DC Council: Boycott Arizona

”
courtesy of ‘Chris Rief aka Spodie Odie’

A recently-passed Arizona Law has the City Council seeking to pass a citywide official boycott on the state of Arizona, forcing city pension funds and retirement funds to divest their holdings of Arizona companies, and restricting official travel from the State in response to their state criminalization of illegal immigration.

The council was quite adamant in opposition to the law, despite significant national support for the law. In addition to the formal boycott measures, which require further discussion and votes, the council unanimously presented a bill that would require that MPD not transmit arrest data to Immigration & Customs Enforcement.

Tom Bridge

I live and work in the District of Columbia. I write at We Love DC, a blog I helped start, I work at Technolutionary, a company I helped start, and I’m happy doing both. I enjoy watching baseball, cooking, and gardening. I grow a mean pepper, keep a clean scorebook, and wash the dishes when I’m done. Read Why I Love DC.

10 thoughts on “DC Council: Boycott Arizona”

DC should shut it’s corrupt mouth. Get over it, fix your own corrupt city before getting into the mix with others. DC Sucks.

Thanks for that erudite and insightful viewpoint, jimmy.

I like the idea of sending a message to AZ, but I’m not sure if a boycott is the best way to do it.

Arizona is not the first state to pass this type of law. They don’t need to be sent a message, they need help.

The new law is unconstitutional and it is only a matter of time before it is struck down by our courts. It’s a “status” crime, meaning that the law makes it a criminal offense to, just as it sounds, be a certain status. Nothing more.

These types of laws have already been held to be unconstitutional by our Supreme Court. In 1962 California passed a statute making it a misdemeanor to be “addicted to the use of narcotics.” The Court struck this law down as a violation of the 8th amendment (Court Case here: http://bit.ly/bzBlvu).

You cant be arrested for being addicted to drugs anymore than you can you be arrested for being homeless. Just having the status is not enough. The new AZ law will fall like the others.

The DC Council should take some time to reflect on why the law was passed. Arizona is a border state. They have real and documented problems with illegal immigrants. Problems that the majority of the states in this country simply do not have to deal with.

Is the law wrong? Yes. But look where it stems from, its a reaction not only to the crime and violence that spills into AZ via the Mexican cartel and drug trade, but also to the fact that AZ is left to deal with the problem by themselves. They, along with the other border states, take a disproportionate share of the burden of the problems associated with illegal immigration.

Perhaps instead of further isolating the state, the DC Council should consider reaching out to their fellow Americans and try to help them deal with a serious problem.

I don’t want to get into a discussion of whether illegal immigration is “right” or “wrong” the fact of the matter is that it is currently against federal law.

Once again, I am not doing this for the debate, but I am actually interested in how under the definition of aiding and abetting, DC Council isn’t guilty.

I am not looking to debate whether the action should or shouldn’t have taken place, but can someone make a decent case that under current laws, this isn’t a violation?

So proud of DC for standing up against hate and bigotry. This is not about immigration. This isn’t going to solve that problem. It only scapegoats Hispanics’ in AZ, who are majority citizen.

Jenn,

If Hispanics are the majority citizen, it seems to follow that they would make up most of the work force in AZ.

Doesn’t that mean that a boycott on AZ companies only acts to further hurt the victims of the new AZ law by hurting the companies where they work?

I love how people who blog on ILOVEDC want to get all up in AZ’s internal business, but whine like babies about Congressman Chaffetz “meddling in our logal government”

http://www.welovedc.com/2010/04/23/meddle-in-our-local-governance-lets-see-how-you-like-it/

And I’m with you guys. But you can’t have it both ways. Walk the walk, folks. You have no idea what is going on in AZ, so butt out.

duh, “local”

Decisions have consequences, Theo, and if we as a city want to influence politics afar, we have methods at our disposal to express our displeasure, including Boycotts like this one.

As for Rep Chaffetz and his tomfoolery, he has direct access to methods that interfere with the District’s operations and policy, literal legislative imprimatur, and yet he is not elected by those he holds dominion over. That’s called Bullshit, and we don’t stand for it.

jimmy on May 4, 2010 at 4:37 pm said:

DC should shut it’s corrupt mouth. Get over it, fix your own corrupt city before getting into the mix with others. DC Sucks.
Tom Bridge on May 4, 2010 at 4:47 pm said:

Thanks for that erudite and insightful viewpoint, jimmy.
Delilah on May 4, 2010 at 4:59 pm said:

I like the idea of sending a message to AZ, but I’m not sure if a boycott is the best way to do it.
Matthew Pontes on May 4, 2010 at 11:20 pm said:

Arizona is not the first state to pass this type of law. They don’t need to be sent a message, they need help.

The new law is unconstitutional and it is only a matter of time before it is struck down by our courts. It’s a “status” crime, meaning that the law makes it a criminal offense to, just as it sounds, be a certain status. Nothing more.

These types of laws have already been held to be unconstitutional by our Supreme Court. In 1962 California passed a statute making it a misdemeanor to be “addicted to the use of narcotics.” The Court struck this law down as a violation of the 8th amendment (Court Case here: http://bit.ly/bzBlvu).

You cant be arrested for being addicted to drugs anymore than you can you be arrested for being homeless. Just having the status is not enough. The new AZ law will fall like the others.

The DC Council should take some time to reflect on why the law was passed. Arizona is a border state. They have real and documented problems with illegal immigrants. Problems that the majority of the states in this country simply do not have to deal with.

Is the law wrong? Yes. But look where it stems from, its a reaction not only to the crime and violence that spills into AZ via the Mexican cartel and drug trade, but also to the fact that AZ is left to deal with the problem by themselves. They, along with the other border states, take a disproportionate share of the burden of the problems associated with illegal immigration.

Perhaps instead of further isolating the state, the DC Council should consider reaching out to their fellow Americans and try to help them deal with a serious problem.
B.R. on May 5, 2010 at 7:36 am said:

I don’t want to get into a discussion of whether illegal immigration is “right” or “wrong” the fact of the matter is that it is currently against federal law.

Once again, I am not doing this for the debate, but I am actually interested in how under the definition of aiding and abetting, DC Council isn’t guilty.

I am not looking to debate whether the action should or shouldn’t have taken place, but can someone make a decent case that under current laws, this isn’t a violation?
Jenn on May 5, 2010 at 3:04 pm said:

So proud of DC for standing up against hate and bigotry. This is not about immigration. This isn’t going to solve that problem. It only scapegoats Hispanics’ in AZ, who are majority citizen.
Matthew Pontes on May 5, 2010 at 3:24 pm said:

Jenn,

If Hispanics are the majority citizen, it seems to follow that they would make up most of the work force in AZ.

Doesn’t that mean that a boycott on AZ companies only acts to further hurt the victims of the new AZ law by hurting the companies where they work?
Theo on May 5, 2010 at 4:09 pm said:

I love how people who blog on ILOVEDC want to get all up in AZ’s internal business, but whine like babies about Congressman Chaffetz “meddling in our logal government”

http://www.welovedc.com/2010/04/23/meddle-in-our-local-governance-lets-see-how-you-like-it/

And I’m with you guys. But you can’t have it both ways. Walk the walk, folks. You have no idea what is going on in AZ, so butt out.
Theo on May 5, 2010 at 4:09 pm said:

duh, “local”
Tom Bridge on May 5, 2010 at 4:16 pm said:

Decisions have consequences, Theo, and if we as a city want to influence politics afar, we have methods at our disposal to express our displeasure, including Boycotts like this one.

As for Rep Chaffetz and his tomfoolery, he has direct access to methods that interfere with the District’s operations and policy, literal legislative imprimatur, and yet he is not elected by those he holds dominion over. That’s called Bullshit, and we don’t stand for it.