Recent media reports have been rife with the story of Arizona’s new immigration law and the state’s attempt to solve a critical problem at a state level that has not been resolved by our federal government.

“Opinion polls” done by one or more of our local TV news stations showed that almost 80 percent favored a similar law in Utah, whereby local police authorities are given broad powers to stop and question people as to their citizenship status when they have a “reasonable suspicion” that they may be here illegally.

Unfortunately, that figure represents those who have nothing better to do than respond to television surveys or those who are adamantly opposed to illegal immigration. I don’t believe it represents the people of Utah as a whole.

No matter your view on illegal immigration or your beliefs about the rights of people to be in a country, I think it’s ludicrous to think this is an issue that can be solved on a state-by-state basis. That would be like suggesting that interstate commerce could be handled on a state-by-state basis—just imagine that scenario. It’s sad to think that more forethought is given to laws protecting produce and goods than to those relating to human beings—and this needs to change.

Ironically, there was also a story recently on national news broadcasts that showed the prime minister of Great Britain during a campaign stop speaking with a woman who suggested that Britain needed to deal with the issue of immigration and all of the Eastern Europeans who were coming into their country. The Brits have it tougher than us, though—Eastern Europeans don’t have brown skins to set them apart. Does this mean they’ll have to turn to “facial profiling”?

Gennie Alderson
Ogden