The battle continues. Now the County of Los Angeles has voted to boycott Arizona. It joins with the city of Los Angeles and a growing list of California as well as other American locations who believe that attacking Arizona's economy is the best way to force us to stop enforcing the law. According to Arizona Boycott Clearinghouse, cities boycotting Arizona include Boston, MA, St. Paul, MN, Oakland, CA, San Diego, CA, West Hollywood, CA, El Paso, TX, Boulder, CO, Seattle, WA, San Francisco, CA, and Los Angeles, CA.
So, what would this sort of thing entail? Well, California buys a reported 25% of their power from Arizona, but we're pretty sure that won't change. California sells a lot of food to Arizona, and that likely won't change. According to the L.A. Times, "LAX receives $22 million in revenue from two Arizona-based airlines -- US Airways and Mesa Air. The port relies on three Arizona firms for new, low-emission big rigs, part of the city's 'clean truck' program that is expected to reduce truck-related pollution at the port by 80% by 2012." You know that won't change. Cook County, the county in Illinois where Chicago resides, approved a boycott of Arizona businesses and then awarded Scottsdale firm, Redflex, the contract to supply red-light camera systems. Well-known companies like Best Western, Sky Mall, Ramada, U-Haul, and several airlines are headquartered here. And don't forget Phelps Dodge, the biggest provider of copper in the country. Yeah, I'm pretty sure not much will change there. I mean, "We want to force Arizona to knuckle under to our will ... but we don't want to be inconvenienced doing it."
What would a boycott entail? Well, targets include the Arizona Diamondbacks, Anheuser-Busch Bud Light Beer, Tostitos, and Jimmy John’s Gourmet Sandwiches (mostly for reasons I don't understand). It is likely that they'll stop traveling to Arizona for conferences or that sort of thing. So, that will impact the privately-owned tourist segment ... you know, the one that hires the majority of Hispanics for all sorts of hospitality and service jobs. Phoenix says they could lose something like $90 million in lost convention business. Time to start laying off illegal aliens, I guess.
What do they want? They want to stop Arizona's decision to enforce federal law. They want to decide for Arizona what they want Arizona to do. They want to do it using force and intimidation. And they want to do it by affecting the most vulnerable in Arizona, the minorities they are trying to protect.
Well, you go for it, guys. Polls say that more than 60% of Americans favor the law. Recent polls say that almost half of Americans want similar laws in their own states. Further, 76% of voters think the boycott idea is a bad one. Even Californians support the Arizona law. And places like San Diego will be paying for their choice after Arizonans cancel their plans to visit that perennially favorite vacation spot for Arizonans.
It seems highly unlikely that a boycott will cause the Arizona legislature to change their minds. It is in opposition to popular perceptions. It is a misrepresentation of the law. And it does the most damage to the people they wanted to protect. So ... how does this make sense?
24 comments:
1. A majority of Americans supported segregation and Jim Crow. Flaunting polls doesn't mean it's right or just.
2. Quit (not so much directed at this post as at supporters who continue to chant "Read the bill". I have, and while IANAL, law scholars have weighed in, finding it Constitutionally dubious AND going above and beyond federal law AND codifying racial profiling. (see report from law scholars at U. of Arizona)
Naum: "Quit"
Searching ... searching ... nope, not one mention of anyone who didn't read the bill. Fortunately you hedged it with "not so much directed at this post".
Now, before SB1070 it was standard policy in most Arizona police departments to question arrested people about their immigration status. This law, then, is a smaller change than you would have us believe.
Looking at the report you referenced, "The law says that law enforcement officers 'may not consider race, color or national origin ... except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution.'” (Emphasis in original.) It is, then, incorrect to argue that SB1070 authorizes racial profiling. It prohibits it. The only racial profiling allowed is that which the Constitution (either United States or Arizona) allows. In other words, nothing new.
According to the report, "Does SB 1070 authorize arrest or detention based on race alone? No." And the claim that it is "codifying racial profiling" isn't true ... according to the report.
According to the report, "Are people in Arizona now required to carry identification? Not generally. However, for decades federal law has required non-citizens to carry immigration
documents issued to them."
But, hey, I get it. Some in law enforcement will abuse their position and do the wrong thing. In fact, I'll go further. Given the sentiment in America in general and Arizona in particular, there might be more than some. I hear a lot of "Woe is me!" about this law. I hear a lot of "It's not right!" I hear a lot of "It's just racism!" Fine. Laying aside any argument on my side (like "When did it become immoral to enforce the law?" or "What other federal laws shall we ask local law enforcement to ignore?" and so on), what would you recommend? We suffer here in Arizona from high crime rates and high cost from illegal immigration. We've called on the federal government to do its job and it has refused. Every attempt to enforce such laws is met with accusations of "Racism!" and "Cruelty!" So, it would appear that our only option, legally and morally, is to lay down and take it. Shut up and suck it up! No, more than that. We ought to encourage it. Like our dear mayor of Phoenix, we ought to move away from any enforcement and create sanctuary for these poor souls trapped by an unfair and immoral federal government that should have just let them in to start with. (Just to be clear, I am not exaggerating a position. I have heard that expressed explicitly by folks.)
Of course, that's just how I understand it. I don't see other options being offered. Feel free to let me know what other options you offer since law enforcement is not one.
I hope that every American, regardless of where he lives, will stop and examine his conscience about this and other related incidents. This Nation was founded by men of many nations and backgrounds. It was founded on the principle that all men are created equal, and that the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened. All of us ought to have the right to be treated as he would wish to be treated, as one would wish his children to be treated, but this is not the case.
I know the proponents of this law say that the majority approves of this law, but the majority is not always right. Would women or non-whites have the vote if we listen to the majority of the day, would the non-whites have equal rights (and equal access to churches, housing, restaurants, hotels, retail stores, schools, colleges and yes water fountains) if we listen to the majority of the day? We all know the answer, a resounding, NO!
Today we are committed to a worldwide struggle to promote and protect the rights of all who wish to be free. In a time of domestic crisis men of good will and generosity should be able to unite regardless of party or politics and do what is right, not what is just popular with the majority. Some men comprehend discrimination by never have experiencing it in their lives, but the majority will only understand after it happens to them.
Benito: "It was founded on the principle that all men are created equal, and that the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened. All of us ought to have the right to be treated as he would wish to be treated, as one would wish his children to be treated, but this is not the case."
I'm lost here. The "rights of every man" are to have access to all America has to offer? Diminishing the rights of Americans is not diminishing "the rights of one man"? The suggestion is that the U.S. has no right to control its borders and to do so is a violation of human rights.
You're offering me the same rhetoric I have heard over and over and cannot stomach. It is "discrimination" to have laws regarding entry and residence in the United States. All other countries have such laws and most are much harsher than ours, but we are the bad guys because we are ... what ... limiting "the rights of all who wish to be free"?
Take it up with the U.S. government. It's an immigration question, not an enforcement question. Arizona's law is an enforcement law. If the U.S. government takes your position to heart, there will be no regulation of incoming individuals and, therefore, no law to enforce. We await your success.
@Stan,
The clause except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution does denote that racial profiling is allowed — in federal law see U.S. v. Brigoni-Ponce (1975) and in Arizona, see State v. Becerra (1975), hence, racial profiling is written into SB1070.
the law makes it mandatory for a police officer to check someone's immigration status if there is a "reasonable suspicion" that person might not have documentation — "mexican appearance," "ethnic factors" or "race" — whatever name you want to give to it — will be a factor in that reasonable suspicion.
because of the imperative word "shall" in the law, police officers will be forced to use racial profiling on a regular basis, during any kinds of "stops" -- traffic stops, random questioning on the street, a visit by an officer to someone's home, etc. every time an officer deals with someone with brown skin, he/she will have to think, "ok, there's step 1 in my 'reasonable suspicion.' Now let's see what else I have."
racial profiling by police officers in arizona will increase exponentially -- not because the officers are racists, but because they are required to make racial profiling one weapon in their "reasonable suspicion" arsenal.
Key point, Naum. "Racial profiling" is permitted by the Constitution, not by SB1070.
But you have a lot of words with no answer. You obviously don't believe that immigration law should be enforced. Fine. What do you recommend?
(I suspect you recommend that the United States in general and Arizona in particular do nothing to control immigration. That's why I ask.)
I'm so sorry, Stan. I'm eager to hear this response, too. I would also like to know if those who do not support this law would like to answer this question: Is profiling wrong? People don't seem to understand the difference between profiling and racism.
I don't get it. I can't understand what people just can't grasp. This country welcomes everyone who wants to come to do so...just do it legally! I hate to repeat myself but I'll say it again for those who can't seem to understand it:
"Illegal immigration has more to do with human trafficking and drug cartels than people just trying to feed their family. And for those that are just trying to feed their family, what about the job that they just took from a legal American citizen that now has to worry about keeping their own family alive? Is that right? What about terrorists...how is a country to protect itself if anyone can just come on in undetected and kill masses of people at a time? Is that ok? ... You see, this has nothing to do with immigration. This has everything to do with illegal immigration.
'Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!'
This has been the cry of America for a couple hundred years...how this is unbiblical, I'm not sure, but all we ask is that you come here legally by going through the immigration process. Maybe the number we accept each year could change, maybe other things could change, but all that is asked is that one comes legally."
I'd also like to know why this country is having such a love-fest with giving US Constitutional rights to people who are not US citizens? Illegals have Constitutional rights, foreign terrorists...when is this going to end?!?! I'm so frustrated with the lack of intelligence of so many people in this country right now.
Reminder to self: God is in complete control.
There, there, Ryan, you're not alone in your frustration ...:)
Saul Alinsky's Rules For Radicals:
Rule 1: Power is not only what you have, but what an opponent thinks you have. If your organization is small, hide your numbers in the dark and raise a din that will make everyone think you have many more people than you do.
Your post, in so many words Stan, points this out.
Ryan and Stan
This is what I mean by ex nihilo, from nothing, argument. Naum's inability to answer will prove that she is not FOR any solution or plan, only against THIS law. (By the way, amnesty only deals with those already here and is not a solution to illegal immigration. Most fight amnesty because it will only reward and encourage further flouting of America's sovereignty and laws, not to mention the human toll brought about by drug lords and human smuggling.)
Immigration is a Democratic-and at one time Before he lost his bid for the White House, a McCain-political calculation. Contrary to the race bating chants and cries for compassion, we all know that the border would be secure if it was known that the immigrants offered no political advantage to either side.
BTW, I searched my conscious on this matter. It is clear.
Final question. Would it be wrong to enforce immigration law with white Mexicans?
1. Very few places in the Constitution qualify rights to "citizens". Mainly, it's about voting and representation, and even there, it was flawed from beginning (i.e., suffrage denied to women, slaves (but who tallied 3/5 of a vote, giving southern states disproportionate electoral weight in congress and presidency), white men without property), etc.…
2. america was built on immigration. i've pointed out the tainted history but for WASPish folks, until recent times, you were free to come and go at will… …most of the immigration law was racially inspired, economically motivated (either plus or minus)…
3. as a Christian, my allegiance is not to man drawn borders (where if truth be told, white men STOLE land from brown and red men) but to Jesus Kingdom. while this might fit your CINO post, i believe most American Christians are quite guilty of nationalism idolatry. i serve Christ, not Caesar, even if this Caesar is a kinder, more benevolent Caesar in the tapestry of civilization history
4. my druthers would be for "open borders", given concessions from Mexico (allow Americans to own property and business there) — why should labor be restricted but bankers and capital free to transcend national borders (which is exactly the case in today's global economy). like in olden days, after a probationary period, foreign immigrants could apply for citizenship with sponsors and be tested, but that simply for voting and/or office holding rights/duties — just because somebody not a "citizen" shouldn't mean they're to be treated like vermin, as this racist (please study the organization that crafted this — they are classified as a hate organization by SLPC and human rights entities, also Russell Pearce shares no remorse for "paling around" with neo-nazi - google J.T. Ready and Russell Pearce) and flawed legislation does — it is eliminationist rhetoric codified… …i realize i will be labeled one of those crazy dreamers, praying and advocating the advancement of a more just and humane world…
5. the country's immigration system is broken. don't take it from me, take it from the individuals that run and work in the INS, government, etc.… …simply put, the process to enter legally is broken and worse, is the most anti-family policy and system that could be imagined…
6. if unlike my original comment, and as supporters of SB1070 have argued that the AZ law is just the federal law, why was it necessary then? immigration is a federal issue and state sticking its neck in is just fodder for gnarly legislative and further judicial entanglements… …state is going broke yet wishes to incur at great cost needless additional legal fees…
7. migrants come to U.S. for economic opportunity or to join family. yes, there is the tragedy of human trafficing and drug cartels — but, crime, according to federal statistics has been declining in the state so the FUD about an epidemic is just deliberate propaganda…
Naum,
I don't believe this conversation will continue, but I will address your points. It will be lengthy, I'm afraid, so I'll do it in two entries. Sorry.
On the Constitution ... you missed the point. Your argument was that the law is "unconstitutional". Arguing that the Constitution is flawed is fine. Saying it is unfair is fine. But SB1070 grants no more rights to "racial profiling" than already existed. The fairness of the Constitution is not the point. Your claim that SB1070 is racial profiling is ... and it is ... wait, what were your words ... "just deliberate propaganda".
The "America was built on immigration argument" doesn't work either. America currently accepts more legal immigrants as permanent residents than all other countries in the world combined. Not good enough. No country in the world practices actual open borders. Not good enough. Mexico's immigration laws are far more strict than ours, but we're still not good enough. Again, it begins to sound like "deliberate propaganda".
I doubt that "most" American Christians are guilty of "nationalism idolatry", but I do share your concern (and I've even blogged about it) that American Christians are too politically concerned. Our salvation isn't in the country. Still, it isn't "nationalism idolatry" that asks people to obey the laws of the land. It's the Bible. It's not an "I love America" question. It's a question of whether or not a nation -- any nation -- is allowed to regulate its borders. Amazingly, although the U.S. has the highest number of immigrants, it's America that is criticized. Almost sounds like anti-nationalism idolatry. For every one of those faulty Christians who say, "My country can to no wrong" there is an equivalent number of liberal Christians who say, "My country can do no right."
For reference, "just because somebody not a 'citizen' shouldn't mean they're to be treated like vermin" doesn't seem to be "deliberate propaganda" -- it is unvarnished deliberate propaganda. Unless you believe that arresting other violators of other laws is treating them like vermin.
Okay, so, setting aside the unfair and unkind representation you offer for those with whom you disagree, your open borders idea is fine ... as long as you're willing to give up a lot. Give up national security, to start. Open borders means terrorists are free to enter. Reports are that we've lost 60% of emergency services in this country because of people crossing the border to access free medical care. The government 1) requires that emergency facilities treat all who come and 2) pays back those facilities for those they treat ... but it's 15 cents on the dollar. Time, I suppose, to raise taxes so we can afford to maintain free medical for whomever comes. And that's just the start. Welfare, Social Security, Food Stamps, housing assistance, low-income housing, and on and on. When we open those borders, we'd better ramp up for it.
Again, your statement about the immigration system being "the most anti-family policy" imaginable, it is propaganda. The suggestion is that the U.S. Immigration Service sits there and says, "Well, we'll let individuals in, but no families." The phrase tells us that they deliberately oppose families. That people abuse the system and then suffer for it is indeed sad, but it isn't accurately described as "anti-family". That's your propaganda.
Why have SB1070 if it's simply enforcing federal law? Why enforce the law against bank robbery or kidnapping? It's a federal law! Let's save the police time, money, and additional legal fees on those as well! Why is it that enforcing those federal laws is wise and necessary and enforcing the federal immigration laws is not?
On the crime question, I've read those reports as well. All of them say, "Crime has decreased." What they have not done is connected "immigration" to "decreased crime". They haven't taken into account that Arizona has one of the toughest employer sanctions law in the country which caused many illegal residents to leave. Did that have an effect on the crime rate? On the other hand, while some crime is down we are still the kidnap capital of the U.S. ... because of illegal immigrants. Is that to be ignored?
Yeah, yeah, I know you think that those who differ with you spew a lot of faulty information and deliberate propaganda. From what I've seen, they're not the only ones ...
Well put, Stan...couldn't have said it better myself. I still didn't see an answer to my questions, though...oh well. (not from you, Stan, but from those supporting illegals)
Regarding anti-family nature of our immigration system — that's not just my assessment — that's the pronouncement of conservative/liberal/libertarian voices from within the system, looking at it honestly.
14th amendment guarantees citizenship to those born here — so you have lots of families with parents illegal, children legal. You have children that migrated here at very young age that have spent nearly entire life here and would be tragically doomed if sent back to native land, which is what the letter of the law in the system would do. You have migrant workers, unable to get back and forth to families in native country…
Hand waving and submitting to simplistic bromides that "something must be done" is the equivalent of believing in magic pixie dust…
Don't really care what Mexico's policy or if Europe has open borders in its EU union or if they close off to Africa/Asia or etc… …another flawed model shouldn't substitute for what is right…
Your comment on services and expenditures is a red herring because economists repeatedly have demonstrated that Americans extract much more from immigrant labor than costs in such measures you have iterated…
Regarding anti-family nature of our immigration system, is it your contention that the American government has intentionally put in place immigration laws that are aimed at discriminating against and damaging families? Is that the intent? Or is it, like your Vietnam reference, collateral damage?
"Hand waving and submitting to simplistic bromides that 'something must be done' is the equivalent of believing in magic pixie dust."
But ... isn't that exactly what you're doing?
Thanks for the information. I wasn't aware that the emergency rooms that have closed in the United States were actually fully funded by illegal immigrant labor. I guess it was simple greed that closed them? Or is reason evading you again? For all the "red herring" and "bromides" and "propaganda" you seem to bemoan, you seem to use a lot of it yourself.
/sigh, sorry, I realize we speaking past each other now… …sadly, not too long ago, I used to be a fervent believer in in the stance you and your supporters here…
But I don't believe that policy is the more Christ-like choice…
I was a stranger, and you didn’t invite me into your home. [Matthew 25:46]
It has never been either practical or useful to leave all things and follow Christ. And yet it is spiritually prudent. [Thomas Merton]
Stan,
Sad to say, but we're not going to change the minds of the people who personalize such topics. Chances are they have a friend or family or perhaps they themselves are in this illegal immigrant situation. But I'll try to offer up a different perspective:
How about if we take the same situation, but personalize it a bit more and scale it down a bit.
Think of your home, your property, your boundaries. (I'm talking to you Naum, and you Benito). How about we stop enforcing private ownership of these things you work hard for. How about we pass a law that says if you have a home, and someone needs a place to live, you MUST let them live with you. Regardless of who they are, what they are like, or whether or not they have the means to pay you rent or even pitch in for the food in your fridge they "have the right" to partake of.
Is that cool? I mean, you wouldn't turn them down would you? How about if they drained all your expenses and made it almost impossible for you to provide for the family you already had by eating your food, using your utilities, etc... All without even going through some sort of formal interview or written agreement?
Would you allow that? Would you let your family suffer so that others could prosper at their expense?
Free room and board at Benito's house? Come one, come all! Bring your families!
@Mike,
1. It's not "my" property. It's not "your" property. It belongs to God. And I believe there's lots of red letter verses in the Bible admonishing folks that have an abundance to share with those who very little or next to nothing.
2. Am I or have I demonstrated a model of Jesus in this vein? Certainly not as much as Jesus implored — he told us to give it all away to the poor and follow him. We (tallying myself too) don't like that one verse so much so get squirrly and wriggle out claim it was taken out of context or it only has a selective application. It's not one to be taken literally, unlike the other vaguer verses we pick and choose to adhere to literally, even though the nuance of language and culture of antiquity are as foreign to us as life on Mars.
Naum: "It's not 'my' property. It's not 'your' property. It belongs to God.."
Wow! This is new information! So in your understanding of truth in general and Christianity in particular, the concept of "private property" is not allowed? So when Peter asked Ananias and Sapphira "While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control?", he was asking a trick question? Why would there be biblical laws against theft it it isn't your property to begin with? So odd. So very, very odd.
Your response doesn't fit with Mike's analogy. You say that "there's lots of red letter verses in the Bible admonishing folks that have an abundance to share with those who very little or next to nothing". (I can't figure out the significance of "red letter verses", but moving on ...) The difference between Mike's analogy and your position is that the Bible tells us to give while Mike's analogy shows how we are compelled to give. It is an elimination of free will, essentially. It isn't an act of kindness in the current case; it is an act of theft. Requiring of myself that I give away all that I own to whomever needs it is not the same as requiring it of everyone else without choice. Further, the commands of Christ apply to His followers. Are you expecting the Muslims and the Hindus and the atheists to say, "Oh, yeah, well, I see how we have to do what Christ tells us to do. Thanks for clearing that up. Hey, government! Open up those borders!"?
Stan, thanks for clearing that up...
Naum, I'm sending 50 Seattle homeless folks your way. We're full here and apparently you will make room for them because you love Jesus.
Let me know how that works out for you.
I love Jesus too, but we're tired of the crime here.
;-)
@Mike,
"Tired of the crime" — this is one of the safest parts of America — the top four big cities in America with the lowest rates of violent crime are all in border states: San Diego, Phoenix, El Paso and Austin, according to a new FBI report. And an in-house Customs and Border Protection report shows that Border Patrol agents face far less danger than street cops in most U.S. cities.
@Stan,
1. Assume you and your supporters are a Christian audience.
2. You don't get "red letter verses"? Seriously?
3. On property? Really? Are we not stewards of what belongs to God? Sometimes I wonder if we read the same Bible — the selective cherry picking, ignoring the Spirit and focusing on the letter even when that "letter" is sublated and overwhelmed by an avalanche of other text… …/shakes head, /puzzlesæ
Naum,
As I pointed out, I read the same reports. None of them correlate cause and effect -- illegal immigration and "safest parts of America". Besides, Mike is in Seattle.
Yes, most of my audience is Christian, but this topic in particular is political (and, as such, spills out onto the non-Christian world).
On "red letter verses", I am always stunned by people who deny the Bible as God's Word and then club people over the head with it for disagreeing with their position. "Well, Jesus said ..." On what would you base your idea that Jesus said any of it? Why are the "red letter" words more reliable than, say, Paul's? Have you not kept up with "modern scholars" who are denying more and more of what the Bible claims Jesus said, creeping into denying that He even existed? Why I might be interested in "red letter verses" is easy -- I believe the Bible is God's Word. It's your use that amazes me.
Do you agree or deny that the Bible supports the concept of private property? I understand stewardship. And, again, the point is that stewardship is voluntary. You are advocating foisting your idea that you own nothing onto people that don't recognize God's ownership of anything. It's a key difference. (So stop with that tired old canard of "cherry picking". It doesn't work well. And ... it's a lie. Even you admitted you don't do anything about it yourself.)
1. Jesus was an immigrant.
2. We are all immigrants and sojourners in the world.
3. All humans are created in the image of God.
4. God commands us to care for immigrants and wanderers.
5. Our economy depends immigrant labor; the social security system takes advantage of the contributions they will never claim; and for the most part they are paid unjust wages because they have no legal recourse.
6. Most people recognize that the new law in Arizona will likely lead to racial profiling, but most of them are still in favor of the law — Yet none of these things create a "grave ethical concern" among U.S. Christians.
7. Jesus calls Christians to love across the social constructs that divide us.
8. The call of God to do justice is not limited by national borders.
9. As Christians who believe that God designed the unified family as the fundamental building block of society (Gen. 2:23-24), we should strive to keep families together.
10. The usage of the term "illegal" is not a neutral word; it connotes criminality -- that those who are illegal are somehow inherently bad, if not evil. But do we call a driver who is driving without a license an illegal driver? Or do we call a taxpayer who fails to file his documents in time an illegal citizen? Of course not.
11. When laws restrict humans from participating in their full humanity, it is not the individual who is illegal; it is the prevailing laws that rob a certain group of people of their dignity that are illegal. Christians have a moral obligation to disobey such illegal laws.
12. For over a century the U.S. military provided and protected the freedom for U.S. corporations to build roads into developing countries throughout Latin America to extract, by brute force if necessary, their natural resources and cheap labor. Some of the inhabitants of those countries, deprived of a livelihood, took those same roads, following the resources that were taken from them. They come following what has been stolen. They come to escape the violence and terrorism unleashed in order to confiscate their resources and cheap labor. This changes the questions usually asked about the undocumented. The real question we are faced with is not whether they should come or stay, but, ethically and morally, what responsibilities and obligations exist for the U.S. in causing the present immigration dilemma.
Post a Comment