On March 13, Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. signed Senate Bill 81 into law. The bill, sponsored by Rep. Mike Noel (R-Kanab), specifies, among other things, that Utah law enforcement now has the power to cross-train city police to enforce federal immigration law and deport suspected illegal aliens. Superficially, the law sounds like a dandy idea, as there aren’t enough Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers to enforce the law themselves. However, the practical implications of the law run much deeper, and these implications have created quite a controversy between police, state officials and legislators.
Many police agencies in the state, including the Park City and Salt Lake City police forces, are refusing to enforce the new law, and said doing so would undermine their working relationship with the immigrant communities within their respective jurisdictions. That is, these police departments believe that if they begin enforcing immigration laws, illegal immigrants could become fearful to report crimes or cooperate with criminal investigations for fear of being deported.
Salt Lake City Police Chief Chris Burbank has been a vocal opponent of enforcing the new legislation, running what amounts to a media blitz during the course of the week. Speaking to reporters from KSL, The Salt Lake Tribune and Telemundo, Burbank repeatedly emphasized that all members of the community, regardless of immigration status, have equal access to police protection under the law, and that S.B. 81 undermines that protection. Additionally, Burbank points out that the law offers police the opportunity to opt out of immigration enforcement.
In response, Noel said police departments do not have authority to opt out of enforcing the new law, and openly threatened to slash jail reimbursement budgets if the departments do not comply. To complicate matters further, Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff chimed in on the subject at a speaking engagement Wednesday. He said the attorney general’s office has the sole authority to force police compliance through S.B. 81, and that as attorney general, he is not inclined to have police officers involved with immigration enforcement, and thus he will not mandate police compliance with the new law.
OK, so are you confused yet?
Yeah, so is everyone else.
The passage of S.B. 81 has created a legal rat’s nest, one that faces challenges and differing interpretations not only from bickering state officials, but from external entities as well. The American Civil Liberties Union of Utah said it is preparing its own legal challenge to the new law. And as the state becomes further embroiled in the S.B. 81 controversy, investing valuable time and energy fighting against itself, one has to scratch one’s head and wonder: “Why?”
Immigration measures like S.B. 81 are, in large part, meaningless. Trying to fight illegal immigration with street enforcement is like trying to fight cancer with painkillers8212;it treats a symptom, but not an underlying cause. Deportation does little to deter immigration offenders from re-entering the country within a matter of days (sometimes even hours), and the type of enforcement prescribed by S.B. 81 is certainly vulnerable to these same ineffective results. Not to mention there are already laws in Utah concerning the deportation of illegal immigrants convicted of crimes, making S.B. 81, in many ways, redundant and unnecessary.
If Noel and his constituents are really concerned about fighting illegal immigration, they should be focusing on legislation that either facilitates legal, well-regulated immigration (such as a type of guest-worker program), or addresses the underlying economic causes that spur illegal immigration in the first place (such as penalizing employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens), not passing ineffective laws and threatening the budgets of law enforcement.
Then again, these are politicians we’re talking about. And, despite what I’m sure are their best intentions, it’s hard to tell what they’re really concerned with anymore.
Aaron Zundel