Clarification regarding contacting the LDS Church last year

Comments re: an article at:
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home3/53709967-200/lds-church-says-position.html.csp

The Church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, didn't send anything directly to lawmakers on 2011 HB 116 until April of last year linking to their April immigration statement, after the session and after the vote. (That I am aware of)

Similarly, Rep. Fred Cox, R-West Valley City, says he tried to contact LDS leaders after the session to clarify where the church stood on the same bill. "They wouldn’t return my emails or phone calls but did eventually send out an updated statement that did help some with civility on immigration."

[Initially the article didn't clarify that the exchange didn't happen until after the session and after the votes]

The April statement on immigration:
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/immigration-response

The June statement on immigration:
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/immigration-church-issues-new-statement

I don't make decisions on bills based on the party of the sponsor, nor their religion.

A great statement from the "Church" on politics:
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/official-statement/political-neutrality

"Elected officials who are Latter-day Saints make their own decisions and may not necessarily be in agreement with one another or even with a publicly stated Church position. While the Church may communicate its views to them, as it may to any other elected official, it recognizes that these officials still must make their own choices based on their best judgment and with consideration of the constituencies whom they were elected to represent."

Immigration E-Verify

Rep. Sandstrom decided to let his E-Verify bill expire by abandoning it at the deadline. He decided over the weekend afterwards to try to pull a new bill file to run it after all. After the deadline, anyone that wants to open a bill file must ask "leave of the body" with a voice vote on the floor. It was not clear who won that vote and division was called, requiring a roll call vote.

I voted to allow Rep. Sandstrom to open his bill file, so we could see the bill, amend it if needed and vote on it. Almost all of the surveys that I got back said that

"Utah should increase illegal immigration enforcement using E-Verify."

The measure to allow the bill file failed 36 to 37 with Rep. Fisher voting against it.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/53472422-90/bill-verify-sandstrom-file.html.csp

Rep. Sandstrom found someone else that had a bill file that they didn't want, 2012 HB 477, and took that and tried to run that bill. He was not able to get the bill out of House Rules Committee.

Rep. Herod tried to redo the 2011 HB 116 bill. He couldn't get it out of the House Rules Committee and tried to bypass the committee and move it to another committee which didn't pass by voice vote. I wanted the bill to have a public committee and be voted on so I voted to move the bill.

Repealing 2011 HB 116 didn't have as much support but I was very interested in fixing it, as I didn't vote for it.

http://www.fredcox4utah.blogspot.com/2011/12/i-didnt-vote-for-2011-hb-116.html

http://www.fredcox4utah.blogspot.com/2012/02/2012-survey-results.html

There was a bill in the Senate to repeal 2011 HB 116, but it didn't make it to the house for me to vote for it.

For more information about Immigration Bills, see:
http://utahpulse.com/bookmark/17662286-Immigration-Reform-Appears-to-be-Dead-in-2012

I voted for the E-Verify Bill last year:
http://le.utah.gov/~2011/htmdoc/hbillhtm/hb0253s01.htm

As of right now, one of the immigration bills passed last is being blocked by the feds in court, and others may be since they reference code section amendments also being blocked. This also effects the proposed Catsup ordinance since it uses the 2011 HB 116 E-Verify Section that hasn't taken effect and may not. The section that Catsup should have referenced is set to be repealed by 2011 HB 116. It is a catch 22 that I am hoping to figure out how to solve this summer. I voted to allow Rep. Sandstrom to pull his bill file because I was hoping we could solve this. Some of the others voted against it because they want to see what we have to work with when the dust settles.

Speaker Lockhart is more apt to let the Rules committee work, where some past House Speakers have personally blocked bills. I am not blaming her.

I had one bill that it took 3 weeks for me to move out of rules and then the committee chair it was sent to refused to put it on the agenda.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/53616967-82/energy-code-standards-utah.html.csp

HB 469: Answer to the immigration puzzle | The Salt Lake Tribune

My op-ed in the Salt Lake Tribune can be found here:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/51917989-82/469-immigration-116-federal.html.csp

The Op-ed is worth reading, however I do have the following additional clarifications:

To be considered for approval as a resident immigrant for purposes of the program, a foreign national shall: at the time of filing the application be living outside of the United States

HB 469 only allows the the person or family sponsoring, to sponsor 2 people or a family.

We need to remove and not create any rewards and incentives for immigrants to come here and be here illegally.

Immigrants that are here illegally should not have the ability to become United States Citizens prior to those outside the U.S. applying to come legally. Citizenship/Naturalization is clearly an enumerated federal power. Immigration is not.

One of the reasons people are here without permission is that our current legal immigration system takes too long and in many cases doesn't work.

One of the 4 bills passed is a migrant worker bill. This one is different. It gives citizens the ability to sponsor 2 people or a family to come to this county with permission.

People that can be sponsored do NOT include individuals who are in the United States, but who are not lawfully present in any of the states of the United States.

If they are here illegally, they have to go home to be sponsored.

It will take longer than a day, as the application must be made from outside the US.

1) To be considered for approval as a resident immigrant for purposes of the program, a foreign national shall:
(a) file an application with the department;
(b) at the time of filing the application be living outside of the United States;
(c) pass a health and background screening;
(d) provide evidence that the foreign national has not been convicted of, pled guilty to, pled no contest to, pled guilty in a similar manner to, or resolved by diversion or its equivalent to a felony or class A misdemeanor;
(e) file proof of sponsorship by a sponsor who meets the requirements of Section 63G-12-203; and
(f) pay a fee established by the department in accordance with Section 63J-1-504.
(2) A foreign national is ineligible for the program if the individual:
(a) is in the United States at the time of application for the program; or
(b) is a citizen of a country:
(i) designated by the United States State Department as a state sponsor of terrorism in accordance with section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act, section 40 of the Arms Export Control Act, and section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act;
(ii) against which the United States has declared war; or
(iii) against which the United States has imposed sanctions as listed under a sanctions program of the Office of Foreign Assets Control within the United States Department of Treasury.

To see who voted for this bill, see:
http://le.utah.gov/~2011/status/hbillsta/hb0469.002h.txt

http://le.utah.gov/~2011/status/hbillsta/hb0469.001s.txt

Comparing Immigration to a movie theater

Do you remember when you had to wait in line to buy tickets to a movie, and then wait in line before going in? If you came to the theater and the show was full, you could buy a ticket to a later show. That was before you could order them at home, and know then where your seat was and what time to come to the theater.

You can't let everyone show up for the same movie or there would be no place to sit, and you do need some reasonable security and rules.

Why do we make immigration more complicated?

If we are going to have a line for people to come to this country, you can't reward those that bypass the line. They need to be sent to the back of the line. That doesn't mean you should stop treating them like people.

Immigration

We need to remove and not create any rewards and incentives for immigrants to come here and be here illegally.

Immigrants that are here illegally should not have the ability to become United States Citizens prior to those outside the U.S. applying to come legally.

We do need to treat all, even those breaking our laws, as human beings.

Citizenship, if desired and qualified for, must be applied for with the application from the country of origin, (unless qualifying for asylum) and behind those that have been waiting legally there.