Chair's Note - Trump's Immigration

Chair's Note - Trump's Immigration

Image from San Antonio Express

Recent events involving the Trump administration’s immigration policy demonstrate how necessary our approach to immigration is to the nation and the state’s welfare.  There is a compelling need for a humane and compassionate immigration policy.  Clearly, we do not have such a policy today.


There is no doubt we need to protect our borders.  No nation can be sovereign without securing its own territory.  However, the Trump administration took that philosophy to its extreme.  By categorizing all individuals who cross our nation’s southern border to seek asylum as criminals, the administration was converting a minor offense into a felony.  That is why they took the next step in their logic and separated adults from children since children don’t go to jail.  But the criminalization of these individuals was a choice by the Trump administration.  It was not an essential policy under the law.  The president's reversal of his policy was overdue.  It should never have been implemented.


There is no doubt that this approach was driven by the president’s own dislike for many of the immigrants who come into the United States from nations he derides and calls profane names.  It was then implemented by officials who are quick to condemn immigrants rather than to seek to understand their plight.  As columnist David Brooks has stated, this administration lacks empathy.   It is basically like the Grinch – its heart is several times too small.

The United Utah Party opposed the Trump administration’s policy of separating children from their parents at the border.  We opposed the inhumaneness of such policies.   Fortunately, some members of our Congressional delegation criticized the administration and sought to end the practice. Others, however, such as Representative Chris Stewart, sought to join in the Trump administration’s labeling of immigrants by calling on all adults seeking asylum to be forced to wear electronic anklets.  Stewart's Democratic opponent, Shireen Ghorbani, joined in that idea.  As UUP candidate Jan Garbett stated, Stewart’s proposal is “a terrible idea.”  She added: “People seeking asylum in the United States aren’t criminals, and they shouldn’t be treated as such.”

Similarly, Representative Rob Bishop was slow to oppose the Trump administration's family separation policies.  He supported ending the policy only if it was coupled with funding for a wall.  (The same wall that was supposed to be funded by Mexico!) That was inhumane blackmail that matched exactly what the Trump administration wanted, i.e. ending the separation policy only if Congress agreed to funding the wall.  Bishop should have supported ending the separation policy period.  No conditions.   Instead, he only enabled the Trump administration in using innocent children as leverage in a game of chicken with Congress.
We live in unusual times.  Our party – with it principles – are sorely needed today. 

Join us in fighting for those principles.  Raise your voice to make a difference.