Immigration politics resembles less the art of compromise than the battle for an advantageous truce.
Utah legislators talk about sending messages to Washington, D.C., concerning the need for immigration reform. This is wise. However, recent messages go too far in punishing workers and families essential to Utah communities.
The immigration debate raises points of contention, even within individual advocacy groups. However, there also are many points of agreement: The federal immigration system is broken. Many qualified people awaiting authorization must wait too long for approval, 22 years in one category. The FBI has fallen irresponsibly behind on background checks.
Employment verification exists on paper but not in practice. Too many people live here in violation of excessively rigid laws. The federal government has failed to address the challenges.
Inaction on immigration has led state and municipal leaders to consider local measures. Frustration is understandable; nevertheless, Utah lawmakers should exercise caution.
The U.S. Constitution expressly grants Congress the power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the authority to regulate immigration is federal.
This makes sense, since immigration policy that varied from state to state would defy logic. Imagine what inconsistency in law might do on the U.S. border with Canada or in international airports across the country.
Still, the federal immigration system has gaps. Local and state governments may fill those gaps with laws that do not run counter to federal policy.
Some advocacy groups recommend aggressive action by states. The Center for Immigration Studies advocates a war of attrition against unauthorized workers and their families that would force them to leave in despair over restricted opportunity and difficult lives.
Proponents of that war recognize that mass deportations would disrupt economies and communities in various regions of the United States. More gradual deportation, they claim, would control disruption at manageable levels.
The war of attrition has some logic, but the logic is twisted and essentially calls for squeezing some of the most vulnerable people in our communities. Regrettably, the approach has arrived in Utah.
House Bill 224 sought to build a wall to higher education for the foreign-born children of unauthorized residents. House Bill 220 would revoke their driving privilege cards. House Bill 105 would push state and local police to start rounding them up. Other proposals seek to add up the costs associated with unauthorized residents while ignoring the benefits.
Utah legislators who advocate these policies do so to the detriment of education, public safety and police effectiveness. Significant state and community interests have expressed their opposition. Police officials strongly criticize HB105 as interfering with efforts to build relationships and trust.
The solution to Utah migration challenges, which mostly stem from a robust economy, lies in immigration reform at the federal level. Wise reform would increase the number of worker visas, streamline immigration processes, implement genuine employment verification and provide a path to citizenship for unauthorized residents.
These measures can reduce border problems, make labor markets more efficient, improve accountability and eliminate the irony of good, hardworking people living in the shadows of an open society. We can build better relationships and trust with our neighbors.
Utah lawmakers should urge the federal government to better match immigration policies and procedures with the realities of the 21st century. They ought to stop unstatesmanlike battles that fracture our community and strive to be more statespersonlike in working for the good of Utah and all her people.
---
* MARK C. ALVAREZ is a Salt Lake attorney.
Inaction on immigration has led state and municipal leaders to consider local measures. Frustration is understandable; nevertheless, Utah lawmakers should exercise caution.
