UFIRE Investigates SB 81 Compliance

In a recent list of Utah businesses who had registered to use Everify, members of UFIRE discovered that very few Utah government entities had applied. Everify is the Department of Homeland Securities employment verification database designed to minimize the hiring of illegal aliens.

SB 81, Illegal Immigration, was enacted in 2008, for implementation July 1, 2009. The law required all Utah public employers to register with and use a Status Verification System and to only make contracts with companies using such employment verification.

Noting that Utah School Districts, an easily discovered group on the list, indicated less than 30% compliance; an Email was sent to all of the districts requesting information on why they were not registered and language being used to comply with the contractor requirements.

Within less than 24 hours, five districts responded with information. The first response received was informative: “Prior to reading your email, *** School District was not participating in a status verification system. Upon reviewing the information provided, we have decided to enroll in the E-Verify system and that registration is complete.”

“Why were they not aware of SB 81? Didn't they hear of the two year debate on the issue? Didn't the State Office of Education and the districts' own legal counsel advise them of the requirement?”

Two weeks after the query was sent, nine additional School Districts have applied for Everify bringing the compliance total to over 50%. Two compliant Districts sent their contract language which has been forwarded to those districts lacking any rules for contractors.

An unsolicited Email from the USOE was received stating, ”Just a suggestion from the Utah State Office of Education (USOE)—your list and directives should include the requirement that public charter schools also use everify for their employees. I am certain that most charters schools have never even heard of the process.” A response was made that UFIRE was not able to issue directives and to ask USOE if they were compliant. To date, no answer has been received.
Several Utah legislators have been contacted and are aware on the non compliance and are investigating methods of securing compliance.

The investigation is continuing and includes other public entities in addition to school districts. The complete report on school district SB 81 compliance is available online.

There is no excuse for ignoring SB 81. It is a simple procedure that assists in enforcing Federal law prohibiting the employment of 'undocumented' immigrants. More Utah employers should take advantage of the free system, currently just two percent do.

Interim Immigration Committee Meeting - Richfield

First Hand report by attendee of the Richfield meeting:
Last night I went to the Utah Legislative Illegal Immigration Committee hearing last night in Richfield. I didn't have any takers on the invitation to drive to Richfield with me and so I went by myself. It was very different than the other hearings. The folks out in the hinterlands are much different than those along the Wasatch Front.
There were about 15 people in attendance other than those on the committee and agenda. CCII from Wasatch County had about 7 or 8 and myself, so members of UCII (Utah Council on Illegal Immigration), made up about half of the citizens in attendance. There was plenty of time at the end for public comment. There were about 7 that spoke and no one was restricted on time, and the hearing still ended about 50 minutes early.
Agenda:
Denny Drake a Washington County Commissioner has an excellent understanding of the issue of illegal immigration and gave the committee a lot of good information on E-Verify and 287g in their county. He related some of the efforts that they are making in the county to solve their problem. CCII has done an excellent job with their county commission.
Kirk Smith Washington County Sheriff Is also well informed and is moving forward with 287g. They now have two deputies qualified, and will report on their progress. He recounted some of the crime problems that they are having, especially with illegal drugs. He told them that 100% of the recent marijuana farming operations in Southern Utah were being run by illegal aliens. Here again credit must be given to CCII for educating their sheriff.
Richfield Chamber of Commerce: This was a surprise. They had visited many of their members and found that they don't want to hire illegal aliens and would like to know how they can tell if they are illegal. (They must not have checked with their state or national leaders) These people said they were hearing for the first time at the hearing, about E-Verify and would like to get training on it. For those of you that are surprised about this don't be. It is a different world out there in rural Utah.
Gary Mason Chair of Sevier County Commission: Also said that he and those he knew were not in favor of illegal immigration, and as citizens opposed it, but didn't know what to do about it. He also said that no one knows how to tell if they are hiring illegals or not since they all have ID.
Phil Barney Sevier County Sheriff: Identified some of the crime problems that they are having and also reported that they are unable to identify illegals. He did tell about one of his deputies that arrested a guy for DUI that was probably illegal but had to let him go after the local court dealt with the DUI. Several months later the same guy was arrested for DUI, but with a different ID. He would have gotten away, but it happened that it was the same deputy and he recognized him as being the same person, and so charged him with ID fraud in addition to the previous crimes. His main complaint was that they have very little support from ICE. He said that he guessed that they were just too far from St. George or Provo.
Public Comment Time was primarily taken by UCII members. However the ACLU had a lawyer there that went through the 14th Amendment of the Constitution with them and other rights that make management of the illegal problem difficult. Also, there was a woman there that spoke up for the Catholic Church who was in favor of not making any laws that would restrict the illegal immigrants in Utah.Tentative dates were set for the next committee hearings were October 22nd, Nov 17th, and December 3rd. No place or time was decided, but they did say that they would still like to go to St George. It would be nice if we could get more citizen support next time.

Sutherland Institute - authentic conservatives??

The (usually) Sutherland Institute of Utah has weighed in on the illegal alien issue - and stepped off the scale on the wrong side.

While "compassion" exudes from the pontification, it seems directed solely towards our "neighbors" to the South; little consideration seems to given to the remaining millions who would dearly love to come to enjoy the still remaining freedoms available in the United States.

No compassion seems to be proffered to the thousands of Utahns whose identity has been stolen to allow the "law-abiding" successful evaders of border enforcement or those ignoring current visa requirements to obtain employment. The report indicates that "sensible conservatives" should work to dismantle the welfare state. How sensible is it to dismantling welfare by adding millions more to it OR by accepting those who have already found the way to successfully partake of it?

In one paragraph, Sutherland opines that it "looks to the United States Congress to create and effectively enforce a coherent immigration and border security policy as a top priority." Later is this espoused belief, "If a person of good will comes to our state looking to make Utah a better place to live, work and raise a family, then we should welcome that person – from wherever and however they come to us." There seems to be a large inconsistency here.

In an obvious observation, Sutherland declares illegal immigrants are "real people with real families in search of America’s fullest privileges," but is it America and Americans that are breaking up families or is it the illegal immigrant himself? Do those "fullest privileges" include the welfare state that the authentic conservative Sutherland Institute decries?

The report states "Illegal immigrants who have not engaged in other forms of criminal behavior should not be exploited." Surely Sutherland is not intimating that those who have engage in other forms of criminal behavior SHOULD be exploited. A real authentic conservative exploits no one. A real authentic conservative obeys the law (federal and state) and does not hire an illegal with a wink and nod at the presentation of fake or stolen identities.

Their third expressed 'sentiment' states: "We should seek economic transparency and personal accountability from all Utah residents. State laws, policies, and regulations must hold illegal immigrants accountable for otherwise law-abiding behavior – to live as equals is to assume the mantle of full citizenship, self-reliance, and economic productivity."

I find it rather astounding the Sutherland feels they are the sole determinant of what constitutes an "authentic conservative" (cited 44 times in the report) in Utah. A true authentic conservative exhibits compassion to all of God's children, not just those "neighbor(s), south of the border." A true conservative would not consider awarding citizenship in the greatest country in the world to those who openly defy the laws upon which the very basis of freedom rests.

On Compassion for illegals

On Friday the Deseret News presents a "news" article, applauding the attempt of Salt Lake Catholic Bishop Wester "to tackle one of America's most contentious dilemmas: what to do about the country's undocumented workers and their families." On Sunday, the editorial staff says AMEN as part of its continuing crusade.
The "Migration" group (CCIR) the Bishop chairs reportedly decries the "un-Christian" treatment of immigrants and "hate speech" and "hate groups linked to the anti-immigration movement." Is it charitable for CCIR to use these terms against those with whom they disagree?
One can only wonder if these terms (hate, un-Christian, vitriol, extremist, etc.) can properly be applied to the majority of Americans who believe in protection of our borders. Those who believe that, yes, we should help our fellow man and work to relieve suffering, but the true helpers who believe in helping individually - not with the tax money of their fellow taxpayers.
Is it un-Christian to be considerate about those tens (hundreds) of thousands of people who are patiently waiting to come to this country of freedom - legally? Is it hate to say that THEIR rights, needs and opportunities should NOT be usurped by those who can relatively easily sneak across a porous border in the dark of night?
Should the problems be dismissed, out of hand, of the multitudinous victims of theft by the illegal aliens, of the very identity of American citizens? Is it racist that America has (and does) open its doors to multitudes of LEGAL immigrants?
Is it uncharitable to say that American taxpayers should not be required to pay for education of another country’s children? Is it really uncharitable to ask that the forced payment of costs be at least done in the language of THIS country?
I submit that there is a vast difference between migration and ILLEGAL immigration. Migration has such a benign aura, merely a movement from one place to another. Illegal or unauthorized aliens are in violation of Federal law
The solution is NOT to open the borders; - or, possibly even worse, declare AMNESTY for all the successful lawbreakers, then continue lip service to border control while we wait another twenty years for the next amnesty.
It is not zealotry, but patriotism, to believe in the Rule of Law. It is not hate, nor is it racism, to expect employers to obey employment laws. It is NOT uncharitable, nor is it bigotry, for American people to expect government, at ALL levels, to enforce laws against anyone who "conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such (unauthorized) alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation" (US Code Title 8-1324a)
Apparently the Federal Government is impotent in enforcing its immigration laws, due to the sheer volume of the problem it has allowed to happen. Rather than immigration reform (amnesty), it is time for States and local communities to step to the forefront and enforce those laws against what is now a virtual invasion.
In the meantime, we should all continue with our personal charitable acts towards all strangers within or midst while we work tirelessly and diligently towards protecting our sovereign country.

Regarding the "Migration" group (CCIR) that Utah’s Catholic Bishop Wester chairs reportedly decries the "un-Christian" treatment of immigrants and "hate speech" and "hate groups linked to the anti-immigration movement." Is it charitable for CCIR to use these terms against those with whom they disagree?
One can only wonder if these terms (hate, un-Christian, vitriol, extremist, etc.) can properly be applied to the majority of Americans who believe in protection of our borders. Those who believe that, yes, we should help our fellow man and work to relieve suffering, but the true helpers who believe in helping individually - not with the tax money of their fellow taxpayers.
Is it un-Christian to be considerate about those tens (hundreds) of thousands of people who are patiently waiting to come to this country of freedom - legally? Is it hate to say that THEIR rights, needs and opportunities should NOT be usurped by those who can relatively easily sneak across a porous border in the dark of night?
Should the problems be dismissed, out of hand, of the multitudinous victims of theft by the illegal aliens, of the very identity of American citizens? Is it racist that America has (and does) open its doors to multitudes of LEGAL immigrants?
Is it uncharitable to say that American taxpayers should not be required to pay for education of another country’s children? Is it really uncharitable to ask that the forced payment of costs be at least done in the language of THIS country?
I submit that there is a vast difference between migration and ILLEGAL immigration. Migration has such a benign aura, merely a movement from one place to another. Illegal or unauthorized aliens are in violation of Federal law
The solution is NOT to open the borders; - or, possibly even worse, declare AMNESTY for all the successful lawbreakers, then continue lip service to border control while we wait another twenty years for the next amnesty.
It is not zealotry, but patriotism, to believe in the Rule of Law. It is not hate, nor is it racism, to expect employers to obey employment laws. It is NOT uncharitable, nor is it bigotry, for American people to expect government, at ALL levels, to enforce laws against anyone who "conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such (unauthorized) alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation" (US Code Title 8-1324a)
Apparently the Federal Government is impotent in enforcing its immigration laws, due to the sheer volume of the problem it has allowed to happen. Rather than immigration reform (amnesty), it is time for States and local communities to step to the forefront and enforce those laws against what is now a virtual invasion.
In the meantime, we should all continue with our personal charitable acts towards all strangers within or midst while we work tirelessly and diligently towards protecting our sovereign country.

U of U Mexico Economic Study

I ran across this pro illegal alien piece in a local Colorado county paper quoting the U. of U. study.
"Cesar Munoz: Crazed and confused about immigration reform"

I was reminded of the study and my comments from last year on that study:

Two years ago the GOP Convention delegates, by Resolution, requested that the Utah legislature conduct an audit of the cost to taxpayers of the state of Utah the cost of illegal immigration. Regrettably, virtually nothing was done.

The UU Institute of Public and Intl Affairs released a study concluding an economic benefit to Utah, as reported in Deseret News and SLTribune

A careful study of the report indicates that the economic benefit may not be true, but much has to be read

"between the lines" and by what is missing or overlooked.

The full study can be read at MEXICO AND UTAH A COMPLEX ECONOMIC RELATIONSHIP It is well worth reading.

Here's my unpublished response to the DNews (2006) on that report.

Concerning you Editorial "Our Bonds with Mexico," I would agree with your conclusion that "it is more important for Utah's leaders to acquaint themselves with the other side of the immigration debate." I would say, however, that perhaps the "other side" not being considered is the cost of illegal immigration to the taxpayers of Utah.
It would only be fair in this discussion to recognize that according to the U of U study "The initial impetus for the study came through the Consul General of Mexico in Salt Lake City, Salvador Jimenez, with the encouragement of Senator Jeffrey Jones of the Mexican Senate." (pg ii)
Contrary to the Deseret News assertions that this is solely a problem for the federal government to address, the State of Utah is complicit in encouraging (and abetting) illegal immigrants to come to Utah. One small example of this action is the idea of Instate College Tuition for illegal aliens. Repeal of this law was stymied on the floor of the House this year. In the 80 plus page U. of U. study this issue was addressed - somewhat - with some interesting numbers on the current number of students and cost to taxpayers and then summarily excused that cost by saying that "an Hispanic college graduate can expect to earn $1.7 million over a working lifetime, which adds to the state's per capita income and increases its tax base." They ignored the fact that these graduates can NOT be legally employed upon graduation as they are still illegally in the US.
Also ignored was the cost to the taxpayers of Utah for K-12 education. The report correctly points out that K-12 education must be provided per Plyler v. Texas, but did NOT clarify that the burden for educating these Mexican children falls upon the US taxpayer. The report declares "Hispanic students will become an ever larger share of Utah’s students in coming years. In 2001-2002, Hispanics accounted for 5.2% of Utah’s high school graduates (WICHE, 2003). Given current school enrollments, in 2011-2012 they will account for 14.9% of the graduates, and by 2017-2018 that share will rise to almost 24%."
Using the data provided in the report: (24% Hispanic students in 2018 , half of whom are illegal immigrants), one can easily conclude that 12% of the Utah Education Budget will be used to educate children of Mexican citizens for the country of Mexico. With an annual Utah education budget of $2 Billion, that would mean Utah taxpayers will be paying $240 million per year for the benefit of a foreign country's citizens, overwhelming much of the supposed economic benefit presented in the study.
The report continues to extol the virtue of trade with Mexico, but minimizes the negative trade imbalance. (Commerce, pg11) The U of U reports that $148 million was sent to Mexico in 2004 by those illegally residing in Utah. The study also reports that, in 2000, the total income of Mexican Immigrants was $679 million (pg 11) but their purchasing power was $915 million (pg 12) and indicates the difference is "unearned income." In addition, the report concludes that Mexican Immigrants paid $67 million in taxes AND sent $100 million to Mexico. The numbers just don't add up.
I would encourage everyone concerned with the issue of illegal immigration to read the study - with a wary and discriminating eye. There is a wealth of information contained in it and hopefully it can be analyzed objectively to a proper conclusion. - Illegal immigration is not a net benefit to the taxpayers of Utah.
This was a study done primarily for Mexico. The Mexican Consul reports (pg v) that "The first specific instruction I received from the Mexican Secretary of Foreign Relations, Dr. Luis Ernesto Derbez, upon being designated Consul of Mexico in Salt Lake City, was to promote with the University of Utah the elaboration of such a research paper." December 18, 2005, Salvador Jimenez Muñoz Consul of Mexico