Debate: Should Utah repeal HB 116 - Guest Worker Act Back to Utah |
Topic: Immigration
Summary: HB116 was passed on March 4, 2011. The bill was signed into law on March 15. For the complete text of the bill refer to http://le.utah.gov/~2011/bills/hbillenr/hb0116.htm. To view the legislative debates and action on this bill go to http://le.utah.gov/jsp/jdisplay/billaudio.jsp?sess=2011GS&bill=hb0116s03&Headers=true
Participants:
Repeal
This law is unconstitutional and should be repealed. Please refer to http://repeal116.com for more information.
Keep and improve it
This law was part of a complete package of bills addressing the immigration issue in the State of Utah. It is a matter of state rights. Please refer to http://hb116.info for more information.
Is HB 116 constitutional? answers (2)
Repeal
Answer: Absolutely not! The sponsor of the bill originally admitted that it was unconstitutional as well as the Governor and Lt. Governor. The plain language of the U.S. Constitution states that the Federal government has control over immigration. Many people only reference Article I Section 8 Clause 4 which specifically gives Congress authorization to deal with "naturalization." They overlook Article I Section 9 which specifically gives Congress the right to deal with "migration" as well. Article I Section 9 gave States a 20 year window to control their own migration, but after 1806 it was understood in the Constitutional Debates that migration would be a Federal responsibility. Chief Justice John Marshall ruled on this in Gibbons v. Ogden (1824). Otherwise, one State could dictate to another State what their immigration policy would be because of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. It would also cause difficulties surrounding the Equal Footing Doctrine since some States would have external borders and others would not. Trenton Hansen gives an excellent analysis of all this in his article, "The Constitutional Case for Federal Control over Immigration."
Unfortunately, some legislators have called other legislators hypocritical since they voted for some "States' Rights" bills that had "constitutional notes" attached to them but didn't vote for HB 116. This argument is silly and shows that they do not fully understand the States' Rights Movement. The States' Rights Movement is not about indiscriminately taking power back from the Federal government. It is about returning to original interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and reclaiming those powers usurped by the Federal government. It is not a secessionist movement, but rather a restoration movement. There is a big difference between voting for a bill that one believes is constitutional yet has a constitutional note (such as the eminent domain and gun bills) and one that is clearly unconstitutional. The only way to overturn bad case law is to present a law to challenge it. If someone believed that an eminent domain bill was unconstitutional they should have voted against it despite its popularity. A legislator's oath of office includes a promise to "Honor and defend the U.S. and Utah Constitution." Voting for a bill that one believes is unconstitutional is a breach of this duty.
Unfortunately, some legislators have called other legislators hypocritical since they voted for some "States' Rights" bills that had "constitutional notes" attached to them but didn't vote for HB 116. This argument is silly and shows that they do not fully understand the States' Rights Movement. The States' Rights Movement is not about indiscriminately taking power back from the Federal government. It is about returning to original interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and reclaiming those powers usurped by the Federal government. It is not a secessionist movement, but rather a restoration movement. There is a big difference between voting for a bill that one believes is constitutional yet has a constitutional note (such as the eminent domain and gun bills) and one that is clearly unconstitutional. The only way to overturn bad case law is to present a law to challenge it. If someone believed that an eminent domain bill was unconstitutional they should have voted against it despite its popularity. A legislator's oath of office includes a promise to "Honor and defend the U.S. and Utah Constitution." Voting for a bill that one believes is unconstitutional is a breach of this duty.
Keep and improve it
Answer: HB 116 asks two fundamental constitutional questions far more important than the scant attention they've received. They are, "Does Utah have the right to regulate employment within its borders?" and "What recourse does the state have when the federal government refuses to act?" At first glance, these questions seem unnecessary and even superfluous, but they are fundamental in understanding why HB 116 is necessary.
There is very little question that our state government should never have been placed in a situation where it was compelled to address illegal immigration. The state legislature has petitioned our federal government to take up the issue. We have been ignored. The Republican Party has changed representation . Their replacements have been silent. At some point the state had to act. The question is whether we are allowed to.
Fundamental to our Constitution is the premise that we're a nation of 50 individual, sovereign states. And with the general policing powers given to the states, everything we have not prohibited the states to do is permitted. That stands in sharp contrast to the federal government where everything not permitted is prohibited.
At no time has Utah given the federal government authority to regulate employment within its borders. The United States Constitution does not give the federal government this authority. Utah is well within its right to establish its own laws. House Bill 116 represents a step forward in protecting our state's rights. We must not allow the de facto usurpation of powers granted to the state. In a very real way, HB 116 draws the line.
Our nation's Founders probably never envisioned a day when the federal government would mandate that a state educate, medicate and incarcerate illegal immigrants but give them no means to extricate them. Before the 17th Amendment, a state may have been able to compel a senator to address the issue. But today, after years of waiting, paying and watching the problem get worse the state decided to act.
What will the result be? We don't know. But what we do know is that the federal government will be compelled to respond. And the only thing that stops the federal government from acting is to repeal the bill.
There is very little question that our state government should never have been placed in a situation where it was compelled to address illegal immigration. The state legislature has petitioned our federal government to take up the issue. We have been ignored. The Republican Party has changed representation . Their replacements have been silent. At some point the state had to act. The question is whether we are allowed to.
Fundamental to our Constitution is the premise that we're a nation of 50 individual, sovereign states. And with the general policing powers given to the states, everything we have not prohibited the states to do is permitted. That stands in sharp contrast to the federal government where everything not permitted is prohibited.
At no time has Utah given the federal government authority to regulate employment within its borders. The United States Constitution does not give the federal government this authority. Utah is well within its right to establish its own laws. House Bill 116 represents a step forward in protecting our state's rights. We must not allow the de facto usurpation of powers granted to the state. In a very real way, HB 116 draws the line.
Our nation's Founders probably never envisioned a day when the federal government would mandate that a state educate, medicate and incarcerate illegal immigrants but give them no means to extricate them. Before the 17th Amendment, a state may have been able to compel a senator to address the issue. But today, after years of waiting, paying and watching the problem get worse the state decided to act.
What will the result be? We don't know. But what we do know is that the federal government will be compelled to respond. And the only thing that stops the federal government from acting is to repeal the bill.
Is HB 116 a form of amnesty? answers (2)
Repeal
Answer: HB 116 is absolutely amnesty. Read Edwin Meese's article "Amnesty by Any Other Name" (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Commentary/2006/05/An-Amnesty-by-Any-Other-Name). Ed Meese was the Attorney General for the Reagan Administration and was instrumental in reviewing the 1986 Amnesty. He states:
"
The difference is that President Reagan called this what it was: amnesty. Indeed, look up the term "amnesty" in Black's Law Dictionary, and you'll find it says, "the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act provided amnesty for undocumented aliens already in the country.
...The illegal immigrant does not go to the back of the line but gets immediate legalized status, while law-abiding applicants wait in their home countries for years to even get here. And that's the line that counts."
In the end, slight differences in process do not change the overriding fact that the 1986 law and today's bill are both amnesties.
For some strange reason, citizenship has become associated with amnesty. The ability to simply reside in this country is a great blessing and is a form of amnesty for an illegal alien. A fine for overstaying a visa or entering the country illegally simply addresses the crime of "overstaying a visa or entering the country illegally." It does not include the ability to stay in the country which requires a separate visa and would be a reward. An analogy is like saying that when one pays for a speeding ticket that one is able to continue to speed without being stopped again. A Filipino who overstays their visa (if they are lucky enough to get one) is essentially banished for life if they overstay a visa even if they leave voluntarily. Moreover, allowing an illegal alien family to stay in Utah gives a pathway to citizenship because their children born here automatically gives them a preference for future citizenship. HB 116 does nothing to eliminate this pathway to citizenship.
The eventual solution or compromise to illegal immigration may include some form of amnesty (hopefully very limited) but that is different than saying that it is not amnesty.
"
The difference is that President Reagan called this what it was: amnesty. Indeed, look up the term "amnesty" in Black's Law Dictionary, and you'll find it says, "the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act provided amnesty for undocumented aliens already in the country.
...The illegal immigrant does not go to the back of the line but gets immediate legalized status, while law-abiding applicants wait in their home countries for years to even get here. And that's the line that counts."
In the end, slight differences in process do not change the overriding fact that the 1986 law and today's bill are both amnesties.
For some strange reason, citizenship has become associated with amnesty. The ability to simply reside in this country is a great blessing and is a form of amnesty for an illegal alien. A fine for overstaying a visa or entering the country illegally simply addresses the crime of "overstaying a visa or entering the country illegally." It does not include the ability to stay in the country which requires a separate visa and would be a reward. An analogy is like saying that when one pays for a speeding ticket that one is able to continue to speed without being stopped again. A Filipino who overstays their visa (if they are lucky enough to get one) is essentially banished for life if they overstay a visa even if they leave voluntarily. Moreover, allowing an illegal alien family to stay in Utah gives a pathway to citizenship because their children born here automatically gives them a preference for future citizenship. HB 116 does nothing to eliminate this pathway to citizenship.
The eventual solution or compromise to illegal immigration may include some form of amnesty (hopefully very limited) but that is different than saying that it is not amnesty.
Keep and improve it
Answer: The short answer is that HB116 doesn't grant amnesty to anybody. In fact it provides for more severe penalties for illegal immigration than the Federal law.
Amnesty has been defined as "the act of an authority (as a government) by which pardon is granted to a large group of individuals." The same source defines "pardon" as "the excusing of an offense without exacting a penalty; a release from the legal penalties of an offense."
HB 116 simply isn't "amnesty." There is a penalty, in the form of a fine; also, it does not release anyone from penalties due to federal law. They can still be prosecuted for violation of Federal law if the Federal government chooses to do so.
Traditionally, amnesty has referred to giving illegal immigrants a path to citizenship. HB 116 has nothing to do with citizenship. It does grant those undocumented immigrants who pay a fine, get a background check, and register with the state the right to work in Utah, but does not grant legal residence or the right to vote. It is not a pathway to citizenship.
Some have redefined amnesty to be anything other than rounding up illegals and sending them home. Under this definition, HB 116 creates a solution that allows Utah to reject de facto federal amnesty. HB 116 creates a database so we know who is here illegally and provides enforcement provisions and funding to punish those who don't obtain a permit.
Amnesty has been defined as "the act of an authority (as a government) by which pardon is granted to a large group of individuals." The same source defines "pardon" as "the excusing of an offense without exacting a penalty; a release from the legal penalties of an offense."
HB 116 simply isn't "amnesty." There is a penalty, in the form of a fine; also, it does not release anyone from penalties due to federal law. They can still be prosecuted for violation of Federal law if the Federal government chooses to do so.
Traditionally, amnesty has referred to giving illegal immigrants a path to citizenship. HB 116 has nothing to do with citizenship. It does grant those undocumented immigrants who pay a fine, get a background check, and register with the state the right to work in Utah, but does not grant legal residence or the right to vote. It is not a pathway to citizenship.
Some have redefined amnesty to be anything other than rounding up illegals and sending them home. Under this definition, HB 116 creates a solution that allows Utah to reject de facto federal amnesty. HB 116 creates a database so we know who is here illegally and provides enforcement provisions and funding to punish those who don't obtain a permit.
How does your position deal with the existing illegal immigrants who are already in Utah? answers (1)
Repeal
No Answer Submitted
Keep and improve it
Answer: Fines and imprisonment up to 6 months are available, but the federal government usually just removes persons who are here illegally rather than going to the effort to prosecute them. A civil penalty of $50-$250 can also be levied on persons entering the U.S. illegally, and this is usually the only action the federal government takes.
On the other hand, the programs started by HB116 REQUIRE that a person here illegally actually pay a fine of either $1000 or $2500 before they can even start the process of qualifying for the guest worker status. Practically, Utah collects up to 10 times the penalties that the Federal government generally imposes on people here illegally.
On the other hand, the programs started by HB116 REQUIRE that a person here illegally actually pay a fine of either $1000 or $2500 before they can even start the process of qualifying for the guest worker status. Practically, Utah collects up to 10 times the penalties that the Federal government generally imposes on people here illegally.
What are the financial benefits or costs of your position to the State of Utah? answers (1)
Repeal
No Answer Submitted
Keep and improve it
Answer: The Guest Worker Permit does not allow entitlement to federal, state, or local benefits, including unemployment benefits for permit holders. Illegal immigrants will pay taxes. HB 116 requires employers to pay a fee to the state that is the equivalent of the employment taxes that would normally be paid.
Does HB 116 address the identity theft problem? answers (1)
Repeal
No Answer Submitted
Keep and improve it
Answer: HB 116 establishes a restricted account. The fines from permit applications provide funds for prosecution of identity theft and identity fraud as well as provide restitution for victims of these crimes. (1424).
In the interests of finding solutions, are there other ways that the State of Utah could have accomplished the purposes of HB 116? answers (1)
Repeal
No Answer Submitted
Keep and improve it
Answer: Protection of the borders of the United States is one of the principle responsibilities of the federal government. States can only become involved in border control with the permission of the Federal Government. The current Federal policies do not effectively interdict all illegal entry into the United States, but that does not give the States the ability to engage in interdiction operations. Besides, Utah doesn't have an international border, so we could not keep people from entering into the country illegally without violating the sovereignty of our sister states.
Deportation is a Federal program. There are two parts to a deportation agreement. First, the deporting country generally has the responsibility for the movement of the deportee out of that country to the second part, which is the Receiving Country. A receiving country must agree to receive the deportees. If they do not, dumping a person in the territory of another country without their consent is a serious breach of international law; in some cases it can be considered a War Crime.
A U.S. State cannot enter into a deportation agreement with another country. Only the Federal Government can enter into those agreements.
So, Utah could not deport anybody without violating federal and international law.
Deportation is a Federal program. There are two parts to a deportation agreement. First, the deporting country generally has the responsibility for the movement of the deportee out of that country to the second part, which is the Receiving Country. A receiving country must agree to receive the deportees. If they do not, dumping a person in the territory of another country without their consent is a serious breach of international law; in some cases it can be considered a War Crime.
A U.S. State cannot enter into a deportation agreement with another country. Only the Federal Government can enter into those agreements.
So, Utah could not deport anybody without violating federal and international law.
config
view
logs
4096.0 KB
306 ms
