Realities of the Utah Compact

by Nebraska State Senator Charlie Janssen
(15th Legislative District)

There has been a lot of talk the past couple of months about the “Utah Compact” and how it impacts illegal immigration in our country. Both sides of the political spectrum are taking only pieces of the compact, and using it to push their agendas. The public, as well as quite a few lawmakers around the country, seem to be confused about what the Utah Compact does. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to take a look at what the Utah Compact is.

First of all, let’s mention one thing that the Utah Compact is not, and that is a law. The Utah Compact is a set of ideas that were written down to be considered for future legislation in the area of immigration. Religious officials, business leaders, politicians, and even Hispanic activists from Utah got together last fall and wrote this compact. Even in its very first sentence, it says it is simply “a declaration of five principles to guide Utah’s immigration discussion.”

There were bills that were introduced in Utah during this recent legislative session that were supposedly based on the Utah Compact. But the ideas laid out in the compact do not address any specifics on immigration, only generalities. A lawmaker saying they have based a bill on the Utah Compact is like saying you have based a tax reform bill on the Declaration of Independence. It speaks to the ideals you hope to convey but in the end, does not speak specifically to what you want your bill to accomplish.

The Utah Compact itself lays out five different principles. They are:
1. Immigration is a federal policy between the U.S. government and other countries–not Utah and other countries.
2. Local law enforcement should focus on criminal activities, not civil violations of federal code.
3. Opposition to policies that unnecessarily separate families.
4. Acknowledgment of the economic role immigrants play as workers and taxpayers.
5. Adopting a humane approach to the immigration situation.

Let’s take a look at each of these principles.

The first says, in essence, that immigration is a federal policy, and federal policy is “hands-off” to individual states. This was an argument that was made frequently in the LB48 debate. But yet, individual states feel that it is acceptable to go against federal law and grant in-state tuition to illegal immigrants. They do not, however, offer in-state tuition to U.S. out-of-state citizens. In Utah specifically, they plan to start a “guest worker program”, granting permits to “undocumented workers” (illegal aliens) already living in the country, and starting a pilot guest worker program with the Mexican state in Nuevo Leon. This would clearly be an example of a state trying to enter into an agreement with a foreign country, and in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution also gives the federal government the power “to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization (Art. I, Sec. 8). A state cannot create its own visas.

In the second principle, local law enforcement solely focuses on criminal activities, rather than the “civil violations of federal code” that illegal immigrants commit. But what happens if one of those “civil violators” crosses over into committing criminal activities? Local and state law enforcement need to know that they have the authority to enforce laws without being neutered by a federal government that has, for decades, not shown the political will to enforce immigration law.

The third principle specifically states that “Strong families are the foundation of successful communities.” While that is indeed a noble ideal, it strays away from reality. What are the criteria for “successful” and who determines them? Are we talking about families with children that have good grades, or are healthy, or are good athletes, or have good manners? A problem with throwing out phrases that promote “feel-good” emotional responses are that then there needs to be a way to measure that success, and that encourages competition with others to see who is the most successful. It becomes an immeasurable goal, but wow…it sure does feel good to say we’re building “successful communities”. Hopefully, one criterion for those “successful communities” would be recognition and adherence to the law.

As far as unnecessarily separating families, it is a reality to say we have people in this country that commit crimes. Those crimes have consequences. And sometimes those consequences require families to be separated for a period of time. It is an unfortunate circumstance, but it is also a necessary one. Our society dictates that the person who committed the crime should accept the responsibility for their actions, and accept the consequences that come with that. It is important to note that it is the person who committed the crime is the one who created the situation where the family was separated, not society as a whole.

The fourth principle acknowledges the role and economic impact that immigrants have had in our history. There is no doubt that this country was built by immigrants. But it is also undeniable that the workers 100 years ago faced much less stringent labor laws than what we have today. If Utah initiates its “guest worker program”, there will be a lot of questions as to how our current labor laws will relate to these foreign workers. Will they work the same hours and be paid the same wages as U.S. workers? Also, would these guest workers be protected by workman’s compensation laws, which vary greatly from state to state? If they are ever no longer needed, are they eligible to file for unemployment? Will they get social security benefits? Unfortunately, with Utah’s unemployment rate running at 8.1% (February 2011) it seems like the state is putting the needs of illegal immigrants ahead of its own citizens.

Finally, the compact says we need to adopt a humane approach to the immigration situation, and I couldn’t agree more. It says “the way we treat immigrants will say more about us as a free society and less about our immigrant neighbors.” Enticing and harboring illegal immigrants, paying them low wages, encouraging identity and social security fraud, and making them distrustful of law enforcement does nothing to further their dreams of a better life. Instead, it fosters a nightmare of fear, keeping them in the shadows and relegating them to a life of uncertainty.

Law enforcement works. A report from February shows that local officers trained through the 287(g) program made about 40,000 arrests in 2010, which represents nearly 20 percent of ICE’s criminal alien workload for the year. What makes this all the more interesting is that the report was issued by the Migration Policy Institute, the Obama administration’s pro-amnesty think tank.

A new report from the Public Policy Institute of California shows that the illegal immigration population declined by 17% after the passing of the Legal Arizona Workers Act of 2007, which required all businesses to use the E-Verify system.

Asking immigrants to comply with the law shows real and measurable results. It might not make us feel as good as saying some highly quotable, politically correct catch phrases, but it does get actual and substantial results.

http://www.fremonter.com/fremonter-com/realities-of-the-utah-compact/