Email to Sen. Urquhart -- Utah Reports Traffic Citations on the Criminal Database

Dear Steve U (my favorite legislator),

I can't find your blog anymore, and although I have stopped blogging regularly I miss your insights into state politics.

I have an issue that I recently discovered with the state's criminal records database. 

Apparently, Utah traffic violations (which are classified as misdemeanors) are now being included in the state's criminal database, which has not been made common knowledge. When an employer (or a graduate school, in the case of my wife) does a background check, the background check comes back with criminal convictions marked as yes. The description of the misdemeanor is accurate, but it includes any ugly additional item for  "bail forfeiture" even with no jail time and the individual paid the fine without warrants being issued.

This started when SB-201 passed in the 2012 General Session. This bill appears to have been passed with the intent of allowing drivers the opportunity to expunge their traffic violations through the state's criminal database and removing the traffic violation records from the state DMV. Unfortunately, the DMV is still planning on maintaining it's records of traffic violations. Now there is a traffic violation record on the state's crimnal database, and with the Driver's License division. This was obviously not considered during the passage of SB 201.

In the case of my wife, she had no idea that this would show as a misdemeanor or that this would be on the state's criminal database (and she claimed no misdemeanors on her grad school application) and the background check caused the graduate school to call (nearly revoke acceptance in her Master's program) and to accuse her of lying on her application. All this for a "fix-it" ticket where she missed the deadline to repair a burned out brake lamp. She paid the fine timely without any warrant being issued.

The reporting of traffic violations to the state's criminal database nearly cost my wife her admittance to graduate school, and I am sure it will cost many citizens jobs and untold hassles if this is not remedied. Please look into this issue.

Thanks,

Phillip Bell

On Gun Control

While I think we should consider limits on the kinds of weapons and ammunition that the average American owns, we need to be realistic. Gun legislation (short of a complete 2nd Amendment Repeal) will only be a Band Aid on stopping events like Sandy Hook, VT, and Columbine and a repeal of the second amendment will never happen -- nor should a repeal happen. Therefore the only viable solution for stopping mass shootings at schools, is to provide each public school in the country with onsite law enforcement or arms for educators, administrators, or both. Without armed school employees or officers, shootings at schools will continue

2012 -- Flat Tax Proposals

The GOP presidential hopefuls are in the thick of taking up conservative causes like taxes, social security reform, abolition of the USDOE, and many others. In the realm of taxes I am having a change of heart.

Most GOP candidates are decrying the current tax system and its loopholes for poor working families and the percentage of Americans who actually have to pay any income taxes (non-Social Security/Medicare taxes). The solution, for most candidates, is a flat tax, a tiered flat tax, a consumption tax, or a hybrid of one or more options.

In the past I have expressed opposition to flat tax proposals in that they generally create a tax cut for wealthy taxpayers at the expense of poorer taxpayers. This is still the case, wealth taxpayers are in fact (when you take income phaseouts of certain deductions and credits) paying a flatish tax of 35% or more. Therefore (taking Herman Cain's catchy 9-9-9 proposal) the rich would enjoy a large tax break and Joe the Plumber would go from large tax-credit induced refunds to paying 900 dollars a year income taxes (est 40k income). This is still a factual issue with flat taxes.

However, I'm not sure that "staying the (current tax policy) course" is the right approach anymore. Just this last year, we had a Congress that raised our nation's borrowing level to an extremely high level. (I'm not sure. Was it 14 trillion dollars? That is somewhere around 14 to 7 million times more than most Americans make in a lifetime) President Obama's solution for the current unemployment problem was to request another 300 billion dollars in government spending. The final straw on tax policy (for me) was the president's comments before the debt ceiling was raised that, "he couldn't guarantee Social Security checks" without the extra debt. Now I'm no government budget expert, but when a business needs to keep borrowing just to stay afloat it doesn't take a Harvard education to realize financial catastrophe is nigh at hand.

Now, I disagree with the "lucky duck" theory that taxing the poor is the only way to get the poor off their collectively apathetic arses to demand that the Federal government change. The desire to induce anger is not the best guide for wise fiscal policy. I believe adopting a simplified tax system will do three things: 1.) provide stability for businesses to grow and individuals to invest, 2.) Provide capital to invest in American businesses, and 3.) decrease the "Tax Gap"and end some large drains on the Federal Treasury.

One of the biggest problems in the US economy is the lack of stability in the US tax code. Businesses are ever on edge about what tax laws will end or what new tax laws will be enacted. By enacting a flat or simplified tax system, businesses and individuals can make financial, and more importantly investment decisions, without taxes being such an uncertain variable in the decision making equation.


As mentioned earlier, the flat tax's tax savings for higher income taxpayers would leave tax dollars in taxpayer's pockets. The saved tax funds would in turn (theoretically) likely be used to invest in entrepreneurism, stocks and bonds, or just spent in the open market.

For years National Taxpayer Advocates have stated that the biggest problem in the tax code is the law's complexity. Most Americans want to keep square with the government and pay their fair share. However, the tax code's complexity not only makes it impossible for the average lay taxpayer to be confident that they are preparing their return properly, but it also leaves a perception that other taxpayers are getting away with not paying their share. Such a perception can lead some taxpayers to cheat on their taxes since it appears that many others are doing like wise. The flat tax would provide wage earner taxpayers with easy to understand tax system and change the perception of inequality to one of equity.

The flat tax would also be a means of ending the welfare provisions of the tax code -- the Earned Income Credit, and the Additional Child Tax Credits. These provisions of the code provide lower income taxpayers with children (income between 15 and 50K) with thousands of dollars in tax refund dollars above and beyond what these taxpayers actually paid in. It is estimated that the Earned income tax credit alone cost the Treasury more than 40 billion dollars a year before taking into account the IRS budgetary costs of pursuing fraudulent EIC claims. The refundable portion of these provisions should be done away with.

Whether or not a flat tax would pass is another story. Democrats will fight against such proposals simply for the fact that the flat tax will raise taxes on the poor. However a reasoned approach to this issue might make a flat tax viable by using new credits that encourage retirement savings might keep poorer taxpayers from feeling a pinch.

Huntsman: Even the Rich Should Sacrifice.

The ever scrappy son of Utah's richest man Jon M Huntsman Jr. says if he is elected even the rich will have a share in sacrificing in order to get our country back on track. As mentioned in my last post that doesn't include tax hikes -- he's saving that for the "working poor families and seniors". Why do I bother talking about him, he is going to be out soon?

Speaking in an interview with the PBS NewsHour, Huntsman said that potentially means-testing Medicare could be one example of a sacrifice the wealthy could make.

"As president, I wouldn't hesitate to call on a sacrifice from all of our people, even those at the very highest end of the income spectrum," said Huntsman, himself a multi-millionaire. "I'm not saying higher taxes, but there are contributions they can make too."

I wonder why he is doing so poorly in the polls? He wants to tax poor working families, and he is even willing to make the ever deprived rich sacrifice in ways other than tax hikes. What more do Republican's want?

The one thing Huntsman has right is Medicare and Social Security means testing. Social Security is a wreck, maybe one of the best solutions (or beginning to a solution) is to stop paying benefits to retirees who are wealthy enough without Social Security and Medicare. Just as it is wasteful paying the poor for being poor, it is foolish to pay welfare to those who don't need welfare (and lets get real, social security isn't a pension or retirement savings plan)

More on Social Security later.

Of Lucky Ducks

Many of the GOP presidential wannabes are going at a new approach to raising income taxes -- tax everyone. Michelle Bachmann contends that, " we need to broaden the tax base so that everybody pays something, even if it is a dollar. Everyone should pay something, because we all benefit." Son of a billionaire, Jon M Huntsman Jr. went straight to the point, "the half of Americans no longer paying income taxes, mainly working poor families and seniors, should be brought onto the income tax rolls." The Slate article linked above contends that this is part of theory that originated in WSJ editorials that called the working poor and those that don't pay income taxes "lucky duckies" and that real change to the tax code will only come when the lucky duckies share the tax burden and are enraged enough to demand change.

The tax code has become a system of bribery towards the working poor. Certain tax provisions end up providing poor people thousands of taxpayer dollars that they didn't contribute. In 2004 it is estimated that the Federal Government paid out more than 36 billion dollars in Earned Income Tax Credit to over 21 million US households. The EIC coupled with the additional child tax credit, provides working poor families with a great deal of Treasury dollars just for being poor. This needs to change. While it is important to provide help to the needy, we don't need the government to be handing out cash to every single household that makes less than six figures whether the asked for it or not.

Having railed against the negative tax provisions of the tax code, it would be folly to require the working poor to shoulder a proportionate load of the income tax burden. First, most lower middle class families struggle to make ends meet without requiring them to set an additional 10-20% aside for income taxes. Adding these people to the tax roles may produce an enraged working poor, but it would also burden the IRS in pursuing tax bills that are more than likely noncollectable. Second, taxing the poor will create more poverty. I went through this ad nauseum when former Utah governor Huntsman started pushing a fair or flat tax. Ten to twenty percent of 100k is a lot less painful than ten to twenty percent of 40k.

The best move our nation can make in regards to taxes and the working poor is the repeal of income based refundable tax credits. This will end the multi-billion dollar drain on the Treasury without increasing the cost of living on lower middle-class families. Beyond that I foresee flat taxes as producing tax cuts that benefit the rich at the expense of the poor. The GOP candidates may argue that forcing the rich to pay all the taxes is class warfare, but taxing people who in some cases make 1/100th of the wealthy peers at the same rate is just plain tyrannical.

It's been a while......

I have been wanting to come and write for some time, but caring for two autistic kids can keep you busy from sun up to sun down. I've missed you blogosphere.

Rep. Menlove's Proposal -- Message Bill?

Rep Menlove of Garland wants Medicaid recipients to perform community service as a form of payment for the benefit of having Medicaid.

So, what's the message ???????????????????????????????

Utah State Taxes -- Residency Test

The Utah State Tax Commission is proposing a Residency Test for income tax purposes. This test would have three levels:

1. The state in which the taxpayer's dependents, spouse, or taxpayer is enrolled in public school or state universities.
2. The address where the taxpayer is registered to vote.
3. Whether the taxpayer has property in Utah, and is benefiting from the 45% valuation exemption on a primary residence.

I applaud the state's efforts. This has been an issue where the Utah State Tax Commission has repeatedly overstepped its bounds. They have pursued residency in cases as minuscule as the taxpayer having toys (atv's, snowmobiles, etc) licensed in Utah. Clear and reasonable guidance is long overdue.

One problem I see with this rule, and the problems may depend on the final language of the bill that passes the legislature, is the rule establishing residency if the taxpayer of spouse is enrolled in a Utah university or college. For example, if the final law says any of the three establish residency, than someone from Mesquite NV could become an unwitting resident (or recipient of a Utah state tax examination) by virtue of attending the nearest institute of higher education -- Dixie State College.

I think it would be wiser for the residency test to end at the enrollement of the taxpayer and the spouse's children in Utah K-12 schools. That way commuters to Utah institutes of higher education don't need to fear being improperly assessed Utah taxes.

Regardless, this proposed legislation is good step forward in saving taxpayers money in needless litigation and protecting taxpayers from overreaching Utah State Tax Commission auditors.

Governor Herbert still rakes in the dough, but.....

he managed to give a generous 1.4% of the haul to charity. Bravo Gov'na'

There a few who discussed the allegations of shady financial deals against the Governor made by Mayor Corroon. In a show of unrivaled civil political dialogue, master of GOP ethics and quid pro quo payolas, Dave Hansen (you remember, the guy who kept taking 5,000 dollar a month payments from Senator Hatch after he was also hired as Utah GOP chairman) said this:

“They’re not happy with the attacks on the governor. They really aren’t,” Hansen said. “They want somebody to rip Corroon’s head off. They do not like to see this kind of campaigning.”

Fred Lampropoulos, who's company is a party to one of the questionable arrangements that the state made after Governor Herbert received a donation, said:

“(I'm)mad as hell.”

Corroon has questioned whether Merit’s $50,000 contributions played a role in the company receiving $4.4 million in tax incentives if it creates 700 new jobs.

“We did it to help a governor we think has a vision on economic development,” Lampropoulos said.

He said his company has also given money to Corroon’s mayoral campaign and the mayor’s office approved a $12 million economic development incentive at the county three years ago.

Corroon's campaign manager retorted:

Dunn said the county was one of three entities, along with the school district and the city, that had to approve that incentive. And, he said, the donations were not nearly as large or in the same time frame as the approval.

Dave Hansen is a buffoon, and one of the least qualified people to opine on campaign ethics. While working for Hatch, he willingly participated in a employment tax scam by falsely classifying himself as a subcontractor rather than an employee of the Hatch Senate Committee. After he was elected as Utah Republican Party Chairman he continued to take 5,000 dollar a month payments from Hatch for over a year. Quid pro quo should be his middle name.

Fred Lampropoulos' revelation about his donation to Corroon raises reasonable questions. He gave to both candidates, and he also had business dealings with both governments, when is this improper? In the case of Governor, timing has been an issue. Alton Coal made a donation and got a meeting with the Governor in the same day, soon after the company's strip mining permit was approved in an expedited manner. Another issue is the manner that contracts are awarded. In the case of the Provo Corridor project, the contract appears to have been won by Provo River by a slim margin. Coupled with the massive payola to the losing bidder, the state certainly looks guilty of impropriety regarding the Provo Corridor bid process.

I guess the big question, other than did the governor really act in an improper manner, is what is an acceptable campaign finance policy? The governor's policy of giving private meetings to 50,000 dollar+ donors, a policy the governor has continued despite the recent allegations from his challenger, has led outsiders to question whether or not those donations are crossing over the line to bribery especially when those donors end up receiving large state contracts or concessions after making their payouts.

I think Corroon's suggestion to limit campaign contributions to a cap, would be a logical step to avoid the appearance of impropriety at the state level of government.

Governor Herbert v. Mayor Coroon -- An Argument That the Herbert Camp CAN Make

Since the Kern Gardner argument failed, I thought I would mention a point of impropriety from the Corroon camp.

Salt Lake County's spokesman is getting a reprimand for an e-mail he sent from his county e-mail address.

Jim Braden is Salt Lake County Mayor Peter Corroon's communications director and acts as the mayor's spokesman.

Deputy Mayor Nicole Dunn confirms that Braden sent out an e-mail with a list of negative press clippings about Gov. Gary Herbert. Braden used his county e-mail address. Corroon is challenging Herbert for Utah governor.

Herbert's brilliant campaign manager who says Herbert is as "honest as the day is long" (a rather subjective description -- I find that the day is often short. So, in Herbert's case I guess it works regardless) was quoted as follows:

Don Olsen, says he wants Mayor Corroon to publicly stand up and admit what happened in his office. Olsen also wants both Braden and Corroon to be reprimanded.

"It's wrong for an employee who's being funded by the taxpayer to do campaign work, especially on taxpayer-funded equipment and on taxpayer-funded time," Olsen said.

Unfortunately for Olsen, the Corroon campaign has already done just that:

Mayor Corroon quickly responded to Braden's e-mail, saying what Braden did was wrong and telling him not to do it again, Dunn said.

How sad. Herbert's manager Olsen almost had something that he could roast Corroon on, but Corroon took the initiative to own the story before it made the press or (God forbid) he ended up looking like an idiot learning about the email in front of the press at a news conference.

Governor Herbert v. Mayor Corroon -- The Kern Gardner Issue

Since Herbert's botched news conference, there the Herbert camp and some right-wing bloggers have tried to defend the Governor with a logical leap regarding the Mayor's relationship with businessman Kern Gardner:

Corroon is vocal in his support for ethics UEG style, yet he abuses his office as county mayor, says the governor’s mansion is for sale and that contributions of $50,000 should raise red flags, he himself is – wait for it – taking contributions of $50K from a company doing business with the county.

Kem Gardner’s company – Gateway Associates – developed & owns the Gateway as well as residential, commercial and retail in Salt Lake County. Salt Lake County owns property at the gateway including Clark Planetarium. The county pays Gateway Associates, Kern Gardner pays Corroon’s campaign. Nice.

However, there is a difference between the Mayor's receipt of donations from Kern Gardner and his Gateway contract with Salt Lake County. Peter Corroon has been Mayor of SLCo since 2004, Gateway Associates has had active contracts with Salt Lake County since at least -- wait for it -- 2002. That's right, Gardner has a business relationship with the county renting space for Clark Planetarium, however that relationship was initiated prior to Corroon's election as Mayor. Gardner's donations to Corroon and the Gateway contract have no legitimate connection.

There is no problem giving money to a candidate for public office even if the donor has or might in the future have business dealings with the government. However it is improper for a elected official to accept donations and to provide those donors with perks in the form of tax breaks, expedited permit approval, or large contracts.

Sorry Herbert and right-wingers, Herbert is the only one with (possible) dirty hands here. Herbert received a donation from Alton Coal and met with the company on the same day -- coincidentally Alton's permit for strip mining was expedited for approval a short time later. The Guv met with Fred from Merit Medical, received a donation, and Merit received 4.36M in state tax breaks.

Last but not least, Provo River contractors gave Herbert cash and subsequently won one of the largest Utah state contracts in history. To keep the losers quiet, UDOT paid 13M dollars to the losing bidders.

Conversely, Mayor Corroon accepted a donation from a Democrat businessman whom the county has had a contract with for many years and will continue to have a contract with many years after the Mayor has left office. The donation to the Mayor had no (from a reasonable person standard looking from the outside in) bearing on the SLCo - Gateway Associates contract. It requires a logical leap of epic proportions to draw any conclusion to the contrary.

Governor Herbert v. Mayor Coroon -- What could the state have done with 13M?

Teachers -- 260 Salaries (@ a generous $50,000)

Governor Herbert v. Mayor Coroon -- Governor For Sale

Yikes -- That didn't go well!

When political candidates keep flashing video of people saying how honest and honorable they are I tend to doubt the message. It appears that Governor Herbert isn't going to disappoint us in this regard either.

Yesterday, the governor held a press conference with some cheerleader, who's-who from Utah politics to answer questions from the Corroon camp claiming that the governor may have been taking campaign contributions in a "pay-to-play" fashion. In the course of the conference the head of UDOT disclosed that a losing bid competitor in the infamous Utah County project was paid 13M dollars in a protest settlement -- the winning bid was from a group of contractors who had all made donations to the governor.

“This is the first I’ve heard of it,” Herbert said.

This isn't the first time this has happened -- Corroon called a similar issue into question after the Governor accepted a donation from a coal mining company seeking permits in Southern Utah and the permits were coincidentally fast-tracked. The governor denied impropriety in that event as well.

If there was nothing improper about the Utah county project's bid award as the head of UDOT claims, why did the state settle and pay the losers 13 million dollars? Governor Herbert is either a liar or a terrible manager. Even if the governor didn't have anything to do with the settlement or the award of the bid, payment of such a large sum in settlement reeks of impropriety and corruption.

So Much for the Church being Against Gambling

Wow!

I thought they would opt for exposure through helping the MWC get the BCS AQ status, but I was mistaken.

Seems like BYU and the LDS church are taking a huge gamble. The only big upside is potential revenue. With probable scheduling nuances and other issues, BYU's annual BCS chances are more diminished as an independent, and their chances of being picked up by the PAC-12, Big 12 or some other AQ conference are 50/50 at best.

Anyone want to propose a lottery in Utah again?

Governor Herbert v. Mayor Corroon -- Education

In the past few weeks the Governor has taken a few shots at his competition's ideas for Utah education

Mayor and gubernatorial candidate Peter Corroon announced that, if elected, he would like to see an increase in the credits required to graduate from Utah high schools. He cited states like Arizona, Texas, and New Mexico as examples of states that have higher graduation requirements and Utah's increasingly tech-savvy job market as reasons why the state of Utah needs to raise the board.

Governor has responded in a couple of pathetic ways. The first response, was an appeal to the religious centric Mormon majority of the state of Utah. The governor stated:

"I don't know that everybody in Utah is going to think that's a good idea to give up art and seminary release time to have this more rigorous curriculum,"

I understand that Herbert hasn't been in High School for more than a few decades, but it is gross political pandering to the major state religion to monger fear that a Catholic Mayor is trying to Seminary. I graduated just a little over a decade ago, and do you have any idea what my senior year of high school looked like? Electives, electives, and (you guessed it) more electives. Mayor Corroon is right to call the Governor out on his veiled religious swipes. Last year, a senior state legislator and many legislators considered eliminating the senior year of high school altogether. The Governor here is once again proving that he is spineless, idea-less, and a sheep, rather than a shepherd.

The second response was more direct and considered more (possibly) personal by some Corroon proponents:

(Herbert accused) his Democratic challenger, Peter Corroon, of borderline hypocrisy by claiming to champion public education while sending his own three children to a parochial school.

“How can someone who has never had firsthand experience with public education understand how it really works?” the governor asked.

This triggered condemnation from the leader of the Catholic school where Corroon's children are schooled. Madeleine Choir School's pastoral administrator, Gregory Glenn said the following:

"Catholic school parents and leaders resent this cheap shot from Gov. Herbert in support of his own political goals," "Shame on Gov. Herbert for maligning the contribution of Catholic schools in Utah for his own political ends."

Although it is obvious that the Catholic school was reaching in their accusations, the governor didn't miss the opportunity to use it against his opponent:

The governor's campaign spokesman said Monday that Glenn's statement "is a gross distortion," because Herbert never brought up Corroon's religion or made reference to Catholic schools.

"Gov. Herbert believes that the blatant political maneuvering of the Corroon campaign — and the potential community divisiveness that it may cause — is reprehensible and ought to be stopped immediately,"

Let's consider who is improperly using religion on this issue. Governor Herbert, who fully supported the voucher proposal, takes the colossal leap from a plan to make Utah students work harder for their diplomas to the end all of seminary release time when most Utah students and high school graduates will admit that at least one full year of high school is a waste -- the governor knows this assertion is a major stretch, but he is willing to make it because he believes it appeals to the persecution-complex infected majority of this state.

It is also laughable that the governor would piously call the Mayor out as a hypocrite on the issue of private schooling, when a few years ago he fully supported a plan that would have let any Utah parent use state funds to send their children to private schools. The governor is for private schooling on the taxpayers dime, but if someone makes the sacrifice to send their kids to private school on their own dime it is snobbish and it renders someone unable to lead the state's education system.

If the Governor was a leader rather than a politician, he would agree with Mayor Corroon's proposal for increasing Utah's graduation requirements. The state lags behind many of it's neighbors in this regard, and Utah should (per the prevailing religion's own dogma) lead the nation in the quality of our education. However, the governor is a mere politician, and as such good ideas that are not his are a threat and must be crushed by pandering to a far too often paranoid majority rather than embraced for the merit that the opposition's idea possesses.

"Take Back Utah" Do We Want More Idiots on ATV's?

I have never been a fan of Federal control over Utah land. The Federal government doesn't pay property tax, and in certain cases the Federal government has used legal doctrines like imminent domain in ways that have truly hosed the Utah economy and Utah ranchers. Having said that, I concede that I am not all that passionate about this issue and have not taken the time to get fully enveloped in all the nuances of the Utah v. Federal land debate.

This week Utah hosted a "Take Back America (or Utah)" rally where a reported 5,000 ATV enthusiasts parade their ATV's up SLC's State Street to the Utah state capital:

"Colorado has already lost all its rights to lands," said Virginia Lynn Robertson, who with her husband, Lynn, ventured to Salt Lake City from Dolores, Colo., for Saturday's event.

"That's why we are here. We belong to an ATV club that has lost all its rights," Robertson said. "Thankfully, it isn't that bad in Utah yet."

Quite a few prominent politicians were also in attendance, warning how the liberal Federal government is trying to deprive Utahn's their rights of land use. I wasn't aware that riding ATV's wherever you want was a right afforded us in the US constitution, but I'm certainly not a conservative constitutional expert.

I think this groups problem is image. If they would have had a bunch of Utah ranchers parading up State Street with some cattle who would undoubtedly shate of the marble steps of the capital, I might be more inclined to listen, empathize, and support this groups opinion against Federal land acquisitions. However the image of 5,000 over-weight rednecks riding loud, annoying, and destructive ATV's makes me much more supportive of Federal land grabs and restrictions of public land use. I'm sure ATVs are fun, but these vehicles are destructive and far too often those who are riding these vehicles are oblivious to the rights of others, designated trails, and the damage they cause to the wilderness they claim a right to enjoy by riding carelessly.

So, if the problem is the Federal government restricting legitimate and beneficial uses of our states land, I am on your side. However, I could care less about your "rights" to scarify public lands with your annoying toys because you are to fat and lazy to track a deer by foot -- I have a right to enjoy mountain areas free from trampled plant life, loud inconsiderate ATV riders, and an extra tax cost for repairing damage caused by ATV riders that refuse to use proper trails.

Take a Hike!

Immigration -- The New Colossus

I have been pretty wrapped up in the immigration debate. Unfortunately, the tone from fellow Utahn's continues to disappoint. So I have decided to end my commentary on this issue with a poem:

The New Colossus

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Emma Lazarus, 1883

My ancestors are all immigrants. They all came here seeking a better life for themselves and their posterity. Most of them came with the benefit of ZERO exclusionary immigration law -- they boarded a ship, sailed across the sea, and disembarked from that vessel. My grandmother was sponsored, met an American and attained permanent status when she got married in what some today may call an "anchor marriage".

Illegals are no different except that they have been given two bad options, one "legal" option that is financially and bureaucratically unfeasible for most people of poorer nations, and one illegal option that is as easy as the founders most likely intended.

I'm done.

Sandstrom v. Robles

This week Stephen Sandstrom (R-Orem) unveiled his proposed AZ-styled illegal immigration bill. In the days leading up to the unveiling, the Senator claimed to be collaborating with Democratic Senator Luz Robles on a "carrot and stick in front of the horse type proposal" to provide an incentive for would-be illegal immigrants to opt for coming to Utah through legal channels instead of illegal border crossing. However, the Robles contribution is noticeably absent from the "Illegal Immigration Enforcement Act", and her news conference on Monday explained why.

On Monday she blasted the Sandstrom proposed legislation which not only requires police to become unofficial ICE agents, but also deputizes all state governmental agencies and employees to identify and turn in names of suspected illegal immigrants (i.e. the Stowell proposal). She pointed out that the Arizona law has already been challenged and stricken in Federal court and that a Utah law would undoubtedly face a similar fate at the cost of millions of taxpayer dollars. Sen. Robles confirmed that she is working on a alternative to Sen. Sandstrom's proposal but that she would not have it ready to be unveiled until next month. She also confirmed that Sandstrom is willing to work for a compromise immigration bill that may be more acceptable to both sides of this issue.

The Sandstrom law is worse than the Arizona law. The Arizona law merely required the police to act in a duel capacity as unofficial ICE agents, but Sandstrom is in effect deputizing the entire Utah state payroll as unofficial immigration enforcement personnel. Theoretically, schools may be bound to send names of suspected illegal immigrant families to law enforcement. This type of "iron fist" enforcement creates so many potential problems, not only constitutionally, but financially, logistically, and bureaucratically that it can make some of the most seasoned policy wonk's heads spin.

Although Robles proposed legislation has yet to be unveiled, I prefer it to the unmitigated crap that Stephen Sandstrom laid at the feet of xenophobic voters who he hopes represent a majority of voters in this state. Is there any doubt that he is posturing as a potential tea party Congressional candidate in 2012?

Immigration -- Steve Urquhart, Ethan Millard and Moving Towards Intelligent Discourse

I have been following a lot of the tweets by Ethan Millard regarding illegal immigration via FB. His commentary has solicited a lot of passionate, heated, and (at times) down right nasty debate on those internet threads. I'll admit that I have engaged in some of this unproductive discourse if for no other reason to burn off my excess road rage. This is something I intend to stop -- uncivil discourse only further entrenches bad ideology in the misinformed.

Steve Urquhart (R-St. George) has taken a positive step in bringing intelligent, reasoned discussion back into the illegal immigration debate. He issued a challenge to Ethan Millard regarding his assertions (or apparent assertions) that all anti-illegal immigrants are racists, Mr. Millard accepted the challenge in the form of a blog post at steveu.com.

I agree with Ethan in that Rep Sandstrom's bill can (which didn't include the alleged incentive program he was collaborating on with Luz Robles) have but one outcome, that outcome is the alienation and intimidation illegal immigrants and their families in some hope that they will leave for their country of origin. Laws like the Sandstrom bill and the AZ law are not the best policy for our nation, not policy that the framers of the constitution ever intended, and it is counter-productive to the growth and prosperity of our nation. Although Sandstrom add a "anti-racial profiling" clause, the nature of the law and the nature of illegal immigration requires racial profiling in order to be successful.

I agree that the rhetoric from the anti-illegal immigrant side has become far too laced with ugly and far too often inaccurate stereotyping that in some cases include fabricated or improperly extrapolated data as evidence to back up the stereotyping. Having said that, I think the rhetoric from the pro-freer immigrant side is becoming too laced with accusations of racism. In too many corners of this debate we have passed the equilibrium between productive civil discourse and fighting for the sake of the fight.

Honestly, I believe policy like our current Federal immigration policy and the new Sandstrom bill are bred from xenophobia, cultural stereotyping, and protectionism. Therefore laws like this can be branded as nothing other than discriminatory policy. Although I don't believe states have the authority to usurp Federal jurisdiction on immigration, Utah would be better served if they used the jurisdiction that Arizona and Sandstrom assert states have to pursue policies like guest worker programs or streamlining visas for legitimately employed migrant workers. However, instead of pursuing freer immigration policies and a secure border, many on the right seem to be interested in US-Mexico Iron Curtain -- this doesn't bode well for the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Although my feelings on immigration are passionate and my dislike for the opposition's viewpoint is vehement, I believe it is important for political commentators to bring the discourse above calling everyone who disagrees with you a racist or a liberal. When epithets are loosely thrown around the public debating arena opposing viewpoints are far more likely to cement several meters from the center of compromise and positive public policy change. Conversely, when public discourse is respectful and remains in the bounds of proper decorum there is a much greater likelihood that opposing viewpoints can come together and find optimal solutions to the issues being debated. I pledge to try (it will be hard because the Sandstrom law has such a racially discriminatory nature) and keep racial arguments from my posts from here on.

I look forward to see where Millard v. Urquhart ends up.

Sandstrom -- Tries to Sweeten, But Then Throws Excrement on His AZ Style Law

In a DesNews article that is tracking the developments behind Sandstrom's (R-Orem) Arizona style law recently noted three changes to his bill that are of interest. One in particular is fairly positive, and the other is fluff, and the other proposal stinks to high heaven.

First, Sandstorm is now collaborating with Hispanic state senator Luz Robles on providing an incentive for legal migration with streamlined permission for worker visas. Although it is another example of states attempting to usurp Federal jurisdiction, it is a step in a better direction from the "pin a yellow star on them" Nazi-esque policy that Sandstrom was originally pursuing and that Arizona already tried to mandate. It will be interesting to see how, and if, the state of Utah can make guest worker programs a reality without the cooperation and mandate of the Federal government.

The second change is language that specifically outlaws racial profiling:

Second, Sandstrom, R-Orem, said he is trying to take extra measures to ensure that his bill will not allow racial profiling. "It specifically prohibits racial profiling. It's the first time in state law we've actually specifically prohibited racial profiling," he said.

The only problem is in enforcement. I have known more than one Utah police officer that has admitted that they can find cause to pull any motorist over in five minutes. Except for in the most blatant and (quite frankly) ludicrous circumstances, there is no way to enforce racial profiling laws against police officers. The nature of this law requires racial profiling. If a police officer has the urge, that officer will have no problem finding cause to pull over a brown skinned motorist. Although I appreciate the attempt to sweeten the bills overpowering stench, like a pubescent boy, Rep Sandstrom needs to be reminded that Brut Aftershave over BO generally makes for stinkier-musky BO.

The final change is the addition of language introduced by Sen. Dennis Stowell (R-Parowan) that allows state workers to rat out suspected illegal immigrants. Glen Warchol's recent blog post quoted the duo as follows:

Stowell:"We need to set up a process where the employees can go and feel safe. That they're not going to violate any laws."

Sandstrom explained the paranoid-snitch section of his law to ABC 4 News: "If [state workers] suspect that somebody is fraudulently attempting to gain benefits here in our state, they have to turn over those names to law enforcement."

This addition to Sandstrom's bill smells to high heaven. When I first heard of the Stowell proposal, I joked that Sandstrom and Stowell should combine proposed bills and throw in the re-opening of Topaz Internment Camp as a jobs measure. Unfortunately, I can see now that such proposals aren't that far-fetched. Given Herbert's lack of a spine and his pre-session promise to sign the immigration bill that the Lege puts on his desk, Sandstrom and Stowell's proposal may very likely be signed into law this year.

Therefore I recant my last post's jocular position. Don't re-open Topaz Internment Camp!