LA City Council Votes to Boycott Arizona

[carlfense]

Yeah. There are certainly problems with polls. Also, you make a good point about the ballot phrasing/majority issue.

 

Immigration (like health care) is an issue where there are not a lot of good answers. There are answers . . . but they all come with their own issues.

[sarge87]

...However, most polls show that Arizonans overwhelmingly support this law. I understand that they are in a tough position but they should expect some push back when they tackle issues in a heavy handed way.

 

...

 

 

I've been reading that too..and even outside the state and in California..Although I'm not sure 59% constitutes "overwhelming" or the validity of these statements.

 

I doubt more than 720 people actually have even read the bill (I haven't) and they probably got their "overwhelming suport" by calling folks up and asking misleading questions like "Do you not approve of not protecting our borders against terrorist threats on Sundays?"

 

I realize I don't come into contact with a great number of a "representative section" of society, but I have yet to come across anyone that doesnt have at least some concerns with the potential for abuse.

 

Some of our reputation as a "racist state" is well deserved just based on some of the elected officials we've had.

 

But there are situations where I feel our true intentions as a whole were manipulated by those responsible for writing the ballots..and from outside sources like competing tourism destinations.

 

When I first moved out here, there was a Martin Luther King Holiday thing on the ballot.

My Brother's Wife was the only person I came across that was against it (due to Religious differences and just because MLK cheated on his Wife a few times).

 

The press was going on about how close to two thirds of the population actually wanted it..But then the NFL threatened to move an upcoming SuperBowl out of SunDevil stadium, and just as I feared..The locals weren't about to let some outsider influence how we went about deciding how we give government workers another free day off.

 

Then there was the actual ballot.

As I recall, there were three choices.

One was no MLK Holiday..received a little less than a third of the vote.

B ) was a paid day off for Government employees who seemed to get too many days off as it was, but they were compromising by taking Columbus Day off the books.

The third choice (I think?) was an unpaid day off.

 

I almost voted for both B. and C. just to be ornery, but it turned out we were allowed to vote for more than one choice..but the way it was worded, everyone thought we could only choose one...It needed a majority, but the two "yes votes" were split pretty evenly, thus canselling each other out..each choice received about a third of the vote...Nothing received over 50%, so the holiday failed.

 

Martin Luther King Day

 

Evan Mecham gained national attention several days after inauguration by fulfilling his campaign promise to cancel a paid MLK Day holiday for state employees. The holiday had been created in May 1986 by executive order from the previous governor, Bruce Babbitt, after the state legislature had voted not to create the holiday. Following the creation of the holiday, the state Attorney General's office issued an opinion that the paid holiday was illegal and threatened to sue the incoming governor over the cost of the paid holiday, as it had not been approved by the legislature. Despite the issues of the legality of how the holiday was created, Mecham replied to comments from civil rights activists and the black community after the cancellation by saying "King doesn't deserve a holiday." This was followed by him telling a group of black community leaders, "You folks don't need another holiday. What you folks need are jobs."

 

In reaction to the cancellation, a protest march to the state capital was held on January 19, 1987, the day the holiday would have occurred. Conventions scheduled to be held in Arizona were canceled, and performer Stevie Wonder announced a boycott of the state. After several months of criticism, Mecham declared a non-paid holiday on the third Sunday in January. Reaction in the state to the non-paid holiday was generally poor.

 

Besides the uproar caused by the MLK Day cancellation, Mecham committed other political faux pas. Claims of prejudice were made against Mecham after he defended the use of the word "pickaninny" to describe black children, claimed that high divorce rates were caused by working women, claimed America is a Christian nation to a Jewish audience, and said a group of visiting Japanese businessmen got "round eyes" after being told of the number of golf courses in Arizona. In response to claims that he was a racist, Mecham said, "I've got black friends. I employ black people. I don't employ them because they are black; I employ them because they are the best people who applied for the cotton-picking job."[26] These and other statements only strengthened the allegations of racism made against the governor following the MLK day cancellation.

 

Mecham made an issue of his relationship with the press. Claiming that many of his problems were caused by media enemies he had made during previous runs for political office, the governor stated, "The Phoenix newspaper monopoly has had my political destruction as its goal for many years."[24][33] The governor also claimed, "Every daily newspaper in the state endorsed a different candidate besides me. It's taking them a little time to get used to the idea that I was the people's choice."[30] In response to his perceived mistreatment by the press, Mecham attempted to ban a journalist from his press conferences. John Kolbe, a political columnist for the Phoenix Gazette and brother of Congressman Jim Kolbe, was declared a "non-person" after a February 25, 1987, column critical of Mecham's performance at the National Governors Association. The Governor then refused to acknowledge the presence of the columnist or answer his questions at a press conference. Mecham left the conference after other reporters repeated Kolbe's questions.[30] Another incident occurred during a televised event in which a reporter questioned the governor's integrity, prompting Mecham to reply, "Don't you ever ask me for a true statement again."[26]

 

In September 1987, Mecham received further national attention when Doonesbury began a six strip series of comics lampooning the governor. The first strip depicted Mecham saying, "My! What a cute little pickaninny!" while patting the head of a black child. Other strips satirized Mecham's tolerance of others, political appointments, and the state's loss of tourism business. For a short time, Mecham considered suing the strip's creator, but later said he had decided to leave the dispute "where it belongs—the funny pages."

 

Throughout his administration, Mecham expressed concern about possible eavesdropping on his private communications. A senior member of Mecham's staff broke his leg after falling through a false ceiling he had been crawling over, looking for covert listening devices. A private investigator was hired to sweep the governor's offices looking for bugs. The Governor was quoted as saying, "Whenever I'm in my house or my office, I always have a radio on. It keeps the lasers out." After this was reported, a political cartoon by Pulitzer Prize winning cartoonist Steve Benson appeared in the Arizona Republic depicting the governor leaving his house outfitted for laser tag. When asked about this by reporters, Attorney General Bob Corbin replied in amusement, "We don't have any ray gun pointed at him."

I remember that guy. He got elected in a three way race by like only 40% of the vote. If I recall, he was a borderline schizophrenic and suffered from dementia. His close advisers to his campaign never disclosed his illnesses to party higherups, which in turn got them ex-communicated from the Arizona GOP when it came to light after he was impeached. He was also the reason Arizonans have runoff elections if a candidate receives less than 50% of the vote.

[HUSKER 37]

...It's always nice to look for silver linings wherever you can.

 

Lilith Fair canceled after Go-Go calls for protest

 

by Ed Masley - May. 21, 2010 05:38 PM

The Arizona Republic.

The Lilith Fair's July 8 date in Phoenix at the Cricket Wireless Pavilion has been canceled.

 

Although no reason has been given, Belinda Carlisle posted her objections to the Phoenix gig on Facebook earlier this month - "in protest of the new immigration law in ARIZONA."

 

Carlisle's post went on to say the Go-Go's "condemn the law and want the date moved."

 

So much for their early sealed-lip policy.

 

Tour co-founder Sarah McLachlan has been saying sales are soft for the entire tour, but if you go to lilithfair.com, you can see that Phoenix is no longer listed but 11 other cities are.

 

Refunds can be obtained at point of purchase.

Some Posted comments:

The fifty lesbians that attend chick basketball games are weeping over this news.

 

In reality the Go Go didn't want to play an outdoor venue Arizona in July. They already have hot flashes they can't handle.

Bill 1070 forces you to legalize yourself if you're here illegally! Get legal! My family did because they were following the law! I'm a minority in this country, I'm not racist, but I support this bill because too much crime is happening with "undocummented" people. Murders, Drug deals, kidnapping, etc... Belinda doesn't know what it feels like to have her family wiped out in an instant from someone, who was in the country illegally, who was DUI. Oh... and the illegal guy survived. Everyone else (all 6 total) in the van died! A Husband, wife and 4 kids

I see the comments on all the lost business and boycotts are greeted with the same who cares, hope they don't come here etc...I really don't think you all understand what the money losses to the state really mean. Don't give me the pat answer about how much illegals cost the state, this law will not save one dollar of it. The public services paid by the tax dollars we are losing is going to have an effect don't kid your self, You like the law and support it that your choice, but don't be silly enough to not understand the financial impact of the boycotts.

Well MG, you can always count on the arrogance and stupidity of the right-wing racists. I still find it amazing when these people, with the "tea-bagger" mentality, try to tell you that the law is not racist, they seem to always make racist slurs or remarks in their message board responses.

 

[Hingle McCringleberry]

So today ICE said they might not deport people who will be turned over to them under this law. How is this possible? I thought these people took an oath to protect our country from all threats foreign and domestic. How can a federal agency decide to ignore illegals being brought to them? Until this law is either up help or struck down by the Supreme Court, these people have to follow the law. They cannot choose to ignore laws just because they dont like it. I dont know what is going on at the federal level right now, but I rally hate it. While I'm at it, why wont Eric "put them on trial in New York" Holder shut his mouth? Bash the law, but read first you f'ing idiot, its 17 pages, and your the highest attorney in the land. Or are you to busy cheering the Mexican President for telling you our country is nothing but a bunch of racists? Same thing with Obama. No they wont get asked for there papers while walking to get ice cream, are you that stupid you dont know its a secondary offense? God I thought Bush was dim sometimes, but this crap is just unreal.

[carlfense]

So today ICE said they might not deport people who will be turned over to them under this law. How is this possible? I thought these people took an oath to protect our country from all threats foreign and domestic. How can a federal agency decide to ignore illegals being brought to them? Until this law is either up help or struck down by the Supreme Court, these people have to follow the law. They cannot choose to ignore laws just because they dont like it. I dont know what is going on at the federal level right now, but I rally hate it. While I'm at it, why wont Eric "put them on trial in New York" Holder shut his mouth? Bash the law, but read first you f'ing idiot, its 17 pages, and your the highest attorney in the land. Or are you to busy cheering the Mexican President for telling you our country is nothing but a bunch of racists? Same thing with Obama. No they wont get asked for there papers while walking to get ice cream, are you that stupid you dont know its a secondary offense? God I thought Bush was dim sometimes, but this crap is just unreal.

 

RE: the bold . . . actually they can. In general, the states can't tell federal agents what to do or not do. The federal agencies enforce federal laws and not state laws. Even Fox News agrees.

Fox News legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano said ICE is not obligated to process illegal immigrants referred to them by Arizona authorities.

 

"ICE has the legal discretion to accept or not to accept persons delivered to it by non-federal personnel," Napolitano said. "It also has the discretion to deport or not to deport persons delivered to it by any government agents, even its own."

link

 

You don't have to like it, but it is the law.

[Hingle McCringleberry]

So today ICE said they might not deport people who will be turned over to them under this law. How is this possible? I thought these people took an oath to protect our country from all threats foreign and domestic. How can a federal agency decide to ignore illegals being brought to them? Until this law is either up help or struck down by the Supreme Court, these people have to follow the law. They cannot choose to ignore laws just because they dont like it. I dont know what is going on at the federal level right now, but I rally hate it. While I'm at it, why wont Eric "put them on trial in New York" Holder shut his mouth? Bash the law, but read first you f'ing idiot, its 17 pages, and your the highest attorney in the land. Or are you to busy cheering the Mexican President for telling you our country is nothing but a bunch of racists? Same thing with Obama. No they wont get asked for there papers while walking to get ice cream, are you that stupid you dont know its a secondary offense? God I thought Bush was dim sometimes, but this crap is just unreal.

 

RE: the bold . . . actually they can. In general, the states can't tell federal agents what to do or not do. The federal agencies enforce federal laws and not state laws. Even Fox News agrees.

Fox News legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano said ICE is not obligated to process illegal immigrants referred to them by Arizona authorities.

 

"ICE has the legal discretion to accept or not to accept persons delivered to it by non-federal personnel," Napolitano said. "It also has the discretion to deport or not to deport persons delivered to it by any government agents, even its own."

link

 

You don't have to like it, but it is the law.

 

I know I wasn't clear, it was late. I guess I am saying how can a Federal agency ignore its own laws (in this case Federal immigration law) I understand discretion is every law enforcement officers choice, but to blanket deny processing criminals from a state, where the agency leaders (ICE, homeland security) dont agree with some law, seems wrong to me. What happens if this law is upheld in the Supreme Court? Should ICE ignore it then, just because the current crop of politicians see no real issue with illegal immigration (for the last 20+ years)

[carlfense]

So today ICE said they might not deport people who will be turned over to them under this law. How is this possible? I thought these people took an oath to protect our country from all threats foreign and domestic. How can a federal agency decide to ignore illegals being brought to them? Until this law is either up help or struck down by the Supreme Court, these people have to follow the law. They cannot choose to ignore laws just because they dont like it. I dont know what is going on at the federal level right now, but I rally hate it. While I'm at it, why wont Eric "put them on trial in New York" Holder shut his mouth? Bash the law, but read first you f'ing idiot, its 17 pages, and your the highest attorney in the land. Or are you to busy cheering the Mexican President for telling you our country is nothing but a bunch of racists? Same thing with Obama. No they wont get asked for there papers while walking to get ice cream, are you that stupid you dont know its a secondary offense? God I thought Bush was dim sometimes, but this crap is just unreal.

 

RE: the bold . . . actually they can. In general, the states can't tell federal agents what to do or not do. The federal agencies enforce federal laws and not state laws. Even Fox News agrees.

Fox News legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano said ICE is not obligated to process illegal immigrants referred to them by Arizona authorities.

 

"ICE has the legal discretion to accept or not to accept persons delivered to it by non-federal personnel," Napolitano said. "It also has the discretion to deport or not to deport persons delivered to it by any government agents, even its own."

link

 

You don't have to like it, but it is the law.

 

I know I wasn't clear, it was late. I guess I am saying how can a Federal agency ignore its own laws (in this case Federal immigration law) I understand discretion is every law enforcement officers choice, but to blanket deny processing criminals from a state, where the agency leaders (ICE, homeland security) dont agree with some law, seems wrong to me. What happens if this law is upheld in the Supreme Court? Should ICE ignore it then, just because the current crop of politicians see no real issue with illegal immigration (for the last 20+ years)

If it's upheld by the Supreme Court they will still have legal discretion to accept or not accept the referrals. Should they ignore it? I say no. My problems with this law aren't about it's effects on illegal immigrants. If they are illegal, deport them. My problems with this law are the potential for racial profiling and the requirement of carrying identification papers by people. However, if they are referred to ICE that is because they are here illegally and I wish that ICE would act on the information. I think the fight over this law should be fought in the courts and not in federal agencies.

 

That said, they have the discretion so I guess it will still be up to them.

[rawhide]

ICE=DEA

 

neither will ever get the job done jimho.

 

 

GBR

[sarge87]

So today ICE said they might not deport people who will be turned over to them under this law. How is this possible? I thought these people took an oath to protect our country from all threats foreign and domestic. How can a federal agency decide to ignore illegals being brought to them? Until this law is either up help or struck down by the Supreme Court, these people have to follow the law. They cannot choose to ignore laws just because they dont like it. I dont know what is going on at the federal level right now, but I rally hate it. While I'm at it, why wont Eric "put them on trial in New York" Holder shut his mouth? Bash the law, but read first you f'ing idiot, its 17 pages, and your the highest attorney in the land. Or are you to busy cheering the Mexican President for telling you our country is nothing but a bunch of racists? Same thing with Obama. No they wont get asked for there papers while walking to get ice cream, are you that stupid you dont know its a secondary offense? God I thought Bush was dim sometimes, but this crap is just unreal.

 

RE: the bold . . . actually they can. In general, the states can't tell federal agents what to do or not do. The federal agencies enforce federal laws and not state laws. Even Fox News agrees.

Fox News legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano said ICE is not obligated to process illegal immigrants referred to them by Arizona authorities.

 

"ICE has the legal discretion to accept or not to accept persons delivered to it by non-federal personnel," Napolitano said. "It also has the discretion to deport or not to deport persons delivered to it by any government agents, even its own."

link

 

You don't have to like it, but it is the law.

 

I know I wasn't clear, it was late. I guess I am saying how can a Federal agency ignore its own laws (in this case Federal immigration law) I understand discretion is every law enforcement officers choice, but to blanket deny processing criminals from a state, where the agency leaders (ICE, homeland security) dont agree with some law, seems wrong to me. What happens if this law is upheld in the Supreme Court? Should ICE ignore it then, just because the current crop of politicians see no real issue with illegal immigration (for the last 20+ years)

If it's upheld by the Supreme Court they will still have legal discretion to accept or not accept the referrals. Should they ignore it? I say no. My problems with this law aren't about it's effects on illegal immigrants. If they are illegal, deport them. My problems with this law are the potential for racial profiling and the requirement of carrying identification papers by people. However, if they are referred to ICE that is because they are here illegally and I wish that ICE would act on the information. I think the fight over this law should be fought in the courts and not in federal agencies.

 

That said, they have the discretion so I guess it will still be up to them.

I asked Javier, my next door buddy whose wife just received her citizenship a couple of months ago about this, and he said immigrants up and until they are naturalized are required to carry papers by law already. He spent 7 years and a buttload of cash in legal fees trying to get his wife here from Guatemala.

 

While he hasn't quite gotten a grasp of the rules of college football, he likes to watch the Huskers with us when we have a gameday party. He calls Suh "El Toro Grande y Rojo" - The Big Red Bull.

[Hingle McCringleberry]

I'm not a big Obama fan, but I think this is step in the right direction. I dont know what the legality of this is, but it seems to be a step in the right direction. Link If anything the AZ law has forced the hand of government to do something.

[sarge87]

I'm not a big Obama fan, but I think this is step in the right direction. I dont know what the legality of this is, but it seems to be a step in the right direction. Link If anything the AZ law has forced the hand of government to do something.

It's just a window dressing PR stunt. A 1000 troops will make no difference.

 

Bush sent 6,000 ANG troops four years ago as a stop-gap measure to bide time to get border agents trained. The troops were basically employed as secretaries and glorified Jiffy Lube workers for the ICE motor pool.

[Hingle McCringleberry]

I'm not a big Obama fan, but I think this is step in the right direction. I dont know what the legality of this is, but it seems to be a step in the right direction. Link If anything the AZ law has forced the hand of government to do something.

It's just a window dressing PR stunt. A 1000 troops will make no difference.

 

Bush sent 6,000 ANG troops four years ago as a stop-gap measure to bide time to get border agents trained. The troops were basically employed as secretaries and glorified Jiffy Lube workers for the ICE motor pool.

Thanks for that sarge. I remember W sent some over there, but couldn't figure out how many, and I too thought they pretty much made coffee all day. If there was only some sort of wall type device we could build... hmmmm

[carlfense]

I'm not a big Obama fan, but I think this is step in the right direction. I dont know what the legality of this is, but it seems to be a step in the right direction. Link If anything the AZ law has forced the hand of government to do something.

It's just a window dressing PR stunt. A 1000 troops will make no difference.

 

Bush sent 6,000 ANG troops four years ago as a stop-gap measure to bide time to get border agents trained. The troops were basically employed as secretaries and glorified Jiffy Lube workers for the ICE motor pool.

Thanks for that sarge. I remember W sent some over there, but couldn't figure out how many, and I too thought they pretty much made coffee all day. If there was only some sort of wall type device we could build... hmmmm

Absolutely. I'm all for building a wall/strengthening border patrols. That seems like a no-brainer to me.

[sarge87]

I'm not a big Obama fan, but I think this is step in the right direction. I dont know what the legality of this is, but it seems to be a step in the right direction. Link If anything the AZ law has forced the hand of government to do something.

It's just a window dressing PR stunt. A 1000 troops will make no difference.

 

Bush sent 6,000 ANG troops four years ago as a stop-gap measure to bide time to get border agents trained. The troops were basically employed as secretaries and glorified Jiffy Lube workers for the ICE motor pool.

Thanks for that sarge. I remember W sent some over there, but couldn't figure out how many, and I too thought they pretty much made coffee all day. If there was only some sort of wall type device we could build... hmmmm

Absolutely. I'm all for building a wall/strengthening border patrols. That seems like a no-brainer to me.

You're preaching to the choir.

 

But the problem is that neither Republicans or Democrats on The Hill want to do anything about this. I take that back. Some of the ones who have been vocal about the problem have been branded by the media and other illegal immigrant proponents as racists.

 

Some Republicans would rather take a pass because Agriculture and Business like the cheap labor. Democrats take a pass because they want that 20-60 million strong future voting block after amnesty to keep them in power for generations.

 

I sympathize with illegals wanting better life for themselves and their families but this can't continue to go on unchecked. We are importing a new slavery class with little vocational skills and minute education. How does broadening the poverty class do anything for the US except increasing the demand for government subsidies? Why isn't the US government putting pressure on Mexico to improve conditions for their people instead of letting it's president lecture us about racial profiling in the People's House to a standing ovation by those who I will not mention for the sake of not getting a banhammer lowered?

[carlfense]

I'm not a big Obama fan, but I think this is step in the right direction. I dont know what the legality of this is, but it seems to be a step in the right direction. Link If anything the AZ law has forced the hand of government to do something.

It's just a window dressing PR stunt. A 1000 troops will make no difference.

 

Bush sent 6,000 ANG troops four years ago as a stop-gap measure to bide time to get border agents trained. The troops were basically employed as secretaries and glorified Jiffy Lube workers for the ICE motor pool.

Thanks for that sarge. I remember W sent some over there, but couldn't figure out how many, and I too thought they pretty much made coffee all day. If there was only some sort of wall type device we could build... hmmmm

Absolutely. I'm all for building a wall/strengthening border patrols. That seems like a no-brainer to me.

You're preaching to the choir.

 

But the problem is that neither Republicans or Democrats on The Hill want to do anything about this. I take that back. Some of the ones who have been vocal about the problem have been branded by the media and other illegal immigrant proponents as racists.

 

Some Republicans would rather take a pass because Agriculture and Business like the cheap labor. Democrats take a pass because they want that 20-60 million strong future voting block after amnesty to keep them in power for generations.

I sympathize with illegals wanting better life for themselves and their families but this can't continue to go on unchecked. We are importing a new slavery class with little vocational skills and minute education. How does broadening the poverty class do anything for the US except increasing the demand for government subsidies? Why isn't the US government putting pressure on Mexico to improve conditions for their people instead of letting it's president lecture us about racial profiling in the People's House to a standing ovation by those who I will not mention for the sake of not getting a banhammer lowered?

The bolded isn't entirely true. The hispanic vote has gone more democratic lately because they feel that the democratic party is more sympathetic to their needs/less latent racism than the republican party. (I'm not saying I agree with that.) However, in general, hispanics probably trend more conservative. Mexico, for example, is about 87% Catholic. Those people will have some serious issues with the pro-choice democrats and other traditionally left talking points.