I Prefer Luz Robles' Immigration Reform to that of Steve Sandstrom

It seems as though everyone in the Utah legislature agrees that the federal government is not doing a very good job of enforcing illegal immigration laws in the United States. Utah Representative Steve Sandstrom wants to "skin that cat" by doing the federal government's job for it. That's not a good solution. I expect Senator Luz Robles has a much better idea, and I prefer to wait for her legislation, which will appear in the next couple of weeks.
The largest problem with immigration in the United States is not that too many people are immigrating here illegally, although that is a big problem that needs to be solved.The largest problem is that immigration laws are too complicated for people who want to to immigrate. This is the fundamental reason why I agree with the following statement of the LDS Church regarding immigration:
We repeat our appeal for careful reflection and civil discourse when addressing immigration issues. Finding a successful resolution will require the best thinking and good will of all across the political spectrum, the highest levels of statesmanship, and the strongest desire to do what is best for all of God's children.
Representative Steve Sandstrom's bill, from what I have learned, is very similar to Arizona's, which, the more I have learned about it, the more I do not like.  Having not yet seen Senator Luz Robles' immigration reform bill (because the final draft is not yet available), I have a feeling that it will be a much more effective bill than Steve Sandstrom's Arizona-like bill, because it will appeal to civility and because it will very likely not create an undue burden on Utah law enforcement.

Robles has been working with various religious and community groups in an effort to craft a bill that can have broad support.

I was impressed with Senator Robles' response today when asked during her press conference if the behavior of protesters at the unveiling of Steve Sandstrom's bill was appropriate.   "No," she said. Robles also pointed out, however, that she felt that "Sandstrom's bill was 'fiscally irresponsible'".  Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, appearing this afternoon on the Rod Arquette Show, explained why. On the freeway, for example, each person that is pulled over for some driving offense will be required by the peace officer to provide proof of US citizenship.  If they cannot provide such proof, the officer will be required to coordinate transportation of that individual to the nearest county jail. Such transportation will probably take an hour and a half per occurrence. Once the individual is checked into the county jail, it is likely that he or she will be turned right back out on the street again, due to the fact that most county jails in the state are overflowing (or very nearly overflowing) with inmates. Meanwhile, speeders, drunk drivers, and other miscreants will have more opportunities to get off scot-free.

So, even if Sandstrom's bill were a good solution, it wouldn't work. 

I'm glad that Representative Sandstrom and others are putting illegal immigration under a microscope.  For all I know it could have been the impetus for Senator Robles pending legislation. Nonetheless, Sandstrom's bill is not the solution.  I look forward to Senator Robles' bill, which I have great confidence will be.


  1. Sen. Robles was not at Sandstrom's event and had no right to comment. I was and the "behavior" that all are picking up on did not exist.
    It is Sandstrom making himself out to be a martyr.
    POOR Sandstrom, he was yelled at in the school yard. Might work if it were true.

  2. Senator Robles' immigration reform bill hasn't been unveiled yet. If, like Rep. Sandstrom's bill, it violates the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, I'm not going to say good things about it.

  3. Oh BTW I really like SUMP's new look.

  4. Yes, the behavior at Sandstrom's press conference was obnoxious and did little to increase public support for those who are opposed to Arizona type laws.

    On another note, somewhat in the fiscal point: if we could secure the border, ensure that individuals were not crossing it without permission, then there would no longer be the worry that they are here illegally, either. A stitch in time saves nine?

  5. "If we could secure the border..."

    The world's most secure border is between North and South Korea, 160 miles. At least four tunnels have been discovered, and there have been many recorded instances of people getting across.

    The U.S. - Mexico border is 2,000 miles long. So, what's the plan?

  6. Unless ALL persons are required to present proof of citizenship on demand, Arizona-style laws are discriminatory. Would American citizens as a whole stand for such an arrangement?

  7. I'll show my proof of Citizenship any day. And I agree with the gentleman above, close the border. Then make it easier for those wanting a better life, AND WANTING TO CONTRIBUTE, to come into this country legally. To those who are worried about the cost of transporting an illegal alien to jail: Just how long do you expect the American taxpayer to put up with paying for: Housing criminals that are here illegaly, benefits for those who are here illegally just because they have children, reduction in wages because greedy employers would rather pay illegal immigrants pennies than pay an honest wage... the list goes on and on. I do not believe that we are the only ones that are entitled to the rights that we are afforded in this great country. But we need to put an end to throwing money at stupidity, or we will be a third world country soon enough.


Post a Comment

Thank you for commenting. If you have a Google/Blogger account, to be apprised of ongoing comment activity on this article, please click the "Subscribe" link below.

Popular posts from this blog