Thune disappointed with immigration reform bill

Sen. John Thune

WASHINGTON, D.C.— Senator John Thune (R-S.D.), Chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, made the following statement today after the Senate passed the immigration reform bill (S. 744):

“Our immigration system is broken and must be fixed, but the legislation passed by the Senate today fails to make the necessary improvements to secure our borders and comes with an enormous price tag to the American taxpayers. I offered a number amendments to the bill that would not only have strengthened border security, but also would have offered accountability to the process by requiring implementation of the border security provisions before granting legal status to over 11 million undocumented residents.

“We need to have an immigration system that not only secures the border and increases national security, but that also reduces the wait-time and simplifies the process for those entering the country legally. Unfortunately, instead of proving to the American public that Congress is serious about border security and enforcing the laws already on the books, the final Senate bill gives weak promises on border security, leaving many aspects of implementation to the discretion of the Secretary. Simply put, the Senate immigration bill is legalization first and empty promises of border security second.

“While we are a nation of immigrants, we are also a nation of laws. I am disappointed that the Senate missed this important opportunity to secure the border and fix our broken immigration system.”

Immigration measure praised by some South Dakotans

Sioux Falls, SD— As the Senate completed debate this week on the bipartisan immigration reform bill, commonly referred to as the “Gang of 8” legislation, passing it by a 68 to 32 margin, South Dakota business leaders applauded the Senate for their work on modernizing our immigration system.

“The Senate vote today marks a first big step in bringing our immigration system into this century. The strong level of support for the bill as it leaves the Senate demonstrates the importance of the issue,” said Kent Alberty of Employment Edge. “We hope the House of Representatives moves quickly to take up the matter, Alberty concluded.

“South Dakota agriculture needs immigration reform to pass,” said Walt Bones, farmer and former South Dakota Secretary of Agriculture. “The current visa system does not work for agriculture. Thankfully, the “Gang of 8″ immigration bill passed out of the Senate addresses this issue by modernizing the system so that the previously impractical and underutilized visa can be used in a meaningful way. It is now time for the House to take up the bill in a timely manner.” Bones concluded.

Recent polling conducted in South Dakota shows that 68 percent of South Dakotans strongly or somewhat support the bipartisan immigration reform legislation being debated in Washington with 74 percent of those polled said the strongly or somewhat support a bill that includes a tough but fair path to citizenship. Eighty three percent of those polled said it was very or somewhat important that the U.S. fix its immigration system this year.

“If South Dakota wants to remain economically competitive, we must have comprehensive immigration reform now in order to ensure that we have a strong and skilled workforce in the future,” said Kent Alberty of Employment Edge. The time is right for immigration reform,” Alberty concluded.

Jackley comments following Tuesday’s Supreme Court ruling

South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley

PIERRE, S.D – Attorney General Marty Jackley announced today that the United States Supreme Court has found Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional. The 1965 Voting Rights Act was originally passed to address “entrenched” racial discrimination in voting. In the words of our highest Court, the Act authorized “federal intrusion into sensitive areas of state and local policymaking” that constituted “extraordinary legislation otherwise unfamiliar to our federal system”.

“Today’s decision is a victory for state’s rights and federalism. The federal government and the ACLU required the preclearance of 3,333 laws passed by our legislature without a single determination of any racial prejudice. Racial discrimination should not be tolerated, nor should a federal government that fails to provide meaningful protections at the expense of state and constitutional rights,” said Jackley.

Based upon the overreaching preclearance obligations imposed on South Dakota and two of its counties, the State joined numerous states as Amicus Curie or friend of the Court, attacking the constitutionality of Section 4. In South Dakota, Todd and Shannon counties were required to obtain permission from federal authorities in Washington D.C. before implementing any new law relating to voting. The State of South Dakota provided assistance to Todd and Shannon counties by preclearing 3,333 voting changes to statutes and rules as a result of a 2002 lawsuit brought by the ACLU against both counties and the Secretary of State. The Department of Justice precleared every submission made on behalf of Todd and Shannon counties.

In striking down Section 4 of the Act, the Court found that the conditions that originally justified placing jurisdictions under preclearance requirements no longer existed. In 2009, the Court expressed serious doubt about the Act’s continued constitutionality. Congress’ continued failure to consider current conditions and “rely simply on the past” resulted in today’s decision striking down Section 4. Other sections of the Act that are intended to protect minority voting rights are not impacted by today’s decision.