Infernal Pastimes of a Sunspot Mind

U.S Rep. Chuck Fleischmann’s office sent the following:

Congressman Chuck Fleischmann made the following statement after the Supreme Court upheld part of Arizona’s S.B 1070 law, while striking down other provisions.

“The Supreme Court decision today underscores the need for the federal government to step up and enforce our nation’s laws. The very fact that Arizona saw the need for S.B. 1070 is the result of the Obama Administration’s failure to secure our border. While the Supreme Court did strike down parts of the law, they upheld the law’s core provision. The State of Arizona has to live with the consequences of illegal immigration daily, so I am not surprised that they saw the need for this action. It is my hope that the Obama Administration will finally step up and start enforcing federal immigration law,” Fleischmann said.

Passed in response to the Obama administration’s lax enforcement of federal immigration law, S.B. 1070 allows Arizona law enforcement to ask about immigration status during a lawful stop if there is a “reasonable suspicion” that a person is here illegally. Although the Supreme Court struck down some provisions, this part of the law was upheld.

The Hamilton County Democratic Party issued a statement as well:

Today’s Supreme Court decision striking down most of the provisions of
Arizona’s anti-immigrant SB 1070 is also a civil rights victory for the growing
Hamilton County Latino population, Hamilton County Democratic Party Chairman
Paul Smith said today—and a warning to far-right Tennessee legislators not to
attempt to pass similar legislation.

“The President and the administration won their case when they argued
immigration matters come strictly under federal jurisdiction,” Smith said. “We
agree with reports that conclude this ruling is ‘likely to have widespread
implications for other states that have or are considering similar laws.’”

In deciding Arizona v. U.S. (11-182), the Court struck down provisions including:

•Authorizing police to arrest immigrants without warrant where “probable cause”
exists that they committed any public offense making them removable from the
country.

•Making it a state crime for “unauthorized immigrants” to fail to carry registration
papers and other government identification.

•Forbidding those not authorized for employment in the United States to apply,
solicit or perform work. That would include immigrants standing in a parking lot
who “gesture or nod” their willingness to be employed. (Source: www.cnn.com)

The 2010 U.S. Census shows that Hamilton County had, at the time of the
census, 14,993 residents of Hispanic origin. And although the ongoing economic
downturn has caused some immigrants to return to their countries of origin,
many more have stayed. Of those that are undocumented workers, Smith noted,
a frequent right-wing criticism is that they “take” from federal, state and local
programs. “But a national 2011 study by the Institute for Taxation and Economic
Policy showed that in 2010, undocumented immigrants paid a total of $11.2
billion dollars in taxes. Of that, $8.4 billion was in state taxes and $1.6 billion was
in property taxes. These people are, in fact, contributing a great deal.”

Importantly, the Court’s decision helps defend the rights of all people in
the country legally to be protected from illegal search and seizures, said
Smith. “While we wish the entire law had been declared unconstitutional, we
believe this is a victory. The Democratic Party stands squarely behind the rights
of all citizens, no matter the color of their skin.”

Original Article