S.B. 60 and other guest worker programs, by Amber Smith and Diana Ortega

The Pilot Accountability Program (S.B. 60), also referred to as a guest worker program, would allow undocumented individuals in Utah to obtain a work permit, valid twelve to twenty four months. A guest worker program, in theory, could be very beneficial for Utah’s 100,000 undocumented persons and business and industry, but unfortunately, many flaws lie within the Pilot Accountability Program. Critics from both parties have raised concerns about specific provisions and regulations of this bill.

Some unpopular provisions include criminal background checks and a 160 hour English instruction requirement at the undocumented individual’ s expense. The undocumented individual would also be required to pay interest fees for benefits they may not qualify to receive.

This accountability program would require all undocumented immigrants to apply for and carry a worker's permit card at all times. Failure to show the permit could lead to detention of the individual. In addition, an application for a permit through the Pilot Accountability Program could cost a substantial fee and does not guarantee renewal after the permit expires. If the undocumented individual loses his or her job, he or she may be forced to leave the state/country. Senator Robles, the sponsor of S.B. 60, said herself that the security of this bill was more stringent than H.B. 70 (the Arizona copy-cat bill).

Currently there are two other similar proposals; The Guest Worker Program Act (H.B. 116) and the Utah Immigration Enforcement Amendments (S.B. 228). In reality, guest worker programs are unconstitutional, and are mainly being proposed in order to pressure the federal government to act on the immigration issue. These bills are unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause (U.S. Constitution, article VI, paragraph 2) and the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. The Supremacy Clause establishes the federal government as the supreme authority over the land, and when conflict between state and federal law arises, the state’ s law does not withstand. Because of this the state government does not have the power to regulate/enforce immigration.

The Fourth Amendment establishes the right to privacy and protects an individual from unreasonable searches/seizure. The Fifth Amendment protects witnesses from being forced to incriminate themselves. By "pleading the Fifth" the individual is refusing to answer a question because the response could form self-incriminating evidence. By applying for a guest worker program, the undocumented person is incriminating themselves, and allows the federal government to access their records.

It is likely that if one of these bills were to pass, the State of Utah would be sued by the federal government, costing Utah millions in tax dollars. Utah legislators are proposing these bills with this knowledge. The Pilot Accountability Program strips undocumented people of most basic human rights, except the ability to work. The glamorized and appealing nature of the bill only offers false hope of amnesty. Meanwhile, it is an expensive program for undocumented immigrants and Utah citizens. In our opinion, this is dishonest and unreasonable.

Sandstrom's Illegal Immigration Enforcement Bill, HB 70, is tabled in the House, by Amy Novoa

Representative Stephen E. Sandstrom (R) is the Chief Sponsor of H.B. 70: Illegal Immigration Enforcement Act. This bill requires that an officer verify the immigration status of a detained or arrested person upon reasonable suspicion the person is illegal, without considering race, color, or national origin. “What is reasonable suspicion?” and “How are you suspicious of someone without considering race, color, or national origin?” is what many members of our community are asking. This bill has brought up a lot of controversy.

“This bill is a contradiction on paper,” said Tevan Brown. There is no definition for “reasonable suspicion” in this bill or for “detained”. The ‘reasonable suspicion’ language in the bill brings great concerns to undocumented people. A Gear Up tutor said, “This bill is bogus because it would eventually lead to racial profiling and discrimination. It gives the cops more power to flaunt it about and come up with any reason under the sun to express their superiority.” Many people fear Law Enforcement would try to find ways to “detain” someone to verify their immigration status. If a Law Enforcement official chooses to detain and individual, local governments could incur a cost of about $100 per stop. Overall, Law Enforcement would not treat people fairly.

In our society, we often hear strong phrases directed towards immigrants in our communities and in the media. Immigrants are often stereotyped as criminals, because of their immigration status. Many believe this bill will influence Law Enforcement to put more emphasis on “suspicious” undocumented people.

Those who are not involved in illegal activity should not be punished. For those who are involved in criminal activity, it’s fair for them to receive punishment according to the level of crime committed. Not every foreign being in the U.S. is a criminal and they shouldn’t be treated as if they are.

Charlie Morgan, a professor at BYU researched incarceration rates for various racial and ethnic groups. He found, according to the 2000 Census; 1.7% are U.S.-born Whites (non-Hispanic), 0.68% Foreign-born, 0.99% Foreign-born Hispanics, and 0.70% are Foreign-born Mexicans. “Undocumented immigrants are responsible for only a small percentage of the problem [of crime in Utah],” said Morgan. Foreign-born residents are four times less likely to be incarcerated than U.S.-born whites. Undocumented immigrants are more careful to not commit crimes or be arrested because they risk much more than those who are documented residents.

We strongly oppose this bill. As a community we do not need discrimination or punishment towards innocent people. This bill passed the House 58 to 15 votes and went to the Senate. The Senate tabled the bill and it is now going back to the House to be revised. We do not support this bill, in whatever form it takes.

Update on the Education Budget, by Brianna Lewis

The predicted budget for education at the beginning of the 2011 legislative session was at a 7% cut from last year. The 7% cuts included 91 million dollars of unallocated money, which is money in the education budget that is not assigned anywhere specific yet. So, there is 91 million dollars floating around in the education budget, waiting to be used to fund all day kindergarten or new biology labs at the University of Utah.

Near the end of February, 38 million more dollars were added to the budget. This means, only 4%, or 53 million, of the education budget would be cut down from what it was last year. The proposed budget is 96% of last year's (vs. the 93% with 7% cuts that was initially proposed) and, although the budget won't break even, it will provide leeway for projects and programs to keep running.

An example of one of these programs is full-day kindergarten. If there were 7% cuts this project would be cut down to the standard half-day of kindergarten. Children in full day kindergarten are shown to excel more in the public education system. All day kindergarten also helps students who might otherwise be affected by the achievement gap. As it is predicted now, with the extra 38 million dollars, there will be enough money in the budget for the full-day kindergarten to continue.

With budget cuts also comes higher entrance fees, fewer teachers, larger classes, and less supplies. Without these things schools will have to make do with less, decreasing the quality of education. However, with only 4% cuts the budget will be larger than planned for, allowing important supplies to be added back. There are also programs aside from the full-day kindergarten that could be added in with this new budget.

Another problem that has come up in education policy is mission based funding. Mission based funding is a problem because it would only allow state-funding for the mission of a school. This is like saying, the University of Utah would only be given state money for research because their mission is focused on research. Mission-based funding could become a problem for universities, because it would limit the amount of funding they receive even though they have so many other subject areas, which is what makes the school so attractive.

HB 191, Nonresident Tuition Waiver, Passes the House, by Gaby Rodriguez

H.B. 191, introduced by Representative Carl Wimmer (R), would require undocumented students attending post secondary school to pay out of state tuition. Right now in Utah, undocumented students can pay in state tuition, if they attend a Utah high school for at least 3 years and graduate. If this bill becomes law, undocumented students would loose the privilege of paying in state tuition for college. The difference between in state tuition and out of state tuition in Utah is between 5,000 and 20,000 dollars a year.

As of last week, this bill passed the house committee with 10 votes in favor of the bill and 5 votes against. The representatives that voted in favor are: Brown, M., Clark, D., Dougall, J, Fisher, Julie, Froerer, G., Harper, W., Newbold, M., Nielson, J., Painter, P., Wimmer, C. The representatives who voted against are: Briscoe, J., Butterfield, D., Cosgrove, T., Duckworth, S., King, B.

Yesterday, Feb. 28, Wimmer uncircled the bill, and after a couple of amendments, HB 191 was passed in the house, which means that the bill will now move to a senate committee.

This bill matters to undocumented students aspiring to receive a college education because it affects their ability to afford college. These students want to help their community by going to school. If this bill passes, it will add many obstacles for undocumented students trying to achieve their dreams.

I interviewed students at West High School about their opinions on H.B. 191. I found opinions both in favor and against the bill. One of the students interviewed, Megan Dukr, a Caucasian female born and raised in Utah, was in favor of the bill. She said, “With more undocumented students going to college in Utah, the legal citizens will have less jobs.” Another student, Hanis Ibit, an African-American male raised in Utah, said, “Less students will go to college [if this bill passes], and our generation is not going to have as many educated people, due to the lack of students attending post secondary school.”

Teachers at West High shared their opinions as well. Miss Adrito a math teacher said, “we’re closing doors to kids that actually want to improve their life’s by getting education.” Another gear up instructor, named Ms. Julie, said "this bill affects me when my tax money pays for undocumented [students] to attend college."

My personal opinion is that, this bill should not pass. We should not hinder those individuals who want an education. Even if they are undocumented, many students didn’t have a choice to move to this country. A lot of undocumented students were brought, by their parents, to the US at a young age. If this bill passes, all we are doing is closing doors on who could be tomorrow’s great leaders.

Substitute Bill for Juvenile Fingerprints (HB48) passes House Committee, by Amy Novoa

Substitute HB48S3, which replaces the original HB48, excludes the language that juveniles shall be fingerprinted if they are believed to be affiliated with or in a gang. In addition, the bill clarifies that a juvenile may be photographed and fingerprinted if he/she commits a crime that would be a class A misdemeanor if the crime were committed by an adult. This substitute bill is more ethical, because innocent youth would not be targeted as much, however, it is not the way to educate youth to stay out of crime. We often see discrimination as an issue in our law enforcement. We often see youth being racially profiled or labeled as delinquents. Without the gang reference in this bill, youth won't be harassed as much as with the first bill, but we would rather see our money spent on programs that would benefit our youth. It is estimated that this bill will cost $51,000 the first year and $21,000 each year after. When we are cutting most state budgets by 7% we have to ask where this money is coming from, and if it could not be better used supporting youth programs. Through these programs we could teach morals to help educate youth to make healthier choices and become involved in sports, arts, community activities, academic activities, etc. We can offer them more opportunities to succeed, instead of labeling them and treating them as criminals. They are still very young and have the ability to change and better their community. This bill passed the house with a vote of 69-0 a and is now going into Senate committee. We strongly oppose this bill amended or not.

H.B. 48-Juvenile Fingerprints Bill, by Diana Ortega, Amy Novoa and Gaby Rodriguez

As the legislative session of 2011 began one particular bill brought up a lot of controversy, House Bill 48: Fingerprints of Juveniles. This bill requires the fingerprints and photographs of juveniles to be taken and stored if the juvenile is 14 or older and is suspected of being involved in gang activity or has committed a crime that would be a felony if it was committed by an adult.

This bill doesn't only concerns students, but parents as well. Blanca, a mother of West High students, expressed her concerns about this bill, "What would happen if the juvenile is undocumented? Would the juvenile be turned in to ICE (Immigration Customs Enforcement), and how would it affect their family?" It is important to recognize the outcomes of this bill that could negatively affect undocumented people of Utah.

Melquiades Flores, a father of a West High student, also spoke out against this bill, saying, “It’s as if we are labeling our children as criminals.” When his 14 year old son was suspected of involvement in illegal activities he was fingerprinted, although he was underage. Flores acknowledges that his son's actions were wrong but he also felt that fingerprinting was not the proper precaution. He worries that morals are going down not only in the family environment but also in schools. “In your schools you no longer say the Pledge of Allegiance daily," he says, "fights break out in schools because of various reasons when we are all Americans. There should be more peace.”

Norman, a freshmen student from West high school, expressed his concerns and worries for this bill. He thought it was a waste of tax money. He says, "There are a lot of crimes being committed among juveniles that are uncontrollable, but instead of wasting tax money trying to get this bill passed they could fund schools to have more after school programs and activities. Programs that help reduce crime among the youth."

The cost of the bill, over the next two years, would be around $90,000. Principal Parley Jacobs and Police officer Lynman Smith of West High School thought the cost of this bill wasn't a concern. Neither of them said this bill would benefit the community, but they did think it would help find students who are committing crimes. Smith, who has work at West High for over a decade said, “Crime will never end.” However, we think this bill is a waste of tax money considering the education budget may be cut by 7 percent this year.

H.B. 64- Human Blood Procurement and Use

The Willfords, a family in South Jordan, Utah, lives with the constant fear of a life threatening disease. Their daughter, Lola, suffers from a rare blood disorder, Diamond Blackfan Anemia. Blood donations have saved her life multiple times, and without blood donations Lola's life is on the line. Rachel, Lola's mother, said, "Through Lola's disease, we have been exposed to a world of people who are dependent on blood donations. Without these donors, we don't know how many times we would have lost Lola."

The Willfords aren't the only family in Utah who have relied on blood donations, and because of this, the Red Cross working with Representative Stephen Handy, is proposing a bill that would lower the blood donation age requirement to sixteen (H.B. 64). Currently, the Utah Code, Title 15, Chapter 2, Section 5 states that an "eighteen year old minor" may donate blood without parental consent. At seventeen it may be donated with parental consent. Bill H.B. 64, if passed, would increase the blood supply (ten to twenty percent) and establish a lifelong habit of blood donating for Utah's youth. The Red Cross, and other blood donation agencies, hope to start blood drives at schools for both Seniors, and Juniors. It may also increase Utah teen's sense of community and purpose. Utah would not be the first to adopt this legislation; in fact, thirty nine other states have already passed a similar bill.

H.B. 64 passed the House with no opposition (seventy two to zero). It earned favorable recommendation from Senate Standing Committee, and as of February 10, 2011 is standing by for its second reading in the Senate. We are very excited about the possibilities of this bill and what it may contribute to our community!