Arizona Boycott Spreading to Tourism, Baseball

The Boycott Arizona movement is growing. The San Francisco City Attorney has joined the call and is urging businesses to take a stand against the law.

AZ Governor Jan Brewer shrugs it off. She thinks the outrage will fade. Not a chance.

< Tuesday Blogging Schedule And Open Thread | Okla. Overides Veto, Passes Bills To Restrict Abortions >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    the most frightening thing possibly (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 05:54:10 PM EST
    is that they really didnt seem to even realize - and maybe still dont - that it would cause a backlash.

    no offense to arizonans, I never saw that lady until the last couple of days, but how did that person ever get elected governor anyway?

    Dude... (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 06:05:18 PM EST
    people I work with don't see what the big deal is...talk about frightening.  Freedom is scary, but it ain't this scary...I'm sorry.

    I guess we're gonna have to live in 1984 before we realize we don't want to.


    yep (none / 0) (#5)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 06:20:54 PM EST
    I see it too.  even agree with it.  scary.

    She didn't (none / 0) (#4)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 06:20:35 PM EST
    She inherited the position when Janet Janet Napolitano joined the Obama administration.

    she doesnt really seem (none / 0) (#6)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 06:21:47 PM EST
    up to the job.  but apparently others disagree.

    Hilarious (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by squeaky on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 06:10:50 PM EST
    AZ Governor Jan Brewer shrugs it off. She thinks the outrage will fade.

    Guess she doesn't get to far from Arpaio country much. But as the conservative Arizona paper opined the other day, her seat depends on sticking to the fascist pogram.

    "fascist pogram"??? (none / 0) (#7)
    by diogenes on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 06:25:23 PM EST
    Godwin's law again.
    In any event, if a court quickly stops enforcement of this law, then the boycott anger will subside.  Then, on balance as many people will express solidarity with Arizona as will boycott it.  Didn't lots of you buy Danish products when the Islamic boycott of Denmark over the cartoons was on?

    Uh, no, Latinos (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by MKS on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 06:51:24 PM EST
    will remember this--for a very, very long time.

    The broader public might forget.  But Latinos won't.


    you can guaranfrikintee (5.00 / 0) (#14)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 08:10:49 PM EST
    THIS Latino won't.  And I will constantly reminds others of it!

    Yes, on the whole, I can (none / 0) (#16)
    by MKS on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 08:16:55 PM EST
    Sure some exceptions....but on the whole, there is no doubt, this will be remembered.

    Oops, I think I misread you (none / 0) (#17)
    by MKS on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 08:18:06 PM EST
    Never mind...

    No I answered incorrectly (none / 0) (#18)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 08:23:33 PM EST
    I meant to say that I won't forget.  My error.

    SOrry My Spelling Was Off (none / 0) (#8)
    by squeaky on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 06:32:21 PM EST
    That is fascist pogrom. And WTF does godwins law have to do with it? Kitchen sink approach?

    Lots of ifs there. Sounds like you are all for the brownshirts. Not surprised, more prison work for you, no doubt.


    Who the jackboot fits... (none / 0) (#25)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 08:02:57 AM EST
    let them wear it.

    I am fit to be tied (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 08:08:53 PM EST
    I'm lambasting all things AZ on Facebook.  I warned my FB connections who are conservative that they are free to delete me immediately.  I have been posting links to sites that list companies based in Arizona.  They lost millions in convention biz and a Superbowl because of their stance with MLK Day.  I agree with that comment JM...OK and AZ should just secede and take all their backward thinking idiots with them.  I checked my calendar.  It says 2010.  I think it is lying to me!

    The real threat of this law (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by diogenes on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 09:57:48 PM EST
    The feds present the myth that immigration law is "unenforceable", thus requiring amnesty.  If Arizona somehow successfully passes and enforces this law, then the emperor will be shown to have no clothes.  
    If more states pass such a law, boycott will be much less useful.
    On balance, if this law means that illegals avoid Arizona for border crossings or residence then the state will save a lot of money (social/educational/unreimbursed health/crime costs) which may well offset losses from boycott.

    As the Phoenix paper points out today (none / 0) (#24)
    by jbindc on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 07:41:22 AM EST
    In the short run, the state will save money on services.  In the ling run, however, the state will Lise far more (aside from any boycott effects) because: 1) many legal residents and US citizens who are brown are considering leaving the state, taking purchasing and tax foats out of the state, 2) all residents, whether here legally or not, are paying sales taxes everytime they buy a Slurpee at 7-11 or when they put gas in the car, and 3) children  of immigrants tend to grow up and get better paying jobs, thus paying more in taxes and having greater purchasing power.

    Not to mention the bad will this will cause for a law that is likely to be struck down.  Just stupid.

    Even on a personal level, my mom is happy the Red Wings beat the Phoenix Coyotes because she bet my aunt and uncle who live there.  Her words "Glad I don't have to contribute any money into the Arizona economy!"


    Unemployment (none / 0) (#28)
    by gaf on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 09:34:42 AM EST
    Considering unemployment rates in Arizona are around 10%, there is a good possibility that the unemployed folks will fill up jobs left by people who are moving out. These newly employed folks will probably buy enough slurpees to cover the sales tax gap.

    Not (none / 0) (#31)
    by jbindc on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 09:55:53 AM EST
    According to the article and the experts they interviewed.

    I'm having a difficult time (none / 0) (#30)
    by itscookin on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 09:45:47 AM EST
    figuring out which part of this law people are up in arms over. If it's that the police will end up harrassing people who have a legal right to be in Arizona, and that the people who are harrassed will be disproportionately people of color, I can get just as riled up over that as the next person. But there also seems to be anger and outrage that the police will actually find illegal immigrants and send them home. That part of it I don't get.

    I think the biggest issues are as follows (none / 0) (#32)
    by CST on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 10:33:13 AM EST
    • It requires you to have proof of legal residency.  This is not an easy thing to proove.  A driver's liscence doesn't cut it, passports are expensive and many people don't have them, and not everyone has easy access to, or carries around a birth certificate.

    • People can sue the police for NOT enforcing this enough, which means police will be under pressure to target groups that the community wants targeted.  This is begging for racial profiling.

    • Police can now arrest you for reasonable suspician of being an illegal immigrant - no one knows exactly what that means - most illegal behavior involves you doing something more than simply being here.

    In order to get my driver's license (none / 0) (#34)
    by itscookin on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 11:02:29 AM EST
    I had to present a birth certificate and a valid social security # so my license does provide proof of citizenship. Legal immigrants must provide a green card or a visa. Seems to me a driver's license should suffice.

    depends on what state (none / 0) (#35)
    by CST on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 11:28:22 AM EST
    you live in a state where that is required, it's not required in every state.  As of this article written in 2004, "Ten states (Hawaii, Illinois, Michigan, Montana, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wisconsin) do not require license applicants to demonstrate that they are lawfully present in the United States, in effect granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants."  Also not all legal immigrants have US driver's licenses.  Not all U.S. citizens have them.

    Though IANAL (none / 0) (#38)
    by Jack E Lope on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 09:01:18 AM EST
    I've read that Driver's Licenses from states that require proof-of-legal-residence will suffice.

    That might mean that they detain a lot of children who are not old enough do drive.

    The Arizona Motor Vehicles Department won't accept licenses from New Mexico, Utah, Hawaii, Illinois nor standard (non-Enhanced) licenses from Washington (the state).  


    They won't accept a hospital birth record/certificate - isn't that the "long form" that birthers demand? - and they won't accept a California Certified Abstract of Birth.


    Brewer is correct (none / 0) (#12)
    by BTAL on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 07:41:31 PM EST
    This too shall pass.  The "outrage" and boycott will not be sustainable and both the US and AZ will be better off in the long run.

    yeah right (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 08:11:49 PM EST
    keep on thinking that...this is just the BEGINNING

    They have no idea (none / 0) (#19)
    by MKS on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 08:52:22 PM EST
    Get a few radio jocks and Univision and Telemundo on this, and it will never, ever go away....

    BTAL (none / 0) (#20)
    by ZtoA on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 09:12:59 PM EST
    why on earth do you think that both the US and AZ will be better off? How do you see that happening? How do you see this bill functioning? (serious questions)

    No state, nation or economy (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by BTAL on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 08:14:36 AM EST
    can survive with uncontrolled immigration.  

    For perspective, I am not anti-immigration, Mrs. BTAL (27 years of marriage) is a UK citizen and will always remain so - whereas her daughter/my step daughter will be taking her citizenship oath next week (after living here 27 years).  Point being, there is a right and wrong way to enter/immigrate into this/any country.

    Back to my original statement, each side of the issue must acknowledge we have a massive illegal population.  Yes, illegal in that millions have chosen not to acknowledge and abide by the laws and rules.  The result is a not a healthy, secure or solid economic base for any country.

    As an aside, just check with the Native American tribes for the result of open borders.


    Illegal is Illegal (none / 0) (#27)
    by gaf on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 09:29:15 AM EST
    I agree. Illegal Immigration is illegal.
    I am currently not in the US. However, I was there for 6 years. I wasn't serious about permanently immigrating to the USA, but I had still applied for my Green Card which didn't come through by the time I decide leave back for my home country. One reason it takes a lot of time is because amnesty granted to illegals take them ahead of the legal immigrants in the line.

    what amnesty (none / 0) (#29)
    by CST on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 09:38:38 AM EST
    are you talking about?

    "One reason it takes a lot of time is because amnesty granted to illegals take them ahead of the legal immigrants in the line."

    That doesn't happen under current law - there is not "amnesty" granted to illegal immigrants and they certainly do not get ahead of anyone in line.  The reason it takes so long is that it is very restrictive and difficult to become a legal immigrant in this country.


    and it should be a restrictive process (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by BTAL on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 03:30:45 PM EST
    However, last year at the INS office getting Mrs. BTAL's updated registration card, there were posters explaining "fast track" processes for immigrants from specific countries.  Something that I disagree with completely.

    For all those here complaining about the AZ law and how poorly illegal immigrants are treated, how does their "right" to ignore the law trump our rights as citizens and those immigrants who followed the rules?


    Amnesty (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by gaf on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 11:29:26 AM EST
    What amnesty are you talking about?

    • IRCA 1986 - amnesty for 2.8 million illegals
    • 1994 Amnesty - half a million
    • 1997 Extension Amnesty - 1 million
    • NACARA 1997 - 1 million
    • HRIFA 1998 - 125,000 illegals
    • 2000 Late Amnesty - 400,000 illegals
    • LIFE Act Amnesty 2000 - 900,000 illegals

    Illegals? (none / 0) (#40)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 11:47:53 AM EST
    No human being is illegal.  

    but "amnesty" (none / 0) (#33)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 10:52:42 AM EST
    just rolls off the tounge so well doesnt it?

    `Epistemic Closure' at work.


    TX state rep to introduce bill similar to AZ (none / 0) (#21)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 09:28:51 PM EST
    Yeah right.  JUST try it!

    Make my day (none / 0) (#23)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 10:14:14 PM EST
    That's my sense.

    The silent majority (none / 0) (#37)
    by diogenes on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 10:31:59 PM EST
    Arizona Governor Jan Brewer last week signed a new law into effect that authorizes local police to stop and verify the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant. A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey finds that 60% of voters nationwide favor such a law, while 31% are opposed.