Utah's Republican governor under fire over immigration
Two weeks after Utah's Republican Governor Gary Herbert signed into law sweeping immigration reforms, the backlash is still being felt across this conservative state, and Herbert faces possible primary challengers when he seeks reelection next year.
Herbert on March 15 signed a two-pronged package of immigration laws comprised of four bills he called "the Utah solution," including an enforcement measure and another that would create a guest-worker program.
The enforcement measure is weaker than what Arizona is seeking to implement. While that state would allow police to check the immigration status of anyone stopped by officers -- including for traffic violations -- the Utah bill applies only to those arrested for felonies or serious misdemeanors.
The Utah guest worker program allows illegal immigrants in the state to pay a fee and continue at their jobs. That angers conservatives, and because immigration is the federal government's domain, critics say the program could unravel.
Herbert, who said at the time that Utah was doing "the right thing" in passing the reforms, told Reuters in an interview that he was prepared for an election challenge.
"It's hard to know the ramifications of any decision I make. I'm sure there are people critical of any of the thousands of decisions I make," he said, adding that it would be "not too surprising" if candidates used the immigration laws as a platform to run against him.
Herbert, a former county commissioner and real estate agent, faced no serious Republican opposition in his 2010 reelection, where he ran to serve out the final two years of former Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr.'s term.
Then lieutenant governor, he took the top job when Huntsman resigned to become ambassador to China, a post he soon vacates as he considers a possible run for the U.S. presidency in 2012.
Utah is one of the most conservative states in the nation, with local, state and federal Republican candidates usually winning election easily against minority Democratic opponents. Herbert won the 2010 general election handily.
Herbert worked hard behind the scenes to get the immigration bills through Utah's legislature, and won praise over the guest worker program from the Obama administration and Washington Democrats, along with moderate Republicans.
But complaints have poured in from Tea Party activists and anti-illegal immigrant groups. Ron Mortensen is the leader of a local 9-12 group linked to conservative commentator Glenn Beck, said as the main guest worker bill worked its way to final legislative votes: "This is amnesty, pure and simple, and it's against" the U.S. Constitution.
U.S. Representative Jason Chaffetz, a Tea Party favorite, has also criticized the guest worker bill. "If I had been governor, I would have vetoed it," the Utah Republican said on Friday.
And it is Chaffetz' name that is now being bantered about by anti-illegal immigration groups as a possible challenger to Herbert in the Republican nomination contest next year.
Chaffetz said running for governor next year "is not the projection" he's looking at, adding that he was considering a challenge to Senator Orrin Hatch in 2012.
But Herbert is clearly hearing the same rumors. "I hope these new laws will be motivation for our congressional delegation to help lead" on immigration, he said, adding: "They can't sit on the sidelines twiddling their thumbs; it's time for them to get involved."
Chaffetz said he's worked hard on immigration legislation in the past and plans on sponsoring a bill "that could fix this" sometime over the next two years.
While some conservative Utah Republicans may not like the guest worker bill or how the enforcement measure was watered down, the bills are "reflective of mainstream Utah," Herbert said.
"And that is the group that I should look out for. Remember, the (guest worker) bill doesn't become law until 2013. Who knows what may happen on the federal level by then; what other solutions can be found," he said.
SOURCE
Recent posts at CIS below
See here for the blog. The CIS main page is here.
1. Taking Names: List of Firms Barred from Foreign Worker Programs Likely Just Scratches the Surface (Memorandum)
2. Illegal Immigration Profiteers (Blog)
3. House Holds Different Kind of H-1B Hearing – No Employers Present! (Blog)
4. Bernie Sanders and Immigration Reform (Blog)
5. Verified SBInet Success in Much-Vilified Tucson Sector (Blog)
6. Telemundo's Solid Journalism (Blog)
7. Restore Our Border (Blog)
Background
Postings from Brisbane, Australia by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) -- former member of the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society, former anarcho-capitalist and former member of the British Conservative party.
Why is "La Raza" the one Spanish term that is NEVER translated in the American mass media? Because translating it would make it a lot less respectable. It means "THE RACE" -- The mixed Hispanic "race" of Mexico. Racism is fine South of the Rio Grande only, apparently.
The "line" of this blog is that immigration should be SELECTIVE. That means that:
1). A national government should be in control of it. The U.S. and U.K. governments are not but the Australian government has shown that the government of a prosperous Western country can be. Up until its loss of office in 2007, the conservative Howard government had all but eliminated illegal immigration. The present Leftist government has however restarted the flow of illegals by repealing many of the Howard government regulations.
2). Selectivity should be based on "the content of a man's character, not on the color of his skin", as MLK said. To expand that a little: Immigrants should only be accepted if they as individuals seem likely to make a positive net contribution to the country. Many "refugees" would fail that test: Muslims and Africans particularly. Educational level should usually be a pretty fair proxy for the individual's likely value to the receiving country. There will, of course, be exceptions but it is nonetheless unlikely that a person who has not successfully completed High School will make a net positive contribution to a modern Western society.
3). Immigrants should be neither barred NOR ACCEPTED solely because they are of some particular ethnic origin. Blacks are vastly more likely to be criminal than are whites or Chinese, for instance, but some whites and some Chinese are criminal. It is the criminality that should matter, not the race.
4). The above ideas are not particularly blue-sky. They roughly describe the policies of the country where I live -- Australia. I am critical of Australian policy only insofar as the "refugee" category for admission is concerned. All governments have tended to admit as refugees many undesirables. It seems to me that more should be required of them before refugees are admitted -- for instance a higher level of education or a business background.
5). Perhaps the most amusing assertion in the immigration debate is that high-income countries like the USA and Britain NEED illegal immigrants to do low-paid menial work. "Who will pick our crops?" (etc.) is the cry. How odd it is then that Australians get all the normal services of a modern economy WITHOUT illegal immigrants! Yes: Before the pandemic, you usually COULD buy a lettuce in Australia for a dollar or thereabouts. And Australia IS a major exporter of primary products.
6). I am a libertarian conservative so I reject the "open door" policy favoured by many libertarians and many Leftists. Both those groups tend to have a love of simplistic generalizations that fail to deal with the complexity of the real world. It seems to me that if a person has the right to say whom he/she will have living with him/her in his/her own house, so a nation has the right to admit to living among them only those individuals whom they choose.
I can be reached on jonjayray@hotmail.com -- or leave a comment on any post. Abusive comments will be deleted.
No comments:
Post a Comment