By RON MEXICO
Staff Writer
BROWNSVILLE, TX - According to the New York Times, a reporter yesterday found a woman who cancelled a reservation at an Arizona motel after learning of that state's recently-passed harsh anti-immigration law, a decision she said was only half of her problem. It seems her son is a construction worker and she worries that his work-related perpetual tan may put him at odds with the police.
Boycott appears to be the day's word on all things to do with Arizona.
We thought it would be helpful for our readers to know about a few Arizona-based business enterprises. There are times when the almighty dollar settles such silly things in this great land. You decide whether it's a worthy reaction:
Best Western (motels)
ColdStone Creamery
Dial
Discount Tire Co.
Fender
Go Daddy
TGIFridays (100+ franchises owned by Briad Group based in AZ)
PetSmart
PF Changs
Taco Time
U Haul
US Airlines
There are others, but this list is a start...
- 30 -
12 comments:
Tanned or really brown(untanned), if you can explain your citizenship by at least speaking english you should not have a problem, not even in Arizona. I meet people who have US passports who cannot speak a word of english, and I think automatically, how can this individual be a US citizen? But the passport should say it all, without question. I really do not see a problem in Arizona no matter how anybody puts it.
Jacobo
ANON: We're not here to persuade you to accept or reject Arizona. But we thank you for your contribution. Just as an aside, I have this Anglo friend who was in France when George W. Bush was president. She would tell me that she was treated with outright rudeness when she spoke English and said she was an American. But when she said she spoke Spanish, the French treated her differently, nicely in other words. Language is just for communication, not as a badge to any allegiance or dogma. English is just one of many languages on this God-Abandoned planet. It has no higher place on the shelf than any other. As for the passport, well, is that all we are, merely a piece of paperwork?... - Editor
In 1975, Texas passed a law to deprive undocumented immigrant children of a free public education. Many thousands of children — a good number of whom were on the road to eventual citizenship under immigration laws that were notably less harsh back then — faced being thrown out of school and deprived of a future.
The law was challenged in federal court, with the Carter administration supporting the plaintiffs. By the time the case, Plyler v. Doe, reached the Supreme Court, Ronald Reagan was president, and there was a major debate within his administration over whether to change sides. Rex E. Lee, the admirable solicitor general, refused to do so.
In June 1982, by a vote of 5 to 4, the Supreme Court struck down the Texas law.
The problem with the Texas law was that public education is not "free"; it is tax based.
Equal protection, extended to the states under the 14th Amendment, was the issue, and it failed under that strict scrutiny test, much as the housing law in Farmers Branch would have.
The law in Arizona is much different. On it's face, it is not discriminatory, it only defines Arizona's right to assert concurrent jurisdiction for an exuisting federal law.
The application wil be the issue, as to 4th Amendment limitations on Terry stops and hat constitutes "reasonable".
In the meantime, it is with interest to see the race card being played. Of the 70% Arizonian's who voted for the law, they are not all white. They are, however, severely impacted by the incredible influx of illegal alien traffic through the state since the federal government built the (old) fence along Imperial Valley corridor.
As DP-M acknowledged, anti-immigrant bias in this country has a long history. It has not always been based on race. certainly, there are undertones of racial discrimination here, bt you cannot base your argument by asserting that someone has the legal right to break sovereign laws.
This is all a grand attempt to (a) have the government enforce its' own laws or in the alternative (b) extort funds from the federal government.
Remember that California’s Proposition 187, which was passed in 1994 but never carried out because of legal setbacks and political opposition, was designed at limiting illegal immigrants’ access to social services, Much like the Texas school law. (Note - The idiots never did figure out that unless the illegal alien is homeless, starving or not working, they are paying taxes) Arizona’s measure focuses on law enforcement: identifying, prosecuting and deporting undocumented immigrants.
I agree with Vivek Malhotra, who opines that the "law does nothing short of making all of its Latino residents, and other presumed immigrants, potential criminal suspects in the eyes of the law. It authorizes police officers to stop and ask people for their immigration papers based only on some undefined “reasonable suspicion” that they are in the country illegally."
However, I predict it will pass Constitutional muster but will fail in the application by Sheriff Bull Connor...er, Joe Arpaio.
C NJ: Nice argument. But still heavy on the new Arizona law is this: it does "set aside" a certain sector of the population for scrutiny. Why not let the cops ask EVERYBODY for their documents. Let them do it at will, at the shopping mall and at the convenience store and at the bars and at the Arizona Cardinals games. That would be fair. This ISN'T. This is targeting undocumented immigrants of a certain bent, i.e. the Hispanic. About that there is NO question. Arizona is saying it. We whole-hog believe this country needs immigration reform. Your reference to Joe Arpaio tells me you see the fallacy (weakness) in this law. Lord knows we have railed against Mexico on this Blog for weeks (see our archives). But as an American, I, for one, cannot stand pat and say I agree with Arizona. It is a pedestrian law born of anger, petulance and bigotry. You can tell me Arizona is that much different as a state in the short months that former Gov. Janet Napolitano left the office and Republican Jan Brewer walked into the job? It's "politcal." You know it and I know it. This is not America. I leave it to you to wonder what other once-proud, but misguided country it may remind you of... - Editor
Think about this: Proponents of the legislation in Arizona have declared the immigration issue to be one of vital importance. But from 2008 to 2009, the undocumented immigrant population in Arizona actually fell by 100,000. And with the state's economy still underperforming, it's unlikely those numbers have seen a significant reversal. This is not to suggest that the immigration situation in Arizona is not a serious one - which demands greater federal attention. But it's very hard to make the case that the draconian measures called for in the Arizona bill are necessary or would even be effective.
I seperate my personal beliefs from the analysis of the law. The fedeal government doesn't seem to take immigration laws too seriously (US=misdemeanor / Mexico = Felony), I don't see why immigrants should.
On a side note, you seem to state that non-enforcement of a law is ok, even one that needs to be enforced, provided the right party is doing it?
C NJ: Oh, you don't want to read my raw personal beliefs. I know that. This is merely grist for commentary, so I make the necessary allowances. (1.) Yes, most every other country has equally-harsh undocumented immigrant laws. But we're NOT Mexico and we're NOT Singapore and we're Not Russia. We always hold ourselves to be above the stupidity of Third World thinking, do we not? Why not strike for an intellectual solution? Why go North Korea? (2.) I address only the new Arizona law, which I hope will NOT be enforced. Look, ask any cop about this and they'll only repeat that line from that Bob Dylan song..."the cops, they don't need you, and they expect the same." As for party allegiance, well, this is being claimed by the Republican Party, is it not?... - Editor
Very Much So. They own it whether they want to or not.
I stole this from somewhere in cyberspace; very relavant to the topic.
" Activists for Latino and immigrant rights -- and supporters of sane governance -- held weekend rallies denouncing the new law and vowing to do everything they can to overturn it. But where was the Tea Party crowd? Isn't the whole premise of the Tea Party movement that overreaching government poses a grave threat to individual freedom? It seems to me that a law allowing individuals to be detained and interrogated on a whim -- and requiring legal residents to carry identification documents, as in a police state -- would send the Tea Partyers into apoplexy. Or is there some kind of exception if the people whose freedoms are being taken away happen to have brown skin and might speak Spanish?"
Put the hurt on the citizens - most especially the ones who own the stadiums, the hotel and restaurant chains, the clubs and pleasure holes - and they will put pressure on the politicians. We've done it before. We'll do it again. For citizens' rights? It is our patriotic duty.
Tex-Mex
C NJ: Nice. So true. Teabaggers are a fad. They'll be gone soon. Unlike Ross Perot's Reform Party of the early-1990s, they do not have a credible leader. To me, the Tea Party is a beheaded turkey - its torso gyrating wildly and drawing the sort of attention one gives to dying fowl. And Sarah Palin being the figurehead leader brings me a pleasing laughter - the same one I got when U.S. Sen. Lloyd Bentsen dressed-down one Danny Quayle. "Gov. Palin, I knew Ma Ferguson and you, governor, are no Ma Ferguson." ... - Editor
Most, If Not all The Citizens of The Northern U.S.a. see the R.G.V. as just another piece of wasted Land. Their Border is in Houston, Texas, Do Not Try to Brainwashed the Rest of The Ignorant World.
Post a Comment