Herrera to San Francisco: boycott Arizona

|
(24)
Arizona state flag
Arizona, the state whose immigration bill triggered a nationwide boycott

I almost visited Arizona once.
I was in Nevada, visiting the Hoover Dam which crosses the border between Nevada and Arizona and took a photo next to the Arizona state sign.

But I didn't cross the line. I already suspected that Arizona was groundzero for wingnuts, thanks to the decision of Arizona U.S. senator, Republican John McCain, to choose then Alaska governor Sarah Palin as his running mate in the 2008 presidential election.

At least, Democrat Janet Napolitano was still governor of Arizona at the time, and so was able to veto similar attempts to pass racist immigration laws in the state of

But now Republican Jan Brewer, a former Maricopa County supervisor, is governor of Arizona and has signed Arizona's SB  1070, I think I'll follow San Francisco city Attorney Dennis Herrera's advice and implement a sweeping boycott of all things Arizona.

Citing San Francisco's "moral leadership against such past injustices as South African apartheid, the exploitation of migrant farm workers, the economic oppression of Catholics in Northern Ireland, and discrimination against the LGBT community," Herrera offered the services of his office's contracts, government litigation and investigations teams to work closely with city departments and commissions to identify applicable contracts and to aggressively pursue termination wherever legally tenable.

"Arizona's controversial new law makes it a state-level crime for someone to be in the country illegally, and even criminalizes the failure to carry immigration documents at all times by lawful foreign residents," Herrera's April 26 press release observed. "It additionally imposes a requirement for police officers to question those they suspect may be in the United States illegally. Civil libertarians have sharply criticized the law for being an open invitation for harassment and discrimination against all Latinos, regardless of their citizenship. It has also been rebuked by the nation's law enforcement community, with the president of the Major Cities Chiefs Association, San Jose Police Chief Robert Davis, reiterating his organization's 2006 policy statement that requiring local police to enforce immigration laws "would likely negatively effect and undermine the level of trust and cooperation between local police and immigrant communities."

"Arizona has charted an ominous legal course that puts extremist politics before public safety, and betrays our most deeply-held American values," said Herrera, who is the son of an immigrant from Latin America. "Just as it did two decades ago when it refused to observe Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Arizona has again chosen to isolate itself from the rest of the nation. Our most appropriate response is to assure that their isolation is tangible rather than merely symbolic. San Francisco should lead the way in adopting and aggressively pursuing a sweeping boycott of Arizona and Arizona-based businesses until this unjust law is repealed or invalidated. My office is fully committed to work with San Francisco city departments and commissions to identify all applicable contracts, and to pursue termination wherever possible.  And my office stands ready to assist in any legal challenges in whatever way it can."

Meanwhile, Napolitano, who is serving as Obama's Department of Homeland Security Secretary, joined Obama in calling Arizona's new immigration law "misguided."

Appearing on ABC News, Napolitano said of the bill: "That one is a misguided law. It's not a good law enforcement law. It's not a good law in any number of reasons."
She also warned that Arizona's law could get other states trying to pass similar legislation, which could create a patchwork of immigration rules, instead of an an overall federal immigration system.

"This affects everybody, and I actually view it now as a security issue," Napolitano said. "We need to know who's in the country. And we need to know, for those who are in the country illegally, there needs to be a period under which they are given the opportunity to register so we get their biometrics, we get their criminal history and we know who they are. They pay a fine. They learn English. They get right with the law."

Here on the streets of San Francisco, immigrant advocates are asking folks to march on May Day in solidarity with the immigrant communities of Arizona.

"In 2006, the immigrant community took to the streets in huge numbers," a press release from the May 1st coalition stated. "Millions of undocumented working people and their families sought a pathway to legalization and to a life without fear of work-place raids or middle-of-the night deportations that tear families apart. In 2010, conditions have only worsened as hate crimes have increased exponentially; intolerance has been legitimized by the rhetoric of the Tea Party; and governments (like Arizona) have instituted harsh policing and employment practices that terrorize our communities. The federal government has failed to solve the crisis of undocumented workers in this country. In San Francisco, thousands of workers face losing their jobs because of a flawed employment verification process. Our children are deported without due process and now we must fear the codification of racial bigotry in Arizona.  State and federal governments have ineffectively solved the budget crisis on the backs of the lowest paid workers.  We march in solidarity with Arizona’s immigrants; immigrants everywhere; and the hard-working people of San Francisco who’ve unfairly endured the burden of this economic crisis.

The May 1st Coalition invites the community to join them for an April 28 poster-making party at 10 a.m, City College Mission Campus at 1125 Valencia Street in preparation for a May Day march at which Olga Miranda, President of SEIU Local 87, Jane Kim, SFUSD school board president, and Pablo Rodriguez, city college faculty, will speak.

My favorite comment on this unfunny situation comes from Daily Kos contributing editor and Las Vegas resident Jed Lewison.

"What do you call a bunch of people who not only don't see anything wrong with Arizona's new hate law, but blame federal inaction on immigration reform for "forcing" Arizona to enact the law while simultaneously trying to block federal immigration reform legislation?" Lewison asks. "You call them conservatives."

 

Comments

Immigration reform means legalizing millions of illegals, so of course people opposed to illegal immigration are opposed to "reform."

Your argument is for people who don't want open border to give in to your demands of reform, which you define as opening the borders.

No one really cares what the Guardian's opinion on anything is, but you should at least try understanding the world around you before you quote such ridiculous pronouncements.

Posted by glen matlock on Apr. 26, 2010 @ 3:15 pm

Illegal aliens are criminals and parasites, one and all. Their very presence here and practically everything they do on U.S. soil is illegal. They need to be ferreted out, rounded up like cattle, punished for their numerous crimes, then booted back to whence they snuck in from with such extreme prejudice that they will never, ever think of violating our sovereignty again. Enough is enough.    

Posted by BajaRat on Apr. 26, 2010 @ 4:32 pm

Hola.

I was on SFHate earlier (that's what I call SFGate...that backwater cesspool) and the Nazis have been having their convention over there on one thread after the other. Most of them would live very comfortably under a police state and full blown fascism. They are the most rabid hate-filled people on any site I've been on. I suppose most of them claim to be a "christian" too. Ha!

I support a boycott of AZ. No human being is illegal or an alien (I've not seen one space ship from these "aliens" that the rabids go on and on about. And what planet do these "aliens" come from?). To hear the Nazis over at SFHate talk about it, we should just send the Statue of Liberty back to France...because it has become meaningless.

And I thank all immigrants for their many contributions to this nation of immigrants, whether they are undocumented or documented. Muchísimas gracias.

If one wants to see the Divided States of North American (this nation) crumble, then all immigrants should unite together and shut down/boycott this nation for at least one week. No work, no buying anything. Shut it down! And watch the Nazis scream. They will be begging people from other nations to come and work and clean up their little funky messes that they are too good to clean up themselves.

Posted by Sam on Apr. 26, 2010 @ 4:43 pm

is in the courts - Dennis Hererra's pronouncements and the hysterical overreaction of Campos certainly don't make any difference.

But this law is wrong, counter-productive and unconstitutional. AZ will feel the pain from passing this POS.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Apr. 26, 2010 @ 5:31 pm

If there is a silver lining to this mess, it's the recognition that federal immigration reform is needed. Now.

Because if the President doesn't take the lead, the Sheriff Joe Arpaios of this world surely will. And they'll be sure to talk about "aliens" and, better yet, "illegal aliens"  at every opportunity. Because the only way to drum up support for dehumanizing policies towards a specific group of human beings is to avoid all mention of their humanity.

Posted by sarah on Apr. 26, 2010 @ 5:37 pm

When the goofy left was up in arms over the use of the word "reform" in "welfare reform" during Clinton's term I was still a bit naive I guess, I though the left was above these little games in general.

Every time I hear or read some crying liberal talk about "immigration reform" I laugh at the hypocrisy.

With the economy a mess, drug gang crime increasing, taxes going up to support more social spending that goes for naught,... well keep dreaming Sarah.

Posted by glen matlock on Apr. 26, 2010 @ 9:34 pm

I don't foresee Bush3 (Obama) or the D and R congress doing anything on this issue, other than giving lofty speeches of empty rhetoric, as per usual. He will play The People as long as they allow themselves to be played by him. The same for these other self-serving/opportunistic politicians. I'll believe positive action in support of undocumented immigrants/migrant workers when I see it.

I know that Gloria Estefan and her husband (Emilio) had a DNC fundraiser last week (I believe it was) at their Miami Beach home and The Chairman of Change was there. The price for the fundraiser: $30,400 per couple or $15,000 for singles. Talk about the bourgeois elite! I couldn't conceive of paying $15,000 to some party of useless politicians (many of whom are corrupt war criminals). $15,000 would pay for my organic groceries for a couple of years (at roughly $150/week for 2 people). I can't imagine blowing $15,000 for one party where all or most of the politicians there are millionaires to begin with. Talk about the Bourgeois elite! Screw them. Gloria and her husband seem to have fallen completely for Bush3. I don't know if she has been paying attention to what he's been doing since he took office (to continue the status quo of the Bush regime). I read that she supported Queen Hillary of the Borg Collective during the campaign. Well now she's snuggling up to Obama and she was invited to the La Casa Blanca a couple of months ago to have an interview with him which was covered by Univisión. I admire her music and artistry, but that's as far as my admiration for her goes. I'm wondering when she and her husband and Latinos, Hispanos, Méxicans (and others) in general will wake up to what this guy Obama is about? He is not what they voted for (as us Nader/McKinney voters could have told them). Some Latinos are beginning to realize that, I sense.

So, who has more power here: Bush3, or the Sheriff Joe Arpaios of this world?

This is off topic, but speaking of The Chairman of Change, did you hear what Bush3 (Mr Drill Baby Drill) said in response to the Gulf coast oil disaster? He said, "there will be accidents." Sigh. Did you also hear that there's a possibility that the thing may never be able to be capped? But The Chairman of Change wants/needs to drill off the East Coast and Gulf Coast, you know, instead of using alternative sources of energy as legitimate and positive "CHANGE." (Oh there's that "change" word again...which has become meaningless).

Posted by Sam on Apr. 26, 2010 @ 8:32 pm

States cannot boycott each other - that's a breach of the "full faith and credit~" clause that underlies inter-state commerce i.e. it's a Federal jurisdiction

But of course Sarah is free not to enter AZ although, if she went down into the bowels of the dam, she was in AZ anyway. So wash your hands! Oh wait, she can't, because that water passed through AZ.

Posted by Tom Foolery on Apr. 26, 2010 @ 10:26 pm

Well I see one of the resident trolls has changed their name from Trollop to Snapples.
That's typical behavior for InternetThen one of the other nuts makes a statement about what people's opinion of The Guardian is...yet that troll is here everyday so obviously the troll DOES care what The Guardian's opinion is, otherwise the troll wouldn't come here. Duh. I swear, trolls consistently miss people's points, they have nothing to do in their pathetic lives but "bait" people and then they such blatant hypocrites.

Posted by Sam on Apr. 26, 2010 @ 11:12 pm

How to spot a troll:

1. They change all or part of their screen name. For example, the previous name might be Crollop and the new name is Vnapples.

2. They consistently miss the point on purpose. They are really not as dense and thick as they appear to be. Usually. But there is no intelligence in there either, if that makes sense. It's pretty much an empty box.

3. They consistently bait people with their own blatant hypocrisy. For example, they may come on and complain about how long someone has been on this site, but you look at how long THEY have been on and it's much more than most people. But their own hypocrisy is how they bait others.

4. Constant whining and moaning and complaining about sites that THEY themselves are on REGULARLY. They never have anything positive to say about anything, no matter what the topic.

So once again, please do not feed the trolls. Some of them are getting paid for the drivel they write on here, IF YOU REACT TO THEM. So ignore them. As this article below says, some of them are being paid by both D and R "teams." Others are merely in need of intense psychotherapy. They are easy to spot. They often go on at great lengths about "liberals" or "libs" and "progressives" and how they are constantly laughing at "liberals" and "progressives." Silly assed people. They really don't even know what either word means...they just put it out there as bait for a reaction purpose and are probably getting paid for the reaction. Here's the article I found about trolls (written last year).

Trolls Exposed: What kind of troll is disrupting your online community?
Dave Stancliff/For the Times-Standard
Posted: 05/31/2009 01:27:12 AM PDT

Don't feed the trolls.

You know the ones I'm talking about. They prey on news forums, chat rooms, and other online communities. Their purpose: to disrupt any conversation or thread, and to get an emotional response from some unwary person. Ignoring them and not responding to their posts is your best option.

What kind of people are trolls? They're cowards. Lonely cowards. Their posts seldom show any real imagination and often resort to childish name-calling.

Trolls are often extremely pedantic and rarely answer direct questions. There are some exceptions, but most aren't smart enough to make a reasonable argument. They're not interested in reason. They repeat themselves and say stupid, off-focus things to disrupt conversations.

Some trolls like to brag about their IQ. They try to come across like rocket scientists to lure the unwary and then pounce with a verbal attack. Trolls count the responses they get. [Sam's editorial: That answers my question that I've wondered about.] It must be highly pleasurable for the poor creatures to count coups if they disrupt other people's emotional equilibrium.

Trolls call it “Lulz,” a corruption of “LOL” (laugh out loud). Jason Fortuny is the most famous troll in America (using his real name in an interview). He was interviewed in the New York Times on August 3, 2008. This article is the best read I've found on the subject of trolls.

Fortuny's passion for “pushing people's buttons” made him the most prominent troll on the Internet according to the Times. He managed to thoroughly embarrass a lot of men with his infamous “Craigslist Experiment” as described in the Times article.

Like many trolls, Fortuny claims his pastime is just a big joke, a social experiment. He lives alone, spends countless hours anonymously insulting people, doesn't have a full time job, is 32 years old, and brags (to anyone who will listen) about being a troll.

For all of Fortuny's faults, no one has ever accused him of murder, like the woman in the Megan Meier cyberbullying case.

The suicide of a teenage girl highlights another type of troll. A deadly troll, sometimes called a cyberbully, took on a fake identity and seduced a vulnerable girl in MySpace. When the troll was sure she had fallen in love with the fake identity she (this woman posed as a man) broke up with the girl and said terrible things to her.

It was more than Megan Meier could stand and she killed herself. The warning is clear here. You never really know who you are talking with on the Internet, especially in online communities like FaceBook and MySpace.

For a guide on trolls go to flayme.com, which offers an Intelligence Test for Trolls. For an insight into cyberbullying check out the book “BullyBaby: Portrait of a Cyberbully,” by Andrew Heenan. “Dealing with Internet Trolls,” posted on lockergnome.com on April 17th, 2009, is another good information source.

Legislating cyberspace to go after trolls isn't feasible in my opinion. The web is a new frontier for freedom of speech and I don't want to see that changed by Orwellian laws that make it a crime to hurt someone's feelings.

So what do you do about trolls? Recognize that they are part of the Internet community and will be there as long as there are lonely misfits and people who have trouble communicating in the real world.

They crawl through cyberspace seeking to create chaos. It gives them a sense of power when they feel powerless in the real world. They get to say things they'd never dare say to people directly. At best, they are lonely cowards. Ignore them and don't let them spoil your use of the Internet.

Trolls are not hard to spot. For example, go to an online newspaper community like the Times-Standard's Topix Forum. In no time, you'll begin to recognize some names posted in every topic. Realizing this, trolls will sometimes change their identities, but their repetition and negative comments generally “out them” to an aware community.

There are also paid political trolls. They actually get paid to surf through online communities and disrupt meaningful conversations while touting their party line. Both Republicans and Democrats are guilty of this underhanded practice.

As It Stands, there's really only one practical way to deal with trolls: don't feed them!

Posted by Sam on Apr. 26, 2010 @ 11:31 pm

"San Francisco's moral leadership...."

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Some people really need to get out more.

Posted by GuestScott on Apr. 27, 2010 @ 12:38 pm

Thanks to our wonderful city for always leading the country on important issues, this time standing-up for human rights. This racist Arizona law will become unconstitutional, no way this so called "law" can divide our Nation again, and bring us back to pre-civil rights era. Haven't we learn our lesson? Please! Instead of investing our energies in advancing our human race, improving/saving our planet, we spend so much time trapped in the hating and harassing the most vulnerable of our own kind, the human kind.

I do support the Arizona boycott, not tolerance for Fascist, gun-minded individuals.

Posted by Guest julianna on Apr. 27, 2010 @ 9:12 pm
heh

I love when the left says the right is easily manipulated through buzz words.

Posted by glen matlock on Apr. 27, 2010 @ 11:24 pm

I can't believe Herrera is trumpeting San Francisco's moral superiority to that of the State of Arizona, for the simple reason that San Francisco has abandoned its moral authority when it comes to immigrant youth. Herrera has supported Gavin Newsom in reversing a part of the Sanctuary City policy Newsom once bragged about--until Newsom recognized that problematic issues related to immigrant youth within our juvenile justice system might compromise his aspirations to become Governor or Lieutenant Governor of the State of California. In one fell swoop and without further adieu, our city's Sanctuary City went out the window with regard to immigrant children who have been ACCUSED of a felony.

Now, immigrant children are no longer entitled to their day in court. Immigrant youth may now be summarily deported, without due process, to a country they don't even know, or where they are relegated to lives of poverty, abuse, incarceration (if they happen to have tattoos) and/or neglect. Herrera has supported this change in our former Sanctuary City policy. I believe this is the height of hyprocrisy on both Newsom's and Herrera's part.

You want to talk about racial profiling? Anyone who works with youth in the Mission or Excelsior Districts understands that young people in these areas are at risk of assault and/or arrest just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Any young person (not just Latino youth) can be accused of a crime. But only immigrant Latino youth, once accused, can be deported without due process of law.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 27, 2010 @ 10:06 pm

I can't believe Herrera is trumpeting San Francisco's moral superiority to that of the State of Arizona, for the simple reason that San Francisco has abandoned its moral authority when it comes to immigrant youth. Herrera has supported Gavin Newsom in reversing a part of the Sanctuary City policy Newsom once bragged about--until Newsom recognized that problematic issues related to immigrant youth within our juvenile justice system might compromise his aspirations to become Governor or Lieutenant Governor of the State of California. In one fell swoop and without further adieu, our city's Sanctuary City went out the window with regard to immigrant children who have been ACCUSED of a felony.

Now, immigrant children are no longer entitled to their day in court. Immigrant youth may now be summarily deported, without due process, to a country they don't even know, or where they are relegated to lives of poverty, abuse, incarceration (if they happen to have tattoos) and/or neglect. Herrera has supported this change in our former Sanctuary City policy. I believe this is the height of hyprocrisy on both Newsom's and Herrera's part.

You want to talk about racial profiling? Anyone who works with youth in the Mission or Excelsior Districts understands that young people in these areas are at risk of assault and/or arrest just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Any young person (not just Latino youth) can be accused of a crime. But only immigrant Latino youth, once accused, can be deported without due process of law.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 27, 2010 @ 10:09 pm

As I understand it, Dennis Herrera has supported Gavin Newsom's stance on depriving immigrant youth of their due process rights once they are accused of a felony. This change in our so-called "Sanctuary Policy" occurred when a scandal took place, egged on by the SF Chronicle, involving the escape of several undocumented SF immigrant youth from a facility in San Bernardino County. This escape, in addition to other problematic issues involving former immigrant youth who were supposed to have been rehabilitated under San Francisco's Juvenile Court system, posed a severe threat to Gavin Newsom's aspirations to become Governor and later Lieutenant Governor of the State of California. As soon as the scandals broke out, Newsom abandoned his trumpeted "Sanctuary City" policy in favor of deporting undocumented immigrant youth who have been accused of a felony, without allowing them due process.

Now, undocumented immigrant children are no longer entitled to their day in court. These immigrant youth may now be summarily deported, without due process, to a country they don't even know, or where they are relegated to lives of poverty, abuse, persecution (if they happen to have tattoos) and/or neglect. Herrera has supported this change in our former Sanctuary City policy. I believe this is the height of hyprocrisy on both Newsom's and Herrera's part.

You want to talk about racial profiling? We have it right here in San Francisco. Anyone who works with youth in the Mission or Excelsior Districts understands that young people in these areas are at risk of arrest (and/or assault) just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Any young person (not just Latino youth) can easily be accused of a crime. But only immigrant Latino youth who are undocumented are being deported without due process of law. How does this make the City of San Francisco's policies morally superior to those which are slated to go into effect in Arizona?

Posted by Guest on Apr. 27, 2010 @ 10:28 pm

As I understand it, Dennis Herrera has supported Gavin Newsom's stance on depriving immigrant youth of their due process rights once they are accused of a felony. This change in our so-called "Sanctuary Policy" occurred when a scandal took place, egged on by the SF Chronicle, involving the escape of several undocumented SF immigrant youth from a facility in San Bernardino County. This escape, in addition to other problematic issues involving former immigrant youth who were supposed to have been rehabilitated under San Francisco's Juvenile Court system, posed a severe threat to Gavin Newsom's aspirations to become Governor and later Lieutenant Governor of the State of California. As soon as the scandals broke out, Newsom abandoned his trumpeted "Sanctuary City" policy in favor of deporting undocumented immigrant youth who have been accused of a felony, without allowing them due process.

Now, undocumented immigrant children are no longer entitled to their day in court. These immigrant youth may now be summarily deported, without due process, to a country they don't even know, or where they are relegated to lives of poverty, abuse, persecution (if they happen to have tattoos) and/or neglect. Herrera has supported this change in our former Sanctuary City policy. I believe this is the height of hyprocrisy on both Newsom's and Herrera's part.

You want to talk about racial profiling? We have it right here in San Francisco. Anyone who works with youth in the Mission or Excelsior Districts understands that young people in these areas are at risk of arrest (and/or assault) just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Any young person (not just Latino youth) can easily be accused of a crime. But only immigrant Latino youth who are undocumented are being deported without due process of law. How does this make the City of San Francisco's policies morally superior to those which are slated to go into effect in Arizona?

Posted by Guest on Apr. 27, 2010 @ 10:30 pm

I apologize for several posts on the same theme--I couldn't tell if my post was going through, so I kept re-posting it in hopes if would show up here.

Also, the key word I omitted from my earlier versions of this letter, in reference to immigrant youth, is "undocumented" immigrant youth. But, there are alot of undocumented immigrant youth here in San Francisco, many of whom have grown up here, who become exceedingly vulnerable if brought under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, guilty or not. I say, San Francisco holds no moral authority over Arizona, in light of this change from our formerly sterling Sanctuary City policy (which Newsom used to brag about). A once exemplary city policy has been tarnished and eroded by Newsom with Herrera's support, in the service of Newsom's ambitions to run for state office in California. When the Supervisors voted to right this wrong, Newsom refused to honor their vote. Please see, for a more thorough discussion: http://www.nomoredeaths.org/index.php/No-More-Deaths-in-the-Media/san-fr...

Posted by Guest on Apr. 28, 2010 @ 7:17 am

The progressives, the born again Christians or neo-conservatives?

Which situational moralists should I mindlessly obey the dictates of?

Should I pick and choose my way through the bible in a certain way like progressives and born againers? Should I pick and choose my way through the constitution like progressives and neo conservatives? Should I think some people and groups are above the law as progressives and neo-conservatives believe?

Every true believer has a handle on the moral authority thing and is happy to force it on the rest of us, even though it is in complete conflict with the rest of their agenda.

Still guest, Herra isn't really part of the conspiracy against your moral authority, he gave what he thought was his best legal advice on the subject at hand, that is his job as toady. The moral authority thing loses much of it's luster when you willfully recreate.

Posted by glen matlock on Apr. 28, 2010 @ 9:09 am

Believe whatever you want about moral authority. But I say, at least be willing to recognize hypocrisy when you see it. And I see Herrera's position as hypocritical, due to his criticism of Arizona while supporting Newsom's change of SF's former sanctuary policy where immigrant youth are involved.. I see Newsom as hypocritical because he originally bragged about his support of SF's Sanctuary City policy. Then, he immediately did an about-face when it became clear his aspirations to hold office in the State of California were threatened when the San Francisco Chronicle published several unbalanced articles designed to inflame the public passions against the City's support of immigrant youth.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 28, 2010 @ 8:57 pm

Still, his job in the case of the boards law around illegal immigration was to give legal advise, he also consulted the federal attorney on this. If say you consulted an attorney and he told you it was OK to break the law and then you ended up going to jail he would have been giving terrible advice. I have lawyer friends and they tell me comical stories like yours that they hear from clients who think retaining a lawyer is followed by winning the lawsuit lottery in a matter of days.

Herrera is not "supporting" Newsom, he gave legal advice. He could have just pandered to his fellow pathological lawyer scum like Campos and just tell the city to have at it. If it came out that he knew that the city's law was not going to make it he could may have exposed himself to liability, which of course I the tax payer would have to pay for, again.

The law would have required that people in various levels of law enforcement break the law in the course of their job and expose themselves to legal problems. It is against the law to force an employee to break the law, if I were a city cop and was asked to break the law like that, I would be talking to the union lawyers within the next fifteen minutes.

Yeah Newsom like the progressives in the city is a pandering idiot. In a just world all the board members and the mayor at the time of the Bolgna murders would be tried for accessory to murder. The feds investigated people in the cities government and threatened to bring charges against them because of the cities previous sanctuary rules, I the tax payer paid for lawyers to defend them. I find it interesting that the cities progressives don't have a problem breaking labor law in this area again, which their ass kissing of the unions makes them highly hypocritical.

You're reading the Guardian, and seem to like it, and you are complaining about "unbalanced articles?"

Posted by glen matlock on Apr. 29, 2010 @ 1:57 am

I don't understand how anyone can oppose this Arizona law. The law simply reiterates what is already true according to federal law - legal aliens must have proof of legal residency and illegal aliens must be deported immediately. The idea that the law discriminates on national origin is false; it applies equally to aliens from Canada and Mexico.
The idea that it is racist if even more ridiculous - 40% of Hispanics in America are white, as are 10% of Mexicans and over 90% of Uruguayans, Argentinians, and Spaniards. We need to pass this exact law in California and nation-wide.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 30, 2010 @ 9:32 am

I was planning to bring my family to SF this summer. Instead, we'll visit the beautiful state of Arizona. While in AZ I'll do a little work to support S.F. in their support of illegal immigrants.

I'll be handing out and posting fliers promoting S.F. as the top 'Sanctuary City' in the country - where all illegal immigrants can take advantage of all the wonderful amenities the number one sanctuary city in the country, has to offer.

My flier (written in Spanish of course) will ask a few simple questions and state some simple facts, like:

"Is life in Arizona getting you down?" "Tired of not feeling welcome?" "Well, the 'City By The Bay', San Francisco, welcomes you with open arms!" "Come to San Francisco, and bring your la madres and el padres, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles and cousins too - you are all welcome!" "Forget Arizona's desert climate - come to S.F. and raise your children by the Golden Gate! " "You'll have all the same amenities - free education, free medical, tax free living, etc... but without all the hassles. Plus S.F. offers many other benefits too numerous to count!" "Make a new home for your family - make it in San Francisco." "The City By The Bay awaits you with smiles and open arms!"

Posted by Guest on May. 02, 2010 @ 9:08 am

For those living in Arizona or those that simply must travel there, here is my idea. Each and every time you see a cop in Arizona, insist he or she check your ID and/or run your license plate. Inundate and overwhelm their system by insisting all who visit there be checked out. In other words, don't give the schmucks enough time to order a donut. Demand that you be identified and your documentation is certified as correct!

Posted by Guest 53enfield on May. 03, 2010 @ 6:15 pm

Go AZ!
While immature liberals conduct boycotts, tons more people prepare a summer vacation, not to forget 70 percent of America likes SB1070!

Posted by Robert on May. 05, 2010 @ 3:42 pm