Wednesday, April 13, 2011

State Democrat Legislators With Latino Leaders Oppose Copycat Arizona Immigration Enforcement Law For Wisconsin

State Representative JoCasta Zamarripa spoke against a proposed immigration enforcement bill.

About seven Latino leaders and three state Representatives held a press conference to oppose a similar Arizona immigration bill

By H. Nelson Goodson
April 13, 2011

Milwaukee - On Wednesday, Wisconsin State Representatives JoCasta Zamarripa (D-Milw.), Sandy Pasch (D-Whitefish Bay) and Jon Richards (D-Milwaukee) along with several religious and Latino leaders, including Attorney Peter Earl and Christine Neumann-Ortiz, executive director of Voces de la Frontera held a press conference to oppose a similar Arizona immigration enforcement bill for the state. The conference was held outside the Milwaukee County Court House.
Zamarripa says, Wisconsin does not need an Arizona SB 1070 copycat law citing the latest ruling by the U.S. District Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that upheld the lower courts injunction to block major provisions of the SB 1070 law and calling it "unconstitutional."
Recently, State Representative Donald Pridemore (R-Hardford) has received the needed support from other Republican legislators to introduce a similar Arizona SB 1070 immigration enforcement bill for Wisconsin. The state is not fiscally prepared to implement such a bill and will cost taxpayers to enforce it. Pridemore should focus on creating jobs and boosting the state economy instead of proposing a law that will create more costs and add to the state's $3.6 billion deficit, according to Zamarripa.
Most state residents and local business owners oppose the proposed Pridemore bill because Wisconsin can't fiscally afford a lenghty legal challenge or a federal lawsuit. Pridemore confirmed Wednesday, that he will introduce his version of the Arizona SB 1070 by next week. He believes it will survive a legal challenge despite Arizona's SB 1070 latest legal setback to implement the law, costs, economic and revenue loss adding to their $33 billion state deficit.
Under Pridemore's immigration enforcement bill, police can ask for legal status from people they suspect are illegally in the state and country once they are stopped for a traffic violation, responding to domestic calls, investigatng minor ordinance violations or major offenses. A suspect can be detained for 48 hours, if they can't proof their legal status and the will be turned in to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Public officials and workers will be authorized to act as immigration agents and could deny public services to suspected undocumented immigrants. The bill was revised to prevent racial profiling, but Zamarripa, Earl and Neumann-Ortiz say it will lead to illegal profiling, discrimination and won't likely survive a legal challenge.
On Monday, a three judge panel of the U.S. District Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in California upheld the lower court decision by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton in Arizona to block major controversial provisions of the state law SB 1070 immigration enforcement bill. The bill allowed police to ask for legal status from people they suspect are in the country and state illegally during traffic stops, domestic calls and investigations for minor and major offenses. 
Both Court of Appeals 9th Circuit Judges Richard Paez and John T. Noonan agreed that each of the provisions blocked by Judge Bolton in July 2010 were “unconstitutional” and that SB 1070 is preempted by federal law and foreign policy. Bolton in her decision did not abuse her authority, according to the judges.
The Court of Appeals decision gave a big blow and setback to Arizona Governor Jan Brewer's (R) anti-immigration law. In the Court of Appeals, Brewer had tried to overturn Judge Bolton's temperary restraining order blocking key parts of SB 1070 making it useless.
Monday's ruling is a major legal victory for the U.S. Department of Justice who challenged SB 1070 in federal court and the majority of the public who opposed the Arizona state law.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion at link: http://1.usa.gov/es3c1q

Connected by MOTOBLUR™ on T-Mobile

No comments: