Immigration

[ariscus99 1]

San Diego is trying to back pedal and say they aren't really boycotting AZ, it's political not personal. Well it looks like Arizonian's don't really care, they're saying "you boycott us, we'll boycott you."

Some in Arizona canceling trips to S.D.

Outrage over local censure votes may be a misunderstanding

BY LORI WEISBERG, UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

FRIDAY, MAY 14, 2010 AT 12:04 A.M.

San Diego tourism leaders and hoteliers fear they could lose a sizable chunk of business this summer from valued “Zonies” who are so angered by elected leaders’ recent censure of Arizona for its illegal-immigration law that they’re mounting an informal boycott of their own.

The San Diego Convention & Visitors Bureau and several hotels report receiving e-mails and letters from Arizona visitors saying they intend to change their plans to travel here in light of local outcry over their home state’s anti-illegal-immigration stance.

Tourism officials are striking back. In an open letter, they urge Arizona residents to overlook local politics and come to San Diego just as they always have for its mild climate, beaches and attractions. The visitors bureau, in conjunction with the San Diego County Hotel-Motel Association, plans to circulate the letter to media outlets and in advertising this weekend in The Arizona Republic.

The bureau says it has received about 25 to 30 e-mails from Arizona residents reacting to resolutions passed last month by the San Diego City Council and school board, which were little more than symbolic protests aimed at the neighboring state’s lawmakers.

Still struggling from the prolonged economic downturn, San Diego’s visitor industry can ill afford to lose any of the 2 million Arizonans it counts on annually, said ConVis President Joe Terzi.

“We’re in a very tough environment already because of everything else going on, and we don’t need another negative impact to our industry,” Terzi said. “This affects all the hardworking men and women who count on tourism for their livelihoods, so we’re saying, don’t do something that hurts their livelihoods.”

Although the summer months typically are an economic bonanza for the San Diego visitor industry, the recession and continued high unemployment have eaten away at lodging revenue as hotels have steeply discounted rates to fill their rooms. The Convention & Visitors Bureau spent $9 million last year promoting the region for the spring and summer months and is dedicating $7 million toward that effort this year.

“I’ve been approached by a number of hotels who are very concerned because they’ve received cancellations from Arizona guests,” said Namara Mercer, executive director of the county Hotel-Motel Association. “It’s a huge piece of business for not just the hotels but for all of San Diego. Everybody’s excited because they think occupancies will be stronger this summer, and now this.”

In some cases, it appears that Arizona residents misconstrued the votes taken by San Diego’s elected leaders as calls for an actual boycott of Arizona as opposed to statements of opposition.

In one letter received by the Sofia Hotel in downtown San Diego, a “boycott” was cited as the reason for canceling a planned trip to the city.

“Nothing against the Sofia; however, wanted to let you know that we were planning on coming out in August and staying for 10-14 nights,” read the letter. “Since San Diego decided to boycott AZ, we decided to do our part and vacation elsewhere. Really sorry since we truly like staying at your place and will miss it.”

In many of the e-mails to the visitors bureau, Arizonans bluntly expressed their displeasure with San Diego’s stance on the illegal-immigration law and said that staying away was the best way of registering their protest.

“So you see when people in government start to boycott it goes both ways,” said one e-mail. “You just lost our visits to our favorite places in your city and the $3,500 we had in our budget to spend there.”

In a draft letter yet to be approved by visitors bureau and hotel association leaders, Terzi sought to clarify the city’s position on the immigration law while stressing the respect the region has for Arizona’s visitors.

“While immigration is a complex and sensitive issue for our nation, we believe it needs to be addressed independent of actions that would harm our economies and hardworking residents,” states the letter. It implores prospective visitors to “look past the political posturing and make your travel decision for all the right reasons.”

Charles Holladay, manager of the Ramada Plaza in Mission Valley, noted that as much as 50 percent of his summer business originates in Arizona, and he already has received a cancellation from a regular customer.

“I understand the City Council was being passionate about their politics, but I don’t think they thought it through,” Holladay said. “If it negatively impacts hotel revenue, it impacts the transient occupancy tax, and that goes right into the general fund, so they’ll have less money for their programs.”

San Diego Councilwoman Donna Frye said she believes some Arizona residents are acting out of a misunderstanding.

“The City Council did not pass a resolution boycotting Arizona, and I would hope that the good citizens of Arizona understand that and will continue to visit San Diego,” Frye said.

School board President Shelia Jackson said that while she was disappointed to hear of people opting to stay away from San Diego, she doesn’t regret her vote.

“It’s sad that people would cancel their plans to come here in reaction to that, but I still think we did the right thing,” Jackson said. “Certainly, we know how important tourism is to San Diego, and it wasn’t my intent to impact the tourism trade.”

[ariscus99 1]

First San Diego, now L.A., AZ is not messing around. They say; "Boycott us? We'll boycott you!"

Dear Mayor Villaraigosa,

I was dismayed to learn that the Los Angeles City Council voted to boycott Arizona and Arizona-based companies — a vote you strongly supported — to show opposition to SB 1070 (Support our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act).

You explained your support of the boycott as follows: “While we recognize that as neighbors, we share resources and ties with the State of Arizona that may be difficult to sever, our goal is not to hurt the local economy of Los Angeles, but to impact the economy of Arizona. Our intent is to use our dollars — or the withholding of our dollars — to send a message.” (emphasis added)

I received your message; please receive mine. As a state-wide elected member of the Arizona Corporation Commission overseeing Arizona’s electric and Water utilities, I too am keenly aware of the “resources and ties” we share with the City of Los Angeles. In fact, approximately twenty-five percent of the electricity consumed in Los Angeles is generated by power plants in Arizona.

If an economic boycott is truly what you desire, I will be happy to encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements so Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based generation. I am confident that Arizona’s utilities would be happy to take those electrons off your hands. If, however, you find that the City Council lacks the strength of its convictions to turn off the lights in Los Angeles and boycott Arizona power, please reconsider the wisdom of attempting to harm Arizona’s economy.

People of goodwill can disagree over the merits of SB 1070. A state-wide economic boycott of Arizona is not a message sent in goodwill.

Sincerely,

Commissioner Gary Pierce

[getnthere 0]

I think Chleo's Mom has alot of great points people assume that illegals come here dont pay taxes and get all kinds of government help.

The truth is most poeple are not very well informed on the issue. They just believe what they are told.

The only reason they come here is to work for thier families and the only reason they can is because the American Government has created a lazy society of non working Americans who find it easier and more profitable to abuse the assistance they have.

I think If the Government wants to focus on immigration they should focus on ALL not just the Hispanic population.

Most of them are hard working people.

Most have not commited any crimes other than coming here to better them selves.

[ariscus99 1]

Teddy Roosevelt on discrimination

"In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile...We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

Tom McClintock on president calderons visit and speech.

Edited May 21, 2010 by ariscus99

[Cleo's Mom 257]

"In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile...We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

This also includes the confederate flag.

[ariscus99 1]

[colorred]This also includes the confederate flag. [/color]

Absolutely. Great point Cleo's Mom:thumbup:

Though by saying room for only one flag, the American flag, what you said is implied.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Absolutely. Great point Cleo's Mom:thumbup:

Though by saying room for only one flag, the American flag, what you said is implied.

That's right. Take down the confederate flag. The south lost, the United States won. Move on.

NAACP Wants to Remove Confederate Flag from State Capital

January 22nd, 2010

The NAACP will expand its campaign to remove the confederate flag from South Carolina State Capital Building.

During a Martin Luther King Day rally for health care and education, NAACP head Benjamin Jealous said the confederate flag is a symbol or racism and intimidation that has no business on state capital grounds

[tdslf1 0]

It's about to get hot in Arizona. I say lets get this reform on the road and get it done before this fall.

[lauragshsu 6]

Anyone have any thoughts on the recent lawsuit? What about thoughts on Mexico joining in?

[lauragshsu 6]

Mexico on Tuesday asked a federal court in Arizona to declare the state's new immigration law unconstitutional, arguing that the country's own interests and its citizens' rights are at stake.

Lawyers for Mexico on Tuesday submitted a legal brief in support of one of five lawsuits challenging the law. The law will take effect July 29 unless implementation is blocked by a court.

The law generally requires police investigating another incident or crime to ask people about their immigration status if there's a "reasonable suspicion" they're in the country illegally. It also makes being in Arizona illegally a misdemeanor, and it prohibits seeking day-labor work along the state's streets.

Until recently, Mexican law made illegal immigration a criminal offense -- anyone arrested for the violation could be fined, imprisoned for up to two years and deported. Mexican lawmakers changed that in 2008 to make illegal immigration a civil violation like it is in the United States, but their law still reads an awful lot like Arizona's.

Arizona's policy, which President Felipe Calderon derided during a recent U.S. trip as "discriminatory," states police can't randomly stop people and demand papers, and the law prohibits racial profiling.

Mexican law, however, requires law enforcement officials "to demand that foreigners prove their legal presence in the country before attending to any issues."

Amnesty International recently issued a report claiming illegal immigrants in Mexico -- typically from Central America -- face abuse, rape and kidnappings, and that Mexican police do little to stop it. When illegal immigration was a criminal offense in Mexico, officials were known to seek bribes from suspects to keep them out of jail.

But Mexico said it has a legitimate interest in defending its citizens' rights and that Arizona's law would lead to racial profiling, hinder trade and tourism, and strain the countries' work on combating drug trafficking and related violence.

Citing "grave concerns," Mexico said its interest in having predictable, consistent relations with the United States shouldn't be frustrated by one state.

"Mexican citizens will be afraid to visit Arizona for work or pleasure out of concern that they will be subject to unlawful police scrutiny and detention," the brief said.

It will be up to a U.S. District Court judge to decide whether to accept the brief along with similar ones submitted by various U.S. organizations.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed the law on April 23 and changes to it on April 30, has lawyers defending it in court.

In a statement issued late Tuesday, Brewer said she was "very disappointed" to learn of Mexico's filing and reiterated that "Arizona's immigration enforcement laws are both reasonable and constitutional."

"I believe that Arizona will ultimately prevail and that our laws will be found constitutional," Brewer added.

Brewer and other supporters of the bill say the law is intended to pressure illegal immigrants to leave the United States. They contend it is a needed response to federal inaction over what they say is a porous border and social problems caused by illegal immigration. They also argue that it has protections against racial profiling.

Mexican officials previously had voiced opposition to the Arizona law, with Calderon saying June 8 that the law "opens a Pandora's box of the worst abuses in the history of humanity" by promoting racial profiling and potentially leading to an authoritarian society

U.S. officials have said the Obama administration has serious concerns about the law and may challenge it in court. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton recently went further by saying a lawsuit is planned.

[lauragshsu 6]

And another article:

The question isn’t whether President Barack Obama’s decision to file a lawsuit to block Arizona’s new immigration law is a political risk. There’s little doubt of that. What’s unclear is whether taking on public opinion on this emotionally charged issue will cost him more votes among the overall electorate than he will gain among the vocal minority who find the law abhorrent.

The American people like what Arizona has done to combat illegal immigration, polls show. They are comfortable with the law-enforcement-only approach that the president disdains.

The political unknown about the Arizona lawsuit – the state’s law has become the symbol of the fight over illegal immigration — and its electoral repercussions involves the question of comparative salience: Your third-grade social studies teacher may have told you that majority opinion rules in the U.S., but that is not always the case.

The majority doesn’t always prevail on political issues.

Clearly, based on the polling data, the American people were opposed to the health care overhaul that Congress passed and the president signed in March. We’ll see in November whether that issue will have electoral repercussions for the president and his party.

Often a well-organized and dedicated minority can overcome a majority that is less committed to a cause. That is what the White House hopes will happen politically with immigration.

The Big Question

The key political question on the lawsuit is this: Will the goodwill that the Obama administration gains among Hispanics and other immigrant-rights supporters be worth the loss among the much larger group of voters who disagree with him on Arizona?

The Justice Department on Tuesday asked the U.S. District Court in Arizona to block implementation of the law scheduled for July 29.

The law would allow police to ask people stopped in connection with a non-immigration crime to prove they are in the U.S. legally.

It is expected that U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton, appointed to the federal bench by President Bill Clinton in 2000, will handle the case. She is already handling other lawsuits challenging the Arizona law, and just last week ruled that Mexico can file a legal brief opposing the law.

The federal suit, which challenges Arizona’s ability to pre-empt Congress’s role in setting immigration policy, becomes one of six challenges to the new law. But by filing its own lawsuit, rather than joining or endorsing one of the others, the White House is making a political statement.

Despite condemnation of the law by the Obama administration – the president labeled it “misdirected” — and calls from some Democrats for an economic boycott of Arizona, polls show the country sees things differently.

Wishing for a Similar Law

These polls show voters generally support the Arizona law and want a similar statute in their own state. Three of five Democratic members of Congress from Arizona, worried about their prospects in November, asked the White House not to file the suit. And it is not just in the states close to the Mexican border where this sentiment is strong.

A Quinnipiac University poll of Florida voters released last month found that they approve of the Arizona law 59%-29%. In Ohio, another Quinnipiac poll released last month found support by 48%-28%. Asked whether they would want their own state to pass a similar law, the answer was yes, 55%-34% in Florida and 45%-35% in Ohio.

The White House position is that criminal sanctions and law enforcement are not by themselves the way to deal with illegal immigration. The president favors a solution that would lead to making the estimated 10 million to 12 million illegal immigrants legal residents and eventual U.S. citizens.

Getty Images Will Obama’s decision to file a lawsuit challenging Arizona’s immigration law cost him more votes among the overall electorate than he will gain among the vocal minority who find the law abhorrent?

But voters have a different view. A Quinnipiac University national poll last month found that by 66%-26% voters thought any overhaul in immigration law should be in the direction of stricter enforcement rather than integrating illegal immigrants into American society.

Although voters disagree with the president on illegal immigration, and it is the kind of hot-button issue that can get voters to the polls, the unknown is how that will translate at the ballot box this November.

Obama’s Political Capital

In general, President Obama’s job approval rating has been in the mid-to-high 40s — not bad, but not terrific. A few points lower would be a political problem; a few points higher would give him the political capital to pursue his agenda without worrying about a backlash.

A Wall Street Journal/NBC poll released last month asked voters what attributes and positions a congressional candidate had that make them feel enthusiastic or comfortable about him or her.

Favoring the Arizona law ranked sixth on the list of 18, ahead of an endorsement from Mr. Obama but behind supporting a cut in federal spending, being a woman and being a first-time candidate.

A Washington Post/ABC News poll in June found that Americans disapprove of the president’s handing of immigration 51%-39%, a lower rating than he gets overall and on most issues.

There is very little doubt that in filing the lawsuit Mr. Obama is taking on public opinion. The unknown is whether his party will pay the price for it come November and in his own re-election in 2012.

[Ricky 6]

Humbly speaking, I would like to add my two cents. I am a labor and delivery nurse in Oregon..I see illegals living off the system every day. In Oregon, you just have to be pregnant to get the OR health plan, it doesn't matter it you are here legally or not. Also, once you get on the OR Health Plan, you automatically qualify for food stamps, WIC, and can sign up for Section 8 housing..all w/o being here legally. The illegals that I see KNOW what they are doing and how to use the system. It is so frustrating to hear about the poor Mexicans being abused. The ones I see, I am working to pay taxes for their free healthcare, free groceries, and free housing. They all get every form of gov't assistance out there. Please don't try to tell me otherwise...I've been watching it for years.

I am all for legal immigration...but it seems SO unfair that there are so many people that have worked, paid taxes, and then don't qualify for anything because they still aren't broke enough...well, and they are white.

[JamesJ4 15]

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Humbly speaking, I would like to add my two cents. I am a labor and delivery nurse in Oregon..I see illegals living off the system every day. In Oregon, you just have to be pregnant to get the OR health plan, it doesn't matter it you are here legally or not. Also, once you get on the OR Health Plan, you automatically qualify for food stamps, WIC, and can sign up for Section 8 housing..all w/o being here legally. The illegals that I see KNOW what they are doing and how to use the system. It is so frustrating to hear about the poor Mexicans being abused. The ones I see, I am working to pay taxes for their free healthcare, free groceries, and free housing. They all get every form of gov't assistance out there. Please don't try to tell me otherwise...I've been watching it for years.

I am all for legal immigration...but it seems SO unfair that there are so many people that have worked, paid taxes, and then don't qualify for anything because they still aren't broke enough...well, and they are white.

You need to provide more facts to back up your accusations:

1) Do all pregnant women get free everything? Or is it income dependent?

2) If all pregnant women get free everything then I would think the Oregan population would go through the roof.

3) I suspect it's income dependent. Therefore, don't white pregnant women who meet the income requirements get free everything? Because if they don't then it would violate the civil rights act and probably a good many other federal laws, too.

4) Those who ascribe to your way of thinking usually consider themselves pro-life (I prefer anti-abortion). So, if pregnancy is the starting point for all these free goodies do you then want to deny prenatal care for the unborn and jeopardize it's life - or isn't the fetal life important if its mother is an undocumented worker?

5) Would you also then deny a place for this baby to live and food for it to eat - again, because it's mother was an illegal?

6) If pregnancy is the starting point, does Oregan hand out all these free goodies to able bodied people without pregnancies or children?

[Ricky 6]

I just have a few minutes and wanted to respond. I can more specifically answer your questions later...for me, it's the heart..the intent..yes, the OR health plan is for any pregnant women w/o insurance.

There is a big difference between a woman living in Oregon, working or not, that is here legally and finds herself pregnant and w/o insurance and someone that is pregnant, crosses the border illegally or comes here when she is pregnant, over stays her visa w/the INTENT to birth on American soil, knowing she will get free healthcare, the housing, food stamps, etc... No, I am not for denying prenatal care. Just don't come here, to this country, expecting it for free.

Except for pregnancy, the OR Health plan has very tight restrictions on who qualifies. This is because they are broke paying for the births, prenatal care of illegals. Also, they aren't "undocumented workers." Very very few of the women work and they don't marry their significant others, knowing they would then have to claim their husband's income and loose their benefits. I do see this among citizens too..but, it is a much larger trend amongst the "undocumented workers."

I am not wanting to get into an angry debate here and I don't have statistics..I just know what I see everyday at work and it's very frustrating.