List Of Those Boycotting Arizona Over Unconstitutional Immigration Law
This list continues to grow as more people, organizations, communities, and states find their moral and constitutional footing.
• Oakland, Calif.’s city council decided early this month that it would have nothing to do with Arizona;
• San Francisco’s mayor is set to approve a resolution boycotting businesses headquartered in Arizona.
• The City Council in San Jose, Calif. scheduled a vote on June 8 to decide whether it will join several of its Californian peers in boycotting their neighbor.
• Los Angeles joined many nearby cities in approving a boycott of Arizona this month,
• By a 5-0 vote early this month, West Hollywood became the most glamorous city to approve an Arizona boycott.
• San Diego’s City Council voted to condemn Arizona’s new immigration law.
• Boulder, Colo.’s city manager announced that city employees would not be traveling to Arizona for any official business. The city is planning a vote on a more extensive boycott.
• The Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of Metro Denver announced that it is supporting a boycott of any entity in support of Arizona’s immigration bill.
• The Austin, Texas City Council unanimously approved a resolution ending government travel to Arizona.
• St. Paul, Minn. city employees will no longer travel to Arizona on official business,
• The city council of Boston adopted a resolution calling for the city to end relations with Arizona-based businesses, making it one of the first east coast cities to legalize a boycott of the state.
• The El Paso county commissioners passed a boycott resolution by a 3-2 vote limiting county relations with Arizona businesses.
• Pressure to reverse the law is coming from inside the state of Arizona as well. The Tucson City Council voted to sue the state early this month, alleging that the new immigration law will harm the city’s economy
• Flagstaff also decided not to take Arizona’s new immigration bill lying down; its City Council unanimously voted to take action against the state to prevent the new law from going into effect.
• The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, an organization which aims to promote rights for those in the United States, announced a boycott of Arizona, pledging to hold no conferences in the state as well as promising to pressure its 200 member organizations to do the same.
• The League of United Latin American Citizens said that a broad list of Latino organizations have banded together to coordinate a boycott of Arizona and support legal challenges to the state’s new immigration law.
• The National Council of La Raza declared a boycott of Arizona, stating that it will not hold any events in Arizona and asking its members and affiliates to do the same.
• The Society for Advancement of Chicanos and Native Americans in Science (SACNAS) announced that Phoenix was no longer being considered as a site for its 2012 conference.
• The Seattle-based Glass Art Society decided not to hold its 2011 convention in Tucson, Ariz., depriving the city of 2,500 potential visitors that would have stayed for three days.
• The International Communications Association, National Association of Black Accountants and National Urban League all canceled their planned 2012 conventions in Phoenix.
• The American Educational Research Association voted at its annual meeting in Denver to stop holding meetings in Arizona while the new immigration law is still in effect.
• The historically black Alpha Phi Alpha fraternity moved its 104th annual convention, which was scheduled to take place in Phoenix from July 21 to 25, to Las Vegas, Nev., citing safety concerns for some of its members. The fraternity estimated that moving the convention would deprive the state of up to 10,000 visitors.
• The Republican National Committee passed over Phoenix and instead chose Tampa, Fla. as the location for its 2012 national convention. While officially this decision had nothing to do with Arizona’s new immigration law, one can’t help but speculate that Arizona missed out as Republicans try to avoid any setbacks and negative press as they prepare for this year’s elections.
• Denver’s public school employees are forbidden from taking district-sponsored trips to Arizona.
• In a unanimous vote, the San Diego Unified School District Board condemned Arizona’s controversial immigration law.
• The Huffington Post reported that Arizona’s universities have been hit by the backlash to Arizona’s new immigration law. University of Arizona President Robert Shelton said that some students have told the university that they will be leaving to attend school elsewhere. In addition, Arizona State University revealed that several of its applicants have called to decline admission.
• The girls basketball team at Highland Park High School in Illinois was set to travel to Arizona for a basketball tournament in December 2010 until the school’s district decided to cancel the trip, saying that it could not sent its students to a place where their liberties might be compromised.
• Arizona’s National Basketball Association team, the Phoenix Suns, wore their alternate “Los Suns” jerseys on Cinco de Mayo to “honor our Latino community and the diversity of our league, the state of Arizona, and our nation,” according to the team’s owner.
Based on this comment it is clear you never read the law. NOT AT A SINGLE WORD!
And as such thanks for the humor you supply to this blog.
There is nothing unconstitutional with the Arizona law. All it does is back laws that ate already on the books in this country regarding how people are allowed to entry this country. The people who are not following these laws are criminals. Not a real difficult concept, except for liberals who have no idea how this country acutally works.
Welcome to the Divided States of America.
I never thought I would see the day when the rights and well being of criminals from foreign countries is held in higher regard than that of law abiding U.S. citizens. Shame on you!
Why are so many people opposed to Arizona’s new Senate Bill 1070? For a few reasons the biggest one being they have not read it. Another reason is they don’t live in a state that spends millions on medical and housing for people that do not pay taxes. The bill does not attempt to change existing federal law. If you read it you will realize it is just a lot of legal speak designed to give law enforcement personnel guidelines to enforce existing laws without the fear of retaliation from frivolous legal action.
We have politically corrected ourselves literally into bankruptcy. Try living in another county illegaly see what you get. One has to wonder if the USA had the same immigration laws and inforcment as any other country, would we be in this mess?
You keep saying that: “I firmly stand on the side of those who claim the high ground knowing that the immigration law contradicts federal policy in the area of privileges and immunities, and citizenship and naturalization laws.” This however is a conclusion, not an argument. On what specific point does the law contradict federal policy in the area of privileges and immunities, and citizenship and naturalization laws? Unless you answer this question, your claims about high ground and whatnot are utterly without merit. I suspect you know this, but are unable to present an actual argument with premises and a conclusion.
In reality, I suspect that a large number of violations of federal law are first brought to federal attention by state or local agencies; should states stop enforcing all federal laws, or just the ones you don’t like? Imagine joe officer riding along behind a kidnapping suspect, saying: “Hey, this is a federal crime, so I guess I had better stop pursuit.”
Federal law requires that all immigrants A) pass through customs and ICE agencies, and B) carry proof of their legal status with them.
Being the educated man on the U.S. Constitution that you are, you will understand the reaction of most when you write “we need to find our own solutions”. We view it as a joke and just snicker. There is no ability for a state to just go its own way on a policy that runs counter to the construction of the powers and duties as outlined in the document that teabaggers claim to know so much about.
As always thanks for the attempt at humor when commenting.
Wow that is a who’s who of liberalism.but as liberals threaten a boycott they won’t follow through with, remember the Beck boycott, anyway while the libs play games 17 more states are looking at enacting something along the lined of what Arizona did. Americans are tired of the open borders and with dc part of the problem we need to find our own solutions.
You state…..”Arizona has not been shown to have done anything un Constitutional or illegal”
That is NOT correct.
To that I reply…….
http://dekerivers.wordpress.com/2010/04/29/why-does-arizona-immigration-law-make-me-angry/
To pretend that this law is constitutional is utterly nonsense. It is not, and I will outline why below. Those who rant about the ‘treason’ in government, and blame all the ills on President Obama, are the same ones now pressing this law as some natural right for a state to take when they have a policy dispute with the federal government. They have it all wrong! Those who profess to have a copy of the United States Constitution in their back pocket at all times so to follow along with the readings on the Glenn Beck Show, might read it sometime without the case of beer.
Under our constitution, Article One clearly makes citizenship and naturalization a congressional matter. There is no debate about this matter. NONE. Furthermore there is no ambiguity in the placement of matters of citizenship and immigration policy in Article One making this a federal matter. There just is no room to argue the matter. In addition, the federal nature of immigration matters is dealt with in the Fourteenth Amendment, which means that no state can retract privileges and immunities, or rights that are dealt with under the federal government. The Fourteenth Amendment federalizes these matters, and again there is no argument to be made by the other side.
There are those who will still argue the police are doing their sworn duties under the Arizona law, but I firmly stand on the side of those who claim the high ground knowing that the immigration law contradicts federal policy in the area of privileges and immunities, and citizenship and naturalization laws.
Maybe 70% of the American People back the law but hey, Castro doesn’t back the law and favors the boycott.
The people most likely to be hurt by such ill-considered efforts are low-wage construction, service and maintenance workers — groups which contain significant numbers of undocumented aliens.
There is something almost painfully ironic in the snooty attempts by wealthy liberals to “punish” Arizona — for what? Challenging the federal government to enforce its own laws? So, in effect, taking away the jobs of the very illegals for whom they purport to feel such deep compassion.
It is easy to understand why there is little understanding of our nations right to sovereign borders and our present immigration laws. Blowhards in office of other states try to coerce Arizona to follow their ideas for governing. They have no jurisdiction over Arizona but want to run that state as if they did. This is a total lack of respect for the American system of government. Arizona has not been shown to have done anything un Constitutional or illegal. But the Federal government has by not enforcing present immigration laws and abrogating their Constitutional duties. And then they have the nerve to start a war of words and propaganda against a state of the United STATES!!!!
I hope that every American, regardless of where he lives, will stop and examine his conscience about this and other related incidents. This Nation was founded by men of many nations and backgrounds. It was founded on the principle that all men are created equal, and that the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened. All of us ought to have the right to be treated as he would wish to be treated, as one would wish his children to be treated, but this is not the case.
I know the proponents of this law say that the majority approves of this law, but the majority is not always right. Would women or non-whites have the vote if we listen to the majority of the day, would the non-whites have equal rights (and equal access to churches, housing, restaurants, hotels, retail stores, schools, colleges and yes water fountains) if we listen to the majority of the day? We all know the answer, a resounding, NO!
Today we are committed to a worldwide struggle to promote and protect the rights of all who wish to be free. In a time of domestic crisis men of good will and generosity should be able to unite regardless of party or politics and do what is right, not what is just popular with the majority. Some men comprehend discrimination by never have experiencing it in their lives, but the majority will only understand after it happens to them.