I had this summary of the July 2, 2012 meeting passed on to me by a citizen attendee. The commission is chaired by Lt. Governor Bell and Attorney General Shurtleff is a member. Edits were limited to a couple of spots where they went a bit off topic and commissioner names (look for brackets). Otherwise, the text of the summary, including typos, is in tact and unedited to allow for background information and avoid altering the writer’s personal opinion.
It should also be noted that this summary also demonstrates the Commission’s penchant to avoid hearing from citizens affected by illegal immigrants and the problem of relying on studies that don’t actually address the topic at hand. As noted in the first paragraph, one gentleman has been brushed off more than once and later a study is presented that fails to distinguish legal and illegal immigrant. This time, however, they did fit in testimony from a mother who’s son was the victim of illegal alien identity theft. Nevertheless, at this same meeting, one commissioner wants to officially disregard such testimony and only consider scholarly studies as discussed in yesterday’s post regarding the proposal. Summary:
It was a terrible shame to see Mr. Bowers, whose son, Jonathan, was killed by a drunken illegal alien last year, once again present at the commission meeting the other day, once again ready to testify — and once again ignominiously bumped from the commission meeting agenda. It seems someone on the commission thought this grieving father’s testimony was merely “anecdotal,” not “scholarly” enough to be worth hearing. The commission, it was suggested, should instead stick with “scholars,” and “scholarly” data — not “isolated,” “unverified” testimonials by non-experts and country bumpkins. Blah blah blah, we’ve heard it all before, we’ve heard enough, we’re bored with it, intimated another commissioner, regarding citizen testimonials.
Certainly everyone in the room understood how biased a “scholarly” testimony could be. Both [Anderson and Tobias] vigorously raised this issue a couple of meetings ago and again this week. As I recall, the question of which “expert” testimonies should be commissioned, or even considered, had not yet been put to a vote, and remained unresolved.
Thus it was a surprise to a number of persons in the room when Pam Perlich, a University of Utah demographer, launched into a 20 minute PowerPoint presentation entitled, “Coming to our Census.”
Perlich had given variations of this presentation many times since 2010. Basically she warns that White Utah is facing imminent extinction and that if the state is to survive, it must accept the “new demographic” — which she identified as primarily Latinos, their babies, and their future babies — and that Utah also must agree to dramatically increase taxpayer funding in order to medicate and educate the “new face of Utah.” Besides, she repeatedly asserted, it is Utahns’ moral “responsibility.”
Much was made of the supposedly intrinsic value of diversity. (Of course, “diversity” ALWAYS is good, regardless of how good or bad, beneficial or detrimental, the divers elements are. Plus, unity is not important.)
Perlich clearly implied the illegal-alien invasion is no different than any “successive wave of new Americans” in the history of the country.
It seems Perlich’s study has been seized upon by the Salt Lake Chamber, by Deseret Management Corporation (parent company of Deseret News, KSL, and related Internet sites), by some members of the Utah Commission on Immigration and Migration itself, and by various other boards and commissions in Utah. Many of these, by the way, seem to be interlocked. For example, Governor Herbert’s Education Excellence Commission includes Lane Beatty, who also is President and CEO of the the Chamber. Salt Lake’s Downtown Alliance is led by Jason Mathis — who also is on the immigration commission, and also is executive vice president of the Chamber. [snip]. Perlich’s points have been echoed almost verbatim by Salt Lake Chamber economist Natalie Glochnour, and form the primary basis for the Deseret News’ and KSL’s recent, multi-article, flagrantly pro-sanctuary, anti-enforcement series of articles, which series also is entitled “Coming To Our Census.”
Of course, the Chamber, Deseret Management, and at least some on Utah’s interlocking boards and commissions, and with no discernible objection from Perlich herself, are spinning Perlich’s study to subtly but clearly suggest that illegal aliens in Utah are not going anywhere; that they are reproducing at a faster rate in this country than in the country from whence they came and even more rapidly than the early pioneers; and that Utah therefore needs to “Shut up,” “Suck it up,” “Cough it up” (“Pay Up”).
According to them, one of the several items taxpayers should be opening their purses even wider for — again, if they are to fulfill their responsibility to the rising generation, they claim — is all-day Kindergarten. Not just “Kindergarten,” mind you, but ALL-DAY Kindergarten, specifically. They also are calling for pre-school (i.e., PRE-Kindergarten) — yes, that’s right, pre-school, for ALL illegal aliens and ALL anchor babies in Utah.
Surely the Chamber loves THAT idea (Glochnour, at least, is expressly pushing for it). After all, these things basically amount to taxpayer-funded day-care — which of course would facilitate the Chamber’s illegal employment of both father AND mother (God knows the father’s slave-wage alone isn’t enough).
Of course all this funding sounds altruistic and humane on the surface — until one realizes that the altruism and humanity apply only to illegal aliens and their anchor babies, not to America’s children, nor to their parents, who are losing wages, jobs, and homes.
Another presenter at the meeting, whose name I do not remember, subtly pointed to Driver Privilege Cards as the Key to illegal-alien health and therefore something that should never be done away with in Utah. He candidly acknowledged that illegal aliens are healthier than Americans in Utah — not a surprise, considering how much more enriched illegal aliens are by various health and welfare services than are most Americans, well coached as illegal aliens are in how to game the system and obtain these services for free, at taxpayer and premium-payer expense.
By carefully framing the issue of illegal immigration as one of ethnic demographics and skin color — instead of acknowledging that it really is about culture, values, and choices — the Chamber, Deseret Management, the interlocking commissions, and Perlich herself, effectively are setting up Utahns such that if they will not “come to their senses” and embrace the “changing demographics” of Utah — i.e., illegal immigration — then they are selfish, irresponsible, and racist. Indeed the Race Card is being played very skillfully in Utah today, by all these parties.
Upon the conclusion of Ms. Perlich’s presentation, [Tobias] dropped a bomb which effectively rendered moot Ms. Perlich’s 20-minute presentation: Of COURSE Utahns fully embrace LEGAL immigration; of COURSE Utahns recognize the valuable role LEGAL immigrants play today and will play tomorrow. Given that the commission and meeting ostensibly were about addressing the issue of illegal immigration, and given that Ms. Perlich — like the formulators of the Utah Compact before her — made no distinction between legal and illegal immigration in regard to her subjects, what could Perlich and the rest of the Commission say in reponse to [Tobias]’s rejoinder? Not much.
[Tobias] gave no quarter. She inquired of Perlich whether she had distinguished between legal and illegal residency status among the “new face of Utah.” Perlich didn’t seem to have a very satisfactory affirmative response to that either. How could she? As [Tobias] pointed out, we’re not even allowed to ask that question in Utah! [Tobias] then asked whether illegals’ easy access to medical care — free child delivery, for example — as compared to most Americans’ inability to afford such medical care, might not have something to do with “the new face of Utah’s” current and projected birth rates in this country and U.S. citizens’ current and projected birthrates.
When asked whether illegal aliens are able to receive welfare benefits a commission member from Workforce Services said no. [Anderson and Tobias] pounced on that. The Workforce Services fellow was then forced to acknowledge that illegal aliens often obtain benefits through the use of fraudulent documents and that even where this is not the case, there is no practical way to police the dispostition of welfare monies and benefits at the end of the line. In other words, there is nothing really to stop illegal-alien parents from wiring money to Mexico that was earmarked for baby’s pablum.
Jennifer Andrushko gave a great presentation regarding the theft and wanton exploitation of her son’s identity, which even predates his birth by some years. As an added bonus, she used the words of House Immigration Subcommittee Ranking Member and pro-illegal-alien, pro-amnesty Zoe Lofgren against those of the commission who had suggested that only “scholarly data” had veracity: Lofgren had suggested, in so many words, that “scholarly data” can mean essentially nothing, and often does.
Lacking any voice recorder, transcript, or good notes to speak of, I am leaving out much, regrettably. [snip]