Tuesday, June 04, 2013

Utah Amnesty Poll results

May 2013 Opinions of UTAH Voters about Jobs & Immigration Policies


When the Gang Bill issues are presented in the context of jobs and unemployment, the state's voters overwhelmingly reject the solutions of the Gang Bill.

A significant minority of Utah voters feel at least some moral responsibility toward helping families that have a member who is in the country illegally.  But four of five Utah voters feel at least some moral responsibiltiy to protect American workers from having to compete with foreign workers.

Utah voters disagree 68% to 24% that we need more immigrant workers. The central aspect of the Senate bill is that it triples the number of work permits for foreign citizens in the first 10 years.

By 63% to 26%, they think full enforcement should come before consideration of work permits.  The Senate Judiciary Committee repeatedly voted down amendments to put enforcement first in the bill.

General Attitudes:  The attitude toward the general scope of the Gang Bill as found in this poll may seem quite different from many media polls which have found substantial (although recently slipping) public support.  The key reason for the differences is likely found in the fact that the media polls focus on "legalizing"  or "normalizing" the status of the illegal population while including some punitive-sounding language, and often with the only alternative offered being mass deportation; those polls rarely if ever mention immigration as having any relationship to employment issues or as involving work permits.  And the media polls tend not to reflect the key principle of the Gang Bill that the U.S. needs a lot more immigrant workers.

This poll uses neutral language throughout and attempts to offer clear and simple questions and choices.  But it does present the choices on immigration in the context of the current unemployment situation, which is the way the public will hear the debate as it heats up toward a Senate floor vote -- and the way some candidates in the next election may frame the votes.  The key Senate spokesmen against the bill are focusing on the unemployment context in their public statements.  This poll is especially helpful in measuring how the public is likely to hear arguments against the bill based on jobs issues.


Many Senators who are on the fence may want to express some openness toward legalizing some illegal immigrants but will vote against the bill if they find it doesn't do enough to ensure that a large illegal population can't form here again and if the amnesty includes too broad of a group of current illegal aliens.

Question 11 gives people a choice of doing it the Gang Bill way, which is giving out work permits at the beginning and then implementing border and workplace enforcement over the next 10 years. There are many reasons to doubt that the language of the bill guarantees full enforcement even at the end of 10 years; but worded as if the enforcement will happen, the question found 63% of the state's voters oppose the bill's sequence of work permits first and enforcement later, with 26% supporting it.

The 63% of state voters in this poll wanting full implementation before "considering" giving work permits is in line with a late-April poll by Fox News which has been notorious the last few months for polls worded in a way to show support for an amnesty.  But this Fox poll also found 68% nationally wanted border security measures to be completed before changes to immigration policies

We believe the central issue of the Gang Bill is that it would give out 33 million lifetime work permits to both illegal and legal immigrants over the first decade alone. That number, however, is not in the poll.  

But Question 3 asks about the much lower figure of 7 million work permits to illegal immigrant workers.

While the media and many politicians focus on the requirements for getting on the "path to citizenship,"  the amnesty begins almost immediately after passage of the bill with the issuance of work permits.

The passion among voters is 2.5-to--1 opposed to those work permits  (35% strongly opposed vs. 14% strongly supporting).

All national polling finds that the No. 1 concern of voters is about putting Americans back to work in a stronger economy.  The results of this poll are a strong sign that the voters of this state don't find giving work permits to illegal aliens (the central action in the Gang Bill) to be compatible with the highest interest of the public in putting Americans back to work.

Question 4 asks those supporting work permits to choose how many of the illegal immigrants whould get the permits.  Only 17% of the pro-permits voters chose the "nearly all" contained in the bill.  And about a third of the pro-permit voters would give the work permits to only "some" of the illegal immigrants.

These poll responses indicate that a Senator would have a huge public backing for rejecting the Gang Bill merely for giving out the work permits too broadly and before the full -- or any -- implementation of enforcement to stop illegal immigration in the future.


The numbers of lifetime work permits in the first decade after the bill are staggering, although this poll did not inform the respondents of the 33 million figure.  Several of the proponents of the Gang Bill justify the increases by saying that the U.S. is suffering from various shortages of workers in high skills and in low skills like construction, hospitality, service, etc.  Many of them claim that low-skilled and less-educated foreign workers don't compete for the same occupations as the 10 million less-educated Americans who want a full-time job but can't find one.

This poll suggests that a politician making those arguments in this state would be driving voters away.

By 68% to 22%, the state's voters believe that less-educated illegal immigrants compete with less-educated Americans for jobs.

Only 24% of the voters think there are labor shortages that need the solution of more immigrant workers.

And only 13% of the state's voters think the 1 million green cards given out to new legal immigrants each year is too low.

The first decade after the Gang Bill would see 33 million lifetime work permits which is:
  • 3 times higher than number of work permits per decade since 1990
  • 10 times higher than the number per decade in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s.
Any politican trying to defend such massive increases in foreign workers during this time of high unemployment would be met by disbelief, if not anger, from the voters.


Only 13% of the state's voters feel "a lot" of moral responsibility to "help protect the ability of current illegal immigrants to hold a job and support their families without fear of deportation."  And 29% feel "some" moral responsibility.

However, when the needs of the foreign citizens who are here illegally are stacked against the needs of members of their own national community, the state's voters clearly think the priority is American workers.

79% of voters say Congress has "a lot" or "some" moral responsibility to "help protect unemployed or low-wage Americans from having to compete with foreign workers for U.S. jobs.


Republican crosstabs show tiny support for main Gang Bill principles: 
  • Only 30% of Republicans support giving work permits to illegal aliens.  Passion is 7-1 (42% strongly oppose to 6% strongly favor).
  • Only 18% of Republicans believe U.S. has a labor shortage that needs more immigrants.
  • Only 8% of Republicans think the current 1 million green cards a year is too low  (the Gang Bill triples the average number the first decade).
  • Only 17% of Republicans think work permits should be given before all enforcement is implemented.
Passion of state's Independents is much like Republicans:
  • Independents are 12% strongly for work permits for illegal aliens and 35% strongly opposed
  • Independents are 3% strongly agreed with a labor shortage needing more foreign workers and 36% strongly opposed
  • Independents are 61% to 29% in favor of fully implemented enforcement before "considering" work permits for illegal aliens

Call Senator Hatch

The petition is doing rather well, BUT it appears the time may be running shorter than had been anticipated.    S.744 (amnesty) will reportedly be introduced Thursday and voted for the first time on Monday.

That should be a cloture vote requiring 60 yea votes.   This will allow amendments, floor discussions, etc.   After the amendments, the bill could be passed with a majority vote.   So, this Monday vote could be critical - if it does NOT get 60, it will be much harder to finally pass.

Reports are that Sen McConnell may not invoke cloture, meaning only a majority would be required to continue debate.   However, ANY Senator may object - requiring 60.

Sen. Hatch is still straddling the fence and could vote for amnesty, before he votes against  (which could allow passage)       Sen. Lee seems to be sticking to his principles and NOT supporting 744.

Therefore, we need MORE action, call, visit and/or email his office,  email, call or coerce your friends and relatives to sign the petition.   It does appear that some on this list have NOT taken the opportunity to do so.    You certainly don't want to say, in a month or so, when this monstrosity comes up for a vote that, "Gee, I wish I had done more."    

Sen. Hatch's state office:

  • 77 N. Main Street, Suite 112 Cedar City, UT 84720
    Tel: (435) 586-8435
  • 1006 Federal Building 324 25th Street Ogden, UT 84401
    Tel: (801) 625-5672
  • 51 S. University Ave.Suite 320 Provo, UT 84601
    Tel: (801) 375-7881
  • 8402 Federal Building 125 South State Street Salt Lake City, UT 84138
    Tel: (801) 524-4380
  • Federal Building 196 East Tabernacle, Rm 14 St. George, UT 84770 

    Tel: (435) 634-1795

Friday, May 31, 2013

Vote No on S.744 Amnesty

With propaganda increasing for amnesty for illegal aliens, 
the Senate needs encouragement to "do the right thing." 
Petition started 5/31/13

An Open Plea to Senator Hatch,
Your support for high-skilled STEM immigrants may be appropriate and proper, and your attempt to improve S.744 is appreciated.
In the spirit of supposed compromise, bipartisanship and comprehensive 'reform', the bill would also allow an additional 20 million new immigrants. But, there are currently 20 million unemployed Americans.
The bill also proposes legalization of an estimated 11 million unauthorized aliens who have broken various laws in living and working in this country, S.744 would also, by default, grant amnesty to an untold number of employers for their law violations in hiring, aiding and abetting these unauthorized aliens. 8USC1324
In a recent television interview you were quoted, "This country has always been open to immigrants, but we do need people to obey our laws,” but the 1986 amnesty proved exactly the opposite, ignoring enforcement promotes more violations.
This 'comprehensive' reform will cost $6 Trillion according to the Heritage Foundation and doesn't even mention birthright citizenship.
You voted in favor of the passage of the bill from the Senate Judiciary Committee, indicating you were unsure of further support.
Please vote AGAINST S744 "Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act," more correctly, simply, "Amnesty." http://sn.im/voteno

Wednesday, July 04, 2012

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.

Tuesday, April 24, 2012

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. 

Thursday, April 12, 2012

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) 

Tuesday, February 28, 2012

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:
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

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) 

Monday, September 12, 2011

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

Saturday, July 09, 2011

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. 

Wednesday, July 06, 2011

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?