Hey, there! Log in / Register
Boston City Council votes to divest from Arizona companies
By adamg on Wed, 05/05/2010 - 1:22pm
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."
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
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.
Comments
Intel?
No more Intel-based computers for Boston?
Wow
Santa Clara, California is in Arizona? Which Texas school district were you educated by?
teabagger talking point?
teabagger talking point?
At-large Councilor Felix
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
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?
lol wut?
10,000+ employees isn't "substantial business"?
Intel is one of Arizona's top employers.
Get more intel before you post!
Intel is based in California.
Divest from the US Federal Government
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
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 . . .
. . . its called Massachusetts. You can leave anytime you like. Arizona needs you.
oh nooo
I bought a ticket to see a band that's from Arizona; am I racist?
US Airways
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
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.
So use southwest or jetblue.
stupidity is spreading
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
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
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...
...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!
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
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
What a bunch of MORONS
What a bunch of MORONS
What a bunch of MORONS
They spent 20 minutes on this
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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?
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
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!
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
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
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
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
Here.
meninos a boob and a panderer...
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
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
So who will be on the cover of the Globe's Metro / Region section, tomorrow? Arroyo? Pressley? I doubt Ross or Connolly.
I dunno
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
What happens if the Diamondbacks and the Sox both make the World Series? Slim chance, I know.
Sooner than that
Diamondbacks come to Fenway for interleague in June.
these guys are a joke...
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?
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????
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
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????
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
ARIZONA TEA IS MADE IN NEW YORK AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ARIZONA.
Oops, I did it again
I left the door open from the Herald comments page. Sorry, folks.
Doesn't the Boston City Council make you sick?
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
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
about people really beleiving Arizona Ice Tea is a product of Arizona?
But Pete, the all-capitalized person thinking Arizona Tea
... 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.
In fact the whole thread kind of puzzles me.
I could support ....
... 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
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
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
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?
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...
I think the guy was joking...
Boston Phoenix....
Your dead to me!
A lot of you are ignoring the
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....
...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
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?
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
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
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
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?
Well, it doesn't come down to
Well, it doesn't come down to that, for a few reasons. But I know which I'd choose. And it sure wouldn't be the one that gets me hassled by every podunk cop that feels like being a jerk because the Cardinals missed a field goal.
Not directly
doesn't come to that directly -but people ultimately make choices - most just vote with their feet. As for choosing not getting hassled by a podunk cop a) they don't need this law as an excuse to hassle people - they have a full arsenal of that and b) you obviously don't have kids - no self respecting parent makes THAT choice.
Why do you think it's going
Why do you think it's going to come down to that choice? Isn't the problem with tax evaders, not illegal immigrants? Illegal immigrants have an obligation to pay income taxes just like everyone else.
Sales Tax
Um, mr/ms store clerk? I'm an undocumented worker - no sales tax for me, please!
Is this how undocumented workers 'don't pay taxes"?
Not only do they pay taxes
Not only do they pay taxes (both income and payroll), but they generally don't file a return. Given their incomes, they would likely end up with no tax liability and get a refund, so they are a net tax gain for California and the U.S. Stevil is confusing a general revenue decline due to economic conditions with one due to a specific and targetable issue. It's a standard play in a crisis -- blame somebody week and without a voice in order to rally everybody else to your support.
How do illegal aliens get on a payroll?
Without a SS number I would say they probably don't pay into the California or Federal tax systems.
They use somebody else's
They use somebody else's number, on counterfeit cards obtained through the black market. I've known quite a few people who did this. Most hiring companies don't put a lot of effort into verifying employment eligibility, nor should they, since that is a job for the folks at labor and ICE.
This, by the way, is what the likely response will be to the Arizona law if it is implemented. Undocumented aliens will just spend a bit more for additional/better false documents and continue to see the risk of being caught and deported less negatively than the prospect of voluntarily returning to the origin country.
I'm pretty sure most illegals work under the table.
That's just my guess. I'm sure there are a lot of phony SS numbers and fake IDs, but it is tough to fake a drivers license when double checked by the police I would think.
You are probably right about
You are probably right about the driver licenses, and I'll defer to your professional judgement. Still, a good portion of the undocumented population works using false identification. They aren't all gardeners and day laborers. And as somebody else pointed out, everybody pays the sales tax. The point is that the claim that they are a drain on state coffers doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Some no doubt are, just as some legal residents and citizens are. But immigration status doesn't directly correlate with the revenue issue.
After listening to the radio the past few days
regarding this issue, it seems to me that most Arizonians who support this bill are upset with all the crime that is done to ranchers on the borders and the inactivity of the federal government to do anything about it. Most of the talk up here seems to be about the economic drain from these illegals (which I also agree is fabricated) but from hearing actual people from Arizona speak on the issue, they seem to be more concerned with criminal activity along the border towns.
And how justified is this
And how justified is this fear? There was an article the other day about a deputy "shot by suspected illegal immigrants". The shooters escaped. How exactly was it concluded that they were illegal?
Here's the article:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5...
Last I checked, US citizens commit heinous crimes all the time. In fact, I'd say illegals are less likely to commit a crime because they'd be worried about being deported.
It might not me justified, but it probably is in some areas
I don't know, I'm just telling you what I heard.
And the US citizens that commit crimes can be handled by State and local law enforcement. If these storied are true, and the rising crime rates in areas with illegals is true, then maybe the federal government should help out a little more in protecting law abiding Americans and Non-Americans alike
Could be. Of course, there
Could be. Of course, there is a rather obvious solution to that, though I doubt it would be popular with the Arizonans who favor the law. The problems you've described can almost entirely be attributed to smuggling (of people and drugs). Decriminalize the goods, and the smugglers should disappear.
Right. And this law will just
Right. And this law will just INCREASE immigrant crime, both inside AND outside the immigrant communities. Because no brown skinned person in their right mind would ever call the cops again.
You mean brown skinned people here illegally?
f
No. I mean brown skinned
No. I mean brown skinned people. Who would want to get arrested and hauled into jail and forced to prove their citizenship just because the guy next door is slapping his wife around?
Why would you get arrested if you were a brown skinned American?
For calling the police if someone was smacking his wife around next door?
Police are required to detain
Police are required to detain anyone about whose immigration status they have any reason to suspect they may be in the US illegally, with whom the police have had lawful contact. That's essentially an invitation to detain any Hispanic person the police say hello to. A poor person, of Hispanic descent, perhaps with an accent, is going to be hassled by the police. There's virtually no way they won't be.
Does ICE have the same authority
Can't ICE do the same thing - if they go into a restaurant for lunch and for some reason they have "reasonable suspicion" as defined under the law that the kitchen staff is here illegally - can they detain them?
ICE is FEDERAL
Arizona has usurped powers that the constitution EXPLICITLY says are FEDERAL powers.
ICE also doesn't have regular policing powers and contact with people who have every reason to be afraid of the police, given their history in places like Arizona. Pete might find it hard to believe that people won't call the cops to report crime, but I doubt he's ever lived in a place like Arizona, either. My uncle is very glad he moved out about 10 years ago - his wife and kids are members of the Nez Pierce tribe and were occasionally harassed and singled out by cops when they lived there.
ICE is also in trouble for harassing and detaining US citizens - like truckers with CDLs who are expected to drag their "papers" around even though you need those "papers" to get that license in the first place.
Isn't that ICE's problem?
If an official is too dumb to figure out you need to be a citizen to have a CDL, then that really isn't the issue is it?
I never said people wouldn't be afraid to call the police to report crimes either. I just said US citizens should not have anything to worry about. If they were already getting harrassed, this isn't going to change it.
And any police officer in the United States can notify ICE if they suspect someone is illegal. That hapens in Boston often with aggressive anti-immigrant police officers. Many times ICE does something, most times they don't.
Hey, you come to this country illegally, there is some risk you have to take isn't there?
Essentially, although ICE
Essentially, although ICE can't be sued for failure to do so. But nobody has to call ICE for help with actual crime. The police should be able to help people who need help, without those people feeling afraid for their liberty. If illegal (and legal) residents are not calling the police to report crimes because of a percieved risk to their freedom, then crime is going to go up, not down. And that's the entire justification for this bill.
"any reason to suspect"
Oh so you think the police have no clue how to tell if someone is illegal or not? Give me a break. You need "reasonable suspicion" in order to investigate lots of crimes. Why aren't the police already harrassing these same people across the country now?
but here's the main point
The city council is trying to convince the world that they are taking a stand on "racial profiling" - but if ICE can do the exact same thing without profiling then why do we automatically assume the cops will profile (as we know thanks to the Cambridge situation they go through a fair amount of training NOT to do this). So unless you believe that ICE agents are somehow universally morally superior to police officers, the city council took this whole action over jurisdiction which can easily and quietly be settled by the courts. Even my more liberal friends see this for what it is - grandstanding and a waste of public resources. As Maureen Feeney said at a recent hearing - take care of the pennies and the dollars take care of themselves.
They're not taking a stand
They're not taking a stand against racial profiling. They're taking a stand against having to prove to a local cop that you are in this country legally. That's about the most unamerican thing ever. It's a state's rights issue: Specifically, states don't have the right to enforce immigration law.
Mike.
You have to prove to a cop that you have a licence and registration when you get pulled over (one of which makes you a US citizen), what is the difference here? A police officer is going to need reasonable suspicion to even begin to detain you. Having an accent is not reasonable suspicion, and I don't beleive a cop is going to put his job on the line (or a civil rights lawsuit) in order to detain any brown skinned person in Ariziona. I just don't think that would happen.
A few things: A) A license
A few things:
A) A license does not in any way prove that I am here legally, much less that I am a citizen.
B) I do not have any obligation to give a cop any ID if I am not driving a car.
C) That's the thing. He is also putting his job on the line (and risking a lawsuit) by NOT detaining any brown skinned person who DOES turn out to be illegal. That's the other half of the law.
No he does not.
Well first off, having a US drivers license should give you reasonable suspicion that you are a US citizen. You would need more to detain someone if you did have a drivers license in the US.
Secondly, you do have to identify your self to the police in many instances when not driving a car.
And third, the cop would not be putting his job on the line. Ignoring a reasonable suspicion stop? 100% impossible for any US court to prove a police officer ignored the right of reasonable suspicion to stop someone. How many cops get in trouble now for driving by parking and moving violations in MA? Thats right, zero, and I guarentee every police department's policy in MA says you have to act as well.
Required to Identify
I thought required to identify means you have to give your name and address if asked, not that you have to carry id with you to prove it. Those of us who don't drive may not routinely carry id.
See below for response
See below.
Under what logic does a
Under what logic does a driver's license imply that I'm a citizen? That's just bizarre.
I do not have to identify myself to a cop if I'm not under arrest, or driving a car. Period. Plenty of people have absolutely ZERO documentation with which to identify themselves, anyway.
Third, you're misunderstanding what the law does. The law gives private citizens the right to sue the government if they believe the government is not enforcing this law. Citizens don't have the power to sue Mass cops for failure to enforce traffic laws. So your argument is a non-starter.
logic?
ummmmm I dunno. Maybe because 99.98% of people that have drivers licenses are US citizens?
-If a police officer asks you to identify yourself because someone accused you of punching them, then yea, you do have to identify yourself to them. I'm not talking about giving them an actual ID. And you can sue MA cops for violating their own police policies or laws. It has happend thousands of times.
(can you please continue the conversation below?)
Not just taxes, illegals pay
Not just taxes, illegals pay into social security they will NEVER be able to use.
They also pay property taxes and all the fees the state charges.
As others mentioned, the illegals working in kitchens, as janitors etc aren't being paid under the table, they just got the job with a dead persons ID. And then the ones actually being paid in cash under the table....I'd bet it's the employer making off with the tax money, not the employee.
J you mean the ones with fraudulent documents?
What do you think should happen to these illegals when they get old and sick? What actually does happen to them?
And I've been paid under the table for many jobs throughout my life. I'm sure the US government loses billions every year on illegals and young Pete Nice types. Doesn't make it right though does it?
A lot of them actually return
A lot of them actually return to the origin country for old age, often because extended families take on the job of caring for the elderly, something that is a bit lacking in our approach to old age in this country. I've even known of naturalized U.S. citizens who have done this.
Yea I've always heard that.
But most of the ones that I know (my friends or friends of those friends that came to Boston illegally) like it here and want to stay. I should add these are good people and I want them here.
I support Arizona. I will be
I support Arizona. I will be reverse boycotting Arizona.
Chuck D will also be reverse boycotting Arizona
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijeXGv9QLRc
Only he'll be bringing a platoon of S1Ws with him and taking the fight to AZ's doorstep. Hope that doesn't ruin your trip to Lake Havasu.
Continuation of above
Reasonable suspicion in RI
Pete, here's a case where a license wasn't enough for this cop to maintain "reasonable suspicion". The driver had a license, the cop asked for ID from the rest of the car and nobody had any. The cop thought they were all illegals, called ICE and asked what to do, and ICE said "drive them here". The driver ended up being hauled in with his work buddies as an illegal (which ended up being true). Producing a license isn't going to protect you from "reasonable suspicion" every time.
Also, the whole point of half of the law is that they're allowing anyone to take the local law enforcement to court for not applying reasonable suspicion. If I call the cops and give them a good reason for why my neighbor is an illegal, then they are obligated to check it out and apply this new law to them...even if they're completely legal. If they don't, then I could sue the police. It's a pretty cut-and-dry reading of Arizona's own text.
Ok, a few things here I guess......
The license was enough "reasonable suspicion" that the driver was legal and that was kind of my point. But there were 12-15 people in a van that did not have any valid ID. So my point above was that if you are a legal American Citizen or Legal Alien, you either carry a US state ID or license (which the driver did in this case), or you have a Resident Alien Card (Green card which no one had in this case). You don't need to worry about getting arrested or detained if you are a US citizen.
As to the second part, they include this sentence in the bill:
"a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person"
Now to me that means police departments in Arizona can decide for themselves how serious they have to enforce this law. It at least leaves a little legroom so police officers or departments don't have to automatically respond to every single immigration call. They can treat them like loud party calls if they want to.
But I could be wrong. I just don't think it would be as horrible as people make it out to be. You can at least admit that it isn't crystal clear as to what would happen to police if they did not respond to these calls.
Mike:
Logic? ummmmm I dunno. Maybe because 99.98% of people that have drivers licenses are US citizens? That would give you probably cause that someone with a license is a US citizen don't you think?
-If a police officer asks you to identify yourself because someone accused you of punching them, then yea, you do have to identify yourself to them. I'm not talking about giving them an actual ID. And you can sue MA cops for violating their own police policies or laws. It has happend thousands of times.
(can you please continue the conversation
99.98% of people with
99.98% of people with driver's licenses are US Citizens? That's just wrong. That's so wrong that it's not even funny. There is absolutely no citizenship requirement to get a driver's license. There is a state residence requirement to get one, in most states, but not all. And it's very possible to be a legal immigrant, get a driver's license, and then have your legal residency lapse for a number of visa related reasons that the RMV would never find out about. It's simply a non-starter to claim that a driver's license is in any way proof of residency. That's why employers require a driver's license AND a social security card to get a job.
And don't get me started on your confusion between correlation and causation. 85% of Red Sox fans are legal residents of the United States. Being a Red Sox fan says absolutely nothing about the likelihood that any individual is a legal resident.
And no, I do not have to identify myself to a cop until I am under arrest. And even then, I am not required to give them anything approaching proof of citizenship, as I have no requirement to have such documentation. I have the right to remain silent.
Ok, I mispoke.
99.98% of people that show you a drivers license are legally allowed to have that drivers license and are allowed to be in this country. Maybe its 99%, maybe it is 98%. The point is if you show someone a license or ID, you have reasonable suspicion and probable cause that you are in this country legally, since most states require a SS number (probably all) to get one of these ID's. In Massachusetts, everyone with a license has a SS number that you can get right from the registry as a police officer. Of course you know that Resident Aliens have SS numbers and A#, which identify them with the US government and/or MA. Being a Red Sox fan is different than having a MA license, since it is probably that many Cubans and Mexicans are Red Sox fans, but do not have MA licenses.
Don't confuse correlation and causation with what officers need to think through with legal terms like "hunch", "probable cause", or "reasonable suspicion".
And your 3rd point kind of shows that you really just might not know what you are talking about. If you jaywalk in Massachusetts and a police officer stops you and asks you for your name and address, you have to give that officer your name and address or you are subject to arrest. (I'm assuming you aren't talking about the police forcing you to give your name and address by forcing your mouth open or something.)
I'm unaware of a
I'm unaware of a Massachusetts stop and identify law that would fit under the Hiibel ruling. This isn't to say that one doesn't exist, but I know one DIDN'T exist last summer, as the cops had a fit over the Marijuana citations and the inability to identify the violators.
Cops did not have a fit over the marijuana law.
Trust me.
And stop and identify laws are just one small part of any police/citizen interaction. But here is part of the jaywalking law for ya:
Ch. 90 s.18A
A police office taking cognizance of any such violation may request the offender to state his name and address. Whoever, upon such request, refuses to state his name and address, or states a false name and address or a name and address which is not his name and address in ordinary use, shall be punished by a fine of not less than twenty nor more than fifty dollars. Any such offender who refuses upon such request to state his name and address may be arrested without a warrant; but no person shall be arrested without a warrant for any other violation of any provision of this paragraph or for any violation of any provision of any such rule.
There are hundreds of other crimes (besides the legal stop and identify stuff) that you need to identify your self for.
Oh, and no, I cannot win a
Oh, and no, I cannot win a cash award through the courts because the Boston Police didn't arrest my neighbor for beating his wife. I simply, 100% cannot.
If you called the Boston Police..
and told them that your neighbors wife was getting beaten up and the police did not respond because they did not feel like enfrocing the domestic violence statutes that day, the wife could sue the Police Department and would win. You would have the right to sue them for not listening to you and violating a dispatch policy. They would find the police at fault but you wouldn't get any cash I would assume but I would imagine the damages would be minimal if nothing.
You and I are not sure what would happen in Arizona if someone did the same thing.
Per the above
The city council is not boycotting over a jurisdictional issue about who gets to ask for proof of legal residency. They did this because they felt that law enforcement would profile Hispanics over other races (of course ICE doesn't do this in their day to day activities in AZ!). The constitutional issue of who has jurisdiction is, I agree, fairly clear. But what is a state to do if the federal government abrogates its responsibility as they have clearly done in the case of immigration? I think there is a case that if the federal government is unable or unwilling to protect the borders, the state has a right to step into the breach. In any case it's a far cry from what our grandstanding councilors are complaining about.
Racial Profiling
Mike - the issue at hand is racial profiling - not jurisdiction over immigration - here's one more article confirming that. Again - what's the difference between ICE enforcing the laws or cops. Are cops more racist than ICE officers? (I asked Mike Ross who reps my district and all four at larges this question - only Arroyo's assistant got back to me essentially with a "we don't know" answer - but I give him credit for at least getting back)
http://bostonherald.com/news/politics/view/2010051...
No. Racial profiling is part
No. Racial profiling is part of the issue. It is not "the issue".
And racial profiling is of particular concern due to the jurisdictional issues. If minorities are not comfortable calling the police who are acting outside their jurisdiction, EVERYONE loses.
A less charged example
So if the BPD someday can't handle all the crime in the streets and empowered the transit police to stop people "reasonably suspicious" of breaking the law if, for example, they saw them running out of a store with the shopkeeper in pursuit, then people would stop calling the police because another department now had enforcement authority? Sorry Mike - not buying that. And "the issue" that the council was voting on was the profiling piece of it - there is no way any smart politician wades into the arcane minutia of constitutional jurisdiction - the public doesn't care. But play the race card as a crusader against profiling and you win all kinds of fans. Half these guys and girls want to be mayor in 3 years and they will need that Hispanic vote. The other half want to keep their jobs in 2011. This was 100% politics - 0% principles.
No, that's different for a
No, that's different for a few reasons: A) they already have that authority. B) It's the same level of government. C) BPD is granting that authority, the MBTA wouldn't be claiming that authority unilaterally. D) The public does care. Hell, even Glenn Beck is freaking out about the jursidictional aspects. Not that I agree with him on anything else, but he's leading a charge on that end. I don't think he's pandering to hispanics.
The average person
does not think about it that much. and this is about the council - as I said - 100% politics, 0% principle. Glenn Beck may have some issues with jurisdiction - but the council did this to score points and get their names in the paper with people whose votes they will need.
You're right. There's no way
You're right. There's no way that this had anything to do with jurisdiction. Why, the jurisdictional issues aren't even mentioned in the resolution until the first paragraph!
And profiling in the second
It's called lipstick on a pig - typical political way of trying to disguise the grandstanding with what is a legitimate issue (for the courts - not the Boston City council who has far weightier issues to contend with). This is all a game to them as they fiddle while Boston burns.
Again Mike,
Don't confuse minority with illegal aliens. There is a difference.
That's the point, Pete.
That's the point, Pete. There's really no way to tell them apart.
There's also no way to tell a guy from Seattle from an illegal immigrant from Vancouver. And yet, they won't get hassled at all.
You are kidding me right?
No way to tell them apart? How about some old fashion police work? Here are some questions you could ask (and you can ask them in Spanish since many Arizona cops speak Spanish):
-Are you a US citizen?
-Where were you born?
-Do you speak English?
-Where did you go to high school?
-Do you have a drivers license?
You can ask the Canadian the same questions if you have suspicion that the Canadian is in the country illegally. These 5 questions can clear us a lot right off the bat. If you have reasonable suspicion, then you can dig a litte further. Not really rocket science trying to figure out whether or not someone is here illegally or not.
The Constitutional issues you are going to face are the hard ones, not finding out who is here illegally or not. Do the police have the right to detain someone? Do they need the same 2 progned tests for veracity to detain them?
Who is Yancey?
Just a question: Who is Yancey? The name appears in the third paragraph from the end of the article. I'm just wondering if some important information was cut from the article, like the first reference to this person.
Charles Yancey
Sorry about that. He's a councilor from Dorchester.
Arizona
Arizona's bill may be extreme but the lack of action by the Federal Government left Arizona no choice. To the Council: You are not living in Arizona nor suffering the violence at your borders. Just imagine for a moment that a foreign entity is entering your harbor without permission. Just imagine that every ship entering your harbour costs you money. Just imagine that as those foreign ships keep coming your boats, which are moored in their home port, are hurt. Just imagine that you asked the Federal Government for help and they did nothing. Seriously, it does not matter if you are of European, Asian, or Latino descent, if you are an American your compassion should be with the haggard, legal, citizens of Arizona. I for one will gladly show my passport while in Arizona if it helps them deal with their crisis. Are you an Irish American, a Korean American, a Mexican American or are you just an American? Your answer makes all the difference in our country.