Hey, there! Log in / Register
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
I hope this passes. I sent
I hope this passes. I sent like 10 angry emails last week.
Isn't that nice and petty?
Isn't that nice and petty? The City Council is going to punish private companies with no connection to the Arizona Legislature. I guess we should stop all business with companies based in California too over the whole gay marriage thing. I'm sure we don't need to be investing or doing business with any tech companies.
It's not like there is a recession or high unemployment or anything really economically disasterous going on right now. I mean with the massive budget surplus, all the new libraries opening, the firefighters agreeing to a pay cut, the new mounted police and park ranger units, Filenes topping off, the Greeyway flourishing, it isn't like there are important things to take care of first.
I've seen the argument that
I've seen the argument that "a boycott will hurt people just trying to make a living". Well, the polls show that 70% of Arizonans support the law, so its fair to punish them.
"More important things to take care of"? I'm going to go ahead and rank civil liberties above a mounted park ranger budget, but that's just me.
You're forgetting it's a two
You're forgetting it's a two way street. How many Arizona based companies employ people in Massachusetts?
In this economy do you really want to play personal politics with people's very private jobs? How is it in the spirit of civil liberties to threaten people's jobs if they disagree with you?
Free speech, auuuuugh!
We as citizens are not beholden to any company's product or service. Conservative groups already boycott Pepsi for its support of LGBT groups and causes, and it's well within their right to do so. By boycotting Arizona companies, you're sending pressure up the line. That company may not buy into Arizona's strategy, but they can get their state to listen if they threaten to withdraw. That may cost Arizonans jobs, but it may bring jobs to Massachusetts or some other state. Again, civil liberties cover the action, not the consequence. You can hold protests, but be prepared to possibly do some jail time. You can hold rallies on the Common, but be prepared for counter demonstration. You can choose to live in a state where election-year politics dictates a person's right to live and travel freely -- just be prepared for some of the rest of us not to buy what you're selling.
I agree with you actually.
I agree with you actually, Haviland. I'm sure we can both agree that what Arizona is doing is wrong, but we can also both realize that this boycott would completely "punish" the wrong people. It's misguided and petty, as you've noted. There's really no better way to put it.
Petty?
Denial of revenue is about a serious a response as a consumer can make. Actions have consequences, and a boycott is the consequence of denying non-white Arizonans their basic rights as Americans.
I cannot believe how ignorant
I cannot believe how ignorant people are. Arizona has a sovereign right to pass the law and since it mirrors the federal law, it is legal. What about the federal law? Are we supposed to just ignore it? No wonder this country is turning socialist. Oh well, YOU JUST CAN'T FIX STUPID.
Maybe you can't
But I'll try fixing your stupid anyways...for fear it might spread to others.
Arizona has no sovereign right to impinge on law that the federal government already declares its own jurisdiction. That's straight from the Bill of Rights. You should read up on it. Try #10:
The Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate naturalization (Article I, Section 8) and the Supreme Court has defined that to include immigration (Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88 [1976]), so immigration issues are a power delegated to the US by the Constitution, therefore the States have no right to impinge on the federal jurisdiction on the issue. So, your initial premise is just flat wrong.
If you have a problem with the implementation of the federal law, then take it up with your federal government. In the meantime, hopefully your stupid is a little more fixed (and a little less Fox) than it was when you came in here.
Question for you folks
Remind me why enforcing a Federal law by local police is a bad thing again, without using the words bigotted, racist and profile?
A few random notes:
-If you are a resident alien and do not carry your green card at all times, you can face censure, even deportation. That's a federal law folks, and yes, it happens right here in MA.
-Other countries, such as Japan, require foreign nationals who are not tourists carry their papers at all times. They are subject to inspection by an authority figure at any time (such as police) and can result in deportation.
-Yes, Arizona does not celebrate MLK day. Last time I checked, this didn't make them a state full of racists
So why are people all upset about this again? Oh wait, we're supposed to be outraged with liberal guilt for being born white? How about people like my wife who came here legally to work and we met while she was on an H1-B.... - yes yes, we can talk about police states, how only brown people will be asked to show their ID cards, whatever...lets hope they don't make it a law to close your purse if a black person stands behind you in line, all the old women in Newton and Brookline will be accused of being racist!
Time for people to grow up a little bit. It is the same argument about cameras in public spaces - people who have nothing to hide, have nothing to complain about.
As the son of immigrants (people who came here legally in the 50s) I am personally outraged and offended at the 'this country was built on immigrants coming for a better life' reasoning, because I doubt 10 Mexicans crammed into an apartment in Tucson working as dishwashers for 14 hours a day is the American dream. Hey lets put illegals on reservations, then they can open up a casino like Foxwoods and make wada of cash!!
If you think I am just a ranting nut, you can think that all you like. We can cry for people suffering all over the world, whilst the childten of citizens here in Boston go hungry, yet we ship food off to Haiti? Does this seem wrong to anyone else but me, or has white liberal guilt crippled the region like a boil water order?
I am not afraid to say the emporer has no clothes. As the saying goes "We fenced our neighbors yard with the bones of our own." may make a poetic sentiment and let people romanticize about how the USA should be, but sadly, facing failing economy, failing infrastructure, sometimes your social conscience needs to take a back seat.
Usually I hate it when city
Usually I hate it when city government wastes time passing anti-nuclear resolutions and such nonsense. No one cares what Cambridge or Boston thinks about that stuff. This time, however, I think that our city government can make a difference by taking a stand on this outrage and boycotting Arizona conventions and business ties.
Whit
"Remind me why enforcing a
"Remind me why enforcing a Federal law by local police is a bad thing again, without using the words bigotted, racist and profile?'
Where in federal law, or in american history has the police had the power to stop someone, anyone, and ask for proof of legal status and then detain said person until someone can bring proof? And yes, Ive read the law. Ive also read the amended law, which is actually worse, as it allows police to knock on peoples doors and ask for papers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSzxjd3B8Ik#t=01m06s
'-If you are a resident alien and do not carry your green card at all times, you can face censure, even deportation. That's a federal law folks, and yes, it happens right here in MA."
But if you're a citizen you dont. And while resident aliens supposedly have to carry the green card, that has never been enforced. Most tourists dont walk around with their passport.
"-Other countries, such as Japan..."
And Yemen lets you marry 9 year olds. And gay sex can resuly in the death penalty in 15 countries. That makes it ok right? America, always the lowesr denominator!
You must have skipped this part
FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).
I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but it's my understanding the minute an official "randomly" stops a person on the street or walks up and knocks on a door without reasonable suspicion - that is an unlawful contact, fruit of the poison tree etc., etc..
Why all the hubbub - let the Supremes make the decision and we can live by it like every other law. The city has more pressing issues to deal with - like libraries, schools, police, fire department. Last time I checked the councilors were getting paid 87 large for their "oversight" of a city they've helped drive over a fiscal cliff. City councilors are generally not the people I'd trust with interpreting the Constitution.
1) You're actually quoting
1) You're actually quoting the OLD law, the governor actually signed a second law a few days later that made changes. The reason for the change was that "lawful contact" actually means ANYTHING. Cop asks you the time, that's lawful contact. Cop is directing traffic and says stop, that's lawful contact. In other owrds, anything short of breaking into your house without a warrant is lawful contact. So yeah, I'm glad you're not a lawyer.
2) The changed law actually removes this and replaces it with something that says the contact has to include being detained (because it's so vague, so far so good)....but adds a clause saying that a cop can ask for papers after enforcing a local or housing ordinance. So they made a bad law worse, because now a cop can knock on your door, cite you for breaking an ordinance, and ask for papers. Here's the thing about local and housing ordinance.....everyone breaks one, because there are so many. Put out your garbage cans more than 12 inches from the curb? Parked your car to close to your own driveway? Is your car parked on a hill, but the wheels arent turned the right way? Is your porch light too bright? Did you leave a bike on the front lawn? Etc etc etc.
On top of this, the law says that people can sue if the polcie isnt working hard to find people. So if racist nancy calls the cops on her brown neighbors, and the cops dont come and ask for papers....she can file a lawsuit.
Once again, the complaint is about a law that violates the constitutional rights of american citizens, legal residents and tourists, not just illegals (who are given protection as well, under the constitution).
Then the courts will decide
You wrote
Once again, the complaint is about a law that violates the constitutional rights of american citizens, legal residents and tourists, not just illegals (who are given protection as well, under the constitution).
I'm guessing some pretty competent people wrote whatever the final language is. Apparently it's already in the courts and somehow rapidly working its way to the top - the supremes will settle it quickly - I'm not a judge and I'm guessing you aren't either.
In any case the last people i would deem competent to make this decision are city councilors and they have more important things to worry about as far as their job goes without the political grandstanding.
Apparently a good portion of the brain trust opposing this is urging a boycott of Arizona Iced Tea...BORN, BRED AND BASED IN NY!!
Let the legal process run its course.
Wrong again, Stevil
Apparently a good portion of the brain trust opposing this is urging a boycott of Arizona Iced Tea...BORN, BRED AND BASED IN NY!!
Funny - the only thing I had heard about that was DO NOT BOYCOTT ARIZONA ICED TEA - on even the most radical of websites. But don't let what people are ACTUALLY saying get in your way.
Of course, messing with the facts for propaganda purposes is your reason for being - you're a wingnut! Don't trouble you with the facts, you have a crusade to run and a fantasy world to maintain!
Once again - you are the one that is wrong
I read this on a major news site (I think cnbc.com or cnn.com) but it's on any number of websites including here on CBS News
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20003680-50...
Unless of course you believe cbs news is part of the vast right wing conspiracy
You're a functional illiterate
If you actually read the CBS piece or the Daily News piece it referenced, you would know that only random Tweets called for a boycott of Arizona Iced Tea (likely from RNC plants or Breitbart)and that no members of Congress called for any such boycott of Arizona Iced Tea.
Wow, so you have the credibility of a bad forwarded e-mail or a governor who responds "all of them" when asked what newspaper she reads. Keep collecting that troll toll to get into that boy's ho... I mean, boy's soul.
Read on, MacDuff
You'll find that the reference in the story you cite is to: (drum roll)
The New York Daily News. Which is definitely part of the vast right-wing conspiracy (it's a Murdoch joint).
And for yet more fun, check out the source of the Daily News' staff writer... Twitter. Yup, tweets from random people. Which make a Daily News story. Which gets repeated in more reputable press. What happened to that good portion of the brain trust?
You can't backpedal fast enough to get away from this doozy.
Raises a question
Does Stevil feel the need to stop at red lights while he's backpedaling from this one?
When did Murdoch buy the Daily News?
can you link to a story about this event? I missed it entirely.
It's not
He's confusing the Daily News with the NY Post. I'm not even sure what right/left wing conspiracies have to do with this anyways.
Bottom line is that the "vast whatever brain trust" boils down to a half dozen Twitter idiots who called for an Arizona Iced Tea boycott...which the Daily News ran with and everyone else is using to characterize some greater portion of the population than ever even thought about it as a valid boycott. This is the "Science Cures Cancer!" type of article that gets out of hand in about 2 passes of the telephone message...while some poor scientist is sitting in his lab with a minor result that *might* one day be part of the bigger solution to help cure a single cancer type wondering where all the hubbub came from. Welcome to your modern day "mainstream" media.
Backpedal this
you are confusing the News with the Post. Hey I'm just quoting what was obviously a national story picked up by the national news and crediting the news without reference to the source being a random tweet. Apparently the tweets were alive with calls for encouraging the boycott - thus the brain trust (which accompanies the brain trust at the other generally more liberal media outlets that repeated it). If this were the Tea Party you'd be out here saying the same thing about them.
The company felt threatened enough to put out a press release denying all rumors of Arizonan origin.
I've lived long term in two countries - I don't recall needing to carry any resident alien ID in singapore. In Japan I was required to hold a card with my fingerprint for presentation on demand at any time by interested government officials - and according to one report from a writer/columnist at the Detroit news I read that's the law here too. This is not an onerous law and if it's unconstitutional the Supremes will have their say. The main point being - the city council shouldn't be wasting their time grandstanding on national or international issues.
See ya - off to Cold Stone Creamery to support Arizona businesses. After that I'll be buying a new set of Ping Golf clubs.
Wrong tabloid, right idiocy
A handful of tweets by random idiots = left-wing brain trust. If that really works for you, then you're just not interested in reality or news or anything of the sort, you're just sort of pleasing yourself in an echo chamber. The tweets were alive? Is this really what you consider significant and important? If so, then you are an active participant in the stultification of America. Congrats. Open your arms wide to the stupid. The stupid is your friend. So go love yourself up some Arizona potato chips or golf clubs or adult diapers or what have you. Smoke some Arizona meth, put on some pink panties, buy an Arizona-made meskin-shooter, whatever makes you feel more touchy-feelie with Joe Arpaio and his ilk. And if you go to Arizona, be sure to bring your birth certificate with you at all times. The crackers down in Arizona were already arresting American citizens for not carrying their birth certificates even before the law was passed. But I guess you think that guy deserved it for talking funny, right? He's not a real American citizen like you are, right?
Hey, quick, Steve. Where's your birth certificate? Not in your pocket? To jail with you.
Thanks, guys
I didn't have time to run this down - nice work. Typical right-wing "my fantasy MUST be the reality" arguments from Stevil there.
BTW, MA used to have a different birth certificate format for each city or town. Be sure you take the official one - the certified birth record type that you need to get a passport that looks like the one that Obama released - with you or its going to be declared a fake because it won't have the right info on it. BWAHAHAHA!
crackers?
So now you are making racist comments against white people? Those "crackers down in Arizona" weren't local officials operating under the new law - according to the article they were Federal ICE officials working under standard procedure of well established federal law (however, I will agree with you that this appears to be the kind of overreaching that should NOT be tolerated and if that's SOP they need to rethink their procedure - granted you should need to show proof of citizenship to get a US CDL if that's not universally required anyway).
Let's put the anecdotal news reports aside and get back to the main point -
a) do you think that this is a valid thing for Ross to be spending his time on (let's forget little things like most of his district has no elementary or middle school, no community center, has residents moving out due to property tax increases and the city at large is raising taxes and slashing services - but let's focus on boycotting investments in Cold Stone Creamery?!). Should Utah boycott Fidelity and Liberty Mutual because we have gay marriage in Mass? Do you think it would make a hoot of difference to any of us if they did?
b) Who are any of us to make a determination as to the Constitutionality of the law - that's what we have courts for.
What are your opinions on A and B above. That goes for Swrrly, Kaz and J too.
Who are we?
Educated citizens of the US, that's who.
Do you really believe we should just sit back and do whatever and put up with whatever we are told to do? Gee, with that attitude, I'm surprised you didn't work for Coakley's campaign!
That "we can't say anything because we ain't elected officials/judges/etc." is bizarre to me. Where did you learn that - in the sheep pen?
I have to say that the colonists in this area would have had a good name for someone like you, someone who thought unrestricted and unpoliced authority that was not responsive to citizen discussion was such an excellent idea as you do: Tory.
You can say whatever you want - but please answer the question
b) Who are any of us to make a determination as to the Constitutionality of the law - that's what we have courts for.
I don't care what your opinion is - yours is as irrelevant as mine when it comes to the question of constitutionality unless you are a judge or a constitutional law expert - I'm not.
More importantly and to the point of the post I want to know why my city councilor is wasting his time on such stupidity as boycotting businesses in Arizona (like they will give a damn). This is the epitome of fiddling while Rome burns.
But clearly part of the
But clearly part of the social contract is consent of the governed. The courts should not be entirely guided by this premise, but it still matters. We do not need to consider ourselves some illiterate rabble just because the courts haven't rendered an opinion. Suppose instead of debating Arizona investment, Ross and Turner instead proposed a law making it illegal to wear flip flops in Boston. Would you say, "the courts will figure this out," and leave it at that? Or would you declaim their effort to restrict speech?
OK, pal
You want to tee it up? I'll knock it out.
First off, any self respecting Southerner can tell you that unless someone's calling you a "white cracker," cracker alone isn't a pejorative. It's the equivalent of the Irish "lad" or, in certain circumstances, the South Asian "baba." Consider that straw man torched.
A) A city councilor should spend his time on whatever his or her constituency deems fit. In this case, it's boycotting goods and services from a state whose laws unfairly target not only people of a certain background or pigment, but American citizens of that background and pigment. This may come as a shock to you, but city councilors often have to handle more than one item at a time. Considering how little time and effort this will take to address, if I were his constituent, I'd be all for it. I'd be surprised if people didn't boycott Massachusetts for its gay rights stance, but that's within their right to do so. However, considering this move grants rights instead of limiting them, both progressives and libertarians are aboard -- unlike with the Arizona example.
B) Who are we? We're U.S. citizens. We have as much right to study and interpret the constitution as anyone in the judiciary and it is our arguments that shape civil rights law in this country. Civil rights aren't up for popular vote, but they're certainly something to be legislated. Who do you think is the impetus for that legislation? Hint, not the courts.
Go skim another article, dilettante.
Wow.
You're aware that coffee is available in the city now? Trying to be generous here.
I've been called a cracker a bunch of times.
And it wasn't from some Southern Redneck either.
But there are a lot of hispanic cops in the southwest that are going to be enforcing these laws.
i'm from NY
and if you call the wrong guy a cracker (white or otherwise) you're going to be counting your teeth as you pick them up off the ground. Try it some time - hope you have a good dentist.
When councilor Ross solves all the problems confronting his district - he can spend all the time he wants on his Quixotic quests in Arizona (haven't heard any of my neighbors even mention the word Arizona - much less this law). He can't afford to divest from Arizona or any other place we can get a good return on our money - he and his colleagues have driven the city's finances off a cliff over the past 10 years. In the meantime my friends would like some schools they could send their kids to so they can stay in the city because they can't afford $20k plus per kid for private schools. it's not a matter of time - it's a matter of priorities (and if he has time to waste on this crap he needs more work or we need fewer councilors).
You keep studying and interpreting Mssr. Cracker Dillettante - when you get a JD and a few decades of experience and the title Your Honor or better still Justice, I'll value your opinion on constitutional law and civil rights. Until then your opinion is no more valuable than mine (and in this case my opinion is simply that the people of AZ can make any laws they want - as long as they are constitutional which will get sorted out in the courts - we don't need to start these kinds of battle among the states every time someone gets their unqualified opinionated nose bent out of joint - that's a lose-lose).
I realize "anon" is probably
I realize "anon" is probably a conserva-troll, but here's the reason:
It has nothing to do with immigrants, actually.
The primary concern is this: law-abiding citizens of the United States will be searched for papers, and held guilty without proof if they do not carry them.
Even if you hate the Constitution like most conservatives, you should be able to at least understand this argument.
This has nothing to do with
This has nothing to do with liberal guilt. For many people, it is libertarian outrage at the way citizens are being treated. It's just part of a wider symptom of the government invading our ability to function as citizens without documentation. Why do I have to show id to ride from Providence to Boston on Amtrak, but I don't have to show id when riding MBCR? Does it really make riding Amtrak safer? Or is it just a way for Amtrak to try to harass citizens who don't have driver's licenses, thus giving them the need to take the train?
The other half of it is the question of what constitutes "reasonable suspicion" in regards to immigration status as described in the law? I've yet to see a good example. With many crimes, there is evidence in the area. A traffic stop might lead to arrest for many things, but what in a traffic stop would tell police you are an illegal alien? Not having one of the 4 forms of id should not constitute reasonable suspicion. If I'm the driver, they're more than welcome to take me in for operating without a license, but if I'm a passenger, I see no circumstances where that is appropriate where they cannot currently just call ICE.
Lastly, most of the justification I see people pointing to for the law involve cases where anyone would be arrested? People point to http://www.abc15.com/content/news/centralsoutherna... , but if I'm in a section of desert where people are actively in a gun battle with police, should a driver's license be my "get out of jail free" card before the deputy can identify the shooters? Immigration status should not be a standby arrest for suspicion of other crimes. If you have reasonable suspicion for other crimes, arrest them for those.
reasonable suspicion
It will be a case by case basis, but usually these things get worked out by the courts. Probably if you get pulled over by a police officer, don't have a US license but have a vehicle registered in the US, and you have a passport but no licence from your home country and don't speak English might give you reasonable suspicion that you aren't a US citizen. That happens a lot on vehicle stops here in MA anyway (usually people from Brazil).
Ice does not have the time or resources to deal with your average illegal alien here in MA. Even those who get arrested for semi-serious crimes (larceny, drug possession, domestic abuse).
Illigal immigration is not a big problem here in MA though, and I like the fact that illegal aliens do not fear being deported for minor motor vehicle infractions (ok, I guess not having a US license is a minor problem if they could never drive in their own country). But it would be more of a problem if these guys simply led the police on high speed chases or used fake or fradulent information.
Id have to say thousands of illegal aliens get arrested for not having a license in MA every year.
awesome post
As you said get ready to be denounced as a racist. My daughter will keep pounding the pavement looking for a job this summer, many of which are taken by the illegals.
What kind of job is she looking for?
Picking strawberries? Working in a meat-packing plant? If your daughter has to worry about her job being taken by someone who traveled here in a hidden compartment, I think her job prospects probably weren't so hot to begin with.
Which jobs would those be
The backbreaking and body wrecking jobs in factories? Does she have the sewing skills to pull that off? No? What about the backbreaking house cleaning and landscaping jobs? You really want her doing that kind of work when getting a paycheck means "playing nice with the boss"? Or what about painting nails 10 hours a day so her family will let her share her room with four other people and eat now and again?
Because those are the kind of jobs illegal immigrants get.
Maybe you are being short sighted
First, this person's daughter may very well be competing for what you would consider a low level job, and there is nothing wrong with that. As the old saying goes - its honest work. Second, there is a valid argument to be made that if illegal imigrants weren't doing these jobs for a non-living wage then legal residents or citizens would have the opportunity to compete for them at living wages. To be sure, this would cause some jobs to leave the country entirely (absent a tarrif) and would likely increase the cost of goods or services that could not be sent oversees. As such, we would all probably end up paying more for them or using less of them. However, it might well result in more available jobs for legal residents or citizens. We have done much in this country to send jobs oversees, or have them performed at less than a living wage, simply in the interest of making things cheaper (or some would argue for national security reasons in the case of the WTO). While we have succeeded in making consumer goods and services cheaper we have also made it more difficult for people "at the bottom of the ladder" to obtain the jobs that they would need to enjoy those goods and services. The cheap goods are cold comfort for unemploument. The bottom line is that the jobs you are talking about are "bad" because we have made them financially unrewarding in comparison to the hardship of the job. They aren't "bad" inherently.
Maybe You Have Never Picked Strawberries
I've worked alongside migrant workers and very low income in my teen years, picking produce and raking filberts. These are not *good* jobs. Before the migrants, they fell to younger and more marginalized members of the non-migrant community. For my parents, school ended for the year when the strawberries were ripe, because any kid of school age went into the fields to work. The migrants came in greater numbers once my state banned anybody under the age of 13 from the fields - are we going to wax nostagic for the days of child labor now?
The people who do these jobs do them because they have little or no other choice, and they pay with their health if they have to do them for too long, like my mother and father have. At least I had an opportunity to get an education so now I can sit on my arse and whine about my knees that are wearing out far too early in my life (due, in part, to this sort of work).
"Or what about painting nails"
Spoken like a true trust fund liberal who assumes no one but illegals do those jobs. It such a ridiculous comment. If you don't think these illegals take jobs away from kids such as landscaping, housecleaning etc. then there's no sense in arguing. I have a friend who was in the landscaping business but refused to hire illegals. You know go down to the Home Depot parking lot and pick their favorite slave labor? He couldn't compete and is now unemployed himself. But hey you got new landscaping out of it at 1/2 price right? What would you silver-spooners do w/o your slaves?
Landscaping! Har Har Har
Have you seen landscapers around here? They're companies Sully and his brother took over from Dad. Nobody's kicking kids out of those jobs, believe me. Your "friend," it seems, didn't know how to run an efficient business. Maybe he should have reconsidered his model.
You are talking to the wrong person
I grew up in a trailer doofus. I probably know a hell of a lot more about poverty first hand than you would ever learn from Faux News, poverty being a form of reality and all. I also know about shitty jobs, and not just from auditing them for worker safety courses but from actually doing them. Unlike Wealthy Republicans Who Won't Be Named, I don't have a landscaping service staffed with undocumented persons because my kids mow the damn lawn. The person I do employ on occasion is now the city tree warden - she and her husband and their sons do the work.
Part of the reason that immigrants do shitty jobs is because their employers are lazy about things like taxes, payroll requirements, wage and hour laws, and fundamental safety requirements. You really want your kids to have those kinds of jobs? I sure as hell don't. They also tend to do jobs where there is a whiff of indenture - not something you do for eight weeks on school break.
"I grew up in a trailer"
well 'nuff said lol.
Umm, saw this already
It's a conservative meme that's already made the rounds through Facebook and forwarded e-mails. The names of the states and municipalities have been changed to protect the stupid. Nice try, troll.
Troll toll... what you say?! ... troll toll... hey, hey, hey!
The real problem
As with any law, you have to determine whether its benefit is worth the risk. The risk here, which I don't think you see, is that a U.S. citizen will be lawfully stopped by police and, because of the way they look or talk, will be required to produce some form of ID or face punishment or detention. That scenario is one that I think most American's would find abhorent.
I strongly agree that the Federal government should be doing something to stop illegal imigration (such as punishing employers who hire them) and that, based on the frustration of Arizona voters, the Federal government appears to have been lax in its duties in Arizona. That said, Americans generally do not expect to have to justify our citizenship to our government by presenting papers when stopped by police officers. That risk outweighs the potential benefit of catching illegal imigrants.
As for the Boston City counsel, I actually agree that I would prefer they spend their time addressing local brick and mortar issues rather than national idological ones.
Arizona...
Well, Arizona DOES celebrate MLK day. The last state to give in was New Hampshire. Google is our friend. The 'make-or break' on this law will be the enforcement. If the cops start harassing citizens out of the blue there will be a backlash in a hurry. It's meant to get a handle on a crime problem that is spiraling out of control. F'rinstance, when's the last time you heard of a kidnapping for money (IE, not custodial related)? Any primary contact where the police usually ID a person is the trigger.
Oh, check out some local AZ blogs and stuff. They seem a bit more pragmatic (read conservative crazy troll if you wish, but you will be wrong) and debate the law more intelligently than our City Council.
I'm surprised they don't ban Arizona Iced Tea...
Keep that Arizona Iced Tea bit going
Nice to see a good redirection play during NHL playoff time. The Bruins would be proud.
Travel Advisory
In my work organization, we have been instructed to avoid and minimize travel to AZ. This includes native born US citizens like myself. Everybody here is legal, but not everybody speaks without a "foreign" accent, and we do have people who are immigrants - although they are generally citizens too.
The upshot of it is that you can be harassed for papers at any time, so you need to carry your passport. Just like East Germany of yore. That goes double if you are mediterranean, or some other sort of "not exactly white".
They're not missing much
Phoenix and Flagstaff are miserable towns, Lake Havasu is just another Redneck Riviera (I'll take London's Tower Bridge over Arizona's London Bridge any time) and Monument Valley is just a pale facsimilie of better geographic features elsewhere in the West. If they do make the trip, have them read up on the Phoenix Indian School. It'll give them some idea of who they'll be dealing with.
If I were a US citizen with an accent....
Id love to go to Arizona and see what happens. Seems like a civil rights lawsuit all the way if police aren't doing things the right way.
Like Cheech Marin?
Cheech stretched this song into a fairly crappy full length movie.
A "Born in the USA" parody and preview of coming attractions in Arizona.
To all those who think the AZ law is just peachy keen:
"Kiss The Shiny Shiny Boots Of Leather" is a Lou Reed song, and not the law of the land. Lets keep it that way.
Because if we don't, there will be no one to object when it's YOUR turn to kneel and pucker up.
Update: Council to consider issue tomorrow
Ross and Arroyo will file their proposal with the city clerk today. Council meeting begins at noon tomorrow.
Has anybody actually sat down and attempted to
figure out how much money this resolution, if passed, will actually cost the City of Boston in reduced return on investments.
It's one thing to take a high moral ground on principle, but given the City's financial circumstances, do we really need to stick our nose in another state's business if it ends up costing us money in the end.
It could save money
Our city's employees will best do the city's work if they're not in jail. If they go to Arizona, the law says they could be put in jail at any time for not producing their birth certificates, which they will be unlikely to carry with them. It would best serve the city if our employees remained in the free part of the United States. And most of the conferences they'd be likely to attend in Arizona will be cancelled or moved to other states anyway.
As long as all city employees have MA licenses or IDs
they should be all set, even if they don't have them. The Arizona police can look them up in the MA registry and find that info pretty easy.
If they bother
I believe Sock Puppet or Kaz put up a link where a trucker presented his friggin' CDL and still got cuffed until his wife showed up with his birth certificate (and hers so they didn't arrest her).
You are assuming that this law has been passed and will be enforced in good faith and only against people who "deserve" such treatment. I don't think Arizona has offered up much if any evidence that that will be the case, based on past history.
That stuff happens in MA though.
Poor policework in MA leads to many arrests of people with valid licenses. I didn't see the example you mention. Edit: (I just watched it, and it seems like there might be two sides to the story there. Are illegal aliens allowed to get drivers licenses in these states? If they are not, this seems too simple for the police to screw up)
I don't know the law in Arizona, but in MA, anyone driving from out of state that does not have a physical license on them can be arrested. If you have a MA license, it is a fine if you don't have it, but you can't be arrested if you don't have the physical license on you. Birth Certificates are pretty much usless for all intents and purposes. I also assume that truck drivers in Arizona are going to be held to a pretty high international standard regardless of this new law. Mexican Truck Drivers and internation trucks are probably pretty common down there I assume?
If Arizona enforces these laws differently (the ones already on the books for operating vehicles), or does a poor job enforcing them, then the problem is the police, not the law don't you think?
I have to say that in theory the law basically gives Arizona police officers the same powers of Border Patrol Agents.
There is a good side to this...
...and it's that if the city council has nothing better to do than this, they must be doing something right.
Of course, if they do have something better to do, then I ask: How is this more important?
A reasonable attempt must be made to determine the "alien's" immigrant status...but only when practical. What's their definition of "practical"? This whole law is vague. Of course, I could be understanding it wrong.
Democracy
Someone let me know if they happen to see any democracy in Boston City Council. Until then, I'll just ignore their BS.