided many of the items needed to aid in the current illegal alien problem by making it more difficult to ignore hiring laws:

• It required ALL employers to use Everify
• It provided for penalties of suspension, 'probation,' and then possible loss of a business license.
• It allowed citizen complaint with substantial proof of illegal employment to be filed, investigated and, if valid, rectified - with appropriate punishment.
• It indemnified an employer from punishment if Everify had approved the unauthorized alien.

Second: In Utah, there is an initiative being proposed at the county or local level based on this decision and the AZ law underway (so far introduced in three counties) to mandate Everify for all employers.


Third:  Everify has a very high positive success rate in matching and authorizing employees.  Everify can currently only be used for newly HIRED employees, legislation has been proposed to expand it to all employees.

Fourth:  Utah law prohibits the hiring of unauthorized aliens, as does federal law.  Utah requires ALL public entities to use Everify.   Utah requires ALL businesses with more than 15 employees to use Everify.


Fifth:  Utah has not complied vary well with either law.  


Sixth:  I totally agree it is a sad day when we must use force to comply with laws.  Regrettably, there ARE employers that use, and abuse, the system to gain unfair advantage by putting cost burden on the taxpayers that may otherwise be paid for by obedient businesses.  Some may not believe this but many love the "cheap labor" illegal alien as a profit making ploy.   The Salt Lake Chamber is THE biggest proponent of the Utah Guest Worker program

Seventh:  There has been a debate over the term "amnesty" in connection with the Utah Guest Worker Permit.  For those that are offended by the term, because the illegal alien would be required to pay a fine, I would point out that the fine is far less than the cost to come to the US legally.  For those politically sensitive to the term, you may call it simple SALE of Utah residency, to the lowest common denominator.


It should also be mentioned that any employer of current illegal alien who would hire the same person as a "Guest Worker" would receive NO penalty or punishment (AMNESTY) under HB 116 for his non compliance with Utah law.

Response to HB 116 Email Support

Concerning legalization of illegal aliens in Utah, the sophistry continues unabated  In fact HB116 IS yet another step in the continuing process of legalizing, accepting and promoting (in the state of Utah) the illegal alien, undocumented alien or unauthorized alien (whatever one would like to call them).   The process was begun by the Salt Lake Chamber, the Sutherland Institute and various religious and other pro- illegal pseudo-compassionate organizations and various government entities.

The process has included failure, or reluctance enforce Utah (and federal law) issuing Utah Drivers' Licenses and later Driver Privilege Cards, awarding Instate Tuition, virtually ignoring Official English law, accepting and promoting of certain 'heritages' (over others) and  massive propaganda campaigns through local media in support of illegal immigrants. 
  ***Further Rebuttal comments below ***

On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 1:37 PM, xxx (State delegate) ; wrote:  I received this e-mail earlier today. 

Dear Fellow Republicans,

America’s federal immigration system is broken. ***Mainly due to failed enforcement *** This failed federal system has resulted in millions of people being in the US illegally. In spite of this federal dereliction of duty, the federal government mandates that Utah taxpayers PAY FOR the health care, education, and other services required, BY FEDERAL LAW, to be provided to illegal aliens. ***some by courts, some be law, some by Utah law ***This is the largest unfunded federal mandate in the history of our country. ***Making undocumented legal workers in Utah will NOT reduce the costs of educating illegal alien children, it merely institutionalizes the payment for children of 'guest workers' ***

HB 116 stops the defacto amnesty that exists today for illegals as a result of our federal government’s abject, dismal, pathetic failure to address the issue of illegal immigration. ***changing status from undocumented to 'guest' is amnesty or, if preferred, sale of Utah residency *** HB 116 doesn’t regulate immigration, but instead addresses the impacts of over 100,000 people already in Utah illegally. ***and continues or exacerbates the problems for Utah taxpayers and Utah unemployed *** HB 116 provides strong enforcement by assessing a fine up to 10 times the maximum federal penalty (USC 1325) and requires criminal background checks and fingerprinting to enter a database, a practical mechanism to enforce immigration law. ***But only if the illegal choose to 'come out of the shadows *** HB 116 eliminates taxpayer subsidies by requiring illegals to pay for their own health care, pay taxes and obtain insurance. ***and receive amnesty for previous crimes for which they have never been prosecuted (ID theft, employment, etc. *** HB 116 fights crime by funding the prosecution of violent and dangerous criminals. ***Theoretically already being done ***HB 116 penalizes businesses with a “three strikes” law that will revoke an employer’s business or professional license for up to a year. ***unless they are using 'uverify' ***

Below you will find a copy of the Repeal HB 116 and Replace resolution with a line by line rebuttal. Whether you like HB 116 or not, the whereas statements in this resolution don't tell the truth regarding HB 116.
HB 116 is constitutional and does comply with the Republican Party platform. If you wish to see for yourself the actual content of the bill and bill highlights, you may link to it at the web site www.hb116.info.

Sincerely,

Bob Babcock
State Delegate, Precinct 4212

Uphold the Constitution of the United States and Republican Immigration Platforms: Repeal HB116 and Replace

WHEREAS, HB116 violates the Constitution of the United States, which:
HB 116 doesn’t violate the letter or the spirit of the Constitution based on immigration matters, but rather, HB 116 allows Utah to assert its 10^th Amendment Constitutional rights. The only way HB 116 might be considered unconstitutional is if Article 1, Section 8 and the 10^th amendment are considered subservient to federal supremacy and federal pre-emption.  ***There are mixed legal opinion on this issue ***

Delegates powers over immigration to the United States Congress;


The US Constitution delegates “naturalization” and “invasion” to the Federal Government. ***Surely this does not mean that “invasion'” is a function of the federal government ***HB 116 doesn’t attempt to regulate either, but instead regulates illegals who are already here. HB 116 only addresses the impacts of illegals that were ALREADY domiciled in Utah prior to May 10, 2011, that by federal law Utah is not allowed to deport and the federal government refuses to deport. ***However, if federal and state laws were enforced, e.g. everify use – no jobs = self deportation ***

Results in a breach of federal immigration law;


HB 116 won't become effective until July 2013 to allow Utah time to apply for a federal waiver. If the waiver is granted, HB 116 will unequivocally not be a breach of federal immigration law. ***And if the waiver is NOT granted??? ***

WHEREAS, HB116 violates the Utah State Republican Party Immigration Platform, which states:


HB 116 complies with the Utah Republican Platform.

We believe that control of our borders is an urgent national security interest and our national sovereignty depends on those secure borders;


HB 116 has nothing to do with control of our borders. HB 116 deals with the impacts of over 100,000 illegals already here in Utah. Only those with established domicile in Utah prior to May 10, 2011 are eligible.

We oppose illegal immigration and all forms of amnesty, or legal status, for illegal immigrants;


HB 116 has nothing to do with amnesty or legal status for illegal immigrants. ***Would not a Guest Worker Permit change legal status? ***USC 1325) for trespassing into our country. ***and still be illegal in the United States if no waiver is given ***

We believe that the current laws against employing illegal immigrants should be vigorously enforced;


HB 116 vigorously enforces the law by creating a database for those already here illegally. Without a criminal background checks and a database, illegals remain in the shadows, unaccountable for their actions. ***If they have only committed the crime, but have not been arrested, they will be awarded amnesty for an crime committed *** Only by knowing who is here illegally can current laws be vigorously enforced. ***If they have a “criminal” background, would they even apply? ***

WHEREAS, HB116 violates the National Republican Party Immigration Platform, which includes:

***”Immigration policy is a national security issue, for which we have one test: Does it serve the national interest?" Does HB 116 serve the national interest? No, it serves a narrow self-interest within the state of Utah.***
HB 116 complies with the National Republican Party Platform.

Border security is essential to national security;


HB 116 has nothing to do with control of our borders. HB 116 deals with the impacts of over 100,000 people in Utah illegally. Only those with established domicile in Utah prior to May 10, 2011 are eligible.
Enforcement of existing laws;
***Judging from past 'enforcement' of HB 81, HB 251 et al, any enforcement against undocumented workers and/or their employers will be minimal. ***

***HB 116 also gives amnesty for employers who have hired illegal aliens ***
HB 116 vigorously enforces the law by creating a database for illegal immigrants. Without criminal background checks and a database, illegals remain in the shadows, unaccountable for their actions. Only by knowing who is here illegally can current laws be vigorously enforced.***Laws can, and should be, vigorously enforced AGAINST illegal aliens even without a database. ***
Enforcement of the law against those who overstay their visas;

HB 116 vigorously enforces the law by creating a database for illegal immigrants. Without criminal background checks and a database, illegals remain in the shadows, unaccountable for their actions. Only by knowing who is here illegally can current laws be vigorously enforced.***Laws can, and should be, vigorously enforced AGAINST illegal aliens even without a database. How does granted them permission to work in Utah (their probable reason for overstay) penalize them?***
Real consequences, including denial of federal funds, for self-described sanctuary cities, which stand in open defiance of federal and state statutes that prohibit sanctuary policies;


HB 116 inherently prohibits sanctuary cities as it provides law enforcement the tools necessary to prosecute crimes. HB 116 vigorously enforces the law by creating a database for illegal immigrants. Without criminal background checks and a database, illegals remain in the shadows, unaccountable for their actions. Only by knowing who is here illegally can current laws be vigorously enforced.***Any city currently giving sanctuary status (not enforcing existing laws) is given amnesty by HB 116 ***
Prohibition of driver's licenses for illegal aliens and affirmative action through in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens;

HB 116 does not provide a drivers license. HB116 does not provide in-state tuition rates for those here illegally. HB 116 does modify an existing “driving privilege” card to make it more difficult to obtain.
***Utah already IS one of the few states who provide official driving privileges. It, therefore HAS a fairly extensive list of the 'shadow' illegal and does nothing about that status. ***
Opposition to government policies that encourage or reward illegal activity;

HB 116 does not encourage or reward illegal activity. HB 116 contains some of the strongest provisions in the country regarding enforcement of existing laws. HB 116 eliminates taxpayer subsidies for health care, education and other services. HB 116 leads the nation in the fight against crime including identity theft. HB 116 prosecutes non-compliant businesses. Taken as a whole, HB116 is a strong deterrent to illegals coming to or staying in Utah if they have committed any crimes.

***HB 116 absolutely encourages illegals as have many of our current policies. With a Guest Worker family permit an expanded number of illegals (now GW Family) could come to Utah. ***
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE UTAH REPUBLICAN PARTY:


Expresses concern that some Republican legislators voted for HB116 and that our Republican Governor signed the act, insomuch as it clearly violates State and National Republican Party Platforms and faces serious Constitutional challenges;

Urges all Utah State Republican Legislators and the Governor to repeal HB116; and ensure that any immigration legislation is fully constitutional and adheres to the principles of the Republican Party Platform.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT:

The Utah Republican Party Chair shall deliver printed copies of this Resolution to all state legislators,Governor Herbert, Lt. Governor Bell and Attorney General Shurtleff within 10 days.

***Vote for REPEAL of HB 116 ***