Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Satire: Compassionately Augmented Boycotts of Arizona Must Succeed

Satire: Compassionately Augmented Boycotts of Arizona Must Succeed

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

There are many "sanctuary cities" in the United States where illegal aliens are welcome. Although Google provides several lists, that information may not be available readily to those most in need of it. This article suggests compassionate ways to fill that lamentable void.

Those so unfortunate as to be forced to cower as common criminals or worse in places where they are unwanted should be encouraged — not forced — but gently offered opportunities to go where they will be given the consideration and respect they clearly deserve. In view of the patently hostile attitude toward them in that wretched cesspool of human rights and compassion ironically named Arizona — after a type of corn grown in Latin America — most illegal aliens would doubtless jump at this opportunity and become respected, proud, productive and law-abiding residents of their new homes elsewhere. It is only fitting and proper that they be afforded that opportunity. Many of them will probably have to go in any event, due to the impact of the various boycotts of things Arizonan by the good folks in the sanctuary cities; boycotts that will most likely increase the exodus to new lands of hope and promise.

If the State of Arizona insists on enforcing its unlawful, regressive, perverted and obviously racist new laws, as the highly respected chief lawyer for the United States and indeed his boss and revered Constitutional Scholar, the President, have told us — after deep thought and study that it is (although there was no need for them to actually read the new law, since the newspapers and television broadcasts told them all they had to know), those detained pending acceptance by the federal government for status determination and possible deportation should be offered an alternative: (1) free one-way bus transportation to the nearest sanctuary city for them and all family members who want to accompany them,  (2) modest grubstakes of five hundred dollars or more per family to help with resettlement — to be delivered in cash upon arrival at the destination — and (3) such other humane relocation assistance as might be needed.

Information on sanctuary cities should also be posted for all to see (without, of course, profiling of any sort to determine where to post the information or in which of the world's multiple languages to post it), with contact information for those willing to help financially and otherwise with the unfortunately necessary transition. These signs should reflect the humanitarian and compassionate nature of the sanctuary cities anxious to receive them. There should be no need for illegal aliens to cower in terror waiting to be arrested while out for innocent family strolls to ice cream parlors in order to avail themselves of these opportunities.

Since most of the residents of sanctuary cities are doubtless charitable and well meaning souls who prize compassion and despise greed, it is reasonable to expect that they would not only welcome this initiative but gladly fund it as well. Clearly, they eagerly await Arizona's tired, her poor, her huddled masses yearning to breathe free. Like Lady Liberty, they sweetly beckon, "Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me; I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" Vile right wing commentaries to the contrary (such as this poorly researched hit piece by Faux News)  are merely obvious attempts to stir the pot of hatred and should be ignored. A boycott of Faux and its enablers should also be considered. Clearly, such paradises as Oakland, California would be delighted to help.

Oakland City Council members voted 7-0 Tuesday to boycott Arizona and Arizona-based businesses, joining a growing movement against the state after it passed a far-reaching anti-illegal immigration law.

As the President of the City Council wisely asked,

How do you know if someone is illegal?… They can't answer that question in Arizona. Is it when someone's in a coffee shop? Is it when they're walking their child to school? Is it when they're standing on the corner waiting for work?

The Oakland boycott, with some exceptions, urges city officials not to enter contracts with or purchase goods from companies with headquarters in Arizona, calls on city staffers to review existing contracts with Arizona companies, and aims to keep city employees from traveling to Arizona on official business.

It has been reported, falsely, that President Obama is ambivalent about the boycott. He is not, as he clearly stated:

"I'm the president of the United States, I don't endorse boycotts or not endorse boycotts…That's something that private citizens can make a decision about."

It is reassuring that there are some few such opportunities remaining, and we should be grateful for each of them as long as we have them.

The president reiterated his disapproval of the Arizona measure, which was signed into law last month and goes into effect in July. It requires immigrants in the state to carry documents verifying their immigration status and requires police officers to question a person about his or her immigration status during a "lawful stop" if there is "reasonable suspicion" that person may be in the country illegally.

Good on Him! Since He disapproves of the new law, all law-abiding people should as well, showing their support for His wise views by the only effective means at their disposal, boycotts.

Prompt implementation of this proposal would produce a win-win-win result. The beleaguered illegal aliens would be helped to achieve the new life for which they risked their old lives, the sanctuary cities would benefit from their presence in numerous ways, including the enhancement of their own self esteem coming from knowledge of good things well done, and the racist jerks in Arizona would have to find other non-problems with which to occupy their copious leisure time, now granted them by the slave-like labor of those whom they so hate. In their diminished leisure time, they would have to find other targets for their blind hatred. True, they might later repent of their racist ways, but by then it would probably be too late to encourage the previously disparaged and poor but then prosperous souls to rejoin them.

Once the Arizona boycotts have been successful, plans should be made to boycott all things fabricated in China, the human rights violations of which are only slightly less egregious than Arizona's. Until China rejects her wicked ways, all things Chinese should be shunned, thus punishing not only China, but her enablers who market Chinese wares to feed their own greed for profit at the expense of their innocent customers, who apparently don't realize the human costs of their purchases.

Powered by

About Dan Miller

  • http://pvtgov.wordpress.com George Staropoli

    H’mmm. That sounds like placing them with “foster” cities until they are old enough to pay their own way. You know, like getting “legalized” so they can pay taxes, insurance, etc. like everybody else. Wouldn’t more people paying more taxes help the economy? Am I misssing something?

  • John

    The Arizona law is in no way “far reaching”, it only gives local police the authority to enforce federal law. There is nothing new. The California Penal Code already contains a nearly identical law. As For the assumption that these people are “law abiding”, if they entered the country illegally, then that very action displays contempt for United States Law. I embrace immigration, LEGAL immigration. Those are the law abiding people that this law does not affect. Illegal aliens are illegal, period. We have every right to defend our borders.

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

    John, re #2

    Please keep in mind that the article is satire. I agree that the law is not “far reaching,” and that most of the criticism of it has been unfounded. Please see my non-satirical article here.

    Dan(Miller)

  • Clavos

    Maybe you should have labeled the article as satire, Dan(Miller).

    Oh wait…

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

    I can?t imagine why anyone would think it satire; the only part of the article intended as satirical was the use of the word satire in the title. Now that I have modestly pointed the way, I am confident that all true defenders of truth, justice, compassion and the American Way will joyfully come through and welcome the teeming masses yearning to be free from the vile racist oppression daily suffered in Arizona. They needed only a little divine guidance from a true believer such as myself in the values they so obviously hold dear to disperse the clouds of confusion and show the way.

    Just as soon as I receive my share of the wealth left to his son by the former King of Nigeria, whom I am helping to get his funds out of the clutches of the base Nigerian government still under control of Bush and Cheney, I plan to donate at least ten percent, a tithe if you will, to the cause. The funds may take some time to get to me because I will have to go personally to Nigeria to help with the good fight. I must confess that I am a bit overwhelmed by the costs of doing so, but with the help of the former King?s son am opening a secret numbered bank account in Somalia to which all right thinking people will be asked to contribute. He has kindly offered his assistance in creating my own Nigerian website so that I can more readily solicit donations.

    Dan(Miller)

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

    My very helpful new Nigerian friend has graciously offered to take most of the burden off me and is himself setting up a new website to solicit contributions to defray the costs of getting his money out of Nigeria. He has asked no more than that I provide the e-mail addresses of everyone I know, so that he can contact them directly and offer them an investment opportunity almost too good to be true. He has assured me that, in addition to sharing his riches with me and with them, he will contribute twenty percent to the cause I have so vigorously urged on behalf of the oppressed victims of racist aggression in Arizona and elsewhere.

    What a guy! I am delighted that my modest article moved him to take these generous steps and that, unlike certain cynics I might name, he took my comments no less seriously than I had intended.