"The North finds itself greatly burdened with the many problems which have grown out of, or have at least been greatly aggravated by, the enormous and very indiscriminate immigration of the past few years," wrote Robert DeCourcy Ward in The Atlantic in 1905, "and is rapidly becoming convinced of the impossibility, even with unlimited resources of men and money, of properly assimilating this alien population."

Ward advocated limiting the number of immigrants and forcing them to live in non-urban areas so as to distribute "the present slum populations."

In my view, today's anti-immigrant sentiment is as misguided as was that of Ward a century ago. Thus I welcomed the comments last week by Elder Marlin K. Jensen of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter- day Saints.

Elder Jensen told an audience at Westminster College Feb. 13 that Utah's Legislature should "slow down" and "step back" before enacting any one of several anti-immigrant bills currently pending.

I wholeheartedly agree, and I urge the Legislature not to take action that will reflect poorly on the state of Utah.

Along with religious leaders of other faiths, Elder Jensen, who said he represented the church's First Presidency in his statements, reminded legislators that they are dealing with "God's children" in making laws affecting undocumented immigrants. Whether Latter-day Saints or not, we should all carefully consider the profound reality that undocumented immigrants are our fellow human beings.

In media ethics classes, I teach students about the "veil of ignorance" theory of ethical decision-making, as espoused by the 20th century American philosopher John Rawls. Rawls said that an ethical decision is one made from the "original position"; in other words, you should take the course of action that will maximize the minimum human condition in society. If you were in the original position, you would not know (when making legislative policy about undocumented immigrants, for example) whether you would turn out to be a Utah legislator or an undocumented immigrant.

Perhaps legislators should think about the veil of ignorance when considering proposals (all of which I oppose) such as revoking driving privilege cards; attempting to empower local law enforcement with immigration enforcement authority; cutting off in- state tuition benefits; and imposing onerous requirements on business owners regarding the hiring of employees. Even worse is what I consider the extremely misguided talk of criminalizing the "harboring" of undocumented immigrants, legislation that would make a Good Samaritan a criminal.

As was eloquently stated by a group of Utah business leaders now joined as the Immigration Policy Coalition, immigration is primarily a federal issue. I believe Utah legislators need to keep their pride and prejudices in check and defer to Congress on the issue of immigration legislation.

I think those inclined to want to "crack down" on so-called "illegal" immigration could benefit from two things. First, sit for an hour - or two or three - with an undocumented immigrant and get to know him or her. Learn about a family's hopes, dreams and struggles (and don't try to turn someone in to Immigration and Customs Enforcement). Second, take a history lesson. The history of anti-immigrant sentiment in the United States is filled with racism and incidents that do not reflect our better selves.

I understand there is fear of "the other." We tend to think that those unlike us are somehow scary or dangerous. In World War I, for example, the U.S. government prosecuted five Russian Jews for throwing anti-U.S. government pamphlets out a high-rise window in New York City. These feeble efforts were not at all likely to spark revolution, but the five individuals were prosecuted under the Espionage Act, convicted and sentenced to long prison terms before being deported to Russia. (Actually, one of the individuals died after beating and torture by New York City police, according to the 1987 book Fighting Faiths, by Richard Polenberg.)

In a case that came to be known as "Abrams v. United States" because one of the individuals convicted and deported was named Jacob Abrams, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the convictions in 1919. What stood the test of time, however, was not the majority opinion reflecting the fears and prejudices of the day, but rather the dissenting opinion of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.

"If you have no doubt of your premises or your power," Justice Holmes wrote, "and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition."

The Utah Legislature has the power to make law, but it should not abuse that power to enact legislation that reflects personal wishes and biases of legislators. If legislators fail to heed Justice Holmes' warning, I hope the voters of the state will express their displeasure at the ballot box this fall.

I acknowledge, as Holmes recognized, we do not know the outcome of our efforts to tolerate others whose practices and backgrounds are different from our own. I think history will forgive our excessive tolerance but judge harshly our excessive intolerance.

---

* EDWARD L. CARTER is an attorney who has represented immigrants in removal matters before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit.