Thread: Iowa launches immigration compact similar to Utah’s

Iowa launches immigration compact similar to Utah's

sltrib.com
By david montero

The Salt Lake Tribune
First published 6 hours ago
Updated 33 minutes ago

Just three weeks before Iowa Republicans hold their presidential caucus, opponents of tough, state-led enforcement-only immigration laws launched The Iowa Compact on Tuesday in an attempt to dial down harsh rhetoric and focus on compassionate and comprehensive reform.

Modeled after The Utah Compact, which was signed a little more than a year ago by key business, religious and political leaders, The Iowa Compact features similar language and goals.

Lori Chesser, chairwoman of the Iowa Immigration Education Coalition, said the principles laid out in the document are in stark contrast to what Iowa voters have been hearing as GOP candidates crisscross the state.

"That’s the concern with the campaigns," Chesser said on a conference call. "There has not been enough thoughtful discussion."

The issue of illegal immigration has dogged the Republican candidates — coming up as a topic at almost all of the more than a dozen debates — as each tries to advocate for a secure border without appearing to support some sort of amnesty for the more than 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the country.

It’s also notable that the Compact was launched in a state known for one of the nation’s most vocal opponents of illegal immigration — Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa.

King was not made available for comment on the release of The Iowa Compact, but on his website he touts support for amending the U.S. Constitution to repeal birthright citizenship and building a large, concrete fence to block the border.

He was also a vocal supporter of Arizona’s enforcement-only law, SB1070.

But supporters of the compact are trying to move the dialogue away from that sort of hard-line approach.

Jay Pattee, mayor of Perry, Iowa, said the tone of the GOP campaigns has been troubling.

"During the Republican presidential primary season, the rhetoric on immigration has reached a new low," he said. "This type of debate is not only extreme and divisive, but it serves as a distraction from a genuine policy debate."

The Iowa Compact is the latest from a string of states — including Indiana and Maine — that have followed Utah’s lead on the policy-defining document after facing state proposals to tackle immigration.

It has five stated principles: calling for federal solutions, advocating a smart approach to law enforcement, keeping families together, meeting economic needs and making the state a culturally rich and welcoming state.

Those five principles divert slightly from The Utah Compact, which had five stated principles focused on pressing for federal solutions, keeping law enforcement focusing on local crimes instead of federal immigration enforcement, keeping families together, acknowledging economic contributions of immigrants and living in a free society.

The launch of The Iowa Compact came one day after the U.S. Supreme Court decided to hear the case on Arizona’s SB1070 law. That law was the inspiration for other states to address immigration reform, including Utah, which passed and signed into law an amended version. Iowa also had similar legislation drafted, but it died in committee.

Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff — a key player in The Utah Compact movement and a vocal opponent of SB1070 — is now in a position where he is defending Utah’s enforcement-only law, which is currently being challenged by the federal government and civil-rights groups.

Shurtleff said HB497 is different from Arizona’s law and that its sponsor, Rep. Stephen Sandstrom, R-Orem, took great pains to eliminate the sections ruled unconstitutional by the federal court.

"The Arizona enforcement-only law that is up before the U.S. Supreme Court was a very aggressive, strong enforcement-only approach," Shurtleff said. "Utah, recognizing the potential constitutional concerns and based on our Utah Compact statement of principles, passed a substantially less aggressive enforcement bill."

dmontero@sltrib.com


http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/5 ... t.html.csp

In the 1800s, our nation was seriously divided over the issue of slavery. For some 20 to 30 years now, our country has been becoming more and more divided over the issue of illegal immigration.If there were to be secession titled states, it would be the illegal immigration state and the free state.

As in those days, we have extreme views on both sides plus a large middle group. I am on the right hand side. I would be considered an extremist by the leftists. They think they are free to give the gift of living in America to whomever they want.

They fail to see the very serious costs in real dollars to our economy. They do not look at their fellow Americans with the same sympathy or empathy which they extend to those who stole into our country.

The numbers are available on many sites to define jobs lost to illegals, health and education costs, the tremendous amount of American dollars being shipped to, mostly, Latin American countries.

Some others, employers and churches, for example, see opportunity in supporting the illegals. Framers lie about being unable to find workers or not being allowed to find them. The H2A program would satisfy their needs, but they do not want to have to live up to the requirements of the H2A program. It requires proper quarters and supplying food and a safe working environment. That eats into the farmers' profit. So, no go.

Restaurateurs argue that Americas are not trained or smart enough to be wait staff or kitchen help. hey never tell you how much their weekly payroll is reduced by hiring illegals. With no disrespect to anyone in the business, I happen to believe our American fo0lks can learn and perform in a short period of time--plus--where did the illegals get their experience?? Right here , at the American worker's expense

But, I digress, back to secession issues. The pro illegal immigrant states want to issue drivers' licenses so their low wage earners can get to their jobs. Once you grant a license, New Mexico, for example, that person is now free to drive in any state in the union. It is a traitorous act to grant licenses to illegal immigrants.

What possesses someone to feel they have the God given right to welcome illegal visitors to our country? What special gift do they possess that says they can ignore our rule of law?? They constantly argue that it is a civil offense and not a criminal offense--not so, and the interesting part is that the felony applies to those who aid and abet, also.

This is our country--we Americans-- but for the moment, I will say, it is MY country and I do not remember inviting people to come here illegally, nor do I remember granting any farmer, priest or minister my permission to break the law. I do not give a hoot if they wear a tie or a white collar or a nun's habit, they should be tried and imprisoned for giving a gift so fine as to live in America without the agreement of the 65% of Americans who think they all should be deported.