“Immigration is not about them: it is about all of us.” — Javier de Lucas, professor of law, University of Valencia, Spain (translation from Spanish)

The Utah Compact was published last November as “A declaration of five principles to guide Utah’s immigration discussion.” While it appeared to follow a 2009 values statement of the Enriching Utah Coalition, the Compact gained the backing of powerful individuals and interest groups. This plainly influenced the conversation.

The Utah Compact emphasizes “federal solutions” as a first principle. It goes on to cover law enforcement priorities, the importance of strong families, a free-market economic philosophy and a free society. In short, this nice statement offends few people.

That’s part of the rub: the Utah Compact has been used to support state immigration proposals ranging from enforcement only to benefits. This has muddied the issue. Recent opinion polls indicate a lack of clarity; people support Arizona-style enforcement proposals and state work-permit proposals.

The Utah Compact did not claim to be a blueprint for policy or even a guide to policy. Though some want to twist it into support for their proposals; that contradicts the document’s own language as a guide for discussion.

Here is a further rub: All the state-level immigration proposals have constitutional issues. E-verify and enforcement-only proposals, similar to those in other states, are almost certain to end up in court on federal preemption issues and the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The Legislature’s own attorneys have put official warnings on several proposals that state work permits by any name would violate federal law that prohibits the unlawful employment of unauthorized aliens. Federal preemption and the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution again apply. Immigration law provides for no waiver that could cure the defect.

Legislators take an oath of office found in the Utah Constitution: “I do solemnly swear that I will support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this State, and that I will discharge the duties of my office with fidelity.” If the oath is taken lightly at the Capitol, that is wrong.

Further discussion concerning immigration will help the conversation mature. Substance should matter. Meanwhile, immigration remains a state distraction from education, job creation and economic development.

Legislators likely will continue to push the Utah Compact as support for attacks on the U.S. Constitution. This is unwise and a violation of the oath of office.

No illusions here; when I mentioned this in testimony two weeks ago, the legislator at my side laughed. It’s on the tape of the hearing. Undoubtedly others chuckled.

If it comes down to deciding between the Utah Compact and the United States Constitution, the Constitution should prevail.

That it may not work that way speaks poorly of Utah political practice.

Mark Alvarez is an attorney and a member of the Salt Lake City Library Board. He appears regularly on a Spanish-language radio show in Ogden.