Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Austin Councilmembers Propose Boycott of Arizona Over Immigration Law

Austin Councilmembers Propose Boycott of Arizona Over Immigration Law

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Tomorrow the Austin City Council is going to spend part of their weekly meeting discussing a city boycott of the state of Arizona over the passage of the Immigration; Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Bill (SB1070) which mandates “cooperative enforcement” of federal immigration laws by Arizona law enforcement when the federal government fails to enforce those laws.

This boycott is the brainchild of Mayor Lee Leffingwell, Mayor Pro Tem Mike Martinez, and council member Bill Spelman, announced in a strongly worded press release two weeks ago. It would include cutting off ties with Arizona businesses and prohibiting travel by city employees to Arizona because of what Martinez calls an “uncertain and potentially hostile environment.”

These political clowns are sitting in the safety of their beautiful new city hall, more than a thousand miles from Arizona and worrying about problems which are none of their business while ignoring the responsibilities of the offices they were elected to. The city currently faces a $28 million budget shortfall and is going through a controversial reorganization of Capital Metro and has all the usual problems like traffic congestion, crime, and homelessness. These are the kinds of things they ought to be focusing their attention on.

Instead they choose to engage in meaningless political grandstanding based on fundamental ignorance about the situation in Arizona. If city employees might be in danger in Arizona it would be because of the lack of border enforcement, not because of this new law. This bill passed because the situation in Arizona is out of control. Illegal immigrants, coyotes, and drug dealers have made the border into a war zone where “drug trains” accompanied by paramilitary forces in pickup trucks and armed with machine guns accompany drugs and illegals over the border and kill anyone who gets in their way, including illegals who refuse to act as human shields or become inconvenient once they are no longer needed to carry drugs.

Martinez talks about the city’s "vehement opposition to racial discrimination in any form" — a non-issue with racial profiling explicitly prohibited in the new Arizona law. Perhaps he should be more concerned about the cost in lives and safety to American citizens and Mexican migrants on a border where lawlessness rules and violence is out of control and where the bodies of murdered immigrants are found by roadsides and on ranches on a daily basis. Perhaps the city council should take one of their frequent taxpayer funded junkets and go to Arizona and see first hand how law and order have broken down there. Perhaps they could stand at the border and welcome the narcotraficantes with open arms as they come across. It's not like the city of Austin where the illegals have jobs and keep their heads down and there are more problems with traffic jams than drug trafficking.

There is a special irony in their desire to boycott companies from Arizona, considering that the city’s own accountants, Deloitte and Touche, are a division of Deloitte, LLP which is an Arizona based company. What would the city government do without accountants to keep track of all the money they waste on idiotic light rail projects and building bike lanes to serve 20 people? Deloitte also supplies many of the overpaid consultants the city government relies on to provide expensive reports justifying ludicrous policy decisions like this one. It’s hard to imagine the city functioning without accountants and consultants, though such a change in policy might save the taxpayers a great deal of money.

The failure of the federal government to bring the borders under control spurred the Arizona legislature to take action and assume responsibility for the welfare of the people of their state. It is a very real problem which threatens the lives of citizens and migrants alike and it should be taken seriously. The new Arizona law is a desperate response to protect their citizens and their borders, an example of government taking responsibility where no one else will.

It is unfortunate that Austin’s leaders, so far removed from any real danger, don't have the same sense of responsibility. It is an embarrassment to the city that they think that a boycott based on ignorance and political opportunism will do anything but make them look foolish. They should spend less time worrying about what's going on in Arizona and more time fulfilling the real responsibilities of the offices they were elected to.

Powered by

About Dave Nalle

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Once again, Dave apparently supports the conservative mindset that “the end justifies the means”. It wouldn’t be the first time that a country (completely at the behest of a significant portion of the dominant race) implemented a “papers, please” policy.

    Dave, you will not stop illegal immigration by punishing the illegal aliens. You will minimize illegal immigration by:

    1 – legalizing drugs on this side of the border;

    2 – stopping the illegal flow of firearms from America to Mexico at a rate of 2,000 guns per day according to a December article by Newsweek (gee – now WHY would gun manufacturers and dealers and their astroturf organization the NRA oppose taking real steps towards stopping such a flow?);

    3 – punishing the employers who hire illegals; and

    4 – actually trying to HELP Mexico to become a stable nation.

    And here is a fact about mass psychology that might help you: as long as things are significantly worse there than here, they WILL come here – and even a nationwide “papers, please” policy will not change that fact. Why? Because here they face jail (where they are fed, clothed, and housed) and deportation. There, they and their families face the very real danger of becoming direct or collateral casualties in the drug war.

    So you’re a Mexican, Dave – you and your family live somewhere in Mexico, and you KNOW that you and your family are in very real danger of being kidnapped/raped/tortured/killed. You know that you’re not welcome in America, that they’re always asking for your citizenship papers.

    So you can either stay in Mexico and risk kidnap/rape/torture/murder for yourself and your family…or you can go to America where the police, at least, will only throw you in jail and deport you…if they catch you.

    What do you, the man responsible for the lives of your wife and children, do?

    Dave, I know that conservatives aren’t real big on walking a mile in someone else’s moccasins – it’s called “empathy”, and we all found out what the Republicans think of empathy in the Sotomajor hearings last year. But just this once, just tell me what you – you’re a Mexican trying to protect your family – are going to do to keep your family alive.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Glenn, you’re reading a hell of a lot into this article that isn’t there. Where did I say anything about punishing illegals. As you ought to already know my positions on immigration are not at all as you characterize them to be.

    But the fact remains that the situation in Arizona is untennable, the federal government is doing nothing to address it and so Arizona taking action is a positive development, even if not ideal.

    Of course, from your last comment it’s clear that you didn’t even read the article. I stressed repeatedly that one of the main reasons we need to bring this situation under control is that it is putting so many MEXICANS at risk. Maybe you should try walking a mile in their shoes – or running with a pickup full of armed drug runners behind you.

    Dave

  • Cannonshop

    Well, having read the article, it would seem to me that the Austin City Council’s decision is good for both Arizona, and Austin-Arizona may, after all, retaliate to such a thing, and be justified in doing so, and Austin gets rid of their Excuse-makers, which may just force the city council to actually provide GOOD government…

  • Cannonshop

    Of course, my solution would be to make a list of cities that want to boycott the state, and start issuing bus-tickets to illegal offenders (that is, criminals whom are ALSO illegal immigrants), this ticket would be one-way, and I’d suggest giving them a basic kit to practice their trade with, and maybe fifty bucks cash.

    San Francisco and Austin (among others) can then welcome their chosen brothers (and sisters) with the open arms they clearly expect the people of Arizona to display.

    A win for everyone.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Dave –

    I did read the article. I admit that I should have read it more carefully in that I honestly didn’t see the sentence where you touched on the plight of some of the illegals, and for that, I apologize for my ‘empathy’ rant.

    That said, the Arizona law does punish the illegals…and will have little real effect in curbing the problem. The four steps I enumerated above would have far more success in minimizing illegal immigration…and if you don’t see a real problem with 2000 guns being illegally sent over the border every single day to feed their drug war that is financed by our national drug addiction.

    Arizona’s law is an attempt to fix the symptom, but does not in any way attempt to address the actual causes of those symptoms. Unfortunately for the Republicans, the Arizona law has reflected quite poorly on them in the view of many…particularly among those in the normally-conservative Hispanic community. It didn’t help that the Arizona Republican governor just signed into law bills requiring that no one with a strong accent could teach English, and that courses teaching ethnic history could not be a part of the state-funded curricula. This last one about the ethnic history courses is much like swatting a fly with a sledgehammer, because while there were some among the La Raza crowd who were going a bit too far into racist anti-white (or at least anti-American) rhetoric, the vast majority, I think you’ll find, were simply teaching history and culture as it should be taught.

    What’s more, if the immigration law had been passed with no accompanying controversial racially-charged laws, then it might stand the scrutiny of the public view over time. However, the concurrent outlawing not only of English teachers with strong accents but also ethnic history/culture courses places the “papers, please” immigration law into an obviously racist context.

    There were quite a few prominent Republicans who denounced these laws…but there were many who supported them, too – which is how these laws got passed in the first place. Among the Hispanic community, though, most will forget the Republicans who denounced the laws, and remember that it was in large measure the Republicans who brought these laws into being.

    I think both you and I will be closely watching the demographics of the vote this coming November.

  • Debbie Arnett

    Glenn, at least 42 states in the U.S. require that someone carries identification(oh I mean papers)–should all these states be boycotted as well? Does hurting the businesses/people/economy of Arizona going to change their bill? We all carry state I.D’s or drivers licenses, people here legally are issued what used to be called green cards–which were to be kept current and carried as I.D- How has the Arizona bill changed that? The City of Irving has contacted ICE on individuals arrested for years and our crime rate has gone down for years—-Why can’t Arizona do the same?

  • John Wilson

    SB1070 may be judged unconstitutional (there are legitimate grounds, including Bill Of Attainder) which raises a tough issue for police officers and police chiefs: should they enforce the law?

    If they enforce the law and it is later ruled unconstitutional then they may be subject to civil and/or criminal prosecution, and arrests and convictions may be invalidated.

    To protect themselves some may choose to NOT enforce the law, pending constitutional resolution.

    Far fetched? Not at all. This is exactly the reason used by George W. Bush to refuse, in 700 signing statements, to observe laws passed by congress.

  • http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/author/danmiller/ Dan(Miller)

    There may well be constitutional attacks on SB1070, but bill of attainder does not seem a fruitful basis for such an attack. SB1070 makes no legislative finding of guilt as to any individual or group. It does establish criminal penalties for violation of U.S. immigration laws, but that does not constitute a legislative finding that any individual or group is guilty; that’s for the courts to decide.

    Perhaps an argument might be made that the federal government has preempted the field, but since the federal government has been rather derelict in enforcement, that would be difficult to pursue.

    The legislation was amended soon after passage to clarify the circumstances when law enforcement officials can inquire into immigration status, and to eliminate any profiling based on race, color or national origin.

    Dan(Miller)

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/christine-lakatos/ Christine

    Well, well, it looks like they are doing it here in California too.
    Los Angeles approves Arizona business boycott

    The Los Angeles City Council overwhelmingly approved a boycott of Arizona-based businesses and governments Wednesday unless the state repeals a new law giving police the power to question a detainee’s immigration status.

    Several other California cities, including San Francisco and Oakland, have already adopted resolutions requesting city departments to not sign any new contracts with Arizona companies.

  • http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/author/danmiller/ Dan(Miller)

    This is sad:

    Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., who has been critical of Arizona’s new immigration law, said Thursday he hasn’t yet read the law and is going by what he’s read in newspapers or seen on television.
    Mr. Holder is conducting a review of the law, at President Obama’s request, to see if the federal government should challenge it in court. He said he expects he will read the law by the time his staff briefs him on their conclusions.

    “I’ve just expressed concerns on the basis of what I’ve heard about the law. But I’m not in a position to say at this point, not having read the law, not having had the chance to interact with people are doing the review, exactly what my position is,” Mr. Holder told the House Judiciary Committee.

    He did say that he expects the Justice and Homeland Security departments will finish their review of the Arizona law soon.

    The Arizona law was enacted more than two weeks ago, and unfounded criticisms by President Obama, General Holder and others in positions of responsibility have caused unhappiness with Arizona and the United States in general throughout Latin America and elsewhere.

    Would it be expecting too much of the Attorney General at least to read the relatively short Arizona statute before criticizing it publicly?

    Dan(Miller)

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Debbie –

    You said that 42 states now require some form of ID…but how many of those 42 states allow – nay, REQUIRE – police to stop someone and ask them for proof of citizenship if the policeman or -woman in question has reason to suspect the person is not a citizen?

    Note that the law does not say “probable cause” to question the person, but “probable suspicion – and that is a huge distinction. THAT is what should alarm everyone…particularly those who claim to be libertarian.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    ‘scuse me – it’s “reasonable suspicion“, not “probable suspicion”.

  • Jennifer Benz

    Actually, Arizona is making a big mistake. Most of the workforce comes from illegal aliens. Not only that but the immigrants take jobs no one else is willing to do. The economic state of Arizona will become awful. They should think about what they do before they act for who they take as an enemy can be their friend. By deporting them, they could be cutting their lifeline. Congress has been opposing self guided immigrant laws so why accept this one. Obama still has a promise to keep, he has to push for an immigration reform.

  • http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/author/danmiller/ Dan(Miller)

    I am shocked but not surprised at Attorney General Holder’s testimony cited in comment #10. Evidently, Aim, Fire, Ready! has become the norm and therefore unworthy of notice.

    Dan(Miller)

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    “Shocked but not surprised,” DM?

    I would have thought that the first necessarily subsumes the other.

  • http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/author/danmiller/ Dan(Miller)

    re #16 — no, it is quite possible to be shocked but not surprised. For example, and quite unrelated to the present thread, I suspect that even after the atrocities of the Nazi genocide at its concentration camps became well known, people were still shocked as they learned more about them even though they had become too jaded to be surprised.

    Dan(Miller)

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    If you mean by that that a state of shock insulates, then I agree.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Well, having read the article, it would seem to me that the Austin City Council’s decision is good for both Arizona, and Austin-Arizona may, after all, retaliate to such a thing, and be justified in doing so, and Austin gets rid of their Excuse-makers, which may just force the city council to actually provide GOOD government…

    Cannon, you’re living in a dream world. Nothing could make the Austin government competent.

    They passed the resolution unanimously yesterday. The good part is that I got interviewed for the local TV station several times. The less good part is that I got to meet some of the councilmembers and realized what total asshats they are.

    And BTW, at the same time this was all going on, Hudspeth county which is on the border out near El Paso passed a resolution supporting Arizona. You see, out there they actually know what’s going on at the border and understand how out of control things are, unlike the people in Austin who are eating their fairycake and dancing in the rainbows.

    Now Glenn…

    I did read the article. I admit that I should have read it more carefully in that I honestly didn’t see the sentence where you touched on the plight of some of the illegals, and for that, I apologize for my ‘empathy’ rant.

    It’s one of my main concerns. Last month the found 17 dead bodies on one border ranch, all young illegals killed by drug traffickers.

    That said, the Arizona law does punish the illegals…and will have little real effect in curbing the problem. The four steps I enumerated above would have far more success in minimizing illegal immigration…and if you don’t see a real problem with 2000 guns being illegally sent over the border every single day to feed their drug war that is financed by our national drug addiction.

    Oh, I agree that ending the drug was is a key element to solving the problem. And I think the border needs to be secured in both directions. But we are not going to be able to implement things like a guest worker program which are the real long-term solution unless we can end the lawlessness and death which have taken over certain border regions.

    Arizona’s law is an attempt to fix the symptom, but does not in any way attempt to address the actual causes of those symptoms. Unfortunately for the Republicans, the Arizona law has reflected quite poorly on them in the view of many…

    A WSJ poll shows that nationwide 64% approve of the Arizona law. A Pew poll puts that number at 73%. Interestingly, although Hispanic advocates and the Austin City council are claiming that Pew shows high numbers of hispanics opposing the Arizona bill, Pew has not actually conducted such a poll. The assumption is based on past Pew polling on marginally related subjects.

    The real point of the law is to remind everyone that our federal border policy is broken and/or nonexistant. If it pressures the feds nto doing their job and the congress into legislating solutions, then it has done what it was meant to do.

    articularly among those in the normally-conservative Hispanic community.

    In my personal experience Hispanics born in America are among those people most hostile to illegal immigration.

    What’s more, if the immigration law had been passed with no accompanying controversial racially-charged laws, then it might stand the scrutiny of the public view over time. However, the concurrent outlawing not only of English teachers with strong accents but also ethnic history/culture courses places the “papers, please” immigration law into an obviously racist context.

    I’ve seen zero coverage of these other two laws in the media and they certainly didn’t come up over this resolution here in Austin.

    Dave

  • Cannonshop

    #19 I was just articulating hopes, dave, and being firmly tongue-in-cheek about the idea that it might improve Austin’s governance-nothing short of complete replacement/overhaul could do that, and such simply is not going to happen.

  • http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/author/danmiller/ Dan(Miller)

    Arizona’s law is an attempt to fix the symptom, but does not in any way attempt to address the actual causes of those symptoms.

    How in the Holy names of Zeus, Thor and Athena Almighty could a single state even hope to address the actual causes. The best Arizona can hope to do is to address the symptoms, when the Federal Government declines to address either the causes or the symptoms.

    And, as noted in previous comments, it is apparent that the Attorney General of the United States and his boss, the President, even as of yesterday were relying on media accounts concerning the Arizona statute rather than bothering even to read it.

    Dan(Miller)

  • martin lav

    This is not a war on drugs or race.

    This is a war on Catholics.

    WASP’s have been waging this since the Irish and Italians first came over in waves.

    But to no avail, it’s already over. Our own Supreme Court is loaded with Catholics and it would appear to me that the Protestant Principles that this country was founded upon are kaput.

    The US colony will turn into the socialist failed state of every other Catholic Colony around the world.

    It’s over boys….

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    What are the causes, Dan Miller? And whatever they are or were, weren’t they operative for quite some time now, the last four administrations at least? And how do fix it all of a sudden after years of inattention and willful neglect?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    A hell of a take, Martin, you’re a genius.

    Let’s here one more hurray for protestant ethics and the spirit of capitalism.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    “. . . and such simply is not going to happen.” (#20)

    But why should it happen? Austin’s City Counsel is just as much an expression of the Austin constituency as is the State of Arizona an expression of its own plurality.

  • http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/author/danmiller/ Dan(Miller)

    Roger, #23

    I don’t know — probably poverty in Mexico and elsewhere in Latin America combined with relative affluence in the United States, drugs coming to the United States via Mexico, border wars in Mexico and other Latin American countries (including Panama) spilling over into border states, drug demand in the United States, silly and poorly unenforced drug laws in the United States, disparate burdens placed on the infrastructures of border states, apathy in those states which don’t border on Mexico, general unwillingness to generate unjustified allegations of racism by enforcing existing federal laws or passing new laws, idiotic statements by folks like Attorney General Holder and his boss President Obama who are more interested in playing a crisis than in trying to deal with it, idiotic statements on all sides of the isle . . . .

    Of course the problem has been simmering for years, through multiple administrations. I am aware of the biblical admonition against those who are also guilty of sin casting stones. That admonition does not suggest that they should not all try to find viable solutions to eliminate the throwing of stones.

    That’s a start, but right now the perceived problem seems to be the draconian and racist attempt by Arizona to deal with the symptoms, asserted by those who haven’t yet bothered to read the new Arizona law.

    Dan(Miller)

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I think if the law was couched more in terms of drug-smuggling rather than the “mere” illegals issue, it would have been smoother sailing. Understandably, though, there is such a popular sentiment against the Federal government in some quarters, that one can almost believe the law was drafted to express that very sentiment.

    As to the administration’s irresponsible statements concerning the constitutionality and the intent of the stature, especially since it’s not a two-thousand page monstrosity but a mere twelve pager, it only testifies to its arrogance.

  • http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/author/danmiller/ Dan(Miller)

    Food for thought.

    Dan(Miller)

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    But why should it happen? Austin’s City Counsel is just as much an expression of the Austin constituency as is the State of Arizona an expression of its own plurality.

    Actually, because of their at-large electoral system which has been declared unconstitutional in other states, Austin’s city council does not really represent the whole Austin constituency. The entire council is elected by basically 3 neighborhoods of middle and upper class, highly educated and very left-leaning white people who turn out to vote in large numbers. All ethnic minorities are closed out except for a token hispanic seat for which they pick the whitest and most liberal hispanic they can find. If they had single member districts the council would be more diverse and far less likely to engage in the zombielike groupthink which produces decisions like this.

    Dave

  • http://jetspolitics.blogspot.com// Jet Gardner

    Dave, according to Bill Maher, Arizona’s legislature is considering passage of a bill that would allow beans to only be fried once.

    Hmmmmm

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    There you go, Jet. Obviously, it’s a result of liberal Hispanics who are tired of being finger-pointed by the Anglos. They want to join and become part of a lily-white community.

  • http://jetspolitics.blogspot.com// Jet Gardner

    …Oh …and this relates to refried beans how? and what’s with the anglos and lily whites? What’s next niggers and spics… maybe even fags?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Exactly.

    Refried beans is low life. The white-aspiring Hispanics are up-scaling.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I’m surprised you haven’t caught up on Bill Maher’s joke.

    What else could be the point?

  • Ruvy

    I honestly don’t understand what all this whining is about. If I want to withdraw money from the bank, or do any transaction here, I have to pull out my teudát zehút, my ID, and which is also proof of citizenship. It is supposed to be on my person at all times (except the Sabbath, if I’m an observant Jew) and failure to produce it upon request by a cop is a violation that at minimum is a NIS 44 fine.

  • http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/author/danmiller/ Dan(Miller)

    Ruvy,

    I suspect they don’t have much else to whine about. There are, of course, many things.

    Here in Panama, when driving I need my carnet, showing that I am a legal resident, and a Panamanian drivers’ license. I also need proof of insurance and a copy of a booklet with the various laws about driving. There are frequent police road-blocks, to check on those very things. No big deal. I am a guest here, at the sufferance of Panama.

    Please see my Comment #4 here.

    Dan(Miller)

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Yes, Dan –

    But Panama doesn’t have a national tradition of being a melting pot of the world, does it? The Arizona law – as I pointed out in the other topic using what you posted – quite literally endorses racial profiling.

    Which is more important? Minimizing the illegal immigration that is greatly exacerbated by the Mexican drug war caused by OUR drug habit and fueled by 2000 guns per day being illegally taken across the border from America to Mexico? Or preserving our national tradition and heritage?

    As President Obama stated, this law is misguided. It’s trying to put a truly ugly band-aid on a weeping sore…and it does NOTHING to solve the problems which are causing that sore.

  • Zedd

    Dan Miller,

    Maybe you can help with this. Only federal law inforcement individuals can arrest people who break federal crimes?

    So if someone tampers with my mail, I cant call my local police? I have to call the FBI or some other federal law inforcement body in order to file a complaint?

    Im confused. Why cant the local government criminalize being an illegal aliens unless they pass a law?

  • http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/author/danmiller/ Dan(Miller)

    Zedd,

    Arizona has done so. Please read the statute, as amended, here.

    Also, please be mindful that under the statute,

    Any person who is arrested [for some non-immigration related offense] shall have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is released. The person’s immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States code section 1373(c).

    Also, as the linked statute provides,

    This section shall be implemented in a manner consistent with federal laws regulating immigration, protecting the civil rights of all persons and respecting the privileges and immunities of United States citizens.

    I suspect, but don’t know, that Arizona felt that since the federal government has done little to enforce its own laws, it was necessary for the state to enforce them. If the federal government declined to enforce its anti-discrimination laws, and a state were to take it upon itself to fill the void, would there be a problem?

    Dan(Miller)

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    But Panama doesn’t have a national tradition of being a melting pot of the world, does it?

    Actually, Glenn, it rather does.

  • Zedd

    Dan Miller,

    I’m aware of Arizonas decision.

    I was asking the question because I am wondering if it was necessary. Can the local government inforce federal laws?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Doc –

    Good point. I tried to disprove it, and I can’t.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Dan –

    If the federal government declined to enforce its anti-discrimination laws, and a state were to take it upon itself to fill the void, would there be a problem?

    There IS a problem when said law legalizes racial profiling…which is made obvious in the section that you posted.

  • Cannonshop

    #40 If said local government wants their share of the federal funding pie, they are OFTEN obligated to do that very thing-(usually termed “Unfunded Mandates” in mediaspeak.)

    For instance, if the state in question has no “Civil Rights” legislation, it IS required that they enforce the 1968 Civil Rights Act (just as a handy example, with lots of precedent behind it… there have been several states that didn’t have their own civil rights statutes until the 1980’s. CRA64 still applied in those states.)

    Main thing I see, is that the Arizona law steps on the rice-bowl of the Federal INS bureaucracy-whom, like other federal Law enforcement Agencies, have used state and local personnel as supplemental in cases.)

    The other portion of course, being that the law embarasses the Federal Government by underscoring it’s refusal, in many cases, to actually enforce Federal Laws regarding immigration and border control for the last few decades, and the State Department’s seeming inability to pick up a pnone when they know someone’s Visa has expired and they’re still here.

    (Not all illegals come across the border at night-some of them come in on a temp visa and then just..don’t leave.)

  • http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/author/danmiller/ Dan(Miller)

    Glen, re Comment #42 — please see my Comment #14 on Dave’s Arizona law thread. In a word, you are mistaken.

    Dan(Miller)

  • Capt. Blogh

    As President Obama stated, this law is misguided.

    How would he know? He hasn’t read it…

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Dan –

    I already read your comment – and did the requisite mea culpa and groveled as necessary.

    As I’ve noted before, crow doesn’t taste so bad if one uses Tabasco – LOTS of Tabasco….

  • Zedd

    The question then becomes…. Has racial profiling (the spirit behind the act) ever been legal?

    If it hasn’t, we would have to assume that making it illegal wont prevent those that would profile from doing so. Most people that perform racist acts don’t know that they are doing it. They are typically highly ethnocentric and simply assume (because of a lack of exposure) that their world view is the right view, and end up offending others to the extent of limiting their quality of life.

  • Cannonshop

    #47 Zedd, your assumption as to the intent of the law reveals more about your character, than about the ‘spirit’ or intent of the law in question-in particular, a tendency to rush immediately to line up with others whom have also NOT READ THE DAMN LAW.

    (Hell, Holder admitted to not reading it before he promised to attack it-admitted TO the press, IN a press conference. geez…apparently his law degree came on audiotape or something…)

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Cannon, no one who has an opinion on this law seems to have read it, including the Austin City Council.

    Dave

  • Cannonshop

    #49 Why am I not surprised?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Dave and C-Shop –

    If we’re to be castigated for not reading the bill – which DID legalize racial profiling before the word “solely” was deleted before the governor signed it – then you’ve got, what, ONE example of the left wing buying into the hyperbole of a few pundits? As always – and as you never, ever seem to get – it’s a matter of degree.

    Birthers (believed by over a quarter of all Republicans).
    Tenthers.
    Global-warming deniers.
    “Death panels”.
    “Pals around with terrorists!”
    “Obama’s a Muslim!”
    “ACORN’s committing voter/election fraud!” (completely false, but Republicans were committing both)

    and let’s not forget:

    “Obama’s deliberately harming America’s economy so he can cement his power!” (that’s a paraphrase of YOUR article, Dave).

    That one was right up there with Ruvy’s continual rants that Obama’s joining hand-in-hand with the anti-Israel Jews to destroy Israel.

    This is not limited to one side or the other – for example, there’s the left-wing 9/11 “truthers”, the modern-day equivalent of those who claim FDR had advance knowledge of the attack on Pearl Harbor. BUT the silliness lay strongly more with the right than the left.

    The sad thing is, both of you will ignore the lies and hypocrisy promulgated by the most powerful people on the conservative side, as long as they will support your beliefs. You could say this is a domestic version of “he’s an SOB, but he’s our SOB!” That’s how you wound up with pundits Limbaugh and Beck being the two most powerful people in all the conservative movement, and your most powerful source of news being Fox News, despite the literal hundreds of inaccuracies, distortions, and outright lies by Fox that are listed on mediamatters.org. No other major source of news (including MSNBC) even comes close to the number of instances of lack of journalistic integrity that Fox has…yet which source of news is often the only one the conservatives listen to? Fox News…the American version of Pravda.

    It’s as if you’re okay with their lies and hypocrisy…as long as it supports your side. You might try to claim otherwise, but I’ll stick by that statement until I see you pillory them for their proven lies and hypocrisy as strongly as you castigate Obama et al for what you want to believe are lies and hypocrisy.

  • Cannonshop

    Y’know, Glenn, the flaw in your argument is thus:

    1. I don’t watch Fox News. I’ll watch C-span, CNBC for business news, and read the newspapers (fully cognizant of their bias), but the comings-and-goings of celebrities in and out of rehab, or the douchebag behaviours of rich athletic figures are simply un-interesting to me.

    2. I stopped listening to Limbaugh several years ago-more than a decade, come to think of it-he stopped being funny, and largely stopped being relevant.

    3. Because I don’t watch Fox, I don’t watch Beck. (IIRC, isn’t “Mad Money” on CNBC on the same time-slot? were I on first shift and not at work, I’d probably watch that instead…)

    The hours that I work, and the hours I’m awake, don’t afford me the opportunity to absorb the strident, entry-level talking-head shows. (though I do occasionally drop by PJTV because some of their videos are funny and well produced.)

    In other words, Glenn, quit beating the goddamned straw-man. You couldnt’ be bothered to read a twelve-page law, your heroic LEADERS (who graduated from schools like Harvard) couldn’t either-and they’re supposed to be Lawyers Glenn-people who have to pass a Bar exam where they demonstrate that they can both READ and COMPREHEND laws considerably more complicated than the Arizona Statute under discussion here.

    It’s fair, Glenn, to judge a man based on the standards of his trade, and if he demonstrates shoddy work, to consider his advice regarding that trade to be suspect at best.

    Eric Holder is not just a Lawyer, he’s THE top Lawyer in the United States-the ‘alpha dog’ lawyer, the Attorney Fucking General of the United States-he’s supposed to be skilled at reading and comprehending legal documents, he is supposed to hae the JUDGEMENT to determine whether legal action is warranted (as a PROSECUTING ATTORNEY). He openly admitted to not-knowing-the-facts, but pursuing prosecution anyway, Glenn.

    It’s not like winning a teleprompter-reading contest, or looking good on the telly, Glenn-this is supposed to be a man who is an expert in his field, making a mistake a first-year law student wouldn’t make, and doing so not in private or by memorandum, but in the middle of a PRESS CONFERENCE surrounded by friendly, adoring fans (a zero-pressure situation).

    Now, you want to keep harping on media-airhead pundits, go right at it-the only people who think Limbaugh or Beck are “Powerful” are Limbaugh, Beck, and their legions of Left-wing listeners who use it to stoke their sense of righteous indignation. Those two are irrelevant to the discussion, Glenn. The actions of the Austin City Council, Arizona Legislature, and Attorney General of the United States are not.

  • Clavos

    Great post, C-man!

  • Glenn Contrarian

    C-shop –

    That’s how you wound up with pundits Limbaugh and Beck being the two most powerful people in all the conservative movement, and your most powerful source of news being Fox News

    Look at the first phrase. Who are – repeat, ARE – the two most powerful people in all the conservative movement? Limbaugh (certainly), and Beck (though this is not quite so certain). I didn’t say that YOU personally listen to Limbaugh or Beck, did I? No I did not. Keep your ‘strawman’ accusation to yourself.

    Furthermore, if you don’t think they ARE the most powerful people in the conservative movement (well, maybe not Beck – instead, Hannity), then name even ONE politician who could dare to stand up to Limbaugh and call him out…and have any hope of reelection. Even Boehner couldn’t do that. Michael Steele tried…and quickly had to apologize. That, sir, is POWER…and you cannot deny it.

    The following phrase – “your most powerful news source” – okay, I’ll take a hit on that in that it points to you personally…but you CANNOT deny that Fox News is the most powerful source of news for the conservative movement as a whole…despite the hundreds of inaccuracies, distortions, and outright lies that channel has foisted on its watchers.

    Here’s something from CBS News: “By a wide margin, Americans consider Rush Limbaugh the nation’s most influential conservative voice. Those are the results of a poll conducted by “60 Minutes” and Vanity Fair magazine and issued Sunday. The radio host was picked by 26 percent of those who responded, followed by Fox News Channel’s Glenn Beck at 11 percent. Actual politicians – former Vice President Dick Cheney and former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin – were the choice of 10 percent each.”

    But maybe you think “60 Minutes” is a liberal shill, so…

    Here’s a nonscientific poll conducted among right-wing bloggers by rightwingnews.com The most influential conservatives were (in order) Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malking, Sean Hannity…and way down at #6 came the first politician, Newt Gingrich.

    Then there’s usconservatives.com, who said that Rush was NOT their #1 pick for top ten conservatives of the decade – he was only #8. Their #1 pick? Glenn Beck, who placed ahead of Huckabee, Palin, Dubya, Cheney, Romney, et al.

    Now every year the UK newspaper Telegraph puts out a list of the most powerful conservatives. This year they also did not pick Limbaugh for #1 – that was reserved for none other than Dick Cheney. Limbaugh was ‘only’ #2.

    And conservativematters.com calls Limbaugh the most powerful man in all of media.

    So…C-shop – what you yourself think DOES NOT MATTER. What DOES matter is that in the eyes of the conservative movement as a whole, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck are two of the most powerful conservatives (if not THE two most powerful conservatives) in America. In every list of the most powerful conservatives, pundits rank among – and often ABOVE – that of presidential candidates, ranking senators and representatives, and even an ex-president.

    Conversely, the same CANNOT be said of the Dems. NONE of our pundits rank among the ten most powerful liberals! The ONLY non-politician in the top ten on the Telegraphs list is…Oprah Winfrey at #7 – and her show isn’t even about politics!

    This should concern you, you know – for all practical purposes, pundits are ruling the Republican party…whereas it’s the people who are actually doing the work of government who are the most powerful in the Democratic government. Too bad you can’t vote your pundits out of office….

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I have to agree with Cannon, Glenn. Beck, Hannity, et al, aren’t really powerful. You might say they exercise considerable influence, but only because there really is a power vacuum in today’s politics – no real movers and shakers on either side of the aisle. (And yes, I’d include our president among the bunch.)

    So yes, attacking these figureheads is really attacking a strawman, and if we do so we merely sink to that very level. There are real issues that ought to be discussed, as Cannon says, and in a new and innovative way. Otherwise, we’re reduced to mere spouting the talking points.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    On a point of order, do we know for sure that President Obama hadn’t read the Arizona law before commenting on it?

  • theguyfromplt

    Has anyone looked into what happens to a WHITE GUY that sneaks into MEXICO illegally?? Give me a break – the law, a FEDERAL law I might add, is not being enforced to the letter. If we are going to overlook the rule of law and circumvent the proper amendment process to change said law, why bother paying taxes? Why bother having car insurance? Why not just rob a bank and beat up old ladies?? Where does it end? There is absolutely no wording in the law that specifically targets Mexicans crossing the border – it applies to all races, colors and creeds crossing the border into our country without coming through the front door. It can be equated to the old addage that only honest people give up their guns – the criminals still do what they want regardless of the law. People with respect for the law come in through the authorized ports of entry – and when one fails to UTILIZE the legal ports of entry, they are in VIOLATION of the LAW. Case closed. Arrest Mexicans coming in here illegally, arrest Muslims and Chinese and Canadians and any other nationality of people that come in here illegally. I see nothing wrong with this law whatsoever and I challenge anyone to point out to me any specific line WRITTEN in the Arizona Law that specifically says “Go get them damned Mexicans”. You can’t because it isn’t there. So, enough of twisting the intentions of this law – people are dying on the border. Perhaps it will take a multitude of states passing similar legislation (which will inevitably drive the illegals CRIMINALS further north into states that don’t live with this problem everyday until they see with their own blind eyes that this law is just, and serves the purpose of defending our nation. Maybe when the idiots in D.C. are flooded with a bunch of on-the-run illegal criminals they will be finally forced to DO something about it. Amnesty is for douchenozzles…

  • Cannonshop

    #56 Don’t know about the President, but the Attorney General basically outright stated he hadn’t read the law when he was announcing that his justice dept. would be going after it.

  • TexasMan

    Glen wrote:

    So you can either stay in Mexico and risk kidnap/rape/torture/murder for yourself and your family…or you can go to America where the police, at least, will only throw you in jail and deport you…if they catch you.

    What do you, the man responsible for the lives of your wife and children, do?

    The answer, Glen, is for that responsible man to GO HOME to Mexico and fight for his freedom and rights. Responsible men and women fought (and continue to fight) here in America for freedom and rights.

    Why the hell should someone from Mexico have rights and freedsoms that they are not willing to fight for?

    Your compassion is touching, your analysis very lacking…

  • Cannonshop

    #59 I can see Glenn’s position, though-and you’re right, it’s more of a “Feeling” than a “Thinking” position.

    But…

    The problem, is that Responsible mexican citizens are like their law-abiding brethren in Europe-they’re unarmed, but unlike Europe, the criminals are violent, and very well armed.

    This was true even in Pancho Villa’s day. The peasant in Mexico has nothing to fight WITH, but more than that, the ones with the will to fight, generally end up joining the Government, or the Gangs. (Kind of like certain U.S. cities, only without the freedom of movement, really…people can, after all, leave Chicago or Detroit.)

    Really reading how the law is structured, they’ve got to have some OTHER reason to check the i.d.-basically our hypothetical non-US citizen has to be doing something illegal, or doing something that generates a probable cause to be stopped (one that is valid under, among other things, Civil Rights Act of ’64 or Miranda).

    I still think Arizona’s sending them to the wrong place-they should be giving them thirty days in the slam, and a one-way ticket to San Fransisco, Berkeley California, or Austin instead-fill those ‘sanctuaries’ up, and let the folks who’re “Feeling” like Glenn take care of these folks on THEIR dime. (then again, I wanted them to empty GitMo in those places too…give the compassion cases to the compassionate and all that…)

  • texasgirl1958

    I think the word “illegal” is all that needs to be considered. Anything else is an argument concerning what laws should be enforced and what laws shouldn’t. In my opinion (and the opinion of the law-makers) ALL LAWS should be followed and obeyed! Otherwise, they’re not laws, just suggestions. Texas is considering boycotting Arizona because they’re enforcing the law? That makes absolutely NO SENSE!

  • http://www.RoseDigitalMarketing.com Christopher Rose

    Without wishing to be impolite, texasgirl, that attitude is just silly.

    There are many, many laws that are completely pointless and idiotic. For example, here is a list of stupid laws in Texas.

    There are far too many laws in the world and we’d all be healthier and wealthier if a lot of them were repealed…