The council today called on city agencies to stop doing business with any companies based in or doing substantial business in Arizona because of its law allowing police to ask people for their papers if they have "reasonable suspicion" they are illegal immigrants.
The resolution (Read here) passed on a voice vote. In practical terms, it asks the mayor's office to look for any investments in or dealings with Arizona companies and then what it would take to sell off those investments or stop doing business with the companies. At-large Councilor Felix Arroyo, a co-sponsor of the resolution, said he does not know if the city actually does have any such dealings.
Arroyo said that as a Latino, he would be subject to a stop in Arizona. Councilor Mike Ross, the other sponsor, said that as the son of a Dachau survivor, he cannot believe a state would pass such a shoddy law. Even with other pressing matters, such as the firefighters contract, he said he was compelled to bring up the issue. "We have to take a moment to address the erosion of basic and fundamental civil rights."
Several councilors blasted "hate radio" and media members for saying the council has no business sticking its nose in Arizona affairs.
"I, for one, will not keep my mouth shut when confronted by injustice or ignorance," at-large Councilor Ayanna Pressley said.
Pressley added the measure does not require complete divestment. "It allows the city's finance people to make morally informed, economically sensible decisions about where taxpayer money should be invested."
"The Boston City Council should not be discussing this issue but a lack of leadership at the federal level (on immigration reform) has forced states and municipalities to pass desperate and misguided laws like the one in Arizona," Ross said.
At-large Councilor John Connolly asked his colleagues to imagine if a law like this had been passed 100 years ago to deal with people speaking with a brogue. He said he could not stand by and do nothing about "the horror of stripping those sacred citizenship rights away" from Latino citizens.
Councilor Charles Yancey (Dorchester), noting a 1984 city ordinance requiring divestment from companies working in South Africa, said he would not be deterred by naysayers to let the country know that "Boston does stand for something, Boston does stand for justice."
After the meeting, Arroyo rejected arguments the council should be dealing with other matters. He said it's not like councilors are ignoring issues; noted the actual hearing took 20 minutes. "I can walk and chew gum at the same time," he said.
Arroyo added he is not looking at the issue as one of immigration reform but as a matter of public policy, specifically how the law makes "racial profiling as public policy."
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
Intel?
By anon
Wed, 05/05/2010 - 1:49pm
No more Intel-based computers for Boston?
Wow
By HeGotHis
Wed, 05/05/2010 - 2:22pm
Santa Clara, California is in Arizona? Which Texas school district were you educated by?
teabagger talking point?
By anon²
Wed, 05/05/2010 - 6:14pm
teabagger talking point?
At-large Councilor Felix
By Anonymous
Thu, 05/06/2010 - 12:04am
Don't you think they should do their homework before they make policy?
I think the Arizona bill is incompetent policy for dealing with a significant issue but Arroyo and the others have their heads up their asses if they don't do their homework before they pass a bill like this.
Arroyo is one of the two city councilors that passed a bill raising fines for residents and businesses who do not shovel the city's sidewalks within three hours at the end of a snow storm, including removal of all residual snow or ice. You can imagine just how well Inspectional Services has implemented this policy.
Whoever runs again Arroyo in the next election is likely to be a better candidate in my eyes.
Boston Herald had it dead one when they called it a CHEAP STUNT
By Sam Seaborne
Thu, 05/06/2010 - 8:33pm
I couldn't agree with you more! I think the Boston Herald had it dead one when they called it a CHEAP STUNT:
Of course you won't see this in the Globe. All of the Boston Globe reporters and editors are little rich white babies who live on trust funds. They don't know what it is to work or be a working family/person so they have compassion for everything and anything - especially diversity. But if you ever look at their staff you would be hard pressed to see diversity, except those who clean the cafeteria. Big time white guilt.
lol wut?
By anon²
Thu, 05/06/2010 - 9:50pm
lol wut?
10,000+ employees isn't "substantial business"?
By anon
Wed, 05/05/2010 - 11:17pm
Intel is one of Arizona's top employers.
Get more intel before you post!
By Dignan
Wed, 05/05/2010 - 2:30pm
Intel is based in California.
Divest from the US Federal Government
By anon
Wed, 05/05/2010 - 2:09pm
When Arizona is murdering streams of Mexicans crossing the border with helicopter gunships and unmanned drones like the US federal government does every day in Iraq and Afghanistan I will get behind such a move by the city council.
You can personally divest any
By NotWhitey
Wed, 05/05/2010 - 2:24pm
You can personally divest any time you like - buy yourself a one-way plane ticket to the country of your choice.
I live in my country . . .
By anon
Wed, 05/05/2010 - 2:55pm
. . . its called Massachusetts. You can leave anytime you like. Arizona needs you.
oh nooo
By SomerVillain
Wed, 05/05/2010 - 2:44pm
I bought a ticket to see a band that's from Arizona; am I racist?
US Airways
By deselby
Wed, 05/05/2010 - 3:40pm
This is so lame. US Airways is an Arizona company, that means no shuttle to DC for Boston City gov.
Of course the mighty Boston City Council will destroy them, US Airways must be filing for Chapter 11 already (unless they're already in it, like most airlines).
No more copper for anyone either, all Boston city government construction must be done without copper wiring, as large copper mines are in AZ.
"or doing substantial business in Arizona" - that includes just about every national and multinational company doing "substantial business" in Massachusetts.
Posturing makes me puke. Arroyo's his father's son - an idiot.
Ross, my mother said you were a smart guy and one to watch. She's not around now to be proven wrong.
Alternatives are sometimes fine
By Kaz
Wed, 05/05/2010 - 3:59pm
Delta (HQ: Atlanta, GA) and American (Fort Worth, TX) both also fly a non-stop between Logan and National (Southwest (Dallas, TX) also flies nonstop from here to both Dulles and BWI too).
Copper can be recycled pretty easily and prices are low right now so there's no need to go to Arizona (or anywhere else) to get some.
So...flights to DC and copper are your biggest concerns?
So use southwest or jetblue.
By anon²
Wed, 05/05/2010 - 6:16pm
So use southwest or jetblue.
stupidity is spreading
By deselby
Wed, 05/05/2010 - 11:47pm
Yes, the employees of US Airways working in Boston, and their employees and stockholders everywhere should be held responsible for those on the Arizona legislature who voted for the law.
Hmmm, maybe there will be a counter-boycott of Boston now, ever think of that?
Won't need a boycott to hurt USAir
By HeGotHis
Thu, 05/06/2010 - 9:55am
A fuel increase or another year without a merger will take care of that. Have you seen their balance sheet?
Congratulations to the Boston City Council
By East Cambridge
Wed, 05/05/2010 - 3:00pm
You have now officially achieved a level of irrelevance matched only by the City Council of my fair city.
And that spinning noise you hear from Forest Hills Cemetery? That's Dapper, at all-out full tilt!
Dapper O'Neil...
By HeGotHis
Wed, 05/05/2010 - 4:23pm
...was a sad, scared, shriveled little man. He was a fossil of patronage politics and a relic of the city's "won't go" past. I didn't back Flaherty for mayor, but was elated when he crushed the antiquated coward who did "so much" for "his kind." I don't know how the degenerate Oxy-addled cousins and uncles of W. Rox will ever reclaim their kickbacks without him.
The city's better off for having him where he is, under the dirt in Forest Hills being harassed by Anne Sexton, Eugene O'Neil and the inventor of the birth control pill. That's not spinning you hear from his grave, but him clawing deeper into the soil to escape the progressives and minorities that once startled him and now surround him.
Right You Are!
By East Cambridge
Wed, 05/05/2010 - 7:32pm
No business-as-usual "patronage politics" now that the Dap has been replaced by Progessives like Deval Patrick. Just ask Marian Walsh and James Aloisi and Mumbles. And Marie St Fleur.
Well, never mind.
And you can come down from your high horse now. Wasn't asking for Dapper to come back. Only speculatig on the entertqinment value.
It's nice how the city
By Haviland
Wed, 05/05/2010 - 3:11pm
It's nice how the city council finds it perfectly fine to PROFILE COLLEGE AGE STUDENTS, ask for ID without legal contact and discriminate against living arrangements, but HOW DARE another state attempt to enforce federal immigration law and the sovereignty of their state border. This is nothing more than hypocritical pandering at its worst under the guise of 'Civil Rights', which the council has no problem usurping when it suits their politics.
What a bunch of MORONS
By anon
Wed, 05/05/2010 - 3:23pm
What a bunch of MORONS
What a bunch of MORONS
By suzywithaz
Wed, 05/05/2010 - 3:39pm
What a bunch of MORONS
They spent 20 minutes on this
By Stevil
Wed, 05/05/2010 - 3:56pm
There was nothing more important than this that maybe could have taken precedence? We are in the middle of the budget process aren't we - you know, the one that was millions of dollars short BEFORE the arbitrator handed the firefighters a 19% raise.
And then Arroyo says
At-large Councilor Felix Arroyo, a co-sponsor of the resolution, said he does not know if the city actually does have any such dealings.
Do you think maybe ya shoulda done some homework before you wasted your time on this?
We go through all this hoopla and come to find out the only impact - the retirement board puts a couple of stocks on their do not buy list (God forbid the city tries to make money to pay for your pensions!)
Get over it
By Kaz
Wed, 05/05/2010 - 4:03pm
It takes some people more than 20 minutes to go to the bathroom. Lunch probably slowed them down for 20 minutes more than it needed to. This is one of those "lots of noise for not a lot of time" things that lets them point out that they did something when faced with a question of morality. Do we want Boston money going to Arizona after seeing how they like to spend *their* time/money/efforts? The answer was no. Next?
Questions
By Stevil
Wed, 05/05/2010 - 5:15pm
I've read numerous posts in different places that this law is essentially granting local law enforcement the same authority as ICE (and given that the Feds have jurisdiction over the borders this is the constitutional issue - it has nothing to do with racial profiling or civil rights). Question 1 - is this correct? If not what specific authorities does local law enforcement get under this law that ICE does not already have?
I understand there may be a constitutional issue with who enforces what laws. But if it is indeed simply a "mirror" of the federal law regulating the scope of activities of ICE, how is this a question of morality and not simply a legal technicality over jurisdiction? Question 2 - are ICE officials more moral than the local police such that they should be the only ones enforcing this law?
Thats what it sounds like Stevil
By Pete Nice
Wed, 05/05/2010 - 5:20pm
But the racial profiling part comes in because this law will primarily be enforced against Latinos.
And ICE plays a part, but don't forget about the US Border Patrol. Those are the guys who enforce these laws the most I believe.
Constituionality
By John-W
Thu, 05/06/2010 - 10:28am
I think the idea is that the law states that government officials have the right to ask for proof of citizenship from anyone they have reason to suspect of being "illegal". The issue is what would give you a reason to suspect that someone is not documented? Given law enforcement people like Sheriff Arpaio, it's not a stretch to imagine Latinos being stopped in the street because they "look undocumented." That would be a violation of the 4th amendment right to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure.
The scarier part (I think) is that the law allows citizens to sue govt officials for failure to enforce the law. Let's role play; you be the sexy city building inspector in tight jeans and a low cut top and I'll be the bare chested, sweaty Latino roofer. You stop at the house I'm working on and seductively ask me if I have a permit to be ripping those shingles off with my big muscly arms. I reach into my pants and pull out....my building permit that shows this is all legit. You then have a decision to make: this is a latino roofer..in Arizona. Is it reasonable to assume I'm undocumented?
Scenario 1: You tend to be the suspicious type and so you demand to see some id that indicates I'm a citizen. I don't have to, I tell you to bugger off. You call the cops who come to get me, but surprise I'm one of those Mexicans whose ancestors lived in the Arizona area since before the U.S. took it by force (therefore I'm a U.S. born citizen) and I therefore sue the city for violating my 4th amendment rights.
Scenario 2: You think I'm cute, get my phone number and go on your merry way, unaware that the local Minuteman representative has been staking out this construction site because he's convinced we're all a bunch of illegals (and actually, he's right). He calls the city and says I'm suing you because the City representative failed to enforce the law by asking to see the roofer's proof of citizenship or permission to be in and work in this country.
Either way, municipal authorities (law enforcement and otherwise) are damned if they do, damned if they don't.
But they might have a great career in porn.
By the way I'm not a lawyer (nor a ripped porn star) so this could all be inaccurate. But, yes Virgina, it's not like it would be the first time that inaccurate posts found their way onto the Internets.
How about this one John W.
By Pete Nice
Thu, 05/06/2010 - 10:33am
A police officer pulls over a car and asks the driver for a license. He gives the police officer a valid Mexican drivers license, but then tells the cop he is in the US illegally. What can the cop do? In Massachusetts, the cop would legally have to let the man drive away with his valid Mexican license.
People forget about these situations where illegal aliens admit they are illegal. It happens a lot.
Traffic stops
By John-W
Thu, 05/06/2010 - 11:27am
In the case of a undocumented person driving around in a car unlicensed and getting pulled over, the driver would also have to produce the registration, which if they're undocumented probably means they don't have one. If you check the police logs you'll see a lot of unlicensed, unregistered driving-related arrests. That arrest frequently starts out a whole process of checks by ICE and the immigrant finding themselves in the midst of getting stuck in a big mess (or they bolt from the state).
Foreign licenses are only good for a year from your entry into the country. I have no idea how a municipal or State cop would ascertain how long you've been in the country. here's some info on it (http://www.mass.gov/rmv/forms/21317.pdf).
You say that people frequently admit to the police that they're in the country without proper documentation? Hasn't been my experience.
Maybe it's because Brazillians in MA know they wont get deported
By Pete Nice
Thu, 05/06/2010 - 11:45am
But I'd say 90% of the illegal immigrants Ive dealt with admit they are here illegally. Of course that 90% were not criminals and knew nothing would happen to them. Most MA cops don't care about that stuff anyway.
And a lot of illegal immigrants in MA own cars and have registrations. They don't and can't get MA licenses but they can and do register cars.
And the only immigrants who get checked by ICE are the ones who have warrants for serious crimes.
If someone has a foreign drivers license, I usually ask them if they are a student first (most foreigners in MA w/foreign license are students) and then I can ask for a passport to verify the license.
So?
By Stevil
Thu, 05/06/2010 - 10:54am
I can see why an Arizonan thus might not support the law as this might cost a lot of money for local residents (although reportedly about 70% think it's a good idea). But this is of course no reason for one city to boycott another city. It looks to me that the whole thing is based on an inaccurate value judgement - if an ICE official asks for proof of citizenship - it's just all in the course of a day's work. If a cop asks for ID , with the same reasons to suspect you are illegal, then that's racial profiling. Very poor logic to base a modern financial civil war on.
On the one hand, you are
By HenryAlan
Wed, 05/05/2010 - 4:18pm
On the one hand, you are upset that they spent 20 minutes on it. On the other hand, you demand that Arroyo spend quite a bit more time than that. 20 minutes is a pretty small part of their time requirements. And just an FYI, but significant portions of their day aren't spent on legislative matters anyway. There is quite a bit more to the job, like constituent services. Perhaps this 20 minutes can be viewed as time spent reassuring constituents that Boston doesn't have the same view on the matter as Arizona. Seems like time well spent. Arroyo needn't do the research, this isn't binding, it's just a sense of the council.
Oh No!
By anon
Wed, 05/05/2010 - 4:14pm
Where will I get my Arizona iced tea?
Will someone come take away my copies of 'Raising Arizona' on VHS?
Oh no, my box sets of "Alice" - stolen!
Does this mean that MA will be accepting illegals to park our cars, wash our dishes and work for slave labor to rebuild our broken economy? Will the proud Boston suburbs of Saugus, Everett, Quincy and the like now play host to illegals steaming here?
Maybe if they only could understand or read English, they'd know they have a friend, in a place where people make a stand to justify their own liberal guilt.
Should we now not do business with states that ban or vote down gay marriage? Oh no, no California!
It would be nice if people stood up to be countend when rampant corruption caused big dig cost overruns, T mismanagement, amd amything else these jokers were bystanders of. Come on everyone, cry about how asking for an ID is a crime against humanity! Lets blow it out of proportion.
I've got a great idea - lets hold another rally against Arinzona, then arrest everyone! They're probably illegal anyways.
Run for the border!
Boston City Council decision
By anon
Wed, 05/05/2010 - 5:29pm
To John Connolly, When people with a brogue came to America there was no immigration law as this was a developing country. When Ellis Island and immigration became the law it was followed and honored by the Italians, Germans, English, Spanish etc. who came to start a better life. If these immigrants were found to be not good enough they were returned to the country they came from. My ancestors came in the 1600's and the early 1900's and were subject to the laws in use at the time of arrival. So what makes the Illegals any better then the legals who came before.
You're missing Connolly's point
By adamg
Wed, 05/05/2010 - 5:40pm
And if that's because I didn't present it well enough, my apologies.
He wasn't talking about illegals. He was talking about American citizens being stopped and possibly even detained because of their accents or the color of their skin - or both. That's where the brogue part comes in: Imagine Boston having a law like the Arizona one in the 1800s - you just know a lot of people would be picked up for walking while Irish.
American citizens vs. illegal immigrants
By adamg
Wed, 05/05/2010 - 5:45pm
It wasn't just Connolly who framed the issue as being about American citizens being deprived of their fundamental rights of citizenship just because of the way they talk or look. Even Arroyo did that.
Ross did mention immigrants but was careful to say "legal" first.
The only councilor who discussed illegal immigration in great detail was Chuck Turner, who, being Chuck Turner, went into one of his rants about how we wouldn't have illegal immigration at all were it not for American businesses raping (yes, he used "rape") other countries, giving their residents no choice but to try to flea to the US.
Mike Ross's statement
By adamg
Wed, 05/05/2010 - 5:50pm
Here.
meninos a boob and a panderer...
By JAMES MURPHY
Wed, 05/05/2010 - 9:33pm
did anyone see menino's quote in this article: http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/05/boston_city_cou_3.html? i love it. this is the guy who is cutting teachers, cops, fire fighters and anyone else he can find to cut because there is no money.....but a state like arizona that is paying gazillions for social services for illegal aliens moves to keep them in their own country - most likely because they cannot afford to pay for them anymore - and mumbles opens his big yap to question them? I would just love to see the roles reversed...mumbles would be red faced and stamp his feet if someone told him what to do in his city.
Arizona Companies to Not Buy From
By anon
Wed, 05/05/2010 - 6:49pm
From Wikipedia…
“List of Arizona companies includes notable companies that are, or once were, headquartered in Arizona.”
* A through Z Consulting
* Air Evac (airline)
* Allied Waste Industries
* America West Airlines
* American Industrial Supply
* Amkor Technology
* Apollo Group
* Arizona Diamondbacks
* Arizona Public Service
* Arizona Republic
* ASARCO
* Auralog
* Avnet
B
* Banner Health Systems
* Bashas' Supermarkets
* Best Western
C
* Carollo Engineers
* CSK Auto
* Cold Stone Creamery
* CyraCom International
* Cactus Candy Company
D
* Database Systems Corp.
* Detection Instruments
* Detection Logic
* Dial Corporation
* Discount Tire Company
* Diversified Inspections
* Durham Communications
E
* eFunds Corporation
* Elixir Interactive
F
* Fender Musical Instruments
* First Solar
* Flight Trails Helicopters
* Freeport-McMoRan(Phelps Dodge)
* Fry's Food and Drug, a division of Kroger
* Fulton Homes
* Food City
G
* Giant Industries
* Go Daddy
* Grand Canyon Airlines
* Greyhound Bus Lines
H
* Harkins Theatres
* Honeywell Aerospace
I
* Insight Enterprises
* Inter-Tel
* icrossing
J
* JDA Software Group
* Jobing.com
* JusticeTrax Inc
K
* Knight Transportation
* Knowledge Computing Corp
* KPX
M
* Main Street Restaurant Group
* Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation
* Meritage Homes
* Mesa Airlines
* Microchip Technology
* Mobile Mini
* Motorsports Authentics
O
* ON Semiconductor
P
* P.F. Chang's China Bistro
* Peter Piper Pizza
* PetSmart
* Ping Golf / Karsten Manufacturing
* Pinnacle West Capital Corporation
* PinnacleOne
* Poore Brothers
* Proforce Marketing
R
* R & R Products
* Republic Services
* RSC Equipment Rental
* RotorWay International
* Rural/Metro
S
* Salt River Project
* Sierra Pacific Airlines
* Shamrock Foods
* Sunstate Equipment Co.
* SuperShuttle International Inc.
* Swift Air
* Swift Transportation
T
* Taco Time
* TASER International
* Tilted Kilt
* Troon Golf
U
* U-Haul
* US Airways
* USF Bestway
* U.S. Machineries LC
* Unisource Energy
V
* Viad Corporation
* Voiance Language Services
W
* Waste Management
* Westcor
Over/under
By JohnAKeith
Wed, 05/05/2010 - 6:56pm
So who will be on the cover of the Globe's Metro / Region section, tomorrow? Arroyo? Pressley? I doubt Ross or Connolly.
I dunno
By adamg
Wed, 05/05/2010 - 8:29pm
I'll put my money on Arroyo because he co-sponsored the measure and he's Latino, so most directly affected by it (well, if he flew to Phoenix).
What happens if the
By Biggie_Robs
Wed, 05/05/2010 - 8:18pm
What happens if the Diamondbacks and the Sox both make the World Series? Slim chance, I know.
Sooner than that
By Jiffywoob
Wed, 05/05/2010 - 8:43pm
Diamondbacks come to Fenway for interleague in June.
these guys are a joke...
By Mike S
Thu, 05/06/2010 - 8:28pm
Yes, does this mean that John Tobin and Mike Ross will not attend the Red Sox game vs. the Arizona Dimondbacks? Does the city council also believe that the Red Sox owners should not let the game take place or does the city council not want people to go to the game in protest? these guys are a joke...
What's your point?
By Kaz
Fri, 05/07/2010 - 1:33am
The city council has no role in what the Red Sox do.
Tobin and Ross can spend their own money however they choose.
You make up some scenario where the city council is supposedly asking people to boycott baseball games...and then use that as a justification to call them a joke?
That's quite the straw man.
with all that is going on, they take up this issue????
By anon
Wed, 05/05/2010 - 9:11pm
I am sorry, but with all that we are dealing with in Boston from budgets cut resulting in libraries and community centers closing, to teachers being laid off and a huge pay raise for the fireman ---- and these SOBs who are getting paid over $80k to worry about what is going on in Arizona????? ARIZONA?????
Figures that Ross is the head of the council. JFK once said "we go to the moon, not because it is easy, but because it is hard." On the otherhand, Ross and his cohorts "take on the Arizona issue not because it is hard, but because he is easy."
I hope someone runs against that SOB Ross. Much like Jeffery Sanchez, they both are do nothing, empty suits that rely on their ethnic heritage to go along to get along without doing anything for their constituents. They think their movie stars acting - and in many ways they are because that's all they do - act.
Makes yah sick!!!
The apple does not fall from the tree...ARROYO
By Freddy
Wed, 05/05/2010 - 9:14pm
Just like his father, junior is taking up the bull#(*# issues his father took up. Dixie Chicks, War in Iraq....these are the issues BOSTON City Councilors should be focused on, right???? How about the moon, any issues there? What about Russia, are they doing things right? Give me a break!!!! Focus on Boston!!! They are so many problems here to deal with.....
Makes ya sick!!!!
DOES THIS MEAN NO ARIZONA ICE TEA????
By JAMES MURPHY
Wed, 05/05/2010 - 9:19pm
THESE COUNCILORS ARE A WASTE OF MONEY. OH AND JUST TO REMIND EVERYONE - A RESOLUTION HAS NO BIDDING POWER WHAT SO EVER. SO THESE EMPLOYEES OF OUR CITY ARE JUST WASTING OUR MONEY AND THEIR MOUTHS TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING THEY HAVE NO JURISDICTION OVER!!!!
OH, GOOD, ALL CAPS
By adamg
Wed, 05/05/2010 - 9:21pm
ARIZONA TEA IS MADE IN NEW YORK AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ARIZONA.
Oops, I did it again
By Sock_Puppet
Wed, 05/05/2010 - 9:47pm
I left the door open from the Herald comments page. Sorry, folks.
Doesn't the Boston City Council make you sick?
By anon
Thu, 05/06/2010 - 1:10pm
I am sick, sick, sick over this Arizona stuff. I cannot believe we pay these people a combined $1.1 million dollars to focus on Arizona. They are panderers and cheaters that are wasting our tax dollars. Its sickens me to no end when 10% of the population is out of work and these "elected leaders" do nothing!!!!! Being elected official is more than showing up for ribbon cuttings and voting on resolution expressing your thoughts on issues in other states, its about making the tough choices in your own jurisdiction. Its always been easier to look outside your own house and point fingers than to look with in.
And the mayor is no better.
Have no fear
By adamg
Thu, 05/06/2010 - 1:23pm
The council yesterday also discussed flooding and water-runoff issues, which are most definitely local (Rob Consalvo had a foot of water in his basement during the March storm). And next week, they decide whether to go along with that pay raise for firefighters.
Weren't people busting Stevil's chops
By Pete Nice
Thu, 05/06/2010 - 1:27pm
about people really beleiving Arizona Ice Tea is a product of Arizona?
But Pete, the all-capitalized person thinking Arizona Tea
By Michael Kerpan
Thu, 05/06/2010 - 1:39pm
... is from Arizona.... is an _opponent_ of people favoring local opposition to Arizona's legislation.
Yea I couldn't tell if he was being sarcastic or not.
By Pete Nice
Thu, 05/06/2010 - 2:02pm
In fact the whole thread kind of puzzles me.
I could support ....
By Michael Kerpan
Thu, 05/06/2010 - 2:39pm
... ruling out attendance at conventions, etc. by city employees serving in their official capacity. But Menino apparently is now talking about breaking contracts with Arizona-linked businesses -- I hope he gets some competent legal advice before pulling any sort of stunt like this. (Saw it in the Globe so it must be true).
Denouncements
By Stevil
Thu, 05/06/2010 - 3:34pm
Thought I read something that the mayor said that if they write a letter saying they denounce the law they can keep their contract - we have completely gone off the edge.
again - does anyone know how this differs from what an ICE agent can do? If the cops basically can do the same thing an ICE agent can do (with the added requirement that the ancillary stop ALSO has to be legal) - then the whole argument is about jurisdiction - not some ridiculous notion that legal citizens are going to have their civil rights violated due to a random stop in the streets by cops looking to harrass dark-skinned city councilors from Boston. I have been stopped overseas by law enforcement twice - once legit, once not (I made a perfectly legal u-turn and got out of the ticket for $20 - AS INSTRUCTED). As I recall on both occasions I had to show documentation I was legally in the country - residency card in the first case as I was a legal resident and passport in the second as I was a tourist. This is not burdensome or unusual. I have NEVER just randomly been pulled over by a cop to show papers even in some pretty shaky third world countries and I highly doubt the Phoenix police have a burning desire to spend most of their time in court defending themselves against civil rights violations for randomly stopping people on the street.
But then they have to spend
By mike
Thu, 05/06/2010 - 3:38pm
But then they have to spend their time defending themselves from lawsuits for NOT pulling people over in the streets. That's part of the problem with the law.
The other problem is that it means that no minority will ever call the cops again in the state of Arizona, no matter what is happening, making the cross-border crime problem far, far worse.
boston
By conn
Thu, 05/06/2010 - 5:55pm
correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't BOSTON CITY COUNCIL mean that they are suppose to be concern with what is happen in and around Boston? This is just another reason not to vote for them in the next election
Huh?
By Kaz
Thu, 05/06/2010 - 7:27pm
What part of "we don't want to spend BOSTON'S MONEY in Arizona" isn't concerned with what's happening in and around Boston?
We task them to control the city's money. They said we plan to stop spending the city's money in a certain way. You aren't going to vote for them because they were doing their job? I hope I'm right in thinking you're probably too stupid to know how to vote.
I think the guy was joking...
By Arizona Ice Tea
Thu, 05/06/2010 - 8:22pm
I think the guy was joking...
Boston Phoenix....
By East Cambridge
Thu, 05/06/2010 - 1:19pm
Your dead to me!
A lot of you are ignoring the
By J
Fri, 05/07/2010 - 2:09am
A lot of you are ignoring the much larger picture.
Let's say, the rest of the country ignores this law. Lets say we let Arizona business stay in Arizona, even though this law goes against the constitution that is supposed to protect everyone. Ok. You know what happens next? Other lawmakers who have no respect for the constitution will say "I guess nobody opposes this" and try there hand at it in the next state. And so on and so forth, and suddenly, half the states have similar laws.
It's the famous "First they came..." statement. If you wait until it affects YOU personally, it's too late. Violations of civil rights must be stopped as soon as they appear.
Boston joins San Francisco, Los Angeles, Boulder, Denver and probably other cities in establishing boycotts.
So what if Boston doesn't actually have any business with Arizona? The symbolism doesn't go to waste, because it empowers others who do to make the same decision. Would Boston have done this if San Francisco hadn't taken the lead the very next day after the law was signed? And now perhaps Boston will encourage providence, portland and others to follow suit.
So, why hurt the people because of the decision of the officials? Because we live in a representative republic, and the government officials are supposed to do what the people want. If this boycott shows the arizona public that there are consequences they didnt think of, they can call their rep and get it changed.
What does Boston do....
By Michael Kerpan
Fri, 05/07/2010 - 11:28am
...when 7 or 8 mosre states follow Arizona's example? This is likely to happen -- regardless of whether Boston boycotts all things Arizona or not.
And which states would that
By J
Fri, 05/07/2010 - 3:27pm
And which states would that be? Florida and Texas already said the law is bad. The point of the boycott is to get arizona to repeal it AND to make sure other states dont follow.
California?
By Stevil
Fri, 05/07/2010 - 4:14pm
They are broke. They could be defaulting on their bonds in 12-24 months in large part because of all the money they spend educating, medicating and locking up illegals. How do you think they'll feel about illegals when the government jacks up all their taxes to keep paying for all that? Granted - we'll probably just bail them out.
Not broke, soon to be high
By Kaz
Fri, 05/07/2010 - 4:22pm
The state's estimates are that if they pass pot legalization in November, they'll bring in $1.4 Billion per year in new tax revenue. California is about to be very mellow in a lot of ways soon. They'll also have less border/drug runner problems since you'll be able to get it open and legally instead of via mule.
Their immigrant governor has
By mike
Fri, 05/07/2010 - 4:26pm
Their immigrant governor has already called the law terrible.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Thursday night declared the new Arizona law cracking down on illegal immigrants “a mess” and something he “would never do.”
The governor made his remarks while in the guest chair of the “Tonight Show With Jay Leno”...
“That is a mess,” he said of the new Arizona law that directs law enforcement to question anyone they suspect is in the country illegally. “I would never do that in California. No way.”
Not enough
By Stevil
Fri, 05/07/2010 - 5:02pm
Kaz - unfortunately they are $20 billion in the hole.
Mike - only half kidding - but if things get bad financially - they might not be far behind Arizona - at some point you don't have a choice. If it comes down to education and health care for my kid v. the same for an illegal alien - what choice do you think even Immigrant Arnold and liberal CA will make?
Pages