Utah is considering an Arizona style immigration law.
Personally, I think this is silly as Utah is not a border state. I think it is wiser to wait a year or two to see how the Arizona law plays through before taking action.
I suspect that the 2012 election will produce a president who is eager to work with states on immigration, negating the need for the law. Passing a law with a 2 year horizon is foolish.
What is interesting about the Utah immigration debate is that the LDS Church is putting it's iron boot down on the throat of the subject.
Latin America is a growth area for the LDS Church, and this powerful entity wants to avoid any issue that might adversely affect that growth. It is in the interest of the LDS Church to stop the Utah immigration debate. Not surprisingly, the LDS Church issued a statement.
One particular section of the statement caught my attention: It reads: "Elected officials have the primary responsibility to find solutions in the best interests of all whose lives will be impacted by their actions."
This statement is counter to the ideals of a representative democracy.
The primary responsibility of a representative is the people being represented.
It is when government leaders start seeing themselves as the conduit of a higher good that tyranny sets in.
The world works best when different groups focus on different responsibilities. In this world we find one's family is the primary concern of most people. Businesses are concerned with the financial health of their property. Elected officials have a responsibility to the voters. Schools have a primary interest in educating their students. Churches and pundits might focus on higher concerns, etc.
When different groups focus on different aspects of our problems, we end up with better solutions.
Most problems are multi-dimensional and require multi-dimensional solutions.
The LDS Church is a powerful entity with an important and influential view in Utah. Because the group is so powerful, any statement will influence the views of the Utah electorate. Consequently, it will influence the decision of Utah Representatives.
Sadly, the Church chose to state its position in a way that was counter to the American tradition of representative democracy.
This saddens me.
Would they have made the same high sounding moral statement if it was not in their interest?
I agree with the desire to avert a local immigration debate, but disagree with the statement.
Anyway, some people have asked why I have no interest in starting a Medical Savings and Loan in Utah. This program is an alternative to insurance. It takes the bulk of the money from insurance and puts it back into the pockets of the people who earned the money.
The second actuaries run the numbers and see the amount of money that will flow from the ruling elite and back into the pockets of the people who earned the money, the institutions of the ruling elite will come back in full force against it.
The LDS Church has a substantial amount of money in insurance.
I would be messing with their money.
I have experienced the iron boot of the LDS Church in the past. I have no idea how to counter it. To make the system work, I need to find a different area.
As for immigration, I hope Utah State chooses to avoid the issue in this up coming legislative session. It is an issue best left for the 2012 election.
Tweet Button: Tweet