Questions

Q: Given that we would like a balanced budget, and protection for the flag, what is Sutherland's policy concerning a Constitutional Convention to address those issues?

Q: Why and when did Utah give up their public lands to be governed by a federal BLM and U.S. Forest service and what can we do to get Federal Government out and the State back in control?

Q: Do you have a better plan for the rising costs of healthcare than Obamacare?

Q: Does Sutherland have current data in reference to about how much every person is paying to support public schools, and approximately how much tax money each child is entitled to?

Q: Is it true that crossing the border without inspection is a class B criminal misdemeanor yet if you are not caught crossing you are only guilty of unlawful presence and this is only a civil infraction?

Q: How can we have the greatest impact on a positive outcome on the immigration debate in Utah? I write the legislature with positive ideas about why Utah needs to recognize that these are real people and it is not a simple issue. What more can be done?

Q: Thank you for holding the immigration debate in Lehi. I had the opportunity to hear Paul Mero present Sutherland Institute's immigration policy in Lehi and also in Legislative hearing. I am disappointed that Paul Mero would paint everyone that disagrees with his position as racist. Is Paul interested in dialog or making it political?

Q: Why is Sutherland so soft on illegal immigration?

Answers

Q: Given that we would like a balanced budget, and protection for the flag, what is Sutherland's policy concerning a Constitutional Convention to address those issues?

We have thought through and discussed the positives and negatives of Utah joining other states in calling for an Article V Constitutional Convention, and at this point Sutherland has chosen not to take a position on the issue. In our view, there are equally important potential positives (more checks on the federal government) and potential negatives (a "runaway convention") associated with the idea of a constitutional convention. We will continue to study the issue and may decide to take a position at some point in the future.

Q: Why and when did Utah give up their public lands to be governed by a federal BLM and U.S. Forest service and what can we do to get Federal Government out and the State back in control?

Most of the land in Utah has been owned by the federal government since before Utah was officially a state. This was due to two factors: (1) the federal government took ownership of the land currently in the state of Utah as a result of the Mexican-American War, and (2) conflicts between The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the federal government kept federal laws that would have transferred land from federal to private ownership from operating normally in Utah.

In other words, Utah never really "gave up" its public lands. Rather, since statehood it has never truly had control over its public lands. Avenues for obtaining greater control over public lands in Utah include convincing the federal government to cede control over those lands to the state and/or private individuals, or a successful legal case against the federal government that accomplishes the same thing. In either case, the most direct way to strengthen state control over public lands is probably to encourage federal and state elected officials to enact measures to that end.

Here are some sources of information about the history of federal ownership of public lands in Utah:

-Utah History Encyclopedia entry on "The Bureau of Land Management in Utah"
-Utah History Encyclopedia entry on "Conservation and Environment in Utah"
-Wikipedia entry on the "Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo," which ended the Mexican-American War

Q: Do you have a better plan for the rising costs of healthcare than Obamacare?

Sutherland Institute has proposed a plan of authentic charity care to provide for the health care needs of Utah's low-income population. Some of our published materials outlining this proposal include an essay, a policy brief, and a short radio spot by Sutherland President Paul Mero. We think that an authentic charity care system is the best, least expensive way to provide health care to our neighbors in need.

In addition, we think that free-market reforms to Utah's health insurance and health care systems are the best way to rein in spiraling costs. At this time we do not have any specific proposals for such reforms, but we are currently considering what such reform might look like in Utah.

Q: Does Sutherland have current data in reference to about how much every person is paying to support public schools, and approximately how much tax money each child is entitled to?

A: Here are a couple web pages that you may find useful and interesting:

-Spending per pupil
-Total K-12 Budget

According to these sites, Utah spends $8,224 per student and close to $5 billion total for K-12 public education. There are approximately three million Utahns, which means that the state spends about $1,500 per Utahn, although not every Utahn pays taxes. I hope this answers your question.

You might also be interested in looking at this Sutherland report that includes many financial figures on Utah public education:

-Federal Intervention in Public Education: Is It Good for Utah?

Q: Is it true that crossing the border without inspection is a class B criminal misdemeanor yet if you are not caught crossing you are only guilty of unlawful presence and this is only a civil infraction?

A: At Sutherland Institute's immigration debate on January 21, 2011, Paul Mero said, "A lack of legal status in the United States of America is not a crime, it's a civil violation such as speeding." He later said, "How can living here undocumented be evil when a lack of legal status isn't even a crime?"

In response that same evening, Representative Stephen Sandstrom said, "It is not a civil violation to enter the United States illegally, it is a criminal misdemeanor subject to six months in jail and deportation…the civil violation is if you overstay a visa after lawful entry."

So which is it? Who is correct? Are undocumented immigrants "criminals"?

As a legal reminder, a civil infraction is a minor violation of law that is punishable only by a fine, such as a traffic or parking ticket. A misdemeanor is a crime, less serious than a felony, punishable by no more than one year in jail, such as petty theft, first-time drunk driving, or leaving the scene of an accident. A felony is a crime for which the punishment is a year or more in prison, even death. If you commit a "crime," not a civil infraction, you are a "criminal," by definition.

Representative Sandstrom made reference to "entering the United States illegally" and cited United States Code "8, 1325," meaning precisely Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, Part VIII, Section 1325, "Improper entry by alien." It reads, in part,

(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts

Any alien who
(1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or
(2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or
(3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

(b) Improper time or place; civil penalties

Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to enter) the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty of—
(1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or attempted entry); or
(2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under this subsection.
Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be imposed.

This citation states that entering the United States is, indeed, a crime under Section 1325 (a) – a misdemeanor on first offense, a felony on second offense, and it's a civil infraction under Section 1325 (b). In other words, it's at least a civil infraction and no more than a misdemeanor on first offense.

Interestingly, to Mr. Mero's point, if we read on in the U.S.C., Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, Part VIII, Section 1324d, "Civil penalties for failure to depart," it states,

(a) In general

Any alien subject to a final order of removal who—
(1) willfully fails or refuses to—
(A) depart from the United States pursuant to the order,
(B) make timely application in good faith for travel or other documents necessary for departure, or
(C) present for removal at the time and place required by the Attorney General; or
(2) conspires to or takes any action designed to prevent or hamper the alien's departure pursuant to the order,
shall pay a civil penalty of not more than $500 to the Commissioner for each day the alien is in violation of this section.

In other words, a "lack of legal status," or a failure to depart once told to leave, is a civil infraction for an undocumented immigrant.

The better question for every Utah to ask may be this: Which, among these laws, is most relevant to Utah? Are Utah elected officials, community groups, businesses and citizens concerned more about an undocumented immigrant's illegal entry anywhere into the United States or an undocumented immigrant's lack of status while in Utah?

Of course, the answers to these questions could depend heavily on where you stand. If you believe that Utah's state and local law enforcement should become federal immigration agents, you probably will focus on United States Code referring to "illegal entry" into the country.

On the other hand, if you are simply concerned with how undocumented immigrants affect Utah's public safety, freedom, and economic prosperity, you probably will focus on the parts of the Code referring to a lack of status.

Either way, it's important for all of us to understand that being an undocumented immigrant is far from evil in the eyes of the United States Code.

Q: How can we have the greatest impact on a positive outcome on the immigration debate in Utah. I write the legislature with positive ideas about why Utah needs to recognize that these are real people and it is not a simple issue. What more can be done?

A: Generally speaking, among the most persuasive efforts a person can undertake in an effort to encourage and influence legislators is writing a concise, honest, personal note sent via email or postal mail. Avoid rhetoric and simply express why the issue matters and why supporting (or opposing) the particular proposal makes sense not only from your personal standpoint, but also why doing so creates or preserves a workable society and/or sound public policy.

With respect to the immigration debate in particular, communicate directly with your elected representative and with your senator – and then forward it to every other member of the House and Senate.

What you have conveyed in your question is in large measure the core of the issue: We're talking about real, live, human beings. Seeing immigrants as we see ourselves – as people – is the key both to understanding the roots of the immigration "problem" (there is no functional mechanism whereby people of good will can enter the country in an effort to improve their lives and legitimately participate in the economy) and to developing a workable solution.

This requires a framework wherein immigrants of good will (individuals who are not involved in criminal behavior) are able to step out of the shadows and commit to being accountable, responsible, tax-paying participants of our communities – and those who are not willing must leave.

In addressing the challenges associated with illegal immigrants living in Utah, as with nearly every other public policy matter, improvements and resolution begin to flow when we begin seeing people as the solution.

After communicating your thoughts to your representative and your senator, follow up within 24 hours with a telephone call to both to confirm they received your message – and thank them for their service.

Then, if you wish, follow up further with short notes that include links to or copies of relevant reports and articles (Sutherland has several on its website) that you think may be persuasive.

When votes occur on bills of interest to you, send additional notes either (a) thanking them for voting as you would have, or (b) asking them to help you understand why they voted as they did.

In all communications with elected and other community leaders, convey respect and maintain a civil tone. Whining, threats and accusations will simply cause them to feel justified in giving you less of a listening ear next time. And there's always a next time.

Remember, too, that while it's true that "they work for you," your representative has about 35,000 other constituents; your senator about 90,000. They want to serve you well, and the sheer volume of bills and information they must digest is daunting. They are interested in hearing from you, and your input is actually very welcome and helpful.

Q: Thank you for holding the immigration debate in Lehi. I had the opportunity to hear Paul Mero present Sutherland Institute's immigration policy in Lehi and also in Legislative hearing. I am disappointed that Paul Mero would paint everyone that disagrees with his position as racist. Is Paul interested in dialog or making it political?

A: Thank you for your civic participation in attending Sutherland's recent immigration debate and the public hearing on HB 70. Here are the links to Mr. Mero's remarks at both events:

http://www.sutherlandinstitute.org/article_detail.php?id=2970&type=Search+Results&newsletter=1

http://www.sutherlandinstitute.org/publications_detail.php?id=2999

To the best of our knowledge, Mr. Mero has not called anyone racist in this debate. In the remarks referenced above, he has pointed out that "enforcement-only" approaches to undocumented immigrants in Utah run into severe civil rights and profiling issues.

To your question about "dialogue or politics," Sutherland is well-known for its ability to facilitate serious dialogue on even very controversial issues. In fact, Sutherland's work in dialoguing is award-winning (Best of State three years in a row). The debate you attended (at no cost) was sponsored and paid for entirely by Sutherland.

Q: Why is Sutherland so soft on illegal immigration?

A: Sutherland's approach to undocumented immigrants in Utah (SB 60) is actually tougher on that population than Representative Stephen Sandstrom's HB 70 "enforcement-only" approach. A culture of accountability is always more effective in a free society than a culture of fear.