As a small business owner, the most difficult and stressful thing I have to deal with is government regulation. Stephen Sandstrom wants to add to my stress by forcing Utah businesses to use the ineffective E-verify system. Sandstrom wants to punish employers who don't comply by suspending their business license for 2 weeks for the first offense and then revoking it completely for repeat offenses. 

Here are 3 problems with E-Verify:

• It intrudes on my right to hire and be hired. Why should I have to prove to Sandstrom that I can legally work?
• It adds more government burdens to small businesses. It's not so bad for big companies who have an HR staff, but when you handle the marketing, human resources, quality control, and bookkeeping all by yourself, it is a HUGE burden. Also, a 2 week business license suspension for a first offense? That might just put my small company out of business.
• E-verify is ineffective and some studies have shown it actually increases identity theft. If there is a mistake in the system (which will happen), a legal citizen could be denied employment and will then have to go through a long process of correcting the error.

To Stephen Sandstrom and the rest of the Utah legislature I say, STAY OUT OF MY BUSINESS!

Utah HB 70 (Illegal Immigration Enforcement Act) passed out of the House 58-15 last week. I'm part of the small minority of Republicans who oppose this bill. I have read the bill in its entirety (including the recent changes) and here's why I'm opposed to HB 70:

HB 70 Enforces Unconstitutional Federal Laws

"I say unto you concerning the laws of the land, it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them. And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me." (D&C 98: 4-5 emphasis added) 

I believe in the rule of law. The U.S. Congress is limited in the laws they can make. Their authority is outlined in Article I of the Constitution. Article I does not give Congress authority over immigration. Many have misinterpreted this line, "The Congress shall have power...To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization". Naturalization is defined as "the process of assuming or being granted citizenship of a country, usually a country other than that of the person’s origin." The Constitution gives Congress authority over citizenship only, not immigration. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." (Tenth Amendment)

If this sounds crazy to you, you can look up the history of Federal immigration law. The first Federal immigration law was passed in 1875, which means for our first 100 years Congress knew that they had no constitutional authority over immigration. (For a more detailed explanation of the history of Federal immigration law click here)

HB 70 Is Expensive

According to the Office of the Legislative Fiscal Analyst this bill will cost the state government $305,600 in fiscal year 2012 and $260,100 in fiscal year 2013. They also estimate it will cost local governments about $100 per stop.

HB 70 Is Invasive

HB 70 states that when a law enforcement officer makes a lawful stop and "has a reasonable suspicion that the person is an alien", the officer will then go through the steps to verify immigration status and even turn the person over to Homeland Security. I asked the bills sponsor, Stephen Sandstrom, what would constitute "reasonable suspicion". His reply was "if a person does not have ID, cannot identify themselves or give reasonable answers to who they are, or where they are from, you have reasonable suspicion to investigate." 

What this bill effectively does, is make it necessary for everyone in Utah to carry a government issued ID wherever they go. And since the bill states "A law enforcement officer may not consider race, color, or national origin in implementing this section" it means no one is exempt. For example, let's say an officer stops you for jaywalking, and you don't have an ID and you choose to exercise your right to remain silent. The officer can then bring you in to verify your legal status and then turn you over to Homeland Security.

If you happen to have ID, and the "officer has a reasonable suspicion that the document is false" then he can still bring you in. Vague laws are bad for liberty. They give too much power to police officers.

The Sutherland Institute hosted an immigration debate at Thanksgiving Point on Friday, January 21. The debate was lively, and while the moderator tried to control the audience, things got a little out of hand. Here's a brief recap, in case you missed it: