WatchSonoma Watch

GUEST OPINION: Why we should boycott Arizona

Christopher A. Kerosky is a resident of Sonoma County who practices law in Santa Rosa and San Francisco.

The effort to overturn Arizona’s recently passed law targeting illegal immigration is an important civil rights battle that we should all support. If it takes effect, the law could make a significant segment of our population — many of them U.S. citizens — vulnerable to arbitrary detention and questioning, based solely on their accent or the color of their skin.

Christopher A. Kerosky

It is an insidious law that takes a big step back in the evolution of our laws toward equal rights for all, and it should be repealed.

The Arizona law is discriminatory and divisive.

Many of the provisions of the law, known as SB 1070, have not been widely publicized or understood by the American public. Its terms are far more extreme than California’s ill-fated Proposition 187 or other more recent state laws targeting illegal immigration.

SB 1070 requires state and local officials to demand people’s immigration status if there is a “reasonable suspicion” that they are undocumented. The law does not specify how law enforcement is to determine “reasonable suspicion,” and it is hard to see any other way except by racially profiling. It’s naive to think that Latinos, legally and illegally here, will not be the primary targets of such police conduct.

What has not been widely discussed is that this provision also applies to non-police civil servants enforcing state and municipal civil codes. For example, even county officials visiting residents’ homes for such things as housing inspections, child welfare visits, even complaints about barking dogs would have an obligation to demand proof of legal status if they had a “reasonable suspicion” that the residents they were visiting may be undocumented.

For the first time, persons not trained in law enforcement would suddenly have a role in enforcing our immigration laws. This could dramatically change the role of local government with the Latino community in Arizona and open the window wide for abuse of power by local officials of all kinds.

The law also requires immigrants to carry proof of their legal status or be subject to six months imprisonment and fines. How can such a law be enforced except by inviting government officials to demand immigration papers for anyone who looks or talks like they might be born outside this country? This is reminiscent of police state regimes that singled out religious or ethnic minorities to “carry their papers” or be subject to arrest.

Most extreme is a provision which allows anyone to sue a local, county or state agency or official to enforce the law. Police officers and government officials would be subject to paying fines up to $5,000 for every day they are deemed to have not adequately applied the law and paying the legal fees and costs of the person or group who sued them. This opens up our civil servants to lawsuits from anti-immigrant groups and individuals who believe the law is not being enforced aggressively enough. It puts them in an untenable position between enforcing the law and attempting to observe the equal protection clause of the Constitution barring racial and ethnic discrimination.

A boycott is the best response.

There were several cities and towns that enacted extreme anti-immigration laws in the past, only to realize that the net effect was to cause a mass emigration of Latinos from their communities. The resulting financial loss in consumer spending, business activity and tax revenue for their localities pushed many to the point of insolvency. Many of their leaders have now expressed regret for passing these laws.

We here in Sonoma County benefit from a rich and dynamic Latino population that contributes greatly to our society, our economy and culture. We should lead the movement to resist this law and boycott the state of Arizona. Only by making the state suffer financially can we hope to repeal this divisive law and discourage similar laws from being enacted across the country.

67 Responses to “GUEST OPINION: Why we should boycott Arizona”

  1. Ronald Lemley says:

    Yeah, I agree with June, who cares about the civil rights of the people on the larest Indian reservation in the world and over a million and a half legal Mexicans?
    Let’s all go there and proclaim our white superiority! Seig Heil!

  2. Ronald Lemley says:

    Judging from the low ratings given to my other comments, it would seem that this site, like so many others, is the nearly exclusive realm of so many right wingers who do not like to hear opposing views.
    I’m being polite.Under the present circumstances, it’s time to call a spade a spade.The shooter in the recent assasinations is a registered Republican and Tea Party wannabe as well as an enthusiast of several right wing militant organizations.
    People want so desperately to call him a left winger because he had long hair and smoked an occassional joint.Right wingers also smoke pot.
    The whole incident has a gigantic right wing stamp on it because they are the faction that loves guns sooo much that they have made a gigantic crusade out of lobbying and arguing for their precious right to bear arms.
    The real issue here is that the shooter was obviously influenced by the two year long hurricane of concentrated hatred generated by the right wing.Whether the right wing chooses to acknowledge that fact is questionable.
    I think it may be time for them to own up to their own prejudices.
    To correct one of the comments,California’s law does not require every person of color to prove their citizenship at routine traffic stops and such.Such a law would be prejucicial and if you were brown, like me, you would understand that.

  3. Admittedly, after the original public outcry, Arizona’s law was modifed to prohibit racial profiling. Unfortunately, that does not solve the problem; for the problem is the law’s vague criteria for determining when someone may be questioned and detained. Suddenly someone who is considered “reasonably suspicious” can be questioned and, if they’re not able to prove residency, detained.

    This is why the UFW is asking for individuals to protest on July 29th: http://michaelaparicio.wordpress.com/2010/06/04/ufw/


  4. Noah says:

    The AZ law does prohibit racial profiling. Theoretically, opposing the law because of profiling does not make sense. But what about reality? I have not been to AZ and am not likely to go there (I like cooler climates). What do I know about living conditions there? I can guess about a couple of things with relative comfort:

    One is that there is a huge illegal immigration problem, causing all kinds of difficulties for people who live there, including fear for their safety, fear for the safety of the illegals, financial drains on their local governments, and so on. They have long pleaded for help and not gotten it from the federal govt, from the officials who have to be elected and are not likely to take bold action when they may be thrown out of office for it. So, AZ locals took bold action, a plea for help really, when they passed and signed this law.

    The other thing I can surmise is that AZ is a place where a lot of folks retire. They are mostly older and pretty conservative folks. They are not likely to be extremely flexible when it comes to cultural change, which is what happens when a new group of people “invades” and changes the landscape of your life forever. This kind of change is ultimately very American, and it is also almost impossible to tolerate.

    Cultural change requires the new arrivals and enough supporters to insist on equality long enough for old adversaries to go the way of ancestors, whereupon change will have occurred. I wonder, what must change have been like for those who thought women should be quiet, stay home, and not have a say in things? Women’s ability to vote is fairly recent in our history. What about slavery? Can you imagine being owned by someone, or owning another human being and subjecting them to whatever you felt like at the moment? These are changes that have happened right here in the USA, and new generations have come to see these changes as good and proper and just (most of us).

    We are watching another fundamental change: the rights of homosexuals being asserted. We are right in the middle of it. I remember when it was risking your life to admit you were homosexual; people would beat the crap out of you or kill you. Now, most schools have a lot of kids who claim to be gay, and schools have policies that protect them. I know, some of us are against all that even now, but the point I make is that of change. It is inexorable, and none of us can do anything about it. Time moves on despite what we want. Probably, future generations will see homosexuality as normal and right and proper too.

    There is a fundamental ethnic shift occurring (for lack of better terminology), and it is too late to stop it. It is most natural to want change to stop, so we can hold on to a life that is comfortable, one in which we know what to expect. It is hardest when we get older and a bit more conservative. That is representative of a large group of Arizonans I think, and exists here too.

    We fear change when we see a lot of Hispanics everywhere, and we (some of us) want it to stop or slow down. We have cultures which are different from theirs, and there is friction. But are they wrong for being born where they were, any more than we are wrong for where we were born? No. Are we wrong for wanting things to stay the same? No. Are they wrong for wanting a better life? No. Is it illegal to cross the border without “permission?” Yes. I think our founders did the same thing.

    We are wrong though, when we lack the imagination to understand the fear of change we all share, and when we fail to make decisions based on something more thoughtful than base instinct. It is really tough, for me included, not to just give in to our emotions and rail against the newcomers. At one time it was the Chinese, then the Irish. But we have something called consciousness, or better yet, conscience, which gives us an ability beyond that of mere animals who respond only by instinct. And we need to use it here.

    The AZ law is not inherently racist; it does not say throw out all brown-skinned people. But the likely human response may well be to profile and prosecute brown-skinned people and leave whites less disturbed. Those of us who have witnessed, been victims of or fought against racism might be sensitive to that possibility, and it is that racist possibility which they react to. I’m not saying that those on the left have a good claim when they cry racism. I am saying if enough people are greatly disturbed by the AZ law, perhaps we should pay attention.

    I’m betting the law will be declared unconstitutional, and not go further. I’m hoping that the feds will develop an achievable, fair-minded immigration policy which will be both socially just and enforceable. And I’m praying (even though I’m not religious) that everyday folks will think more logically than it appears we have been.

  5. Edwin says:

    Just because you don’t understand it, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t make sense. Many, many other people seem to be able to grasp the concept.

    “Mexico’s laws are the responsibility of it’s citizens, while our laws are our responsibility.” But you’re not a citizen of Arizona, so according to your logic, it’s the responsibility of Arizona citizens, not yours.

  6. Craig says:

    So everyone who believes in the law is racist? Everyone who would follow the law is profiling? The state may go broke but that is OK? If someone breaks into your house and they are of color I should not call law enforcement because I am racist, profiling, and it is too bad if it is my property? Yeah makes perfect sense too me…can I have another glass of koolaid please?

  7. Cynthia Boaz says:

    Edwin, your post makes no sense. Mexico’s laws are the responsibility of it’s citizens, while our laws are our responsibility.

    Being opposed to racial profiling in Arizona does not- by extension- mean that one should be also be opposed to strict immigration laws in Mexico.

    That being said, I would be thrilled to see Americans boycotting repressive regimes or protesting unjust laws in other countries around the world, as a show of solidarity with our fellow humans.

  8. Edwin says:

    For those who don’t like that anonymous posting is available on WSC, you should boycott WSC and stick to the main PD site. Then you won’t need to whine since PD uses bylines.

  9. Jalama says:

    I am old enough to remember when the police could arrest you for not carrying a draft card. I have no sympathy for anyone caught in an illegal act with no identification. Pretty simple to do if you are worried about it. Oh,I forgot, you are already illegal and without papers. Now what should we do? Any illegal suggestions out there other than nothing?

  10. Edwin says:

    What’s hypocritical is that those against the AZ law didn’t boycott Mexico first for its immigration law.

  11. Beef King says:

    55 posts later, Ms. Boaz has yet to grasp that her claims of fear of abuse apply to every person in America.
    No one in America is safe from wrongful detention and/or mis-identification. Yet, in America, we also have laws against abuse by law enforcement. Specific language prohibiting ‘profiling’ is written in the Arizona law.
    Maybe Ms. Boaz and Efren Carrillo should actually read the law, it is easy to read and to find on the internet. Try this link:
    Ms. Boaz and Mr. Carrillo, please renounce your boycott and support the Arizona law, and show that you care about EVERYONE in Arizona.

  12. Johnson says:

    Firstly, I wouldn’t call it intelligently disagreeing when you force your opinion on anyone who disagrees with you.

    Secondly, there is a difference between posting anonymously and entering a country illegally. You do realize which one of those is illegal, right?

    Thirdly, it appears you are accusing me of being anti-progressive. You’re assuming yet again.

    Fourthly, you’re not a resident of Mexico or Arizona, right?

  13. Cynthia Boaz says:

    Noah, thank you and I appreciate that.

    Mr. Commonsense, your pseudonym is ironic. You are making a classic logical fallacy of conflating opposition to an unjust law with support for criminality. Do you think that people who opposed the perfectly LEGAL institution of slavery in the 18th century were foolish, racist and codependent of criminals? Do you blindly support every law that’s passed? If gay marriage was made legal in the US, would you support it so adamantly as you support the Arizona law?

    Johnson, bullying (which is what you seem to define as when someone intelligently disagrees with you) under a pseudonym is absolutely more disrespectful than bullying with one’s own name. It’s called transparency. Without it, there is no accountability. For someone who claims to be so supportive of law and order, you seem to have no problem with impunity. That’s hypocritical, don’t you think?

    If it was progressives hiding behind pseudonyms, I doubt you’d be so accommodating.

    BTW, you do realize that Arizona and California are both part of the United States while Mexico is a sovereign country, right?

  14. Mr. Commonsense says:

    Criminals are criminals. Black, white, yellow, red, criminals are criminals. Illegal is illegal. Foolish racist codependents are foolish, racist and codependent. This man is a fool, a racist and is totally unhealthy in his codependence of illegal criminals. He probably just lost a ton of work in this community by revealing his racist support of criminal behavior here.

  15. Johnson says:

    Cythia said, “Think about it. What does it say about someone who won’t own up to their views publicly, but only when hiding behind a curtain?”

    Do you know what it says? To you, it says whatever you ASSUME. What it really means is their own business, not yours. And it doesn’t decrease the validity of their statements regarding immigration, nor does it increase yours when using your name.

    Cynthia said, “Asking someone to not bully others from behind an anonymous name on a web board is not a criticism, it’s a plea for some basic respect.”

    Bullying under ones own name is no more respectful than doing anonymously. Go ahead, claim you’re not bullying.

    Cythia also said, “What an odd thing to say. This discussion is about an American law and whether it’s democratic and constitutional. Mexico’s own immigration policy has no bearing on the issue of whether Arizona’s law is acceptable or not.”

    WOW! Talk about an odd thing to say. We all (should) know that Mexico’s immigration policy is stricter than that of the United States, and its penalties for illegal entry are harsher, so if there is some hypocrisy, it is very relevant. Why don’t California’s try to change Mexico’s law by boycotting? Because their laws are for them to deal with, just as Arizona’s aren’t. Mexico’s policy makes Arizona’s MORE acceptable.

  16. Noah says:

    a note to Beef & Cynthia…

    Beef King: I am a progressive. That doesn’t mean I automatically agree with all left-wing rhetoric. In fact, my recent posts show that I do not. Clumping all left-wing/Democratic/Progressives together is like clumping all right-wing/Republican Tea Partiers together. Neither position serves anything but emotional catharsis.

    I read your stuff and sometimes, in the very same post, wonder how you can be so right and so wrong in the same post! It makes me laugh, in a good way. It also makes me wonder about how I classify people and arguments for myself. You have some very good things to say.

    I think we must all deconstruct our own automatic beliefs and look at things with reason and logic. When we are right, we should learn to make use of good argumentation and move others to change. When we are wrong, we should admit it, and look to see what we can change in ourselves for our own benefit. I hope you will reconsider making such obvious misstatements as “For that matter, why don’t the avid ‘progressive’ posters ever offer any solutions to the problem? They must be the party of No.” That doesn’t sound like your best work to me.

    Cynthia: I really appreciate your posts. They make me think, and its hard work sometimes. It is most difficult to assess my own worldviews and background beliefs when I’ve always automatically accepted them.

    In all honesty, I am plagued by feelings of nativism and their conflict with my feelings of humanitarianism. It may be that I seek to logically assert one or the other in pleading that we need to obey the law (re: Arizona). But it is only when people make themselves separate from me that these feelings surface. I have plenty of friends, and always have, from disparate “races” and backgrounds. They are just people. But when someone hyphenates their name (allegiance) or worse yet, elevates another country or lifestyle over mine, I get defensive. It is a battle I wage inside myself constantly, always re-assessing my motives, always clarifying my intentions, much of it through these posts.

    I salute you, and Laura Gonzalez, for having the stones and the intelligence to go against opposition when morally necessary, even when I sometimes disagree with you. I have been on the front lines of such courage most of my life (I’m a conscientious objector).

    I implore you and Laura to listen more for where the “conservative” posters are coming from. They may say things that sound like raw racism, and they may even be drawn into it, but this is a far more subtle conversation, regardless of what they know they are responding to. This subject is about how we want to organize ourselves. It deals with the rather abrupt change in our lifestyles (well, 30 years may not be abrupt), and the fears that arise from those changes.

    This is also a conversation about how to deal with fear, and sometimes gross opposition is not the most comforting path. Yet, sometimes it is the path most needed! Oh well…

    Also-anonymous posting is valid. Some of us might get fired from our jobs if our identities were published. Though it does take courage to give our names, I don’t blame others for not doing so. Their opinions may or may not be valid. Judge their opinions on their arguments, not their names. And keep posting! Thanks.

    And to others, can we please have this be about our ideas and not make it personal? You convert no one by calling people names or making it about their personality. It doesn’t help anyone grow or learn. It just makes you seem stupid. Not you, I meant the others.

  17. Jim Stewart says:

    It may seem odd by itself, however I try to think globally. We have trade deficits with countries because their import laws are more restrictive to our goods than ours are to their goods. That would be balanced out if both played by the same rules.

    Thinking globally, the problem exists because there is very little chance of facing any consequences if you currently break our immigration laws. If there was more enforcement, like Arizona is attempting to do, then there would be less of that crime occurring.

    Since the law specifically prohibits racial profiling then the only gripe would be the human factor. Those who believe humans are incapable of following the law without profiling. They generally accomplish that every day so this law is no different.

    The world looks rosey througg rose colored glasses. If all you see is racism in everything, consider the source.

  18. Cynthia Boaz says:


    What an odd thing to say. This discussion is about an American law and whether it’s democratic and constitutional. Mexico’s own immigration policy has no bearing on the issue of whether Arizona’s law is acceptable or not.

  19. Beef King says:

    After all the ridiculous verbage, there is no compelling argument in these posts to support a boycott.
    The guest opinion repeats the same tired ‘progressive’ party lies that have brought us this point.
    How about asking the Guest Opinionator back to present his solutions to the problem of criminals and terrorists using the friendliness of America to sneak over the border for the purpose of committing crimes or to bring harmful terrorism to our nation?
    For that matter, why don’t the avid ‘progressive’ posters ever offer any solutions to the problem?
    They must be the party of No.

  20. Jim Stewart says:

    Would it be draconian if the USA mirrored the immigration requirements and penalties of another country? Say, Mexico? They have interesting immigration policies. No one seems to care. Is it racist to not care about their policies, simply because of the color of their skin?

  21. Cynthia Boaz says:

    Dear John Myserson,

    It is not as simple as “being for American law or not.”

    Until people took a stand against them, it was “American law” to:

    - forbid women from voting or owning property
    - forbid blacks from voting or owning property
    - forbid blacks from using public conveyences and institutions
    - segregate schools and public transportation on the basis of race
    - forbid Native Americans from having citizenship
    - forbid the consumption of alcohol
    - OWN other people

    …to name a few.

    Just because a law is on the books and/or is popular does NOT make it righteous, humane or (thankfully) constitutional.

    I don’t think anyone here is PRO-illegal immigration, but many of us are against racist and draconian means to battling it. Not only because they violate basic human rights such as dignity, but because at the end of the day, they make the problem worse.

    And, btw, the term “anchor babies” is extremely derogatory.

  22. john says:

    I am Proud to put my name here it is john Myerson I am Against illegal immigration and anchor baby’s my grandfather went through Elis Island and I Believe that it is disrespectful for Illegal immigrants think they have rights here earn them then i will honor you dont and i will try to remove you simple as that. and Carrillo needs to get a grip on reality ether he is for American law or not.

  23. Cynthia Boaz says:


    I absolutely agree with you that when someone turns to ad hominem attacks (such as Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh), it means they have no confidence in their argument.

    However, I think you are reading these posts with a very biased eye. The criticism was actually OF me, not by me, when Beef accused me of discrimination.

    I’m happy to engage my critics’ requests and am even willing to consider that he’s right, but asking him to identify himself first is a perfectly valid and universally-shared sign of integrity. Asking someone to not bully others from behind an anonymous name on a web board is not a criticism, it’s a plea for some basic respect.

    Think about it. What does it say about someone who won’t own up to their views publicly, but only when hiding behind a curtain?

    We need more authenticity and less duplicity in our public debates. Don’t you agree?

  24. Johnson says:

    Cynthia went WAY off topic, just as Laura did on other pages, and is criticizing instead of arguing. I can tell when someone loses an argument when they turn to criticisms. I support anonymous postings because those two will attack anyone who disagrees with them.

  25. Cynthia Boaz says:

    Dear Beef,

    I’ll take your requests seriously when you man (or woman) up and reveal your true identity.

    Have the courage to put your name on your remarks or else don’t expect to be taken for more than an anonymous bully.

    Dr. Cynthia Boaz

  26. Beef King says:

    from dr. boaz,

    “It makes discrimination on the basis of skin color acceptable, and no matter how one tries to justify it, the entire notion undermines every genuine American virtue.”

    No one has discriminated more than you Dr. Boaz.
    Go back and read your posts, then follow your own advice. Please.

  27. Sidewinder says:

    severe poverty + easily available jobs = illegal immigration?

    Nope, not in Arizona. God bless Arizona.

  28. Cynthia Boaz says:

    No one is arguing that everyone who supports this law is inherently racist, but rather that the law gives fodder to latently or covertly racist sentiment. It makes discrimination on the basis of skin color acceptable, and no matter how one tries to justify it, the entire notion undermines every genuine American virtue.

    There are other, more humane and democratic ways to deal with illegal immigration. Ways that won’t promote racial hostilities and suspicion and degrade ourselves and others.

    If you don’t think this law isn’t been defended by tapping into people’s fears and anger about racial difference, you’re not paying attention.

    The anonymous commenters on this site are not the first to accuse me of being reflexively anti-racist, but at least I have the courage to put my name on my remarks. And I’d honestly rather be accused of wondering whether there’s racism where there turns out to be none than to defensibly conclude there isn’t (where it turns out to exist) out of fear or denial or convenience.

    Why aren’t you folks even willing to entertain the question of racism here? Perhaps you should look at that.

  29. Laura Gonzalez says:

    On racism.

    Montana points out 8 items that have happened in AZ. It is my belief that the driving force behind all of them is racism. So it isn’t the stick the dogs & firehoses on ‘em racism of the 60s, that doesn’t mean it isn’t racism.

    Beef King, et al can insist all they want that it isn’t racism, it’s merely enforcing our laws, etc. I say bs.

    And excuse me if I don’t rely on nor wait for the dominant culture to confirm my suspicions. According to Tim Wise, white America has never seen racism, or admitted that it existed. Poll after poll, starting during Reconstruction, had whites believing that blacks were happy and all was right in the world. This includes up through the 50s and 60s, despite the nightly news bringing incredible images of racism into their living rooms. If white America didn’t see racism in those times, what makes me think they’d see it now?

    And for anyone actually paying attention to my posts, I have never come out in favor of unrestricted immigration. I have said time and again that we need to get a handle on it, and the institutions that encourage it, rather than the poor people trapped by it.

    extreme poverty + easily available jobs = illegal immigration. Prove this theory wrong.

  30. Laura Gonzalez says:


    Again, from Wikipedia: “In some cases, the Court has implicitly assumed, or suggested in dicta, that such children are entitled to birthright citizenship: these include Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), and INS v. Rios-Pineda, 471 U.S. 444 (1985)”

    As recently as 1985 the SCOTUS has ruled that children receive citizenship by being born here, regardless of the legal status of their parents. This goes all the way back to Wong Kim Ark in 1898. It is *highly* unlikely the law will change. It is how the SCOTUS has been *interpreting* the Constitution.

  31. Beef King says:

    Quite a post by Montana. That one just about went into manifesto territory.
    Unfortunately, that was a great piece of writing that only missed it’s mark due to another failed attempt to link birthers, republicans and rascists to the Tea Party crowd.
    The Democrat party leadership tried this but failed because the links aren’t there.
    Just as one cannot blame the true democrat for the absurd left wing policies of progressives,
    one cannot blame a Tea Party supporter for the presence of freaks and extremists who want to attach themselves to a popular movement.

    And to all who suggest they would like to see the end of rascism by others- begin the process by not being one.

  32. Michael says:

    What a shock that an immigration attorney and a left-wing SSU political science professor would find “racism” where it does not exist, or that someone would mention “tea bag party” as a petty insult to the millions of people – including independents and Democrats – who belong to this grass-roots movement whose goal is to stop the stupidity of big government and idiotic socialistic policies.

    The bottom line is that Arizona passed a law to deal with illegal immigration because the Federal government has failed miserably to stop the invasion. Who else was going to help Arizona? AG Holder and DHS secretary Napolitano, who criticized the law without even bothering to read it? Ridiculous!

    Hooray for Gov. Jan Brewer who finally said “enough!”

  33. Montana says:

    The Tea Bag Party are just “haters not debaters” or as others have dubbed them “screamers not dreamers”, with their failed attempts at stopping Healthcare reform, they say they respect the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence but they do not mind passing laws, through weak Governors (no one voted for this crazy) who only cares about getting elected Governor, on the backs of undocumented workers, that will not pass Constitution muster.

    Brewer signed into law;

    1. S.B. 1070,
    2. No permit conceal weapons law,
    3. The famous Birthers law,
    4. Banning Ethic studies law,

    5. Could she be behind the Mural in Prescott, Arizona, ordered to be whiten,
    6. On deck to pass, no citizenship to babies born to illegal aliens,

    7. If she can read she should look up Arizona’s House Bill 2779 from two years ago (which was un-constitution and failed when legally challenged),
    8. The boycotted Martin Luther King Day, what idiots don’t want another holiday? Yes, you guessed it Arizona.

    Well Arizona, you can boycott new holidays and keep passing crazy laws and the rest of us will continue to challenged them in a court of law and continue to add cities to our Boycott of your state.

    I real cannot believe anything that comes out of Brewer’s mouth, in an interview she first said her father had died in Germany fighting the Nazi in World War II (war ended 1945) but of course we find out the truth that father was never in Germany and died in California in 1955. But we are suppose to believe everything else she says, right!

    As for the Tea Bag Party, their phony patriotism is sickening; they are just racists going by another name. We all know you are just itching to put a sheet on their head? Let’s face it the Republicans had eight years to deal with health care, immigration, energy (remember Cheney’s secret meetings with oil companies where loosening regulation and oversight were sealed), climate change and financial oversight and governance and they failed. It appears that the Republican Party is only good at starting wars (two in eight years, with fat contracts to friends of Cheney/Bush) but not at winning wars as seen by the continuing line of body bags that keep coming home. The Republicans party will continue turned inward to their old fashion obstructionist party (and their Confederacy appreciation roots) because they continue to allow a small portions (but very loud portion) of their party of “birthers, baggers and blowhards” to rule their party. I will admit that this fringe is very good at playing “Follow the Leader” by listening to their dullard leaders, Beck, Hedgecock, Hannity, O’Reilly, Rush, Savage, Sarah Bailin, Orly Taitz, Victoria Jackson, Michele Bachmann and the rest of the Blowhards and acting as ill programmed robots (they have already acted against doctors that perform abortions).

    The Birthers and the Tea Bag party crowd think they can scare, intimidate and force others to go along with them by comments like “This time we came unarmed”, let me tell you something not all ex-military join the fringe militia crazies who don’t pay taxes and run around with face paint in the parks playing commando, the majority are mature and understand that the world is more complicated and grey than the black and white that these simpleton make it out to be and that my friend is the point. The world is complicated and people like Hamilton, Lincoln, and Roosevelt believed that we should use government a little to increase social mobility, now it’s about dancing around the claim of government is the problem. The sainted Reagan passed the biggest tax increase in American history and as a result federal employment increased, but facts are lost when mired in mysticism and superstition. For a party that gave us Abraham Lincoln, it is tragic that the ranks are filled with too many empty suits and the crazy Birthers who have not learned that the way our courts work is that you get a competent lawyer, verifiable facts and present them to a judge, if the facts are real and not half baked internet lies, then, and only then, do you proceed to trial. The Birthers seem to be having a problem with their so called “Internet facts”. Let’s face it no one will take the Birthers seriously until they win a case, but until then, you will continue to appear dumb, crazy or racist, or maybe all three. I heard that Orly Taitz now wants to investigate the “Republican 2009 Summer of Love” list: Assemblyman, Michael D. Duvall (CA), Senator John Ensign (NV), Senator Paul Stanley (TN), Governor Mark Stanford (SC), Board of Ed Chair, and Kristin Maguire AKA Bridget Keeney (SC), she wants to re-establish a family values party, that is like saying that the Catholic Church cares about the welling being of children in their care, too late for that. Yee Haw!

  34. chuck becker says:

    Laura Gonzalez,

    Not to be callous about this, but the first duty of every government is to establish and maintain the territorial integrity of the nation. Every government, and every nation. When a border reaches such porosity that an internationally humiliating condition comes to exist, some steps will be required to recover. It is harder to recover than to maintain.

    Nobody is arguing against legal immigration, nobody is arguing in favor (or even in tolerance) of racism, nobody is supporting racial profiling.

    The United States law that grants US citizenship to every child born in the US is not the general rule among nations. Most nations determine the the nationality of the child by the nationality of the parents. I am NOT advocating a change, or alternative no change, to that law. I am only pointing out that citizenship for every child born in the US regardless of the citizenship of the parents is not a Constitutional right, and it is subject to change.

    Warm regards,

  35. chuck becker says:

    Dr. Boaz,

    Under our system of common law, the individual or party making the charge has the burden of proof. Beef King asked you to provide proof. You refused, and instead tried to shift the burden back tohim (a disinterested observer party). Your point is not proven. Until you provide proof to substantiate your claim, your claim stands vacated.

    Perhaps strangely, ever so representative of all attacks so far on Arizona SB 1070.

    Warm regards,
    (Captain) Chuck Becker

  36. Beef King says:

    Ms. Boaz,
    Have you considered the possibility that people who support the Arizona law agree with you that the problems we have as a result of illegal immigration are not caused by skin color or nationality? Have you considered that the accusations you are making are possibly not accurate? Have you considered the potetntial offensiveness of your remarks, and the stigma of ignorance that accompanies rascism? When a person claims rascism is present, it must be taken seriously. But if you are just screaming fire in a theater the credibility of your statements must be challenged.

    Again, I welcome any verifiable evidence of rascism on the part of those you’ve accused, and should there be evidence I will join you in denouncing rascism.
    Until then, what else do you have to support a boycott of the State of Arizona?

  37. Laura Gonzalez says:

    Hey, how about landmines at the boarder? http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/06/15/politics/main6583678.shtml

    Or denying citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants? http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/06/1/arizona.immigration.children/index.html

    In the last case, AZ seems to want the SCOTUS to rule again on the meaning of the 14th amendment.

    From Wikipedia:

    In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), the clause’s meaning was tested regarding whether it meant that anyone born in the United States would be a citizen regardless of the parents’ nationality. In that case, the Supreme Court held that the children of Native Americans were not citizens, despite the fact that they were born in the United States.

    The meaning was tested again in the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), regarding children of non-citizen Chinese immigrants born in United States. The court ruled that the children were U.S. citizens.[10]

    The difference between “legal” and “illegal” immigrants was not clear at the time of the decision of Wong Kim Ark.[11] Wong Kim Ark and subsequent cases did not explicitly decide whether such children are entitled to birthright citizenship via the amendment,[12] but such birthright is generally assumed to be the case.[13] In some cases, the Court has implicitly assumed, or suggested in dicta, that such children are entitled to birthright citizenship: these include Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), and INS v. Rios-Pineda, 471 U.S. 444 (1985)”

    Both of these are better, of course, than making employers abide by laws not allowing them to employ those they are not supposed to employ.

    severe poverty + easily available jobs = illegal immigration

  38. Cynthia Boaz says:

    Also, Beef and Rummy, the idea that you can produce liberty and democracy by rescinding peoples’ freedoms is the same flawed logic that got us into Iraq.

    Means and ends are inseparable.

  39. Cynthia Boaz says:


    Just because you personally refuse to see it does not mean it doesn’t exist.

  40. Beef King says:

    It is time for Ms. Boaz to either provide an verifiable act of rascism to support her claims or drop them and focus her efforts on a part of the Arizona boycott that is factual.

  41. Cynthia Boaz says:

    Dear Rummy,

    Better you take out your irrational dislike and suspicion of people different from you on me than on unwitting brown-skinned Arizonans.

    I wrote “de jure” because the Arizona law makes racial profiling permissible under the law. If it were not legalized but happened as a consequence of something else, it would be “de facto.” But nice try, Mr. (or Ms.) Angry Bigwords.

    And it’s Dr. Boaz to you. :-)

  42. Rummy Dummy says:

    Dear Boaz – “The more the public is told that (illegal) immigrants are bad, sinister, criminals, violent, etc…the more intolerant the public becomes towards anyone who looks different.”
    Yes, because we mob of troglodytes are too rock stupid to form our own opinions properly, and would surely resort to cannibalism without your noble, benevolent hand reaching down from on high to keep our stunted minds on the true path.

    “Do you think blonde, blue-eyed residents of Arizona are going to be singled out as “looking illegal”?”
    Probably not, because here in reality-land the odds are extremely high that they are not illegal (I hear tell the Norwegian-American border is formidably defended. By the Atlantic Ocean).

    “First of all, you seem to believe that social justice and individual rights are mutually exclusive concepts. In fact, they should be mutually reinforcing.”
    This is not an counterargument, it’s simply place your opinion in opposition to someone else, with nary a supporting fact. Speaking of which, you entire final paragraph is based on absolutely nothing but your own interpretations.

    The inability to provide a verifiable identity is not a crime in itself; it is however a legitimate cause for detaining someone in order to verify their identity and determining whether they have committed, or are being sought for, a crime (of which crossing the border with out proper authorization is one).

    Oh, and you say “de jure” when I’m sure you mean “de facto.” A minor quibble compared to the other gaping flaws in your ‘logic’, but still.

  43. Cynthia Boaz says:


    There is nothing wrong with “crying racism” if the law or person is- in fact- racist. To the contrary, it’s our obligation.

    Plenty of countries deal with illegal immigration in ways that do not require their security forces (and population at large) to marginalize entire groups of people on the basis of skin color or ethnicity. If you truly think this the best Arizona can do, you are very cynical.

    You want to make this policy about the rule of law, but by definition, it is not. The rule of law is where the interests of individuals or parties are transcended by the legal institutions- which give the same treatment to everyone, regardless of skin color, race, ethnicity, gender, class, etc.

    Because this law singles out people of color, it is a violation of the jurisprudential concept of the rule of law. You are using words like “law” and “freedom” to defend a policy which calls for the opposite of those things.

  44. Mj says:

    Have you noticed how people who do not favor Arizona’s law either 1) cry racism or 2) try to make the law anti-immigration, when in fact it’s anti-ILLEGAL immigration. There’s a HUGE difference.

    By the way, if Poles, Slovakians or another people (who are white) were coming here illegally, most people would feel the same way and want to stop the crime and harm they were doing to our country. Of course, some of us would look the other way for the Swedish bikini team, but everyone else – no matter what color – needs to stop breaking the law and come here legally.

  45. Cynthia Boaz says:


    Your argument falls short in several respects.

    First of all, you seem to believe that social justice and individual rights are mutually exclusive concepts. In fact, they should be mutually reinforcing.

    Secondly, you can spin it however you like, but the reality is that this law allows for (even requires) racial profiling, which is a de-jure form of discrimination. It asks security forces to select- on the basis of their own judgment- which people “look illegal.” Do you think blonde, blue-eyed residents of Arizona are going to be singled out as “looking illegal”? So in that sense, the law does exactly what you claim you dislike: it asks people to put others into categories (“suspicious”, “not suspicious”) based solely on the most visible traits, such as skin color.

    Thirdly, you seem to think that targeting illegal immigration so aggressively doesn’t have consequences for the public’s perception of immigration generally. The more the public is told that (illegal) immigrants are bad, sinister, criminals, violent, etc…the more intolerant the public becomes towards anyone who looks different. Despite your claims to love America, that is NOT what being American is about.

    Which brings me to my last point: you couch your argument in the language of patriotism, but you fail to understand what true patriotism is about- freedom and justice for all. The Constitution and Declaration of Independence do NOT specify that those things belong to American citizens only, they belong to everyone who was born human. We can have debates about the lengths to which our government should go to provide support to non-citizens, but it is fallacious to argue that denying people basic liberties is somehow “American” and consistent with the views of the founders. To the contrary.

    “Bring me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to break free.” That critical founding and very American concept does not just apply to people of European descent. Right?

  46. Joyce Garcia says:

    “Have any of you ever heard of the Consttitution or the Bill of rights?
    I am against this law because it unfairly targets legal immigrants and citizens on the basis of race.
    If you don’t understand the concept, then maybe you belong in another country where racial discrimination is more tolerated.”

    Hey Ronald….Have you read the Constitution or Bill of Rights? If you have you would understand that the idea of “Social Justice”, the basis for the argument you are trying to make, goes against our “INDIVIDUAL” rights. You all categorized people into groups and this is what you get…confusion and mayhem, and don’t forget the division, group against group. Hispanic, (which I am) black, American Indian, Gays against White…Had the Constitution and Bill of Rights been regarded during past decades, individual rights whould have apply to each and every individual, regardless of race, color or sexual preference. Your argument is tired and quite frankly irrelevant….This is not about racism…this is about upholding the law of the land that is already in place….Racial profiling is prohibited and is in the bill…have you read it yet? Here is a link if you haven’t


    Mexican’s don’t have more rights than I do. Black’s don’t have more rights than I do. Gays don’t have more rights than I do. White’s don’t have more rights than I do. We are all created equal and have the same rights.

    If you do not uphold the law, you get punished..that goes for everyone…equally. We are talking about ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION, not immigration. This country welcomes immigrants. There is a difference.

  47. fallingdown says:

    This article is laughable.

    Steele has it right.

    Please run for political office as I sick of voting for the least worst..

  48. Ronald Lemley says:

    Have any of you ever heard of the Consttitution or the Bill of rights?
    I am against this law because it unfairly targets legal immigrants and citizens on the basis of race.
    If you don’t understand the concept, then maybe you belong in another country where racial discrimination is more tolerated.

  49. OHMY says:

    100% in agreement with steele

  50. Ilse Gudehus says:

    I spend winters in southern Arizona. Twice each week I pick up trash in the desert. I have never met an environmentalist to help me haul out the trash, but I have met illegals and drug mules, and it is a pityful sight. Let us secure the border and assist Mexico in getting their house in order.

  51. Ronald Lemley says:

    If the people being targeted were white Anglo illegals, you would all feel differently, which of course means that you are prejudiced and unable to admit it.
    Racists are always in denial. This law is unfair because it targets people based on racial and cultural aspects that are not criminal.
    There are over 1.5 million legal hispanic people in Arizona and half a million Navahos and other people who roghly fit the description.
    I’m not denying that there is a problem,I’m just saying that we shoulf not throw a blanket generalization over the problem.Arizona is in very deep doo doo on this one and it is their own fault.

  52. Michael says:

    As the comedian says, “You can’t fix stupid.”

    Only an immigration attorney could write such nonsense.

  53. MJ says:

    Another example that common sense has left Sonoma County.

    Can you find one paragraph in this entire article that is not laughable?

  54. Michael says:

    Clueless is the nicest word I can use to describe this article and its author.

    He apparently can tolerate all kinds of hideous crimes by illegal immigrants, but is offended at even the possibility that a law enforcement official might, perhaps, maybe use racial profiling to stop a criminal.

    I say boycott his kind of absurd “thinking”

  55. Qracing says:

    I did mention it earlier because its a bit off point. But was anyone offended when Mexican President Felipe Calderon came to our country and told us how we, for lack of better words, SUCK. Was anyone else offended that he received standing ovations for slapping us in the face. The only person to question this. clown was Wolfe Blitzer. All Calderon could do was bust out with the electric slide dance move.

  56. Joyce Garcia says:

    BTW I see the downraves, but I don’t see anyone arguing their point other than those who are in support of Arizona and the laws of the land! Could it be they do not have legitimate arguments?

  57. Joyce Garcia says:

    “It is an insidious law that takes a big step back in the evolution of our laws toward equal rights for all, and it should be repealed.”

    This is where your opinion holds no legitimate argument and is lacking basic common sense. If we took a step backwards (which we are in dire need of) and truly took a step towards equal rights for all, the notion of “Social Justice” would not exist. Our Constitution specifically protects the “INDIVIDUAL” rights which include everyone and therefore does not need to be revolutionized nor does this particular law, as you suggest. What you have swallowed, and willingly, is the “Social Justice” ideology that is nothing more than divisive and deceitful. The only thing that needs to be repealed is Social Justice it’s self along with the oppressiveness, hate, racial barriers and classed superiority over those ya’ll feel are not worthy, that Social Justice has created. Social Justice has managed to categorized people giving them special treatment rather than treating everyone equally, therefore not aligned with the Constitution and that is what your suggestion of evolution has done. We have allowed our laws to be compromised in the name of “evolving with the times” and the results are we no longer resemble the Nation we once were and the majority of American’s hold true to our Nations Constitutional foundation and will no longer compromise our laws and we will get back to our roots. People have not changed but what has changed is the lack of education of why this Nation has remained the greatest Nation for over 200 years…and it was because she stood firm on the Constitution, written by some of the greatest minds ever lived.

    The only reason these laws have failed, (immigration laws in particular) is because they have not been enforced! This has nothing to do with racial profiling as you would have us believe, this is about what a lack of obedience to the law of the land can and will create….confusion. You suggest a whole lot of outcomes without proof and because the proof is not in your article, you are deceitful. Suggesting that the laws that are instated shouldn’t be respected or upheld is ridiculous! Do you have a problem with carrying your drivers license while you are driving your car? Your arguments don’t hold merit and only suggests race baiting and a lack of respect for the laws of our land…

    I am of Hispanic decent and am proud of my heritage, it’s who I am, but I am an American though and through and respect the laws of this land…they are for everyone to uphold and if they don’t seem fair….maybe there is another country with laws that are more suiting for them…No, our laws do not need to evolve, they need to be enforced and respected. This is NOT a Socialist Nation…we are a Republic.

  58. Alan Richards says:

    Typical response from the trial attorneys who back the democrat party. Why bother with facts, when they can distort and impune the truth.
    Another mouth firing off without any indea of what the law states.

  59. Steele says:

    Here is this schleb’s 15 minutes of fame. He now joins the ranks of ignorant local politicians.
    Simply carry your drivers license, state ID card, or green card. Don’t have one?…get one, Cant get one?…go home! Don’t like it…go home! Here legally and don’t like it….vote. Still not happy…..immigrate to Mexico. They would love to have you and we would love for you to go. Bye

  60. Jeffrey McDonald says:

    The removal of ILLEGAL immigrants is precisely why I whole heartedly support Arizona’s actions.

  61. Jeffrey McDonald says:

    The removal of ILLEGAL immigrants is precisely why I whole heartedly support Arizona’s actions.

    For irony – the reCAPTCHA respone is “ice monotone”

  62. romiero sousa says:

    I have never been hassled by the law in Arizona and i go their at least twice a year.

    I do not feel threatened or bothered by this law as a Mexican American I will visit Arizona and support them because i feel all of the work i put into getting into this country is being violated by those looking for a free pass. no other country in the world allows people to freely travel across boarders without papers

  63. romiero sousa says:

    Illegal immigrants are in essence a slave trade, a labor force and micro economy that subsidize and hold down commodity prices and labor prices artificially

    Citizens will take low paying jobs. right now most do not because A the field jobs are taken B. they dont need to go look for a field job because they have a welfare check coming. The youth/ teenage workforce % of employment has dropped significantly over the years, jobs that are now taken by cheap illegal day labor, the % of people on prolonged welfare support has swollen. Coincidence i think not, the economy can only produce so many jobs when there are too many laborers and not enough production to hire them all and there exists a welfare net for those who do not want to work to avoid working you end up with a situation like we have now.

    Do you realize CA already has a law on the books that similarly requires immigrants to carry their papers and present them to any and all law enforcement agents?

    When i immigrated INS told me that i had to carry my green card at ALL times and would have to present it to any Law enforcement agent. It is also a federal law How is this any different? Why did i have to go through the process, years of waiting, applying, filling out paper work and paying fees only to come to a point in society where we will now let those who BROKE the law get a free pass. I am all for being generous, but America is now my home and to come into my home and now abide by the rules that we citizens abide by is not right and can not be ignored.

    SB1070 says that a Law enforcement agent can only ask for documents during an existing engagement. therefore the person being asked for their documents has to have first committed an infraction worthy of being stopped then while being questioned it is perfectly fair for the officer to ask for documents. Every time i have been stopped for something they ask for my ID or drivers license How is this any different? They need to verify Identity to avoid letting criminals from giving false identities and getting away

  64. WndsrQueen says:

    I will NOT boycott Arizona! I will infact buy everything I can to support their economy because Arizona is doing what all of the other states should be doing…UPHOLDING THE LAW of this country. Spin this story any way you’d like Mr. Kerosky, but the facts are what they are. These people break into this country illegally everyday and cost the tax payers BILLIONS.

  65. Jim Stewart says:

    “”We here in Sonoma County benefit from a rich and dynamic Latino population that contributes greatly to our society, our economy and culture. We should lead the movement to resist this law and boycott the state of Arizona. Only by making the state suffer financially can we hope to repeal this divisive law and discourage similar laws from being enacted across the country.””

    Slave traders benefit from the labors of those they hold captive. Give them a very low wage and threaten them with deportation if they complain, and you get a benefit from the rich and dynamic illegal latino populationg. Racists lurk everywhere people. This law is bringing them out in force. Those who benefit from exploiting illegal immigrants risk losing their slaves and some of their profits.

    Give it a Nazi spin and they will back down. Stupid logic.

    Currently in California if you do not have identification on your person when the police are investigating you, even for a speeding ticket, they have the option to take you to jail and scan your fingerprints to confirm you identity. Who knew? Arizona is catching up with California. Enforcement is the only difference.

  66. Qracing says:

    If I’m not mistaken, this law pretty much mirrors the federal law which are not enforced. Arizona should be allowed to take action if the feds fail to. The truth is that anyone who attempts to enforce immigration laws is labeled as a racist.

    I am a first generation Mexican American Army Vet who wonders what the hect has happened to our country. I will support Arizona and will instead boycott the sanctuary cities starting with yours.

  67. Linda says:

    This is exactly why my family and friends WILL BE GOING to Arizona this summer and every season after that as well.