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.
.gif)
To dekeriver, just because you “claim the high gound”, doesn’t mean it is yours. This law is constitutional until a court says otherwise.
People can’t stop discussing the controversial Arizona Immigration Law. America has not been used to the reactionary politics applied by Jan Brewer. But maybe it’s high time to stop the constant abuse of American hospitality?
The American society is splitted into two parts…and evidences of both hold water. People expect Obama to react.
Voice your opinion at immigration.civiltalks.com
“Who cares if they slept late? Try that exceuse with the cops in Mexico or Ireland.”
But this is the United States of America.
I am hoping we do not gauge our actions on their actions….I hope they gauge their actions by what we do.
I still think we lead the world.
A couple of points after reflection and talking to a few lawyer buddies:
As the Arizona law merely refers suspects to federal ICE officials, there is no supremecy issue here on first glance. As you know, states enjoy concurent jusrisdiction with the federal government and the federal government need not issue an order that federal laws be enforced. The assumption is that they will be enforced. The argument that these laws will not be following due process procedures is spurious. Under your thinking, a cop who pulled someone over for a traffic light violation would be out of line to ask for a sobriety test if he smelled alcohol. We both know also that recent changes to the law prohibit racial profiling and that federal immigration law requires that immigrants and visitors carry their papers with them. Who cares if they slept late? Try that exceuse with the cops in Mexico or Ireland.
Either way, some food for thought.
Actually, it is neither a misdemeanor or a felony to enter the country illegally. Therefore, illegal aliens are not criminals by definition.
Once again Benito attempts to compare the struggles of Americans over time that had to fight to right a wrong, blacks, slaves, indians, to the problem of people who would be welcomed here IF they were to come to this country legally, but they are not, they are here illegally which makes them criminals. This country already has laws on the book that tells others how they can come to this country to live and work. There are laws on the books that protects the borders of our country, laws that liberals are willing to ignore. This country and all in welcome legal immigration, this country does not support the current illegal invasion of this country and that is not going to change.
Thanks.
Have a good weekend.
I might still disagree, but at least you have explained your reasoning more clearly. If one does not make the attempt to understand the thinking of those who disagree, there is no hope to persuade or be open minded. Thanks for the response.
You are going to disagree no matter how I try and explain this matter.
But I will try again.
Immigration is not so much a domestic issue, as it is one that relates to foreign policy. As such immigration is a matter for the federal government. States do not make foreign policy, and states do not make immigration policy. Arizona being a state it has limitations on what it can do. Therefore right off the bat there is real problem with Supremacy Clause as Arizona stepped way over its legal boundaries.
As you know the Arizona law mandates that local law officers enforce immigration law, but where does the U.S. government make that an order? Arizona cannot just create this function. Let us not forget that under this law due process procedures are not followed as those same officers detain and transfer illegal immigrants, or those they think are illegal immigrants, who have not followed immigration laws. They will also be picking up those that have followed immigration laws but have no paperwork on them. So then we have that little issue of presumption of innocence!!! And what about those native-American dark skinned people who get caught up in this rotten mess? They will not be able to sue for the loss of their rights based on immunities that police agencies enjoy.
Equal protection is thrown out the door with this law as certain ethnic groups will be asked for documents and paperwork more often than others simply based on the way they look and talk. I strongly suspect that runs afoul of the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution and a court will smack this all down.
Specific to the Privileges and Immunities Clause I would argue that since this law does mandate that police conduct unreasonable and warrantless searches without probable cause it runs counter to the laws in the other states. Just because someone sleeps late and forgets a drivers license must not allow the police to play immigration officer and search her or his car. And this can happen to both American and immigrants who share dark skin and an accent. Since police will not target white people the way they do dark-skinned there is a serious flaw to the law.
I was debating back at the statehouse in 1994 (in friendly terms with my fellow staffers) the California ballot measure at that time which everyone talked about. California also attempted to fashion immigration policy. Then it was about health care and welfare benefits. We know of course that the courts were not friendly to the measure, and the state reversed direction, if memory serves me, without being ordered to. In any case the vast majority of the measure was gutted in the end. I think one can make a very strong case that the Arizona case today is a far bigger constitutional blunder as it deals with the very liberty and possessions of those immigrants, as opposed to the issue of certain program benefits as was at stake in the California case.
This law will be stayed in the near future, and will be found by a court later as unconstitutional.