Immigration and City Council

A few months ago, on Neil Cavuto’s show, I predicted that states would be forced to fill the void created by Congressional inaction (abdication and abject failure) on illegal immigration. While I understand that immigration is a specifically-enumerated federal power, I also understand that representative forms of government, at times, do manage to be somewhat representative. And people are clamoring for action – as well they should in a post-9/11 world.

To highlight the fervor, all 6 candidates for St. George City Council have taken prominent and strong positions on illegal immigration. “What does that have to do with municipal governance?” you ask. Simple. Without question, the citizens are demanding it. Don’t bother to tell them what the feds should be doing. They want to know what each and every elected official is doing.

That’s all fine and well. The key, though, is in what will be done and how it will be done. Not all actions are equal, and not all actions are effective. In my view, 3 of the candidates (Almquist, Pike, and Shakespeare) are taking a tack that could be effective (working with other levels of government to secure increased ICE agents, better identity verification, and enforcement). The other 3 seem to be pandering to the loudest, most unhinged voices, and are proposing actions that would involve the City in silly, losing lawsuits that would do nothing to further any meaningful agenda (think of LaVerkin’s United Nations-free zone or Virgin’s mandatory gun ownership laws)

Yes, I understand that some people feel in their bones that LaVerkin and Virgin were absolutely right to make such strong statements, and that St. George should, too, no matter what the consequences. Question: by not pursuing their concerns in a better-reasoned manner, did those towns advance anything – other than the agendas of those they sought to oppose? Standing for something is noble. Belly flopping is not. (Unless, of course, you’re talking about a beautiful belly flop like THIS).