Utah Works To Repeal Anti-Transparency Law

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Utah Works To Repeal Anti-Transparency Law

Posted by samzenpus on Wednesday March 23, 2011 @09:05AM from the eyes-wide-open dept.

Foldarn writes "Recently on Slashdot, Utah's Governor was honored with the Blackhole Award. Governor Herbert has now released a statement and a meeting with a concrete date to repeal the opaque law from the books in an effort to stay in offi... err, restore confidence in the public. The law added time for lawmakers to respond to information requests, removed the number of items that can be requested, and increased the prices of those same items. It's currently scheduled to become law this summer."

136 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Let's hope they don't screw it up. by marbike · 2011-03-23 09:12 · Score: 5, Informative

This bill got passed thanks to some legislative tomfoolery that is apparently quite legal in Utah. The legislative leadership can bypass the normal process for introducing bills if it happens in the last days of legislation. This bill got fast tracked and bypassed normal debate. Once it was passed, the outcry was enough to have the Governor and some others think that it was worth a repeal. The working group to re-write the bill will hopefully not screw it up a second time.

--
it is better to light a flame thrower than curse the darkness. -Terry Pratchett Men at Arms
1. Re:Let's hope they don't screw it up. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 09:19 · Score: 0
  
  The working group to re-write the bill will hopefully not screw it up a second time.
  Hopefully, yes. But still giving them too much credit I think :)
2. Re:Let's hope they don't screw it up. by Svartalf · 2011-03-23 09:28 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Heh... They're going to screw it up. They managed to do an even worse law that effectively gives amnesty to illegal aliens that're in Utah- that even more desperately needs repealing than this botch job we're discussing.
  
  --
  I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
3. Re:Let's hope they don't screw it up. by hey! · 2011-03-23 09:28 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I've thought for many years that legislative bodies should have some kind of electronic revision control system that requires changes to be authenticated wtih a legislator's digital signature. It's wouldn't be technically hard, and you'd know who put what feature into a bill. In this case we only know that the bill was put through with the connivance of the legislature's leading officers, but even so they'd be less ready to do that if the offensive language had their signature (or shall we say fingerprints?) on it.
  
  --
  Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
4. Re:Let's hope they don't screw it up. by MobyDisk · 2011-03-23 09:30 · Score: 2
  
  [1] This bill got fast tracked and bypassed normal debate. [3] Once it was passed,
  
  Whoaa!! Slow down! You missed the step [2] where representatives voted in support of a bill that did not receive any debate. Every person who voted on a piece of legislation, without reading it, without seeing a debate on it, should be impeached. They are not keeping to the oaths they swore.
  I wonder if this happened 100 years ago if they probably really would be impeached. Today, this is just standard operating procedure. Truly truly sad.
5. Re:Let's hope they don't screw it up. by nedlohs · 2011-03-23 09:31 · Score: 1
  
  They didn't screw it up the first time, it was exactly what they wanted.
6. Re:Let's hope they don't screw it up. by AdamWill · 2011-03-23 09:33 · Score: 1
  
  'git blame' for laws? what a delicious idea!
7. Re:Let's hope they don't screw it up. by Wyatt+Earp · 2011-03-23 09:51 · Score: 0
  
  Why is amnesty for illegals a bad thing?
  I want more people in the United States, I want people to be able to come here and get citizenship quickly so they can work legally and pay into the system.
  Citizenship process shouldn't take more than 12 months and the only limit to it should be an arbitrary number, like 1,000,000 people a year.
8. Re:Let's hope they don't screw it up. by hedwards · 2011-03-23 10:01 · Score: 2
  
  Because most illegal aliens are here illegally because the visa process is absurd.
  However, 12 month is way to short a period time for something as serious as citizenship. It takes time for a person to adequately acculturate to the point where they can function independently in society. Or to demonstrate the commitment necessary to be a US citizen.
  Countries which don't do that frequently end up with populations which are essentially disenfranchised sort of the way that blacks were after the civil war, but with the ability to vote. Which is a really bad situation for all involved.
  As it is the process takes just shy of 5 years in most cases or just shy of 3 years in other cases.
9. Re:Let's hope they don't screw it up. by h4rr4r · 2011-03-23 10:02 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  If Utah wants to do that why not?
  The whole illegal aliens thing is quite easy to solve anyway, incarcerate the person who is directly responsible for hiring any illegal and the CEO of the company. Also fine the company $25k per day per illegal worker. If no one was hiring them they would not be crossing the border.
10. Re:Let's hope they don't screw it up. by Teancum · 2011-03-23 10:13 · Score: 1
  
  That does exist... after a fashion. There is a paper trail in terms of amendments and discussion (sort of like a Wikipedia talk page) for most legislation, but it is so chaotic and haphazard that to pull that information together is usually to easily done. It certainly is not usually done electronically, except that the documents are scanned and put "on line" for those legislative bodies who do so.
  What makes the Utah legislature so bad is that the Republicans have a super-majority (about 70% of the legislature) so they conduct most of their business in the "caucus" meetings. That would be like a developer only putting the debuged/final release version into CVS and all previous development efforts simply didn't use a version control at all.
11. Re:Let's hope they don't screw it up. by cobrausn · 2011-03-23 10:13 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  This is such a stupid comparison and I'm tired of hearing it. Illegal immigrants are not 'akin' to the Europeans who migrated to America in nearly any way. Maybe if when they came over they tried to join the Iroquois nation, maybe. But they didn't - they just took what they wanted and killed those who fought back. Not the same thing.
  
  --
  How does it feel to be a liar with pants constantly on fire?
12. Re:Let's hope they don't screw it up. by Wyatt+Earp · 2011-03-23 10:15 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Until 1875 people came to the United States and were allowed the vote straight off the boat, the Page Act of 1875 started to limit people based on race, but unfettered immigration mostly continued without limit.
  In 1848 the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo extended U.S. citizenship to approximately 60,000 Mexican residents of the New Mexico Territory and 4,000 living in California. An additional 2500 odd California residents also become U.S. citizens.
  No 3 to 5 year process, it was just done with the stroke of a pen.
  My family history is American Indian (who weren't citizens until 1924 - another stroke of the pen), Polish Jew (they showed up in 1895), English (pre American Revolution family in Virginia) and Danish Jew (they showed up between 1896 and '98). None of them had to apply and go through all the legal nonsense we have today.
  12 months should be the goal the US strives for.
13. Re:Let's hope they don't screw it up. by moderatorrater · 2011-03-23 10:18 · Score: 1
  
  Once it was passed, the outcry was enough to have the Governor and some others think that it was worth a repeal.
  Bullshit. The governor didn't veto it because the legislature had enough votes to overcome the veto, so he's trying to get it overturned in other ways. He was against the bill even when it was passed.
14. Re:Let's hope they don't screw it up. by Teancum · 2011-03-23 10:19 · Score: 2
  
  If this happened 100 years ago in Utah, the People's Party would have simply held a sustaining vote on any legislation... that came from the 1st Presidency's office.
  While the LDS Church doesn't get involved much any more with legislation like that, the political leadership likes to think they have a calling from God himself to be in the positions they are at... forgetting that Utah public officials don't represent just Latter-day saints nor are they really acting with much piety either. It is simply raw thirst for power.
  Utah has seen the restoration of the People's Party and the Liberal Party.... they've just changed names. Neither major political party in Utah really resembles much the national parties they are nominally associated with.
15. Re:Let's hope they don't screw it up. by swillden · 2011-03-23 10:22 · Score: 1
  
  Heh... They're going to screw it up. They managed to do an even worse law that effectively gives amnesty to illegal aliens that're in Utah- that even more desperately needs repealing than this botch job we're discussing.
  You may disagree with it, but the "Utah Compact" wasn't a mistake, it was very deliberate. And it's getting a lot of positive attention nationwide, with many other states modeling their own laws on it.
  
  --
  Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
16. Re:Let's hope they don't screw it up. by Sique · 2011-03-23 10:26 · Score: 1
  
  If you outlaw all employers employing illegal aliens, only illegal employers will employ illegal aliens - and suddenly you get a large illegal sector in your economy, not paying any taxes, not obeying any laws. If this is your goal, then proceed.
  (You seem to live under the misconception that illegal aliens start at home with checking the U.S. laws to make sure they get employed legally before entering the U.S. illegally.)
  
  --
  .sig: Sique *sigh*
17. Re:Let's hope they don't screw it up. by vux984 · 2011-03-23 10:28 · Score: 2
  
  It takes time for a person to adequately acculturate to the point where they can function independently in society. Or to demonstrate the commitment necessary to be a US citizen.
  Seattle is a 2.5 hour drive from here, English is my first language, I'm educated and I'm in good health. I know american politics, geography, and history better than the average american. Oh... I get it... that's the problem.
  It would indeed take some time to make the switch to a diet of twinkies and booze to put on enough weight and kill enough brain cells to properly acculturate, and demonstrate the commitment necessary to be a US citizen.
  I kid, I kid. :p
  But that said, in all seriousness, I'd visit more often if your border agents weren't such arrogant asses.
18. Re:Let's hope they don't screw it up. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 10:34 · Score: 0
  
  Ha, think that's bad. We're run by Mormons up here in my part of Canuckistan. Posting as AC for obvious reasons.
  A CAO, (Town Administrator) was embezzling funds. When he was caught by the Mormon auditor, the Mormon Mayor called it a "loan".(which is illegal as hell) Then the Administrator (Mormon) falsified public financial statements and gave them to the public to cover his ass and hide his theft. Section 399 of the Canadian Criminal Code says the guy should get 3 to 5. I have proof in my hands. This Administrator then continued to rip us off every year until it was finally uncovered this year. Then he ummm quit, ya that's it, he "quit" (after he was suspended) and after he immediately paid back over $25 grand. Fucking crooks.
  The Mayor and Council won't do anything. (Mormons) The RCMP won't do anything (Mormons) the Provincial government won't do anything (cowards).
  There should be a big neon sign saying "You are now entering Mormon territory. This is a theocracy and Canadian Law does not apply. Enter at your own risk."
  Mormons... the second "m" is silent.
19. Re:Let's hope they don't screw it up. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 10:46 · Score: 0
  
  We do not have an illegal alien problem. We have an illegal employer problem. It is not illegal for an illegal alien to work in this country. It is illegal to hire them. We do not enforce the laws against the employers. Until we do that, we will continue to have people coming across the borders.
20. Re:Let's hope they don't screw it up. by dwillden · 2011-03-23 10:48 · Score: 1
  
  Not that I agree one bit with how it was passed but a big reason for it not getting any debate is that nearly every congress critter was listed as a sponsor. Why debate something they've already all participated in working out. Of course that is the problem, they worked it out in the Party Caucus rather than in the committees and on the debate floor like is supposed to be done, and then they just passed it through both houses so fast the media barely caught it happening.
  
  --
  I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
21. Re:Let's hope they don't screw it up. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 10:57 · Score: 0
  
  The bill as it was passe is EXACTLY how many in the legislative leadership wanted it. Many of whom have been embarrassed in recent years by things that the press has dug up via Utah's open records laws, and I'm sure not even the half off it has been discovered.
22. Re:Let's hope they don't screw it up. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 11:03 · Score: 1
  
  Please don't use that cop out "if X is illegal then only criminals will have X". It essentially states that there should not be laws against anything (since the same argument can be made for any subject. It's a slogan not an actual logical argument). If taken to its logical extreme... should we have no laws because that would mean only criminals would do illegal things?
23. Re:Let's hope they don't screw it up. by 517714 · 2011-03-23 11:05 · Score: 5, Informative
  No they were not
  
  1790 Congress passed law requiring two year residency prior to applying for citizenship. Prior to this residency requirements varied by state.
  
  1798 Alien and Sedition Acts required 14 years residency before citizenship
  
  1800 Revised to 5 years residency
  --
  The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
24. Re:Let's hope they don't screw it up. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 11:07 · Score: 1
  
  So it's ok to illegally live in a foreign land as long as you are a dick?
25. Re:Let's hope they don't screw it up. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 11:11 · Score: 0
  
  What about Mr 1,000,001? He's going to come in illegally. You have to draw the line somewhere. AndGiven the difference in standard of living in the Us (or comparable countries) and neighboring have-nots it will always be worth the risk for some to ignore the laws. Then what?
26. Re:Let's hope they don't screw it up. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 11:22 · Score: 0
  
  Please don't use that cop out "if X is illegal then only criminals will have X". It essentially states that there should not be laws against anything (since the same argument can be made for any subject. It's a slogan not an actual logical argument). If taken to its logical extreme... should we have no laws because that would mean only criminals would do illegal things?
  Well, in the way that he used it, it doesn't make sense. The actual argument is perfectly logical, though. It's often used with guns as a way to point out that you want law-abiding citizens to have guns, so they can defend themselves against the criminals who, by the nature of being criminals, will still own guns regardless of whether or not it is illegal to own one.
  The idea is that you should not have any law passed to help prevent something which is already illegal (after all, the people disobeying the already-existing laws are already criminals, why bother tacking on anything more?). Is murder illegal? Yes. Is a gun-control law designed to stop murder? If so, it shouldn't exist, murder is already illegal. In the case of hiring illegal aliens, that's already illegal, so he should be asking for enforcement, not a new law. Alternatively, we could just allow everyone in, and get cheaper labor. The end result would be having to rely on China less, and making the cheap products right here.
27. Re:Let's hope they don't screw it up. by publiclurker · 2011-03-23 11:24 · Score: 1
  
  Enforcing the laws against the employer is not profitable (for the employer and the people they own). Blaming the aliens themselves provides not only a convenient scapegoat but helps to pander to the more bigoted parts of the politicians base of support. Keeping it possible to hire illegals is also good for business, as they can be underpaid, overworked and won't report any health and safety violations.
28. Re:Let's hope they don't screw it up. by scot4875 · 2011-03-23 11:29 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  If you outlaw all employers employing illegal aliens, only illegal employers will employ illegal aliens - and suddenly you get a large illegal sector in your economy, not paying any taxes, not obeying any laws. If this is your goal, then proceed.
  You've just described the system that WE ALREADY HAVE.
  --Jeremy
  
  --
  Jesus was a liberal
29. Re:Let's hope they don't screw it up. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 11:35 · Score: 1
  
  tbh canadian border guards can be just as bad to us. i'm sure they're great to you when you go back, but i've never had a problem coming back into the states either.
30. Re:Let's hope they don't screw it up. by whoever57 · 2011-03-23 11:42 · Score: 2
  
  However, 12 month is way to short a period time for something as serious as citizenship. It takes time for a person to adequately acculturate to the point where they can function independently in society
  Where do you get 12 months from? There may be exceptions for some people, but normally, it is 5 years spent in the USA after the time you got your green card after before you can apply for citizenship.
  
  --
  The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
31. Re:Let's hope they don't screw it up. by Em+Adespoton · 2011-03-23 11:42 · Score: 1
  
  Also, illegal aliens can't vote. While corporations can't vote either, they can lobby -- and one lobbying corporation beats an entire electoral district any day of the week.
32. Re:Let's hope they don't screw it up. by h4rr4r · 2011-03-23 11:45 · Score: 1
  
  I have no such beliefs. In fact any illegal that rats out his employer should get a green card. The employer is the criminal here.
33. Re:Let's hope they don't screw it up. by linux_geek_germany · 2011-03-23 12:01 · Score: 1
  
  sure... as long as you have the biggest one
34. Re:Let's hope they don't screw it up. by Score+Whore · 2011-03-23 12:10 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  The employer is a criminal because they don't have the investigative capability to detect all false documents? That's particularly interesting since the Feds are shitting on AZ right now for passing a law that requires e-verify for new hires. The e-verify requirement is listed specifically in the Feds complaint.
  If they really wanted to deal with the illegal immigration problem there is a solution, it's a bit draconian bit it would work:
  1 - everytime someone is caught illegally in the US, you take DNA sample, finger prints, photos, blood type and any other type of measurement to make sure you can very correctly identify them if they are ever taken into custody a second time.
  2 - ship them back to their home country with a note informing them that you'll kill them if they are ever caught in the US illegally.
  3 - actually kill them if they are caught illegally in the US.
  I'm not advocating this, but it does illustrate that there are solutions to the illegal immigration problem if so desired.
35. Re:Let's hope they don't screw it up. by Attila+Dimedici · 2011-03-23 12:21 · Score: 2
  
  Where do you get 12 months from?
  
  From the poster he was replying to, who said that he thought citizenship should take 12 months.
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
36. Re:Let's hope they don't screw it up. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 12:23 · Score: 0
  
  Its so easy to eliminate behavior we don't like. Just increase penalties, say the death penalty for robbery or even hiring undocumented workers. Hasn't worked for hundreds of years, never will. Why don't we just increase penalties to get rid of all the evils in the world. Alas evil like stupidity will always be with us.
37. Re:Let's hope they don't screw it up. by badboy_tw2002 · 2011-03-23 13:04 · Score: 2
  
  Goes both ways. I go often and every time get a grilling like I'm there to take all your maple syrup, Molson's, and juicy free healthcare back with me.
38. Re:Let's hope they don't screw it up. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 13:47 · Score: 0
  
  Also fine the company $25k per day per illegal worker.
  
  Sorry, that's unconstitutional. Ammendment Zero of the US Constitution clearly states that the right to corporate profit shall not be infringed.
39. Re:Let's hope they don't screw it up. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 14:11 · Score: 0
  
  That is the stupidest thing EVER. If he was really against it, he should have vetoed it and forced the legislature to pass it over his veto. It's not like a veto costs him more than a few cents in ink...and the ire of his fellow Republicans, which is what the coward was really afraid of. And that is me giving him the benefit of the doubt and presuming he's a coward who didn't feel like riling his fellow Republicans, rather than presuming he's a political hack who figured he could pass this evil law and hope no one noticed, and who pretended to have "always been against it" when it was noticed.
  His freaking JOB is to say "no" to bad laws. He decided not to do it. He deserves any opprobrium he gets as a result of this BS.
40. Re:Let's hope they don't screw it up. by TapeCutter · 2011-03-23 14:24 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not advocating this, but it does illustrate that there are solutions to the illegal immigration problem if so desired
  N. Korea have stopped illegal imigation into their country by shooting people who try to leave, no second chances!
  
  --
  And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
41. Re:Let's hope they don't screw it up. by CrimsonAvenger · 2011-03-23 15:04 · Score: 1
  
  If Utah wants to do that why not?
  Umm,. because immigration control is FEDERAL law, not State law.
  Utah has no more power to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants than they do to select new US Supreme Court Justices.
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
42. Re:Let's hope they don't screw it up. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 16:31 · Score: 0
  
  Very interesting family history. I know one family in Arizona who claim they have land deeds for their ancestral family ranch from the Spanish, Mexico, U.S. Govt before AZ for formed, then from the State of AZ, and now from the County of Maricopa. Each describes the same property in different langauges, signatures, and measurement units. By the way, they speak Spanish at home and frequently encounter "Mexican's get out" in and around Phoenix.
43. Re:Let's hope they don't screw it up. by fishbowl · 2011-03-23 16:42 · Score: 1
  
  That stops *emigration*. *immigration* isn't really a problem when your country is a shithole even by the standards of other shitholes.
  
  --
  -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
44. Re:Let's hope they don't screw it up. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 16:47 · Score: 0
  
  How can you be so cruel? Does living in US and being a citizen accord you such a privilege that all you see is you and your own good and be completely apathetic to the general nature of human suffering?
  Don't forget no matter how grievous the illegality of being in the country seems -- it still pales in comparison to even the most menial crimes committed.
  Imagine if the same thing was done to your ancestors who came here not so long ago.
  Of course, I am not advocating it
  And you call yourself Christians! Bloody hypocrites.
45. Re:Let's hope they don't screw it up. by AvitarX · 2011-03-23 16:49 · Score: 1
  
  Well, in the way that he used it, it doesn't make sense.
  
  It makes total sense to me.
  If you make it a serious problem to hire illegal residents, then only wholly illegal enterprises will hire them, giving up a lot of taxes.
  My argument against it would be that, at least within the realm of people I know, people doing the type of work that hire illegal immigrants don't pay anything resembling their taxes anyway, so it will be a very minor reduction. Also, it's mostly contractors (house help, day labor (which you don't even need to check for in any circumstance), and other trade grunt work). I've run into a couple W-2 type people that were illegal (e.g. under the table dishwashers), but the vast majority are essentially independent contractors without employers.
  
  --
  Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
46. Re:Let's hope they don't screw it up. by davester666 · 2011-03-23 16:50 · Score: 1
  
  >Or to demonstrate the commitment necessary to be a US citizen.
  What exactly is this commitment?
  The ability to eat an extra large bag of chips in one sitting by yourself?
  Buying stuff on credit cards while unemployed?
  Refusing to work because the job is too menial?
  If you could come up with a number indicating the work ethic of all US citizens, and then compared it with the work ethic of all illegal aliens in the US, which group do you think would have a higher average? I would bet against the US citizen.
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
47. Re:Let's hope they don't screw it up. by gd2shoe · 2011-03-23 16:56 · Score: 1
  
  Posting as AC for obvious reasons.
  Yeah. Because you're trolling.
  The problem isn't that they're Mormon. The problem is that they aren't living their professed religion. Isn't that the problem with most crooked politicians?
  
  --
  I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
48. Re:Let's hope they don't screw it up. by KingAlanI · 2011-03-23 17:39 · Score: 1
  
  Non-sarcastically, might that fine be a constitutional problem via Amendment 8?
  
  --
  I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
49. Re:Let's hope they don't screw it up. by monkyyy · 2011-03-23 18:28 · Score: 1
  
  3 to 5? ive heard 10 to never from most people who have dealt with the system
  
  --
  warning pointless sig
50. Re:Let's hope they don't screw it up. by Omestes · 2011-03-23 19:36 · Score: 1
  
  Nice troll.
  Also, work ethic has nothing to do with it. Its about the assimilation. I live in Phoenix, AZ, where we have a very large Mexican population (obviously). I'm pro-immigration, but think we should be stricter on unfettered illegal immigration. And, yes, I think Arizona is a bit insane. Back on topic; it isn't the immigation that bugs me, its the balkanization. There are vast swaths of my city that are pretty much Mexican annexes, where all the language heard is Spanish, all the signs are in Spanish, all business is in Spanish, and in places they even except Pesos. There is minimal interface between these communities and the culture at large. This isn't healthy.
  That isn't to say that people should abandon their roots (I'm only 2nd generation, still celebrate mine), but there shouldn't be ghettos. If you were dropped blind-folded into parts of Phoenix (or Tucson, or LA, or San Deigo, or vast parts of New Mexico) you would think you were in Mexico. And, no, these ghettos are not enforced by racist White American Males, or whoever budding young sociologists want to blame, they exist because a lot of the immigrants really don't give two shits about America, or being American.
  Before the trolls rolls in, notice I said "a lot" not all. Growing up in Phoenix, and growing up in poor parts of Phoenix, I know tons of people of Mexican decent who are willing to go to college, join the military, become police officers, work real jobs, and otherwise assimilate. A large portion of Mexicans DO want to be Americans. Another large portion of them are just here because Mexico sucks, and we're the best place to get money. They have no involvement beyond that. Well, Mexico sucks, but is better than here... or something about La Raza or some other racist bullshit (see, there are racist assholes on both sides, imagine that).
  As for the hard worker bit, that is absolutely true. But it isn't about workers... Illegal immigration is bad for all workers, legal and not. Republicans love illegal immigration because it forces wages down, and allows them to kill unions. They still get to pay taxes, but get no benefits whatsoever. Illegal immigration is best for the bottom line, but not good for workers.
  Right now, I don't know a single American blue collar worker who is turning down any work whatsoever. And oddly, all these jobs that "Americans don't want to do" paid a living wage before we decided to completely open the borders, and American workers did all these jobs previously, often proudly. 30 years ago, even, an American worker could be blue collar and happily middle class.... That "American workers won't do it" rhetoric is utter bullshit and not at all supported by history or facts. How the hell did these things get done before we opened the illegal floodgates?
  The issue is really much more tricky than anyone wants to think. We have to weigh whats good for America with humanitarian concerns. Closing the border is as idiotic as opening it completely. There is a very nice middle ground. We need a fair quota, and a clear and easier path for meaningful citizenship (i.e. more than just being menial labor), and past that we need to close off the borders to illegal immigration, while encouraging legal immigration.
  But then again Illegal immigration is a public debate like Abortion... Its good money for the media, gets politicians in office, and beyond that it is completely dominated by idealistic blow hards.
  
  --
  A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
51. Re:Let's hope they don't screw it up. by Omestes · 2011-03-23 19:45 · Score: 1
  
  Notice the parent wasn't actually advocating that... It was a rhetorical device, flippantly showing that there does exist methods to dissuade illegal immigration. Pointing out a method doesn't mean endorsing it.
  
  Don't forget no matter how grievous the illegality of being in the country seems -- it still pales in comparison to even the most menial crimes committed.
  Except that unfettered, unmonitored, unregulated immigration lets criminals cross borders as freely as the innocent. That is one reason that all countries have monitored border control, it keeps the shit out. I'm not calling illegal immigrants shit (it seems you have thin skin, so I may need to clarify), but there as many, if not more, criminals in Mexico as in the US. This is especially true giving Mexico's special current problems.
  
  Of course, I am not advocating it
  Of course he wasn't either. Relax.
  
  And you call yourself Christians! Bloody hypocrites.
  I have never, nor never will call myself Christian.
  And even if I did I would advocate some form of immigrant enforcement (albeit not as idiotic as those proposed by my 'humble' state of Arizona).
  
  --
  A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
52. Re:Let's hope they don't screw it up. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 20:59 · Score: 0
  
  Why would you take so much trouble to send them back and write them a note.
  I mean, given your premises, wouldn't it be more effective to kill them directly when caught?
53. Re:Let's hope they don't screw it up. by Sique · 2011-03-23 21:45 · Score: 2
  
  The employer might actually do you a service.
  1. Illegal immigrants will come. The conditions in the regions they come from are so bad that you can't make it worse. You might try to wage a war against parts of your population Mexico style to get close though. So any idea to repell illegal immigrants by being evil is useless and evil at the same time.
  2. Once they are here you have to deal with them. You can try to catch as much as you get to send them back. But then the illegal immigrants will just start to hide better. Underground organisations specialised in hiding illegal immigrants will get stronger.
  3. The illegal immigrants will look for things to do to make a living. You effectively blocked out any legal work for them, so every occupation they will take is illegal. They will work in drug and human trafficking, They will be paid thugs to underground king pins. They will start ponzi schemes, operate document forgeries, blackmailing any company that provides cheap labor in either working with them or closing up shop and move on.
  4. In the end you will have your problems to the power of x.
  
  --
  .sig: Sique *sigh*
54. Re:Let's hope they don't screw it up. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 22:51 · Score: 0
  
  Law abiding citizens can become criminals. Good people can have a bad day. People are not static. Saying that good people should be armed to defend against the bad people is just silly.
  I'm not a US citizen, I come from a country where it actually is quite difficult for criminals to get hold of guns. Most of the gun crime here involves threatening with nonfunctional replica weapons, or the use of crappy home built stuff that's barely more dangerous than the replicas. In that circumstance, no, you do not want law abiding citizens to be armed as a defensive measure.
  I know that the same situation doesn't apply in the US where it would be impossible to get guns out of the hands of criminals even with decades of well funded and publically supported effort, but even so I can't help but see arming people to defend the innocent as being like trying to pour buckets of water on a drowning man.
55. Re:Let's hope they don't screw it up. by hey! · 2011-03-23 23:12 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, get enough people who think the same way to form a substantial majority and rampant self-righteousness is bound to take root. It doesn't matter where on the political or metaphysical landscape that consensus lies. Form a community of the squishiest, most sentimental liberals you can find and pretty soon they'll be organizing jihad against intolerant people.
  
  --
  Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
56. Re:Let's hope they don't screw it up. by bhtooefr · 2011-03-24 01:15 · Score: 1
  
  The idea of arming the people to defend against lone crazies with guns isn't the actual intent of arming the people.
  The intent of arming the people is to defend against governments with guns, treating the risk of an armed crazy as an acceptable risk.
57. Re:Let's hope they don't screw it up. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-24 01:28 · Score: 0
  
  You've got that the wrong way round. The American Way (TM) is to arrive en masse from somewhere else and displace or slaughter the existing population. Perhaps you'd be happier if Mexicans arrived with advanced weaponry, shooting.
58. Re:Let's hope they don't screw it up. by cobrausn · 2011-03-24 02:23 · Score: 1
  
  At what point did I imply it was acceptable? It is just a stupid comparison.
  
  --
  How does it feel to be a liar with pants constantly on fire?
59. Re:Let's hope they don't screw it up. by Politburo · 2011-03-24 02:29 · Score: 1
  
  No, that's bullshit. If you're against a bill, you veto it. Even if you know the veto will be overridden and want to save some time, be nice, whatever, then you still don't sign the bill. It automatically becomes law in 10 days (not counting Sundays) if the Governor doesn't take action. Actually in this case since I believe the legislature adjourned shortly after passage, it would become effective 20 days after adjournment.
60. Re:Let's hope they don't screw it up. by moderatorrater · 2011-03-24 03:21 · Score: 1
  
  I actually agree with that, but claiming that the governor is only doing this when he was very clear about it while it was in the legislature is dumb. I think he should have vetoed it anyway, but claiming he's changing his mind after the fact is just wrong.
61. Re:Let's hope they don't screw it up. by gd2shoe · 2011-03-24 05:59 · Score: 1
  
  There is some truth to what you're saying, but it doesn't apply to the AC troll I was responding to. He was strongly implying "mormon = thief". He did claim "mormon = moron".
  The church tries to temper people against the human weakness you describe, but in places like Utah it is a losing battle. We hear about it in General Conference from time to time (both implicitly and explicitly). I even hear stories that they're intolerant against other LDS (mormons) who move in from out of state. It's sad, really. People then go and try to paint the whole church with the colors of intolerance that are bred out of hyper cliquishness. I think they just don't understand the damage they're causing locally or worldwide.
  
  --
  I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
62. Re:Let's hope they don't screw it up. by h4rr4r · 2011-03-24 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  The jobs would still bring them here. Your supply side solution is not going to work.
63. Re:Let's hope they don't screw it up. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-25 13:19 · Score: 0
  
  in places they even except Pesos
  "accept".
  people of Mexican decent
  "descent".
  whats good for America
  "what's".
64. Re:Let's hope they don't screw it up. by drippslashdot · 2011-03-30 12:43 · Score: 1
  
  I just wanted to reply so I could say how much I appreciate the way you've described the issues. Post more about this!
Any there any niggers in Utah? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 09:12 · Score: 0

I heard they were racist there
Go figure by Hatta · 2011-03-23 09:15 · Score: 5, Insightful

A state run by religious conservatives is also highly authoritarian. Who would have thought?

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
1. Re:Go figure by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 09:36 · Score: 1
  
  Funny, the US government is run by conservatives, religious conservatives, liberals, religious liberals, communists, socialists, libertarians, environmentalists, lobbyists, corporate shills, and even an occasional statesman, and is also highly authoritarian. Who would have thought?
2. Re:Go figure by Svartalf · 2011-03-23 09:52 · Score: 1
  
  Religious Conservatives? Hardly. If they were, they'd not have passed the law that gives those that break our nation's laws a pass- they basically made a law that gives effective amnesty to those who are in Utah and are here in the US Illegally.
  
  --
  I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
3. Re:Go figure by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 09:55 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, but the conservatives are the ones who complain very loudly about everyone else in government being authoritarian.
4. Re:Go figure by h4rr4r · 2011-03-23 10:05 · Score: 1
  
  Sounds like turn the other cheek to me.
  Get this through your thick skull, the illegals would not be here if no one hired them. Make it a felony to hire one and fine 25k per day per illegal and that problem will sort itself right out.
5. Re:Go figure by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 10:10 · Score: 0
  
  Such a thing would never happen. Too much outrage from the left for even enforcing the existing immigration laws - far too many democratic votes coming over the border, can't stop that. Next thing you know they might start calling people who would propose such a thing 'racist'...
6. Re:Go figure by Hatta · 2011-03-23 10:11 · Score: 1
  
  Funny, I've only seen 4 of those actually holding public office.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
7. Re:Go figure by Zorque · 2011-03-23 10:13 · Score: 2
  
  When was the last time you heard anyone complain about "illegals" from anywhere but South America? It is racist.
8. Re:Go figure by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 10:24 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, most of the complaints are about illegals from Mexico--which is nowhere near South America.
9. Re:Go figure by h4rr4r · 2011-03-23 10:26 · Score: 1
  
  Which is why I am saying fine the business that hires them not the illegals. Heck, if the fine tops X amount we can use some of that to get the illegal back home and setup with an immigration lawyer.
10. Re:Go figure by Antisyzygy · 2011-03-23 10:26 · Score: 2
  
  Illegal immigrants are doing jobs no American wants to do. I see it all over down here in Texas. Most Americans are shooting for a job in some facet of business. Illegal immigrants cannot do these jobs, so they do janitorial / house cleaning, basic labor, construction, and lawn maintenance. When is the last time you saw a born and bred American actively trying to do one of those jobs or complaining that they couldn't do one of those jobs because of the damn illegals? Sure, they don't deserve health care benefits and welfare if they don't pay taxes, but I see no threat from them in the job category.
  
  --
  That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
11. Re:Go figure by swillden · 2011-03-23 10:30 · Score: 1
  
  Sounds like turn the other cheek to me.
  Get this through your thick skull, the illegals would not be here if no one hired them. Make it a felony to hire one and fine 25k per day per illegal and that problem will sort itself right out.
  Exactly. And to make your approach work even better, here's another tweak: Offer green cards to any illegals who turn in their boss. So the one person the boss absolutely can't fool about his workers' status is highly motivated to rat him out. I doubt we'd even have to hand out many green cards... the employers of illegals would become so terrified of their employees that they'd can them immediately.
  
  --
  Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
12. Re:Go figure by Kozz · 2011-03-23 10:37 · Score: 1
  
  Sounds like turn the other cheek to me.
  Get this through your thick skull, the illegals would not be here if no one hired them. Make it a felony to hire one and fine 25k per day per illegal and that problem will sort itself right out.
  Perfect idea. Now all you have to do is give employers a reasonably-priced system by which they can verify someone's right to work, and indemnify that employer from any damages or fines for any violations against the employee who "passed" the system's tests. Got that handy?
  Talk is cheap. Solutions are much, much harder.
  
  --
  I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
13. Re:Go figure by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 10:51 · Score: 0
  
  * There is exactly one socialist in the US Senate
  * I'm not sure if there are any atheists in Congress. Certainly, they all like to emphasize their religion at every opportunity.
  * I'm not sure why environmentalists was separated out, the people who end up voting for environmental issues are usually Democrats. It's funny because conservationism should be a conservative position.
  You may be confusing the US with Germany. In Germany, there are actual socialists and communists and atheists in office, and the environmentalists have their own political party.
14. Re:Go figure by dwillden · 2011-03-23 10:52 · Score: 1
  
  Americans don't do those jobs because while paying taxes and not packing twenty men into an apartment, the Americans who are willing to do that work (and there are many) are so substantially undercut in costs by the illegals that they can't make a living if they try to match costs. The reason you are not seeing Americans doing construction, lawn maintenance and the like is because they've been driven out of the business by illegal labor that can do the job at a cost the tax paying American contractor can't meet.
  
  --
  I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
15. Re:Go figure by dwillden · 2011-03-23 10:53 · Score: 1
  
  Yep, it's called E-verify it, and it works quite well when employers are willing to use it.
  
  --
  I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
16. Re:Go figure by Antisyzygy · 2011-03-23 10:59 · Score: 1
  
  Easiest way to fix that is to tax them, and that is where perhaps we agree in some way. However, even so 90 percent of Americans would not try do the jobs they do anyway. Maybe that's why we have almost a 10 percent unemployment.
  
  --
  That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
17. Re:Go figure by royallthefourth · 2011-03-23 11:01 · Score: 1
  
  Americans don't do those jobs because they pay below a living wage, obviously. The lack of labor protections has already pushed citizens out of that market altogether.
18. Re:Go figure by Antisyzygy · 2011-03-23 11:10 · Score: 1
  
  I agree with you in part. Im just arguing that throwing out all the illegals wont necessarily fix the problem. Americans don't want these jobs, so someone else fills the niche.
  
  --
  That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
19. Re:Go figure by sensei+moreh · 2011-03-23 11:11 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, Mexico is somewhat nearer to South America than the US
  
  --
  Geology - it's not rocket science; it's rock science
20. Re:Go figure by publiclurker · 2011-03-23 11:29 · Score: 1
  
  While that may seem like a valid excuse for the pseudo capitalist running around in this country, all that means is that the wages being offered are too low for the work. After all, supply and demand works for products and labor. Unfortunately, most businesses think that capitalism is only good then it helps them and not the other way around.
21. Re:Go figure by h4rr4r · 2011-03-23 11:43 · Score: 1
  
  No I do not. That is their problem. I suspect the free market will solve it quite quickly though.
  The paperwork illegals normally have no one with a room temperature IQ would be fooled. Heck, just make the standard reasonable and no automatic checks are needed.
22. Re:Go figure by h4rr4r · 2011-03-23 11:50 · Score: 1
  
  If they cannot find people to do the work the wage for that job will go up. That is how the free market works.
23. Re:Go figure by stinerman · 2011-03-23 11:54 · Score: 1
  
  Does anyone really want a job? I'd rather sit at home all day, jack off, and watch TV. But I can't.
  I don't want a job picking lettuce or being a gardener or roofer, but if it paid $50/hr I'd take it.
  If we really did throw out every last undocumented worker, I think you'd see some native Anglos taking some of the same jobs, but some people would just do without. If they had to pay a guy $30/hr to landscape, they'd just go without. The fact you can pay undocumented workers a lot less provides an incentive to conspicuously consume.
24. Re:Go figure by linux_geek_germany · 2011-03-23 12:16 · Score: 1
  
  fixed that for you...
  
  You may be confusing the US with Germany. In Germany, there are actual socialists and communists and atheists in office, and the totalitarian morale- & mind-police have their own political party.
25. Re:Go figure by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 12:37 · Score: 0
  
  Get this through your thick skull, the illegals would not be here if no one hired them. Make it a felony to hire one and fine 25k per day per illegal and that problem will sort itself right out.
  Yes, throwing big criminal penalties at a problem always works. Just look at the wonders it did for the drug problem!
26. Re:Go figure by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 12:43 · Score: 0
  
  1 My wife had a single employee cleaning business.
  2 My uncle has a cleaning business in a Florida resort town. Something to supplement money during his retirement.
  3 my father worked for him until the cancer got him.
  4 A friend's father had a commercial cleaning business until cancer also got him.
  5 I know a retired Chicago cop who had a rug cleaning business.
  NOT A SINGLE IMMIGRANT IN THAT GROUP OF 5
  I can make a similar list for construction. The employers of Illegal immigrants are the criminal ones!!!
27. Re:Go figure by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 12:49 · Score: 0
  
  Does it? All they'll do is ask for the government to give them some kind of tax assistance and a grant, then continue to pay that wage.
28. Re:Go figure by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 12:55 · Score: 0
  
  I hope YOU get outsourced.
29. Re:Go figure by SydShamino · 2011-03-23 14:18 · Score: 1
  
  No I do not. That is their problem. I suspect the free market will solve it quite quickly though.
  For small businesses who don't have a legal team, and are trying to add their 2nd, 3rd, 4th employee, etc., the "free market" owner will solve it by not hiring anyone whose skin is brown or who doesn't speak perfect English.
  How else do you think the free market can verify if supposedly government-issued work authorization is legitimate? The government has to get involved in that somehow unless you want to privatize work authorization too. And if that happens, hello millions of suddenly, newly authorized workers!
  
  --
  It doesn't hurt to be nice.
30. Re:Go figure by Antisyzygy · 2011-03-23 15:29 · Score: 1
  
  I agree. Corporations are quick to adapt socialist viewpoints when it benefits them, or spout out "free market" propaganda when it benefits them as well. The problem is, I don't harbor any ill will towards illegal immigrants. They are just trying to survive like everyone else.
  
  --
  That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
31. Re:Go figure by Antisyzygy · 2011-03-23 15:34 · Score: 1
  
  A free market would include letting anyone from anywhere in the world compete for your job. If you want to have your job up for grabs by anyone more qualified than you, then you are a true free market guy. Otherwise, if you want labor protections, job security and special treatment as a citizen you are not free market at all. You can't have it both ways.
  
  --
  That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
32. Re:Go figure by Antisyzygy · 2011-03-23 15:36 · Score: 1
  
  In a free market there is always going to be a lowest class of people that gets shit wages for hard work. Unless you want to dramatically restructure society so that everyone is paid according to their works, and not the works of their wage slaves, you will never get equality.
  
  --
  That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
33. Re:Go figure by gd2shoe · 2011-03-23 17:12 · Score: 1
  
  Yesterday, actually.
  Somebody reporting on this:
  
  Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), speaking at a conference on border issues Thursday, said 663 individuals arrested along the southwest border in 2010 were from countries designated as “special interest” or from countries known to have ties with terrorism.
  663 may be a tiny, tiny fraction of 445,000, but it only takes half a dozen to cause nation wide hysteria (assuming few actual casualties).
  Well...you asked.
  
  --
  I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
34. Re:Go figure by gd2shoe · 2011-03-23 17:14 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, meant to include the link. http://cnsnews.com/news/article/663-illegal-aliens-countries-ties-terror
  
  --
  I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
35. Re:Go figure by h4rr4r · 2011-03-24 08:25 · Score: 1
  
  Then we would have to allow people to immigrate to any country they want. Right now the employer can move to that job, but the worker cannot follow.
  Equal labor protection in the form of safety regulations are not anti-free market.
36. Re:Go figure by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-27 01:41 · Score: 0
  
  The Gubmint is a puppet of the Puppet Masters! We are all just sheeple to them!
  Drink A Miracle
Lather, rinse, repeat by Locke2005 · 2011-03-23 09:16 · Score: 1

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." -- Thomas Jefferson

They thought nobody would notice. They were wrong. The problem is, there is nothing to stop them from attaching similar provisions as riders to totally unrelated bills until they finally succeed in slipping one through.

--
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
1. Re:Lather, rinse, repeat by sakdoctor · 2011-03-23 09:30 · Score: 1
  
  A common misquote. It's actually:
  "The price of freedom is 75 trillion dollars" -- Thomas Jefferson
2. Re:Lather, rinse, repeat by Em+Adespoton · 2011-03-23 11:53 · Score: 1
  
  Only if the RIAA sues you.
3. Re:Lather, rinse, repeat by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 15:17 · Score: 0
  
  The first verified link between The Enlightenment and The RIAA. Some day there will be monuments.
Slashdot standards are slipping by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 09:19 · Score: 2, Funny

That previous /. story on the Blackhole award had over 150 comments on it and not a single crack about Goatse! How is this stuff that maters?
Are we sure about his motives? by Tigger's+Pet · 2011-03-23 09:28 · Score: 2

Is Governor Herbert really trying to "restore confidence in the public"? Are we sure he's not trying to restore their confidence in him? I'm not sure that anyone would ever have confidence in the public as a whole - small groups and individuals are fine, but beyond that...
1. Re:Are we sure about his motives? by Daemon69 · 2011-03-23 09:43 · Score: 1
  
  The bill originally passed with enough votes to override a Herbert veto. He made the right call.
2. Re:Are we sure about his motives? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 09:48 · Score: 0
  
  Don't believe everything Herbert tells you.
  
  The Utah House needs 50 votes to override Herbert's veto: http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Utah_House_of_Representatives 42 people voted for the bill: http://le.utah.gov/~2011/status/hbillsta/hb0477.003h.txt
  
  42 is less than 50. How does that give them veto override ability?
3. Re:Are we sure about his motives? by Teancum · 2011-03-23 10:02 · Score: 1
  
  Governor Herbert just jumped the shark with this special session. Confidence? What little I had went away with this proposal.
4. Re:Are we sure about his motives? by publiclurker · 2011-03-23 11:34 · Score: 1
  
  So make them override it. kowtowing to them is hardly a right or respectable call.
5. Re:Are we sure about his motives? by 517714 · 2011-03-23 11:48 · Score: 1
  
  The Bill got 61 votes the first time the House considered it, so there might have been enough to pass it if the party leadership leaned on them. The Republican party has 58 seats.
  Herbert's spokeswoman said at the time, "Were it not for the governor's action, the original HB477 would take effect. What the governor signed was an amended HB477 and, because of his leadership, we now have a process to remedy HB477." Herbert said his veto would have been overridden and added that by signing it into law Tuesday, he has ensured there will be 90 days where “everyone who has an interest in this issue can come to the table and have an open and frank dialogue.” That seems to have happened as he promised, albeit much faster.
  In his place, I would have vetoed it, because I wouldn't want my name on that bill, and it's hard to prove your intent is honorable when your actions look otherwise.
  I would be far more worried about the Senate in Utah than the Governor. On Monday, Senate President Michael Waddoups said, “I think HB477 is going to get repealed, but I don’t think it’s going to happen Friday. We’re not going to repeal it until we have something to replace it with.” That sounds pretty ominous.
  
  --
  The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
transparency law works to reveal anti-truthers etc by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 09:33 · Score: 0

so that's not a problem? does that mean we're now focusing on the image of anti-anti-transparency? utah? extra special religious sex training for small people there? nobody really wants to know. does not mean it isn't still happening?
statutory rape by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 09:40 · Score: 0

FYI: "statutory rape" is the act of sexually assaulting a statue of Tori Spelling.
50% referred to chem./dep.; history of sex abuse by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 09:44 · Score: 0

that's on, & by, admission. of the other 50%, around 25% reveal abuse history in time. over 15% of total attempt to recant their experience. we're still working on the falling roman/holycost comparison equation. looks like there's little immunity to this across social, economic, or religious strata.
What the real goal is here by Teancum · 2011-03-23 10:00 · Score: 5, Interesting

The purpose of this special session is to deliberately derail the referendum drive so that the effort to put this onto the ballot in November is completely wiped out. Right now there is an effort to collect about 100,000 signatures state-wide to put this onto the general election ballot this year (which is normally just for municipal elections in Utah) and that effort is gaining steam and public support.
Very likely, if this stays in the public spotlight, it will mean the end of the elective office careers of many of these state legislators, and they know it. It is also likely that this legislation is going to be repealed through the ballot box, and these guys want to stop that process.
What they are trying to do here is to repeal the law that has all of these signatures and will be defeated by the voters of this state, and instead introduce a whole new law to take its place... a law that says essentially the very same thing and causes the same problems that is gaining all of the attention. As a new law, they can quash the referendum drive completely.
A really cute thing about this tactic is that the laws in Utah governing the ability to put up a referendum do not take into account legislation put forward in a special session, so effectively they are vetoing the will of the citizens at the ballot box on this particular issue. If it weren't for the fact that I'm so ticked off at the legislators pulling these tactics and the fact they wrote these exemptions explicitly to keep the public under their heels, I would call this stinking brilliant. Brilliant like a dictator, but none the less brilliant. The Supreme Soviet was never this good at ignoring public opinion.
1. Re:What the real goal is here by jlechem · 2011-03-23 10:05 · Score: 2
  
  Sadly it's not the first time they've done this. Utah legislators get all uppity with any kind of citizen voted initiatives. Like we the people don't know how to govern ourselves. All of this because they don't want their text messages and emails to be public. If you don't want it to be public don't sext your wife during the legislative session.
  
  --
  Hold up, wait a minute, let me put some pimpin in it
2. Re:What the real goal is here by Beau6183 · 2011-03-23 10:13 · Score: 1
  
  For those interested in supporting the referendum drive, see http://savegrama.org/
3. Re:What the real goal is here by Antisyzygy · 2011-03-23 10:41 · Score: 1
  
  There are no government official in either state or federal government that give a shit about public opinion. They are only there for themselves and their buddies in corporate America to get richer. Even if people are outraged, they will think up some way to divide the people and make them fight amongst themselves. Issues like abortion, gay marriage, etc. come to mind. None of these issues actually effect ANYONE beyond some moral outrage (which frankly people should keep morals to themselves). People need to grow up, but since our forefathers have systematically allowed the ruling class to position themselves with more and more power, as well as dismantle the education system from the ground up, I see only a totalitarian oligarchy in the future for America.
  
  --
  That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
4. Re:What the real goal is here by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 10:52 · Score: 0
  
  California is having the same problem. Essentially, there are a group of conservatives trying to prevent a tax extension vote from making it to the ballot; i.e. they don't want the people to vote for what they want. That is not government "for the people". What is with conservatives in office these days? And why aren't conservative citizens standing up against it?
5. Re:What the real goal is here by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 11:06 · Score: 0
  
  Good! Legislation by initiative is bad government. Just look at the CA budget mess for example why. Initiatives have limited the ability to raise certain taxes and have mandated extensive overhead costs that simply can't just be trimmed because they were put in place via initiative.
  
  The legislative process is the way to fix this. There are some aspects of this bill that are of worth. Like limiting taxpayer costs when the economy is tight. There is a long history of extensive and expensive GRAMA fishing trips. Often taking multiple staffers months to fulfill and for little value. Yes there are many legitimate reasons for GRAMA requests, but when we're having to cut costs due to the down economy, increasing the ability of the various gov agencies to recoup their costs (and thus the tax payers costs) is a good idea.
  
  The Utah media quickly changed their tune but their first complaints about this bill were because it meant their fishing trips would cost them more money.
  
  The bill needs to be repealed or fixed, but by the legislature, not by initiative. If we don't like the way they fix it, we vote the buggers out and have the next group fix the problems.
6. Re:What the real goal is here by stinerman · 2011-03-23 12:05 · Score: 1
  
  You've got it just about right. They can pretty much ignore public opinion on anything other than the hot-button social issues.
  You don't like the new anti-transparency law? Well its me or the homosexual, socialist baby-killer. Guess who wins the election?
7. Re:What the real goal is here by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 13:09 · Score: 0
  
  The problem is the next group is no different than the first.
8. Re:What the real goal is here by Score+Whore · 2011-03-23 13:53 · Score: 1
  
  If you're not a Utahn you probably shouldn't get involved as signing the petition or whatever will just create work for people who have to verify signatures.
9. Re:What the real goal is here by Antisyzygy · 2011-03-23 15:44 · Score: 1
  
  Meanwhile they get richer and richer on economic policies no one can understand because they are too busy worrying about who their neighbor is fucking, or who got pregnant, or who is cheating on who. Our society is a joke. I only want everyone to be more or less equal according to their works. A CEO that does blow all day and makes millions off of the misery of others should not be paid more than a laborer that works their body to the bone six days a week.
  
  --
  That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
Goverment is above you by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 10:09 · Score: 0

IANAL but as I understand an employer may search through my company provided phone at any time. http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs7-work.htm

Utah's elected officials believe that their Utah State provided cell phones are private and should not be monitored by their employers, the Utah tax payers. http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=117045128372479

It really rubs me wrong that they think they're above Utah tax payers, and don't extend the same privacy protection they're trying to give themselves, to everyone else.
In General by hackus · 2011-03-23 10:23 · Score: 1

Off with their heads.
-Hack

--
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
Re:You don't need to go as far as E-verify by publiclurker · 2011-03-23 11:33 · Score: 1

for most cases, the illegal's documentation is so bad than anyone with an IQ above room temperature can tell the difference. My sister in law worked for awhile at a company that employed illegals. When the inkjet printing on their Social Security cards are already running, it's pretty easy to spot the fake. she quit shortly thereafter.
Here's how it really works... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-23 14:44 · Score: 0

Here's how it works: The illegal worker's employer is a contract labor provider, a one-man operation where the one man has multiple identities and lots of experience at dodging the ICE and coming back quickly with a fresh crew. The corporate employer is shielded from prosecution, professes no knowledge of the presence of illegal workers, and continues to bribe politicians to "crack down" on illegal workers to assure that the black market keeps cheap, disposable labor coming in.
This is the same tactic used in Wisconsin by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-24 00:08 · Score: 0

None of the legislation in Wisconsin makes any sense at all if looked at from the best interest of the state, regardless of political predilection, but makes complete sense when viewed within the context of all the current assaults on the political process of the states that went red last November. The GOP has made the various state legislatures into a social laboratory, trying out different approaches towards creating a one-party system in the U.S.
All this weird-ass Legislation starts with A.L.E.C.
http://www.justice.org/cps/rde/xbcr/justice/ALEC_Report.pdf
And the latest round of experiments have been, as far as I can tell, to test voter apathy, the question on the table really is "Will the voters accept oligarchy if we frame it as in their interest?" Just like every other state, Wisconsin has gotten lazy, the good news is, we are waking up, and it looks like a good day to kick some ass.
Herbert! Herbert! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-24 00:43 · Score: 0

Governer Herbert is notorious for his rigid and limited patterns of thought.