Cities Boycotting States

In the article, “L.A. To Boycott Arizona Over Immigration Law,” the city of Los Angeles, California passed a resolution to stop business with Arizona until their new immigration law is repealed. L.A. currently does about $52 million of business with the state in various industries. According to the article, only about $8 million of the trade could be reasonably stopped. L.A. depends on Arizona for wind and nuclear energy, which would be maintained. Taser service and waste management trade between the city and state would be most likely to be ended. US Airways, who has a hub in Arizona and sends many flights to Los Angeles, would most likely not stop business. Several other cities in California, including San Diego, San Francisco, and Oakland, have passed similar resolutions encouraging a stop of trade with Arizona until the law is repealed. Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona responded by saying "I find it really interesting that we have people out there that are attempting a boycott in favor of illegal actions in Arizona. That to me is just unbelievable."

This brings another aspect whereby the US Congress could become involved in the debate about the Arizona law. One of Congress’ rights is to regulate interstate commerce, and since this law is indirectly affecting that, Congress may feel the need and the right to become involved with this state and local level policy making.

Alexa: I think that it is ridiculous that these cities are cutting off trade with Arizona. Just because you do not agree with someone’s policy does not mean that you have to stop doing business with them, but on the other hand, I suppose that you have the right not to do business with whomever you want. Fundamentally, the law brings up an interesting perspective on racial profiling, which could or could not be considered unconstitutional. The real issue I see in this is that California desperately needs to solve its budget deficit, and these cities are acting emotionally and cutting off good trade, instead they should think more about what is best to solve their state’s problems instead of trying to indirectly influence another state’s controversial issues.

Helen: Ideological issues aside, I think that it is probably not wise for California to start cutting ties with an important trading partner. However, the claim that “people out there are attempting a boycott in favor of illegal actions in Arizona” is extremely skewed. Just because Los Angeles dislikes Arizona’s current practices doesn’t mean that it is encouraging Arizona to move towards illegal ones.

Posted by H. Anderson and A. Witowski

ID For All?

In his Newsweek May 13th editorial entitled "Why All Americans Should Carry ID Papers," Christopher Dickey proposes a different solution to the controversial Arizona law allowing policemen to search Hispanics that they suspect of being illegal immigrants. He suggests that it would be wisest making it a law requiring to have government-issued identification cards with all people at all times, and that if someone cannot produce their identification, they are to be detained by the police until they are proven to be American citizens or not instead of being instantaneously deported. He says that this would relieve the discriminatory pressures on the Hispanic community that come with the hot-button Arizona law. Also, the fact that these would be cards would mean that it would be far easier to keep track of, instead of having to tote around a birth certificate or a passport. Also, Dickey denounces a section of the Arizona law that states that people may complain to the police department about police officers not being zealous enough in searching for and deporting illegal immigrants.

Personally, I think that this whole situation is rather preposterous. All of this need for constant identification for no other purpose than showing that you are an American citizen is vaguely reminiscent of Stalin-era Communism, where neighbors could turn anyone in for not being enthused enough about the government's policies. In my opinion, these laws, both the one in effect in Arizona and the one proposed by Dickey, are blatant violations of the implied right to privacy as established by Griswold v. Connecticut. Citizens should not be subject to these random interruptions just because a police officer has a sneaking suspicion about them not being legal.

Mary Morris (extra credit)

Feds in Arizona Taking On More Drug Cases, but Also Rejecting More"

In the article (5/13/2010) on Foxnews, Arizona has seen a raise in federal drug prosecutions while the rest of the country has seen a fall. Arizona has seen a 202 percent jump in drug prosecutions since 2008. The rest of the country has seen a 17 percent drop. Federal prosecutors, who are struggling to handle a rapid rise in immigration cases along the Southwest border, turn down prosecutions in Arizona more than anywhere else in the country. This happens despite the increase in funding and staffing and looser restrictions on when they can help. Last year, federal prosecutors turned down 1,368 prosecutions. In 2008, only 603 prosecutions were rejected. Cases are commonly rejected due to a lack of prosecutorial or investigative resources. The report says, "The large number of drug cases being turned away suggests that there are serious stresses on some federal prosecutor offices... A likely major source for these strains is the powerful flood of immigrations that has washed over the region."

"In reality, we are taking more drug cases than ever before, and working in partnership with state and local agencies to make progress," spokesman Wyn Hornbuckle told FoxNews.com. Part of the reason for this increase is the drop on the requirement of only handling cases where a bust resulted in 500 pounds or more of confiscated contraband. Many local officials are glad to see federal prosecutors taking more federally-related cases now. "We're pleased that the federal prosecutor's office is able to handle all the federally related cases now," she said. But she added that the policy shift has not resulted in a lighter workload for the state. "Our office budget due to the state of the economy has been slashed," she said. "And we have a very difficult time keeping up with the workload."

This article reaffirms my belief that Arizona does have authority to pass immigration laws in their state. Arizona has a lot of work to do just in the area of drug trade. Passing more immigration laws may be a way for Arizona to start getting a grasp on their new and growing problems. Arizona is an exception in the nation in terms of immigration so one law for the whole nation may not suit Arizona. If state laws are a faster solution for their problems, then I believe they are not crossing the divide between state and federal government.

Photo credit: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/11/strain-arizonas-legal/

By SHatcher and LAmbrose

Controversy surrounding new Arizona legislation




A group of protesters against the recently passed legislation.


In the May 6th CNN article, "Latino rights groups, others call for Arizona boycott," many groups are furious with the recently passed legislation in Arizona that is set to go into effect this summer. Many believe this law is opening the door for racism, and are against the fact that it allows law enforcement to ask anyone for their papers. The city councils said they are going to take action to stop this law due to "concerns over enforcement costs and negative effects on Arizona's tourism industry." Even the famous Mexican writer Carlos Fuentes ventured to say that Arizona has "officially declared itself racist." This article states the Arizona legislators say that they passed the law due to a failure by the federal government in keeping illegal citizens outside of the border, which allowed more than 450,000 undocumented immigrants to settle in the state.

Arizona passing its own version of an immigration law is an example of federalism. Because the state felt that the national government was not doing enough to restrict immigration, it exercised its right to create a law specific to its citizens. The National Council of La Raza, a national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the United States, along with other organizations have called for a boycott "asking others to consider whether their purchases of goods and services might perpetuate the unjust and discriminatory law in Arizona”. By calling for this boycott and by holding demonstrations in the streets of Arizona, the organizations and citizens are exercising their right to freedom of speech.



Photo Credit: http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/05/06/arizona.immigration.boycott/index.html

Grade This Post.

By: Sarah G. and Chris D.

Illegal Deportation?

This Newsweek article, dated January 7, 2010, tells the story of legal immigrant Jose Angel Carachuri-Rosendo and the issues surrounding his deportation on the grounds of misdemeanor offenses. Prior to 1996, immigration judges have exercised discretion on deportation on a case-by-case basis. However in 1996, new laws increased the number of crimes that constituted aggravated felonies and took some power away from immigration judges, causing confusion. Recently, the government has expanded the meaning of these “aggravated felonies” to encompass lower-level crimes as well and used it as grounds for more deportations. The legal question posed by this and other similar cases is: Should legal immigrants be deported for committing crimes?

We relate this situation to a child playing at a friend’s house. The child was invited to play at his/her friend’s house as a guest, however it is known that if you break a rule of their house you must go home.

Photo credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mdorn/116503453/

By Brooke Adair & Alex Bishop

Grade this post