What would Martin Niemoller think about Arizona?

Originally Posted by ZenGum

Meanwhile, in 2010 .... an economic boycott of Arizona is cooking up. The first cancellation? The annual conference of the National Immigration Lawyers Association. Yah really.

AZ officials are probably more concerned about the real possibility of losing the 2011 All Star game...much like they lost the Super Bowl in the early 90s as a result of being the only state not to adopt the Martin Luther King Holiday.

That boycott cost the state $hundreds of millions in lost conventions, tourism, etc.

Something similar happened in the early 1990s, when the voters of Arizona failed to endorse a holiday for Martin Luther King. The estimated cost to Arizona businesses during 1991 and 1992 was $340 million. The National Football League pulled the 1993 Super Bowl out of Phoenix, moving it to Pasadena.

Up now? Major League Baseball. The 2011 All-Star game is slated to be held at the home of the Diamondbacks.

For a sport that relies heavily on Latinos for its players, the idea of holding the game in a state where they may be asked to show they're entitled to be in the country strikes the wrong chord. Over a quarter of Major League Baseball players (27 percent) are Latino, and some of its biggest stars have last names like Rodriguez, Gonzalez, Ramirez, or Hernandez.

http://www.open.salon.com/blog/tony_...mmigration_law

And for the record, I am not paid to endorse any position and never have been since my short stint in the US Senate staff in the early 80s.

[Pie]

Arizona "Papers, Please" Law May Hit Tech Workers on Tuesday April 27, @11:56PM

Posted by kdawson on Tuesday April 27, @11:56PM
from the don't-know-jack-boots dept.
business

dcblogs writes "H-1B workers and foreign students may think twice about attending school or working in Arizona as a result of the state's new immigration law. If a police officer has a 'reasonable suspicion' about the immigration status of someone, the officer may ask to see proof of legal status. Federal immigration law requires that all non-US citizens, including H-1B workers, to carry documentation, but 'no state until Arizona has made it a crime to not have that paperwork on your person,' said immigration lawyer Sarah Hawk. It means that an H-1B holder risks detention every time they make a 7-11 run if they don't have their papers, or if their paperwork is out of date because US immigration authorities are behind in processing (which condition does not make them illegal). The potential tech backlash over the law may have begun yesterday with a call by San Francisco City Atty. Dennis Herrera 'to adopt and implement a sweeping boycott of the State of Arizona and Arizona-based businesses.'"

[Pie]

Damn those Latino sluggers, taking jobs from good, white AMERICAN boys!!

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Pie

Damn those Latino sluggers, taking jobs from good, white AMERICAN boys!!

[classicman]

City workers banned from official travel to Arizona

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom announced today a moratorium on official city travel to Arizona after the state enacted a controversial new immigration law that directs local police to arrest those suspected of being in the country illegally.

The ban on city employee travel to Arizona takes effect immediately, although there are some exceptions, including for law enforcement officials investigating a crime, officials said.

Link
Good - stay in CA and fix your own problems.

[Cloud]

"secure the borders." what an absolutely nonsensical phrase.

[jinx]

Originally Posted by Cloud

"secure the borders." what an absolutely nonsensical phrase.

Do you say this because you think it would be too hard, or because you disagree with the concept?

A sovereign nation would not remain as such for very long without defined and defended borders, don't you think?

Wiki

The current notion of state sovereignty was laid down in the Treaty of Westphalia (1648), which, in relation to states, codified the basic principles of territorial integrity, border inviolability, and supremacy of the state (rather than the Church). A sovereign is a supreme lawmaking authority.

I'll readily admit I don't know how to get it done, but I don't understand why wanting secure borders is nonsensical.

[classicman]

Oh please elaborate...

[skysidhe]

People want their land back....2 hundred 50 some odd years later. It is a grand excuse to live off the benefits of the American government without even attempting,I'm assuming, to become a citizen FIRST.

Lame lame lame..... "Hey I'm illegal but hey umm this country was ours first...so .......we are going to stand up for principles" [is truly weird logic]

Originally Posted by skysidhe

People want their land back....2 hundred 50 some odd years later. It is a grand excuse to live off the benefits of the American government without even attempting,I'm assuming, to become a citizen FIRST.

Lame lame lame..... "Hey I'm illegal but hey umm this country was ours first...so .......we are going to stand up for principles" [is truly weird logic]

Do you think signs like this are representative of the immigration reform protest movement as a whole..rather than representing a minority of the fringe protesters?

It seems to me to be tarring the larger movement based on the actions of a few....much like the criticism of tarring the Tea Party based on the few extremists signs at their rallies.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

Do you think signs like this are representative of the immigration reform protest movement as a whole..rather than representing a minority of the fringe protesters?

It seems to me to be tarring the larger movement based on the actions of a few....much like the criticism of tarring the Tea Party based on the few extremists signs at their rallies.

I gotta bookmark this post.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by skysidhe

... It is a grand excuse to live off the benefits of the American government without even attempting,I'm assuming, to become a citizen FIRST...

Assume away. Most anecdotal evidence is that illegals are the people in the service sector working for less than minimum wage, with no employer-provided benefits or employer-withheld taxes. They're the people who work long hours, since it's at low wages, mowing your lawn, washing dishes at your restaurant, emptying your septic tank, cleaning your hotel room, etc.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Most anecdotal evidence is that illegals are the people in the service sector working for less than minimum wage,

You mean the legally mandated wage?

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by classicman

...I do not know how to do it - no idea. well maybe one - There is this great wall I've heard about in China.

Don't forget the ones that fly in.

Originally Posted by classicman

...Only problem is it would take a lot of people and resources and with the economy doing so well and unemployment so low - oh wait, never mind.
....

[conspiracy]Those unemployed folks might like to make some cash building a wall between Mexico and the US of A. And I'll bet they'll do it for cheap! Wasn't that the plan when they wire terminated from their employment?[/theory]

Originally Posted by classicman

You mean the legally mandated wage?

Interesting... Who is breaking the law - the employer who pays less than minimum wage or the employee who accepts minimum wage? I say the employer is breaking the law (surprise).

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Don't forget the ones that fly in.

I'm glad you find it humorous - Whats the percentage that fly in versus every other means?

Interesting... Who is breaking the law - the employer who pays less than minimum wage or the employee who accepts minimum wage? I say the employer is breaking the law (surprise).

I'm all for prosecuting and penalizing both parties.