Oh, and for the record, I think all boycotts of governments and large industries (such as gas companies) are a waste of energy. The only boycotts that are effective are narrowly targeted at specific products or (relatively) small businesses.
LA, SD, Boston, and Austin so far have passed ordinances calling for a boycott for anything from Arizona until the repeal of the latest law.
Arizonans personally have went ahead and called for a boycott for those place boycotting them. The places that would be the most affected would be SD, LA, and possibly Austin.
SD officials are condemning the reverse boycott calling it hurtful to their economy while at the same time still encouraging the boycott of Arizona.
So my stance is that if you call for a boycott expect backlash and be prepared for it.
Personally I don't see either side being affected much as simple apathy will win out in the end.
...and if arizonans want to boycott boston, so be it. they should be consistent with their boycotting, and that includes medical advances discovered at massachusetts general hospital and the harvard medical school. and technology from mit.
i'll boycott... um... cactus.
if they'd learn to do their own housework and construction, there wouldn't be a problem. and note the onus is on the folks they hire, not on the people who do the hiring. if they deprived arizona residents of their civil rights for hiring undocumented workers the problem would be solved.
I think the whole notion of doing work that regular Americans simply won't do is a load of crap.
If people would get over their ego about what a job needs to be, then they would hire from a pool of American workers.
It is this idea of hiring illegal immigrants to do this work that perpetuates the problem. Stop hiring people without proper documentation and heavily fine those business that willingly do this practice.
I think you would have a hard time trying to convince people to not hire undocumented workers because these are the same people fighting for amnesty for these people. You fix the problem then they have no ground to stand on and actually have to pay these workers an actual American wage.
The problem is that people think it is beneath them to be responsible for themselves. Especially in this economy I wouldn't care if someone with an masters is working at McDonalds. If they are able to sustain a happy life then so be it.
Personally, i don't have much of an opinion on cities boycotting each other, but I also do think there is a case to be made for asking whether racism is in any way a motivation in Arizona. Its important to note that while the immigration bill has been getting the most press and started a lot of this debate that there are other issues here. But, I'll start with the immigration bill itself. That bill was introduced by Arizona state senator Russell Pearce, who likes to get photo ops with openly Neo-Nazi people and who once fowarded an email from a white supremacist/seperatist group to his supporters that said things like
( ... )
I think that that question is unfair as it implies that only the actual language of the bill is important and that the intentions of those who wrote/ introduced the bill as well as its inevitable actual implementation and enforcement cannot be a basis for judging whether a bill is racist. Of course the actual language of the bill isn't going to outright endorse the singling out of a specific racial/ ethnic group but that doesn't mean that everyone behind that bill didn't know well that this would come down to 'people suspected of being illegal immigrants' = dark skinned people with accents (which reinforces the racist, nativist notion that only white skinned, English speaking people are truly legitimate, unquestioned inhabitants of this country and that everyone else is fair game for suspicion).
But it is still my question. You tried to deflect it by redirecting it towards other possibly related items.
Using your argument then any law that ever comes out of any government institution can be proven racist because at any time it can be used in that manner to discriminate against a race of people. Because you said it was based on those that put forth the bill and/or the intent into which it was used.
My question is not unfair. You just don't like giving me the answer you don't want to give. You basically just admitted to that.
Comments 36
Reply
Reply
Reply
LA, SD, Boston, and Austin so far have passed ordinances calling for a boycott for anything from Arizona until the repeal of the latest law.
Arizonans personally have went ahead and called for a boycott for those place boycotting them. The places that would be the most affected would be SD, LA, and possibly Austin.
SD officials are condemning the reverse boycott calling it hurtful to their economy while at the same time still encouraging the boycott of Arizona.
So my stance is that if you call for a boycott expect backlash and be prepared for it.
Personally I don't see either side being affected much as simple apathy will win out in the end.
Reply
i'll boycott... um... cactus.
if they'd learn to do their own housework and construction, there wouldn't be a problem. and note the onus is on the folks they hire, not on the people who do the hiring. if they deprived arizona residents of their civil rights for hiring undocumented workers the problem would be solved.
Reply
If people would get over their ego about what a job needs to be, then they would hire from a pool of American workers.
It is this idea of hiring illegal immigrants to do this work that perpetuates the problem. Stop hiring people without proper documentation and heavily fine those business that willingly do this practice.
I think you would have a hard time trying to convince people to not hire undocumented workers because these are the same people fighting for amnesty for these people. You fix the problem then they have no ground to stand on and actually have to pay these workers an actual American wage.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Using your argument then any law that ever comes out of any government institution can be proven racist because at any time it can be used in that manner to discriminate against a race of people. Because you said it was based on those that put forth the bill and/or the intent into which it was used.
My question is not unfair. You just don't like giving me the answer you don't want to give. You basically just admitted to that.
Reply
Leave a comment