Are Travel Boycotts Hurting Arizona Hotels? Will They?

The controversial immigration law passed by Arizona’s government back in April has lead to over 20 organizations (including cities, towns, school districts, churches and universities) joining a travel boycott of the state. But is it hurting business? Too soon to tell, says USAToday.

Phoenix-area hotels are filling more rooms than a year ago, says the article. Despite the increase, the general manager of Arizona’s largest hotel, the 1,000-room Phoenix Sheraton, says hotels are losing business.

For 2011, the Sheraton’s lost business currently stands at just under $2.5 million, he said. From 2012-14, the total is between $4 million and $5 million.

“You’re not going to start to see the impact, in my opinion, until the mid- to late first quarter of 2011,” [the general manager] said.

The delay is because the cancellation fees were too much for many organizations, and they had to go through with their reservations. Will they book again? Will it matter? Who knows.

UPDATE: A judge has blocked the controversial parts of the bill responsible for the boycott.

Are the Arizona travel boycotts hurting hotels? Too early to say [USAToday]
Arizona’s immigration law has little impact on Arizona’s tourism [Arizona Republic]

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. sanjaysrik says:

    So, essentially, a law that exists at the federal level is being this widely debated at the state level because why again?

    • lymer says:

      Because liberals love to sensationalize immigration laws.

      I remember back when I was in high school debate, I actually heard someone arguing for putting up water towers near the border so illegal immigrants wouldn’t die of dehydration when they came across.

      • Buckus says:

        Yeah, that’s kind of encouraging the behavior. Kind of like if people started handing out clean needles to drug users…oh, wait

        • evnmorlo says:

          Drug dealers don’t need encouragement. Living in South America, on the other hand, isn’t quite as bad as heroin withdrawal.

      • SuperSnackTime says:

        those heartless bastards for not wanting people to die. what idiots.

        • pantheonoutcast says:

          If a man breaks into my house, and suffers a heart attack while there, I’m not going to provide him with CPR.

          If you don’t want to die in the desert while making an illegal border crossing, then don’t cross the border illegally. You shouldn’t expect someone to slip you a Gatorade and a Powerbar, slap you on the back and say, “Have a safe trip!”

    • obits3 says:

      Thank you. If they really thought that this law would harm people, then why no challenge to the federal law? The states have every right to enforce federal law.

    • Murph1908 says:

      Because Arizona kinda has a problem with the kidnapping, murder, drug traffic, and rapes that are occuring near and around the border, and the federal government doesn’t seem to want to enforce the law that already exists.

      • PunditGuy says:

        “According to FBI statistics, violent crimes reported in Arizona dropped by nearly 1,500 reported incidents between 2005 and 2008. Reported property crimes also fell, from about 287,000 reported incidents to 279,000 in the same period. These decreases are accentuated by the fact that Arizona’s population grew by 600,000 between 2005 and 2008.”

        http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/29/arizona.immigration.crime/index.html

      • magus_melchior says:

        All of which are in a decline according to most law enforcement experts, unless you listen to Jan Brewer regularly.

      • darklighter says:

        It’s a well-known fact that only illegal immigrants are capable of murder, kidnapping, drug trafficking, and rape.

        • pantheonoutcast says:

          No, but only illegal immigrants are capable of breaking immigration laws in the first place. Even if only 1% of illegal immigrants commit a crime, that’s still 100,000 crimes that wouldn’t have been committed had they not been here.

      • asherchang2 says:

        The kidnapping and murder statistics are high because drug cartels do that sort of stuff to each other. It really shouldn’t concern you too much; it’s just brown-on-brown crime.

        Granted, federal policy does contribute to this problem, as our prohibition laws only raise the price for drugs people will always want to use. And cartels get their hands on nice shiny guns because we Americans love our 2nd amendment so much, we don’t care when our rifles find their way south of the border, destined to kill Mexican policemen.

        As for the rape statistic… Please, show me even a single news article that confirms your fears of the dirty illegals raping our precious Anglo girls. Please do.

    • myCatCracksMeUp says:

      There is no federal law that says that people can be asked for proof of citizenship, or being in the country legally, for no reason other than their looks or accent.

      The Arizona law effectively says that ALL people must carry “papers” – proof of citizenship or of being in the country legally. I never thought I’d see the day that happened; this reminds me of what occurs in communist regimes.

      • obits3 says:

        You have to have your driver’s license to drive, I guess that’s a communist regime. Who said that this would happen “for no reason other than their looks or accent”? Did you read the law?

        • myCatCracksMeUp says:

          Yes I read the law – apparently you haven’t. Police can ask to see proof of being here legally of any person they want to question. So if there’s a robbery at a store, and you’re standing on the street near it, even if you’re not the same sex or same color as the person who commited the robbery, the police can decide to question you. And if they decide to question you the new law says they can demand that you prove you’re here legally.

          That’s what’s similar to being in a communist country.

          Police have always demanded proof that you’re a licences driver (which means here legally) if you’re the driver of a car they pull over.

          • craptastico says:

            i think you need to learn what communism is before you keep making these comparisons.

            • myCatCracksMeUp says:

              I know what communism means – I also know that in most communist countries they have laws saying you have to have your “papers” – proof of who you are – on you at all times and be prepared to show them to the authorities anytime the authorities requests it.

              • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

                What you apparently don’t know is that these are more akin to fascist countries and not communist countries. Communism has no central government, and no country that I am aware of does not have a centralized government in some form.

                You really need to stop talking, man. Every time you speak someone counters your statements with facts.

                • myCatCracksMeUp says:

                  Actually no one has countered any of my statements with any facts.

                  But if you don’t want to concede that communist countries often have laws that say you have to have proof of citizenship with you (and really – you don’t think there is a such thing as a communist country? – I must send word to Beijing), fine.

                  The idea of having to show proof of citizenship is completly opposite of the ideals of a democracy. And the Arizona law does that.

                  • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

                    Haha, you are hilarious. A) Being communist (or fascist in this case) doesn’t guarantee the whole “have your papers” on you. B) NOT being fascist doesn’t guarantee you DON’T have to show papers. It’s all about the country’s social and govenmental culture.

                    Can you show the relevent case law, or at least a google link that shows communist countries require you to show your papers? And just one country doesn’t prove it’s because they are communist, you’d need several.

                    The only country I am personally aware of that required papers were for jews in Nazi Germany. And that country is now a democracy.

                    • myCatCracksMeUp says:

                      troll

                    • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

                      Troll? Another word you need to look up the definition to.

                    • magus_melchior says:

                      Two points:

                      First, while you are probably correct in your criticism IF you mean communism as a political philosophy/ideology, myCatCracksMeUp was referring to Communist Party regimes, which are highly authoritarian, and yes, employ strong central governments. You can argue up and down that true communism doesn’t employ a strong central government, but that probably won’t negate his point because 4 of the most prominent Communist countries employed policies that regularly placed the government well above the citizen.

                      Second, bringing up the fact that Germany is now a democracy is irrelevant to the fact that they did in fact employ the “papers please” policy when Hitler was in power– not to mention, that they employed it against a subset of people, just as AZ is about to do to Hispanics, is wrong because it is highly discriminatory.

                    • myCatCracksMeUp says:

                      Thanks! That was a very good explanation.

                • Elcheecho says:

                  are you high? the definition of communism is communal ownership of property through the state. Say it with me. STATE.

          • Southern says:

            This wording was changed back in April.

            The old wording was “For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency”

            The changed wording changes the “any lawful contact” phrase to “lawful stop, detention or arrest.”

            The change was made SPECIFICALLY because critics were saying that the old wording would allow cops to pick anyone out of a crowd and “demand their papers.” The changed wording allieviates that problem.

            http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/in-response-to-critics-arizona-tweaks-new-immigration-law-92495249.html

            So you’re referring to something that was already ‘fixed’ 3 months ago.

            • myCatCracksMeUp says:

              I know the new wording – I posted it below.

              Do YOU know what “lawful stop, detention or arrest.” means?

              Police stop people all the time to question them about things that the stopped person may or may not have any knowlege about.

              If they stop you they can demand proof of citizenship.

            • scouts honor says:

              They can stop you if they think you’re a witness to a crime. They can detain you if you match the description of someone they are looking for. They can question you if you call the police to report that you are the victim of a crime.

              And before this law, you didn’t have to produce identification for any of those types of contacts with police.

      • Southern says:

        So let me ask you — if you (white, black, oriental, etc.) are pulled over for speeding and refuse to provide ID, what do you think is going to happen?

        Are the (police) just going to say “oh, ok, well since I don’t know who you are, I’ll just let you go”?

        Of course not – chances are, you’ll be arrested, booked and fingerprinted so that your identity can be established.

        Everyone in America has to be able to provide SOME type of ID when required by law enforcement personel (by virtue of being arrested, ticketed, etc.) They can’t just walk up to you for no reason and say “show me your ID”, THEN you have the right to refuse them.

        I see this issue in Arizona no differently.

        • Nogard13 says:

          This law allows them to ask for your immigration papers ON TOP OF your driver’s license. If you’re white then chances are they won’t ask you for your green card but if you last name is Gonzalez then they will ask for both your ID and your green card.

          • Southern says:

            it is already Federal Law that all green card holders must carry their green card at all times.

            http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=f1903a4107083210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=f1903a4107083210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD

            “If you are a permanent resident age 18 or older, you are required to have a valid green card in your possession at all times”

            Also, “Section 264 of the Immigration and Nationality Act states that: “Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him. Any alien who fails to comply with [these] provisions shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.”

            http://greencardrenewal.org/

            Again, Arizona doesn’t seem to be doing anything that isn’t already covered by Federal Law. People are just upset that it is (going to start) being enforced.

            • Gaz says:

              Stop with the facts please, we’re busy ignorantly spouting what we’ve received from MSNBC, your intrusion is not appreciated.

            • ARP says:

              What if I’m a citizen and happen to have a hispanic last name? I’m not required to carry a green card (I’m a citizen). All I would need is my DL unless I look “mexican.” If I look mexican, I would need to carry my DL and proof that I’m a citizen.

              • kennedar says:

                What about tourists? When I travel I do not carry my passport on my at all times, usually it is locked in the hotel safe (I know, not the safest idea, but safer than carrying it around and getting stolen). Being from Canada, I have to have a passport to enter the United States.

                If I am driving a rental car, I do not need to have my passport on me, simply my Canadian drivers license. A drivers license is not proof that I am in the United States legally, simply that at one point in the last 5 years I lived in Canada. If I accidently made an illegal left turn or speed or whatever (as tourists tend to do because they do not know the area) and get pulled over, I could be arrested for failing to show that I am in the country legally.

                Not so much of a worry for a Canadian, but I would think that there is a fair amount of tourism in Arizona from Mexicans coming to visit family and such.

          • partofme says:

            Did you miss the part where any state-issued identification (yea… drivers licenses) are adequate proof of legality? Why can’t people even wikipedia this thing, much less take a gander at the actual text before opening their mouths?

        • DustingWhale says:

          The term your looking for here is “Asian.” Oriental is not the preferred nomenclature, dude.

        • myCatCracksMeUp says:

          “by virtue of being arrested, ticketed, etc.) ” yes – that’s correct and that makes sense.

          The new AZ law allows them to require ID when “stopped”.

          And you can be stopped for almost any reason, including looking like you don’t belong where you are.

          There was a case that went all the way to the Supreme Court. A black man was jogging in a white neighbohood. He was stopped by police because he didn’t look like he belonged. He was asked to show ID. He refused. He was arrested for not showing ID.

          When it finally got to the high court they affirmed that he did NOT have to show ID.

          The AZ law basically goes 180 degress in the opposite direction.

          • adlauren says:

            “And you can be stopped for almost any reason, including looking like you don’t belong where you are.”

            This is incorrect. The law says a police officer can only ask for ID (“papers”) after someone has been detained because the cop has reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed or is in the process of being committed. I know your version sounds scarier and is a better reason to protest, but it isn’t the truth.

            • dragonvpm says:

              Surely no police officer would EVER think of asking for papers because someone was “disturbing the peace” or because they “failed to signal a turn” or any of a hundred laws that someone in law enforcement could SAY you broke as justification for why they stopped you and then asked for papers.

              Of course that won’t happen, because they would never think about breaking the law that was passed in order to catch people who broke a different law.

              • adlauren says:

                I don’t understand how this is any different than current laws…any cop could conceivably make up a bs excuse to pull ANYONE over and harass them. Are we going to get rid of every law that could possibly result in an official abusing their authority?

        • JMILLER says:

          Oh really? Let’s say you are in a car with somebody who gets pulled over. YOU do not have ID. There is nothing in US law that says you need to have ID to ride in a car. My BF never carries his wallet when we go out. If the cop “suspects” he could be illegal they are obligated to arrest him. HUH? How would they suspect? The only suspicion would be his skin color. Not carrying a DL would ALREADY be a crime for legal or illegal residents.

      • trey says:

        you are so right… because there is never a reason to carry papers in the country.

        oops… unless you want to drive, apply for a job, need health insurance, see a doctor, etc… but we dont call these papers, we call them IDENTIFICATION!

        see how silly you sound.

        • myCatCracksMeUp says:

          And if I apply for a job or for insurance or drive a car, I’ll have my ID with me.

          If I decide to stroll around a city I might not. And even if I did have ID with me that does not make it right for the police to ask to see them. If I’m driving, sure; driving is a privilege. But if I’m not driving and I’m not arrested for a crime, I should not be asked for ID.

          What the heck is silly about that?

        • The Marionette says:

          You are exactly right it is called identification, and when driving and pulled over and officer asks for license, registration and insurance, not for your birth certificate, not your social security card. If I’m apply for a job then I’ll have that stuff on me when i need it, but I don’t carry it around it my car, someone like (lack of intelligence comes to mind) might but that’s you, i’d rather keep mine at him in my fireproof safe where someone’s less likely to steal it than in my car.

    • ktetch says:

      Another main reason is that Maricopa County Sheriffs Department (that is the county phoenix and Mesa and other decent sized Arizona cities are in) has had their ability to enforced Federal immigration laws removed by the Department of Homeland Security. As such they can now only enforce state-level immigration laws. He’s a disgusting piece of work. His jails have had their certification pulled (and twice been ruled ‘unconstitutional’). He’s had his deputies caught out stealing confidential papers from defense attorneys in court, the department as a whole only closes ~ 17% of cases with an arrest (unless it’s an immigration case), he’s even fighting with the county because they keep settling all the cases brought against his department.

      Makes you wonder why he keeps being elected. Oh yeah, possibly because his deputies, and his ‘posse’ have been known to intimidate those interested in running against him.

      In a nutshell, thats one major reason.

      • Master Medic: Now with more Haldol says:

        That’s not why Arpaio gets re-elected, it’s because the vast majority of Maricopa county voters are too ignorant (think old) to learn more about the world than what their 5 o’clock news tells them. And since Arpaio is a master at manipulating the news cycle he appears competent and in line with “their” views.

        Heck, it’s widely reported that the MCSO has blatantly ignored court orders, county supervisors, is a laughing stock of the state. Yet people ignore all that because of the “Brown Menace” invading the US because an illegal as committed a crime, somewhere in the county. Of course the criminal stats show otherwise, but that’s of no matter.

  2. smo0 says:

    For as many people against these laws…. there are probably 2-to-1 for it… (including people who were not born in this country.)

    Plus… why go to Arizona when you can come to Vegas instead…. /wink.

    • Tallanvor says:

      The role of government is not to make laws just because “the majority” want them to. Rather, it’s more important for government to protect minorities and the underprivileged from the majority/privileged. Such as when women were given the right to vote, when slavery was abolished, when schools were integrated with the help of soldiers if necessary. Where the ADA forces businesses to be accessible to the handicapped.

      Just because the majority falsely believes that illegal immigrants are behind the majority of crime in Arizona does not mean that the state government can, or should, attempt to preempt federal law and jurisdiction.

      • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

        Actually, I thought their role was to protect all CITIZENS.

      • pantheonoutcast says:

        The thing is, the constitution protects all of those people you refer to – blacks, women, citizens – because they are citizens.

        People who sneak into the country under the cover of darkness are non-citizens and they are criminals. It’s not false to believe that “illegal immigrants are behind the majority of crime in Arizona” – 100% of every illegal immigrant is responsible for the crime of entering the country illegally.

        • PunditGuy says:

          The Constitution protects everybody in the United States, and enumerates the instances in which citizenship confers additional rights. Regardless of your status, the Bill of Rights still applies to you. For example, the police cannot search you or your residence without probable cause. That applies equally to people who were born here and people visiting Disneyland from far off lands.

          I’m an immigrant. Before I took that ridiculous test and swore my citizenship oath, the Constitution protected me plenty, thank you very much.

          • smo0 says:

            Really…. immigrant from where exactly?

            My friend received her citizenship about 2 years ago… an extremely long and hassling process…

            and if anyone is for more immigration laws … it’s her….

            I guess it depends on what country you’re from exactly….

            • PunditGuy says:

              Canada, but I’m of Sri Lankan descent. And I’m no fan of illegal immigration, believe me — I think they all jumped ahead of the line while I was queuing up patiently. I just don’t need an Arizona cop looking at me and seeing a foreigner who needs to prove that I belong here. I belong here.

              • pantheonoutcast says:

                Then your issue is with the illegal immigrants, and not with the law enforcement officials. People who thumbed their nose at the country’s immigration laws are solely responsible for new immigration legislation. I, and the rest of this country’s citizens, thank you for taking the correct, legal steps for entering our country, and not just wandering in under the cover of darkness in hopes of being protected by a vocal voting bloc and a subset of people infected by white guilt who somehow think your presence here is advantageous because you know how to wash dishes.

                • PunditGuy says:

                  My issue is actually with the businesses that hire illegal immigrants. I think some stiff fines and jail time would clear this problem up right quick.

                  • smo0 says:

                    After discussing with my friend on this issue…. there is a question I’d like to ask… and I’ll give my answer to it as well:

                    “The very last qualifier for coming to America should be whether or not people here might like you. The vast majority of America hates the rest of America, so it’s not different for immigration. We Should have an idea of what we actually want from immigrants before talking about immigration reform.”

                    So… what is it that you want from immigrants?

                    My answer? Hard workers who pay their taxes, who don’t abuse the “system,” or more specifically… the health care system….

                    but on that note, I’d like to see many Americans follow that as well.

                    So if we’re trying to eliminate the baddies? How do we do that… enforce the laws that currently exist on a federal level, for one…. there is a legal process to become a US citizen… this wouldn’t be an issue if people actually followed it.

                    Why are they coming here?
                    Would be my second question… right now…. I equate it to the California gold rush… someone screamed out “THERE’S GOLD IN THEM THERE HILLS!” and EVERYONE came running…

                    if that’s what’s happening now… get the fuck out of my country.

                    If you’re here to make a better life for yourself, start out right… do it the legal way.

          • dolemite says:

            The constitution does not apply to non-citizens. People visiting from other countries do not have the right to vote, etc.

        • Mr. Pottersquash says:

          so why does it say not to discriminate based on nationality?

      • smo0 says:

        What?!?! DO YOU EVEN LIVE HERE?!

        “The role of government is not to make laws just because “the majority” want them to. “

        THAT IS EXACTLY HOW LAWS GET MADE.

        /falls out of chair laughing

        Please, share whatever you are smoking.

  3. bhr says:

    Obviously certain organizations (CASA, La Raza, ACLU, ect.) with a political dog in this fight would be right to boycott, but I don’t see why other organizations would.

    Full disclosure, I think the law is stupidly written, but in principle I agree with its goals. Illegal immigration is a major economic drain on some states, especially in the southwest, and congress lacks the political will (on both sides) to do anything about it.

    This is my favorite story recently. http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/98212579.html “more illegal immigrants being deported for lesser offenses”

    No, they are being deported for being here illegally. What part of that is so hard to understand.

    • obits3 says:

      I agree, people are such idiots some times. Illegal immigrants are deported because they have not legal right to be here. There is a word for that: trespassing. Why is this so hard for people to understand?

    • myCatCracksMeUp says:

      Like you I see nothing wrong with deporting people here illegally. If the illegals are caught for any offense, minor or otherwise, then I’m fine with them being deported.

      What’s wrong with Arizona’s law is that people can be required to show they’re in the country legally for any reason; even if you haven’t committed an offense the police can detain you and require you to prove that you’re here legally. That’s what really stinks about this law.

      • woahmelly says:

        The law is written so that a person MUST commit a primary offense before citizenship even enters into the conversation. The bill declares that there must be a predicate crime above suspicion of illegal residence.

        • myCatCracksMeUp says:

          Wrong.

          “For any lawful stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation.”

          “any lawful stop, detention or arrest “

          Read that again:

          “any lawful stop, detention or arrest “

          You do not have to be arrested to be made to prove you’re here legally.

          Police stop and detain people all the time and then let them go if they decide not to make an arrest.

          Under this law they can make you’re here legally once they stop you to question you.

          That means that you, or I, or anyone, who visits Arizona, if we’re “stopped” for any reason (and I’m not talking about being stopped while driving), we can be forced to show proof of citizenship.

          I will not go to Arizona.

          I will not go anyplace where police can demand that I prove I’m a citizen when I haven’t been arrested or charged with a crime.

          • pantheonoutcast says:

            It’s wildly apparent that you have no idea what a “lawful stop” is.

            For your own edification:

            http://www.legalzoom.com/us-law/privacy/when-can-police-stop

            • myCatCracksMeUp says:

              Thanks for providing additional information that backs me up!! I appreciate it – you saved me the effort.

              From your link:

              A Justified Stop

              A stop is justified if the suspect is exhibiting any combination of the following behaviors:

              Appears not to fit the time or place.
              Matches the description on a “Wanted” flyer.
              Acts strangely, or is emotional, angry, fearful, or intoxicated.
              Loitering, or looking for something.
              Running away or engaging in furtive movements.
              Present in a crime scene area.
              Present in a high-crime area (not sufficient by itself or with loitering).

              Don’t you love the first one?

              How about the second one?

              I love all of them actually – really great reasons to force a person to show they’re here legally.

              hugs and kisses to you, kind sir

              • pantheonoutcast says:

                “Appears not to fit the time or place. / Loitering, or looking for something.”

                Six Mexican guys standing on the streetcorner at 5 AM illegally looking for work without proper work visas or other such identification precisely fits the definition of a lawful stop. It is illegal in many many places to engage in this activity. (I admittedly don’t know if it’s illegal in Arizona. It is here in NY, or at the very least, to pick them up).

                If you, personally, are not six Mexican guys standing in the same place waiting for a pickup truck to collect you and drive you to a jobsite for illegal employment, I don’t see how this affects you in the slightest.

                And if you are, in fact, six Mexican guys, but happen to be a citizen and / or in the country legally, then you should be standing on the side of those of us who call ourselves “citizens” and not supporting criminals.

                • myCatCracksMeUp says:

                  “Appears not to fit the time or place. “

                  Or a black man jogging in a white neighborhood.

                  • PunditGuy says:

                    I’m guessing that pantheonoutcast has never been pulled over for DWC (Driving While Colored).

                    • pantheonoutcast says:

                      I’ve been pulled over quite a few times while being white in a non-white neighborhood. See, lots of white people come to the south Bronx looking for hookers and drugs, so those areas are policed quite heavily. I’m polite to the officers, show them my license, my Dept. of Ed ID and my union credentials, and then they know why I’m there (I work there).

                      I forget sometimes that some people’s ignorant view is that only white people can be racist. Personally, I have no problem with any race, unless they happen to be in this country draining its resources without contributing. Which is exactly what illegal immigrants are – a drain. On health services, education, welfare, and all the rest. And if I was a legal immigrant to this country, I’d be happy that more and more people are being stopped and questioned. Maybe the illegal ones would take the hint and go home, or do things the right way.

                      Unfortunately, it looks as though the bill’s recent defeat will mean a victory for law breakers, and will lead to more border violence as frustrated landowners and citizens defend their property against roving gangs of criminals.

                      We tried to do it the legal way, but the illegals and their clan of apologists pushed. Wait until you see how angry border-dwelling Americans push back…

                    • PunditGuy says:

                      The one thing you don’t have to do when driving while white is prove that you’re a citizen, as is typical for people just dying to take away rights for people as long as it’s not their own rights. There are some of us who would get asked about our immigration status. I’m not going to carry a freaking birth certificate or passport with me when I’m driving around, and it’s unfair that I could end up in jail because of it.

                      And you just proved another point some have been trying to make in this thread: cops can stop you for pretty much whatever reason they want. Under this blocked law, they wouldn’t have needed much in the way of pretense to suddenly become immigration police.

                      Threatening violence is a nice touch. Yes, let’s just see what happens. Maybe those frustrated patriots will blow up a federal building or something.

                    • partofme says:

                      You only need a drivers license. It serves as sufficient proof to remove suspicion of being here illegally. Read the text.. or even the wikipedia article on it. Two minutes. Less time than typing your ill-informed post.

                    • PunditGuy says:

                      An Arizona one would, sure. However — and this might come as a shock, so you might want to sit down — people can drive from one state to another, and there are states where illegal immigrants can get drivers licenses.

                    • partofme says:

                      Not a shock. Just a loophole. Laws have them all the time. This one is no different. Nobody said this thing was going to root out every illegal and there was no way around it.

                    • ffmariners says:

                      “Drain on resources.” Misguided, me thinks. Their have been plenty of economic analyses of the net gain of illegal immigrants. Most DO pay taxes, and they will never recover their social security taxes. They do have a burden on the health care system. But the net effect usually comes out to be a positive one. Look it up.

                • myCatCracksMeUp says:

                  Or being a Mexican jogging in a white neighborhood.

                  Will the police stop you for that? They can. And if they can stop you then they can require you to prove you’re here legally.

                  That’s just wrong. It’s unAmerican.

          • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

            You forget that the terms stop, arrest, and detention has a legal definition that is defined in other parts of state law. They do not mean the same thing as you read in webster’s.

            Stopping someone for no reason is not a legal stop, arrest, or detention. They need to show reasonable suspicion or they can be sued for discrimination.

            Can an officer stop you for no reason? Sure. You can be put into detention for 24 hours without being charged with a crime. But you also have a right to sue for wrongfully persecution and detention.

          • misslisa says:

            Great, we in Arizona will be glad to not have you here.

      • dolemite says:

        I was under the impression you needed to first commit something for police to ask for your “papers”. I don’t think they can just grab people off the sidewalk and ask for id.

      • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

        Actually, that’s the exact opposite of the law. Someone else already asked you, have you even read the law?

        It very specifically denies police the right to stop you for the sole purpose of proving you are here legally. They may only ask for proof when you are stopped on another offense AND they have reasonable suspicion.

        You are one of those people who listens to the loudest person and never educate yourself.

        • myCatCracksMeUp says:

          Actually I don’t listen to loud people at all.

          I posted the wording of the law below.

          Read it.

          Then try to tell me that the police can’t demand to see your papers for any reason.

          • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

            I have read it. And many have pointed out your interpretation is based on an older version of the law. Wow, man. It’s okay to be wrong. Some one even wrote a book about it.

            “Being Wrong” by Katherine Shultz. I recommend it for you.

            • myCatCracksMeUp says:

              As I’ve pointed out in many posts, MAN, my interpretation is based on the law as passed.

              • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

                Apparently not, since it gives instructions to the contrary.

                • myCatCracksMeUp says:

                  and you’re still wrong.

                • ARP says:

                  The point is the the REVISED law is written so broadly that its really not much different than the original version. Basically a cop can come up with any excuse to lawfully stop/detain you, even for a short period.

                  For example, There was a robbery here last week. Were you here last week? Did you see anything suspicious? Please show me proof of citizenship.

    • Buckus says:

      Well, it’s a good thing Arizona isn’t a border state, then.
      http://www.azcentral.com/members/Blog/LaurieRoberts/87725

  4. Bativac says:

    Maybe because of the boycotts, Arizona resorts will offer excellent deals for travelers such as myself, who otherwise had no plans to visit Arizona but who are always looking for a cheap vacation.

  5. billbillbillbill says:

    If I get pulled over, the police officer asks me for my license then runs a check to see if i have any warrants. If I do, then I am arrested.

    So an illegal immigrant is pulled over, the police officer asks for a license, and finds out the driver is here illegally (aka, breaking the law) I would expect the same treatment-arrest them and start the process of deportation.

    • evnmorlo says:

      Government is free to ignore the law. In my area apparently illegals without licenses are allowed to drive away, while a US citizen would be seriously penalized.

    • myCatCracksMeUp says:

      Has nobody on this forum read the wording of the Arizona law?

      Nobody at all?

      The law says that the PASSENGERS in a car can be asked for their “papers”. ANYBODY can be asked for their “papers”.

      Just walking down the street, minding your own business? Better carry your “papers”, proving your’re a citizen or here legally. Because the cops can now request them anytime they want to.

      • TuxthePenguin says:

        Yes, the original law was a bit ambiguous about being able to just randomly ask for papers. The authors have said that was not their intent and a revision to clarify sailed through.

        Nice talking point though…

        • myCatCracksMeUp says:

          “For any lawful stop, detention or arrest ….”

          And from the site someone posted above:

          A Justified Stop

          A stop is justified if the suspect is exhibiting any combination of the following behaviors:

          Appears not to fit the time or place.
          Matches the description on a “Wanted” flyer.
          Acts strangely, or is emotional, angry, fearful, or intoxicated.
          Loitering, or looking for something.
          Running away or engaging in furtive movements.
          Present in a crime scene area.
          Present in a high-crime area (not sufficient by itself or with loitering).

          So if the police think that someone “Appears not to fit the time or place. ” they can stop them.

          And if they stop them they can require proof of being here legally.

          I agree with you – these are great talking points. Do you have any good points – talking or otherwise? Or just more rubish?

      • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

        Stop commenting lies. Sheesh. The law denies obscure and random checking of your legal status. And your “papers” can be a driver’s license or state-issued ID, which many states require you obtain anyway.

        • myCatCracksMeUp says:

          Wrong again.

          • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

            Wow, nice retort, you showed me. Those factual statements you provided sure proved me wrong.

            /sarcasm

          • OMAC says:

            So what is the difference between ‘papers’ and a drivers license. Both can be used to establish ones identity and citizenship.

            If you get pulled over and have no license, then the police have a duty to establish your identity. If in the course of things they find out that you are here illegally then they should arrest and process you for deportation.

            • Orv says:

              A driver’s license doesn’t prove citizenship or residence status. That’s why you can’t use it to re-enter the country after visiting Canada.

              To prove you’re a citizen or legal resident, you’d have to show a password, a green card, or a birth certificate.

              • Orv says:

                Err, meant to say “passport,” not “password.”

                Granted, if you look white I doubt anyone’s going to be asking you to prove you’re here legally. But it’s not as simple as “do you have a driver’s license?”

              • partofme says:

                Looks like somebody else who didn’t even bother to wikipedia the law, much less read the text. It specifically enumerates types of identification which will serve as proof of legality. One is an Arizona drivers license. Another is… any other state drivers license. You’re supposed to have proof of legality to get a drivers license, so they accept one in lieu of actual proof.

        • JMILLER says:

          No state requires you to carry ID EVER. It would be a violation of federal law, WHICH HAS JURISDICTION. If a hispanic guy moved into an all white neighborhood, and he was walking out to take in his garbage cans, a cop could make an assumption that he is “out of place” and “legally” ask him for ID. Once he has done that, he can legally ask him for his papers. Face facts, the law is racist.

      • Riff Raff says:

        No. Everyone else who has actually studied this law knows your statements are false.

        1. Another crime must first be committed before race/citizenship enters in to the equation.
        2. Only after a crime has already been committed can police ask for one’s “papers.”
        3. Passengers are always asked for ID whenever a traffic stop is made. This point is moot.

        • myCatCracksMeUp says:

          Where did you pull these three facts from:

          1. Another crime must first be committed before race/citizenship enters in to the equation.
          2. Only after a crime has already been committed can police ask for one’s “papers.”
          3. Passengers are always asked for ID whenever a traffic stop is made. This point is moot.

          And, what part of “any lawful stop, detention or arrest ” do you not understand?

          They can lawfully stop you because they think you look suspicious.

        • msbask says:

          Is your #3 an Arizona-only law?

          My daughter was stopped for a traffic violation with me in the car. The cop didn’t ask me for ID.

        • Skankingmike says:

          A state law cannot demand a person process ID at all times, only Federal which there has not been a law yet passed. Only time an officer can ask a passenger for “papers” is if there is reasonable suspicion. So if I was Latin American and a passenger in my friends truck who is white, does that give reasonable suspicion?

          That’s why the law is too vague. Too vague laws will end up in court and cost the state and local authorities legal fees.

          Whatever though if you guys want to just punish people who want to live here who make up less than 1 percent of our population go for it.

          I would rather have immigration reform and have people get mad over that.

      • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

        Clearly many people here have read the law, but you are the only one stating that you can be stopped and asked for papers at any time.

        You should think about the old addage: If you’re the only one right… you’re wrong.

    • econobiker says:

      Doesn’t matter since most illegals give fake names anyhow for the ticket(s) which they won’t pay and never show up in court for…

  6. Emerald4me says:

    It might be because the economy isn’t recovered yet. People are not traveling as much to all 50 of the states.

  7. evnmorlo says:

    Obviously business will be hurt when there is less almost-free labor.

  8. UCLAri: Allergy Sufferer says:

    I’m not entirely clear on how boycotting the state will do much. It’s not exactly like not giving money to Marriott will make the idiot politicians all of a sudden change their minds.

    • bonzombiekitty says:

      Because, in theory, if you do economic damage to the state, people are going to want to undo whatever caused the economic damage. If people aren’t visiting the state because of the law and the tourist industry takes a hit, then those in the tourist industry are more likely to lobby the state representatives to undo the law.

      This tactic actually worked in the past in order to get Arizona to recognize Martin Luther King Day as an official holiday back when it was the only state that did not do so.

      • UCLAri: Allergy Sufferer says:

        I could see that. Good point, and a lot better of an argument than “I think it will, therefore it will!”

        Unfortunately, Arizona is a fair bit different economically today than it was in the past. We’ll see if this does enough.

    • wadexyz says:

      I think a boycott could be quite effective actually. Just my opinion.

    • hattrick says:

      “I’m not entirely clear on how boycotting the state will do much.”

      Well, it worked back in 1992 when a tourist boycott led the state to finally re-instate Martin Luther King Day.

  9. gabrewer says:

    If the majority of common Americans were in a position to do a lot of leisure travel — and Arizona was on their list of destinations — the travel boycott would have no effect at all. The great majority of us want an orderly, legal immigration policy, and we want our borders secure. However since the big money in travel (or at least a big part of it) is from group functions — tradeshows, conventions, conferences, training seminars, etc. — there will be a disproportionate impact. Even those entities that have no particular interest in the immigration debate will be fearful of being portrayed as politically incorrect, and thus potential boycott targets themselves. Indeed a perfect instance of the tyranny of the minority.

    • oneandone says:

      I disagree. I think a majority of Americans want things to stay just the way they are: cheap, immigrant labor (much of it undocumented workers) providing most of our work on farms, resturaunt kitchens, and hotels. We don’t want to pay much for food or service, and the system as it is now supports that.

      How else could you have situations where people who are not authorized to be in the U.S. are working in military bases here, as employees of contractors who won government bids?

      If secure borders & an orderly immigration policy were really a priority for any sector of the U.S. population, you’d be able to certify that your farm, slaughterhouse, hotel, or company was “100% documented workers” or something similar, the same way you can certify products or establishments as organic, energy efficient, or compliant with international standards. But nobody’s offering that kind of certification because no one is looking for it, because we like the system as it is, hypocritical though it may be.

  10. razdigital says:

    I see a tax rate hike in Arizona’s future. With all these legal and illegal immigrants departing the state there is going to be a shortage in the tax revenue earned without supplemental income to compensate for it. In terms of small business going bankrupt it will depend on what type of interaction the businesses had with immigrants.

    One upside is that if anyone is looking to buy property it will be real cheap to acquire with probably an increase in foreclosures.

    • dolemite says:

      I dunno, it might balance out. I’m sure you are talking about sales tax, as illegals pay no income, social security or the other major taxes we are all dinged with.

      On the other hand, perhaps they can lower local taxes since the citizens won’t be footing all the medical bills for the illegals.

      • ellmar says:

        It is not true that undocumented workers do not contribute to state, federal and social security coffers. Although they are not permitted to collect social security benefits, those who are working with false documents contribute to social security to the tune of $6 billion annually.

        http://loyalaw.blogspot.com/2010/01/do-illegal-aliens-receive-social.html

        • shadowhh says:

          Those that decide to fake there documents, sure. But Many get paid under the table.

          Plus they take the maximum deductions when they fake the papers, so its less tax.

        • dolemite says:

          Actually, that says that any money collected from their falsification of documents is put into a fund that can’t be touched by anyone. So it’s not like they are paying for our retirement while not being able to collect social security. Apparently the money is held in limbo indefinately.

          There is a link in one of the posts below that article to a website that states that illegals are a burden upon US taxpayers to the tune of 113 billion per year. Mostly to local governments providing the children with schooling and/or healthcare that isn’t paid into.

          • Syncop8d1 says:

            Aren’t school funded with property taxes that somebody has to pay with either an escrow account on their mortgage or indirectly through rent (the apartment owner pays the prop. taxes)? I do, however, understand the argument for health care but I’m not so sure how that’s funded.

    • wolf says:

      most of the illegal aliens do not pay taxes, thats why we have to pay for them

    • Syncop8d1 says:

      They recently raised the sales tax already. I was *shocked* when my Taco Bell meal was accessed a >10% tax (according to my calc’s.) The tax “breakdown” on the receipt was hard to decipher. I visited PHX to visit my mom who had surgery. SB 1070 (the law in question) and Sheriff Joe (Arpaio) were on the news daily and most people in the area (minus protesters) appeared to support the laws if you believe the local media.

  11. haoshufu says:

    You know why other states oppose it? Because they know the illegal immigrants are just going to move there without that straight law, especially California.

    AZ will potential save a lot of money under this new law and can then provide tax credit to local businesses. Or they can use the money to provide tax rebates to companies that have lost businesses with other states because of the law.

    Fed has the illegal immigration law but without enough power to enforce it, then they won’t let the states do it themselves. What gives?

  12. pantheonoutcast says:

    Interesting that some of the only people who would possibly be hurt by a travel boycott would be illegal immigrants working in food service, house cleaning and other aspects of the hospitality industry. If a resort hotel is losing money, they’re simply going to fire their illegal workers, or lower their salary. Who are they going to run to?

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Boycotts and protests do nothing.

  13. wmasson says:

    This doesn’t take into consideration the spending in Arizona by folks who cross into the US to do business. There are countless stories here in Tucson of small business, restaurants and retail outlets, that have felt a dramatic decrease in traffic due to the bill. I think somewhere I read that these consumers account for over $2Billion in transactions a year (can’t remember the source). Hotels may be a way to measure the impact on tourist travel but hotels do not measure the impact of the bill on transaction volume in the local economy.

  14. TandJ says:

    I am really in favor of the citizens of Arizona attempting to honor the laws of America.

    The next step is to place billboards, flyers, and maps to direct illegals to the California cities designated as sanctuary cities. Apparently, those California cities have adequate revenues to support illegals with city services, medical services, and other economic assistance.

    God Bless rich Americans willing to give to help unfortuantes; even to their own detriment.

  15. chimpski says:

    I will not be traveling to Arizona. I can’t even take someone asking for my receipt! How will I react when I’m asked to prove who I am?

    • pantheonoutcast says:

      Step 1) Read and understand the law. Step 2) Carry Identification. And Step 3) (Which really should come before Steps 1 and 2) Don’t be living and working in this country illegally.

      It’s all very simple.

      • myCatCracksMeUp says:

        - Americans should not have to carry identification. There have been Supreme Count decisions to that affect.

        Though with today’s Supreme Court it wouldn’t surprise me if that could get reversed.

        • pantheonoutcast says:

          You’re right. However, illegal immigrant are not Americans. They’re criminals from another country.

          Plus, there’s the fact that you keep ignoring, that the police are not going to be stopping everyone on the street asking to “see papers.” You’re deliberately misreading the law.

          Also, Federal law does require legal non-citizens to carry a permanent residence card. “Every alien,” according to that law, “shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession” what most people call a green card.

          • dolemite says:

            I concur with you. I am not some right wing bible thumping nutjob with a membership to the NRA. I lean far more left. These are criminals. They came into our country illegally, flaunting the process that would gain them legal citizenship. I appreciate they do the jobs we do not want, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t criminals. They don’t pay into local taxes outside of sales tax, but are a huge burden on the system. A lot of these cities that can’t make their budgets have illegal immigrants to blame. They use the services, but don’t pay into the system.

          • psm321 says:

            What about people who are citizens (natural-born, even), but look foreign? Why should I have to carry my ID with me as if I’m living in some soviet “papers please” country?

            • pantheonoutcast says:

              “Why should I have to carry my ID with me”

              Common sense dictates that you carry ID with you at all times, even if just for the sake of an emergency. If you have a driver’s license, carry it. If you don’t drive, get a state-issued ID. You carry money and a credit card, yes? So carry an ID. No one is saying you “have” to carry it, but it make more sense to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

              What you should be getting angry at is the fact that this wave of illegal immigrants is forcing the hand of law enforcement and putting a strain on citizens’ resources and rights. Be angry with the people breaking the law, not the ones enforcing it.

              • psm321 says:

                I didn’t ask whether it was a good idea. I asked why it should be required to. It’s funny, when I was in elementary school, “papers please” mentality in former soviet countries was cited as something horrible that would never happen in the land of the free. Now the same conservatives think it’s a great thing.

                • pantheonoutcast says:

                  It’s only a “great thing” because criminals insist on taking advantage of the land of the free and people like you insist on defending their criminal activities.

                  It’s only happening because people like you turned the “land of the free” into the “land of the free lunch.”

                  Also, if you’re of the mentality that asking for your ID is akin to squashing your civil rights, chances are you’re probably up to something unsavory. Law abiding citizens don’t think twice about carrying their driver’s license in their wallet. Criminals with something to hide do.

                  • psm321 says:

                    Right, because only criminals care about their rights. Should cops be able to search your or my house without a warrant too? After all, if we’re not criminals we have nothing to hide.

            • HogwartsProfessor says:

              I carry mine in case something happens to me. Then people either taking care of me or trying to find my next of kin will have it easier. What if I went home tonight and took my power walk and got hit by a car? How’s the cop called by the person who found my broken body in the ditch going to know who I am if I don’t have my license?

  16. rbb says:

    Let’s just adopt the same laws Mexico uses to deal with its illegal immigrant problem:

    Mexico welcomes only foreigners who will be useful to Mexican society:

    * Foreigners are admitted into Mexico “according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress.” (Article 32)

    * Immigration officials must “ensure” that “immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance” and for their dependents. (Article 34)

    * Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets “the equilibrium of the national demographics,” when foreigners are deemed detrimental to “economic or national interests,” when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and when “they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy.” (Article 37)

    * The Secretary of Governance may “suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest.” (Article 38)

    Mexican authorities must keep track of every single person in the country:

    * Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request, i.e., to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants. (Article 73)

    * A National Population Registry keeps track of “every single individual who comprises the population of the country,” and verifies each individual’s identity. (Articles 85 and 86)

    * A national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants (Article 87), and assigns each individual with a unique tracking number (Article 91).

    Foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false pretenses, may be imprisoned:

    * Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned. (Article 116)

    * Foreigners who sign government documents “with a signature that is false or different from that which he normally uses” are subject to fine and imprisonment. (Article 116)

    Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned as felons:

    * Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished. (Article 117)

    * Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. (Article 118)

    * Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to up to six years in prison (Articles 119, 120 and 121). Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in Mexico — such as working with out a permit — can also be imprisoned.

    Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. The General Law on Population says,

    * “A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five thousand pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally.” (Article 123)

    * Foreigners with legal immigration problems may be deported from Mexico instead of being imprisoned. (Article 125)

    * Foreigners who “attempt against national sovereignty or security” will be deported. (Article 126)

    Mexicans who help illegal aliens enter the country are themselves considered criminals under the law:

    * A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison. (Article 127)

    * Shipping and airline companies that bring undocumented foreigners into Mexico will be fined. (Article 132)

    • JMILLER says:

      Any country can adopt any law they want. In the USA, there is this thing called the constitution. Mexico is not under any obligation to follow the US constitution. Arizona is. The US Federal government is. I suppose if we wanted to stop crime we could adopt some Iranian or North Korean laws too.

  17. CyGuy says:

    AZ appears to be supporting the boycott since they shut down or cutback the hours at almost all of their state parks due to budget cutbacks. http://azstateparks.com/press/2009/PR_04-11-09.html

  18. CyGuy says:

    AZ appears to be supporting the boycott since they shut down or cutback the hours at almost all of their state parks due to budget cutbacks. http://azstateparks.com/press/2009/PR_04-11-09.html

    • pantheonoutcast says:

      From a press release 16 months ago, and a full year before the bill was signed into law.

  19. strathmeyer says:

    We’re talking about a law at the state level that is against laws at the federal level. You fail Current Events.

  20. SuperSnackTime says:

    Hypothetical fun time: humor me and let’s pretend that suddenly a law was passed that defined ANYONE in our country at this exact moment as being able to spontaneously declare themselves citizens of the US. In other words, they would no longer be illegal, they would be legal.

    For those of you who are claim to be against their illegal immigrants presence, would you no longer be upset? After all, they would not be illegal, and thus no longer would meet your criteria for what you claim to take umbrage with.

    OR… is that just false wall to hide other comtempt you might have? Angry that there are people willing to work for less, people who don’t speak the language that isn’t our national language (despite us not actually having a national language, but hell, who’s worrying about laws and stuff!)?

    Or is it really and truly just the fact they broke the law? Because immigration status is a fluid law, and it can certainly be changed.

    • bhr says:

      Thats a bad hypothetical, and you know it. I would be against 12-20 million people immediately becoming eligible for all government benefits paid for out of tax dollars, but you phrase your question is such a way that you seem to think that most people oppose illegal immigration on racial terms.

      I get mad when someone cuts the line in front of me, let alone doing the same to enter this country. I had cousins (Distant) who spent almost a decade trying to come over from Russia before being granted that right. I also have two close friends from Cote D’ivoire who came to this country legally, worked on the books and in one case recently became a citizen.

    • myCatCracksMeUp says:

      I agree with bhr. I don’t like Arizona’s law, but I also don’t like people being here illegally.

      A couple of decade ago we did put allow almost every illegal to pursue legality and citizenship; this was supposed to “fix” the illegal immigration problem. Yet here we are.

      I wholeheartedly welcome people from other countries to come here legally and live. I think we should increase how many people from other countries we allow in legally, but I don’t like people being here illegally.

    • dolemite says:

      Any law is a fluid law. You think I should be able to just row a boat across the ocean and start living in France? HONESTLY? No passport, no background check…I get paid under the table, but I use their universal healthcare without paying into it. I don’t have to pay property taxes, and I forge documents and commit fraud to obtain the things I need. Does any part of that sound legit to you? Why would someone that does that to live in the US be any different? Because Mexico sucks?

    • vesey says:

      All we have ever wanted is secure borders and an orderly process for a person to become a citizen. That is’nt mean, racist, nazi. It does’nt make people baby haters, klingons or viscious anti enviroment slugs who want all penquins to die. It just makes moral and common sense to have laws that have been on the books for years ENFORCED. Immigrant are welcome. My neighbor across the street is from Zimbabwe. He is an accepted part of the neighborhood and we get along great. He has done everything legally in his road to citizenship which he will receive in a few months with me watching the ceremony. This is all we ask for. That is not unreasonable or in any way evil to expect the same from all immigrants. I know this is a hard concept for people like you but think about it at least a little bit and maybe it will eventually make sense even to you………….

  21. steamboatdevil says:

    I all folks claiming to support immigrants with this stupid boycott…

    58% of the hotels in AZ are owned by immigrants
    70-80% of the employees that work at hotels are immigrants.

    So you want hurt immigrants to make a make your point? Sounds pretty heartless to me..

    Two hotel chains reported record huge earnings today.. so you are NOT hurting the big guy you are only hurting the small businessman trying to make a living..

    You all talk to tough .. come spend a night 40 miles inside the border. I have a great spot we will set you up in. If you make it thought the night alive I will buy you breakfast.. If you get into trouble the Federal government has put up signs asking that you call the local (state) authorities for assistance. Interesting as the Feds say AZ can not enforce immigration laws, yet if you are impacted by illegal immigrant activity they ask you to call the state and not the feds.

    BTW thanks Obama for sending in the Guard with their typewriters. We now have enough Guard members to put on “soldier” every three miles.. whooo hooo!

  22. Darury says:

    Perhaps all the “Papers Now!” people could explain to me how the AZ law differs from the ones enacted in Missouri, Rhode Island (techincally an EO there) and Virginia?

    Each of those states have essentially the same law on the books and are enforced, yet none of them are being sued by the DoJ. Considering that AZ has a much more significant interest in the issue, I don’t see how this is anything but a power-grab by the Feds

    • myCatCracksMeUp says:

      I live in Virginia and I don’t believe we have a law that is similar to the Arizona law, but I’m willing to be educated. Can you please point me to the Virginia law you’re referencing?

  23. Geekybiker says:

    I’d be more likely to visit Arizona now just hearing about the boycott!

  24. Clyde Barrow says:

    A couple of things that I’ve learned from the media and my cousin who lives in Mesa; I have read that the US gov’t fully knows of the illegal immigration issues and of course, has a law in place but fails to enforce it and basically washes its hands of it. Second, my cousin who I just spoke with this past Sunday said that no one wants them in the state and that especially goes for the “well-to-do” Mexicans who have paid thousands of dollars for an attorney and have gotten their legal status completed so that they can stay legally. Another cousin of mine, who is Filipino by marriage, paid her attorney $10k to become a citizen.

    Regarding the article’s objective about the boycott? I just read this morning that Arizona is experiencing a boom in tourism and that the boycott failed.

    • Syncop8d1 says:

      Well, AZ does have some magnificent sunsets and they still have the Grand Canyon, one of the most amazing sites to visit IMHO. Because they don’t observe daylight savings, the sun sets in Phoenix around 7:30 or so instead of at nearly 9 pm where I live (Houston area). Not sure how that last part relates to the topic, but it was just interesting and quite an adjustment for me during my 3 week stay.

  25. psm321 says:

    I know as a US citizen who looks “foreign”, I will not be visiting a police state where I can be asked “papers please” at any time.

    • shadowhh says:

      Read the law. Your statement means that you ARE willing to visit every state then. Since no State will just stop you and ask for papers.

      • psm321 says:

        Please tell my how you would define “reasonable suspicion” of being an illegal immigrant. Despite all their protests to the contrary, I have never seen a supporter of this law give any way that there would be a “reasonable suspicion” other than racial profiling based on looks.

  26. NYGuy1976 says:

    Boycotts never really work. The ironic thing about boycotting the tourism industry in AZ is that people that are hispanic are most likely to get effected since they are the majority nationality in the hotel industry there. Also, boycotts work both ways. Many in AZ have refused to go to San Diego during the summer. Its pretty funny that San Diego has a wall to keep out illegal immigrants but AZ is evil for trying to get rid of them there.

  27. scouts honor says:
  28. HogwartsProfessor says:

    I can’t boycott Arizona because the bf HAS to be there when he gets out of his job training. Also, if this relationship goes anywhere, I might end up there. I can only hope any bugs get worked out soon.

  29. Orv says:

    Well, it’s Arizona. The only people who go there are old conservative retirees, anyway.

    • Syncop8d1 says:

      LoL, it appears that way if you hang out in places like Goodyear and Sun City where there are thriving retirement communities (like the one my parents, aunt and uncle live). In fact, I found it kinda humorous that on the way through Sun City that there was a retirement home on the right side of the street and then just a moment later, there was a funeral home to the left. I joked to my dad that the close proximity of the funeral home made it easier for them to get their business from the retirement home. He being 76, did not find my joke a bit funny until later when he relayed the story to my mom who did laugh, sort of. However, there are lots of young people in Phoenix proper so I think the elder folks stay in their retirement enclaves and leave the city living to the young folks. Just my observations.
      Now, if we’re talking Florida…then maybe

      (j/k, I know they have young people there too)

  30. Marumm says:

    Here’s a case of a natural-born American citizen who was detained for driving while brown: http://www.azfamily.com/news/91769419.html

    But that would never happen, right?

    Also, if you’ll notice, this is actually from April. If 1070 kicked into effect fully, Arpaio’s guys would be out doing this every day, regardless of any toothless language prohibiting racial profiling.

  31. areaman says:

    But the real question is who wants to go to Arizona for anything?

    How arrrrrrrrrrreeee these people?

  32. BelleSade says:

    Thank god I’m one of those white-looking (Cameron Díaz anyone) Hispanics.

    But I still wouldn’t go to Arizona. I have enough shit-drying weather and backwards idiots where I’m currently living at.

  33. kataisa says:

    I love how the media always reports on the AZ boycotts but they never mention the many people who aren’t boycotting AZ, or even those who boycott the boycotters. With the media it’s like the majority of people who support AZ’s law don’t exist

    Personally, I plan on vacationing in Arizona this summer, and I know of a few people who have made plans to travel and spend money in Arizona to show their support for a state that has every right to protect its border.

    I do plan to boycott San Francisco and Los Angeles though. :)

    • pantheonoutcast says:

      I’m with you on that. I’m actually actively looking for land to buy in Arizona on the border.

      I like to instigate.

    • Syncop8d1 says:

      “With the media it’s like the majority of people who support AZ’s law don’t exist.”

      Local Phoenix media paint a different picture. It’s quite enlightening to observe the difference in reporting from within AZ (everyone but the protesters (many from out of state, according to AZ media) loves the law versus outside of AZ (the law is evil).

  34. bitplayer says:

    Our immigration process is rigged. If we required people to spend over $10k in legal fees to be a citizen we wouldn’t have a country. I’d argue that immigrants help our country stay competitive. Nobody wants to do the jobs that these immigrants do. Please let me know if your teenage son wants to pick mushrooms this summer. Also it should be noted that many illegals do pay taxes, since part of applying for citizenship is showing compliance with tax law. These people in Arizona want to blame illegals for all their problems but it just isn’t so.

    • PunditGuy says:

      I’ve seen this $10K think pop up a couple of places in this thread. I didn’t pay a lawyer anything to become a citizen, so I have no idea what you’re talking about.

  35. DEVO says:

    The most basic argument that is never brought up about illegal immigration: Do you hate long lines? Do you hate traffic? So why the fuck do you want an unlimited amount of people coming into this country. And any of you people who think it’s racist to not want open borders are seriously fucking stupid.

    • PunditGuy says:

      That’s not the fundamental argument. The fundamental argument is that sovereign countries get to set their immigration polices.You don’t have to like it, but you have to abide by it. I actually agree with that, but still disagree with the Arizona law. My objection is that it tramples on the rights of citizens, not illegal aliens.

  36. Danny Boy says:

    No one is denying they’re committing a crime. The question is how you identify them for their crime? If you’re a police officer can you stop someone walking down the street if you think the person is here illegally (and for no other reason)? If you say yes – what led you to your suspicion?

  37. wolf says:

    This is the liberals giving illegal aliens a right that is not theirs. Boycotting a state that is trying to do the right thing for their citizens should be backed by these organizations for upholding the rights of US citizens not condemned. The government is not doing anything to stop illegal immigration and is stopping the states that try to do anything about illegal immigration.

    • PunditGuy says:

      You’ve got it exactly backwards. This tramples on the rights of citizens, not illegals. Since when do citizens have to prove that they’re citizens to a police officer’s satisfaction?

  38. wolf says:

    This is the liberals giving illegal aliens a right that is not theirs. Boycotting a state that is trying to do the right thing for their citizens should be backed by these organizations for upholding the rights of US citizens not condemned. The government is not doing anything to stop illegal immigration and is stopping the states that try to do anything about illegal immigration.

  39. RBellarmine says:

    Native Arizonan, now living elsewhere in the country but with family and friends in Flagstaff, Phoenix and Tucson. I was in Phoenix about three weeks ago, and drove down street after street of empty storefronts and boarded-up office buildings, all with giant signs in front: “For Lease.” “Commercial Property.” “First and Last Month Free.” I stopped at a Food City, the local Latino grocery store; the place was empty of customers at a time of day when it should have been swarmed. A cashier told me that Latinos, legal AND illegal, were too afraid to shop or go out, and that her brother’s nightclub was going under for lack of clients. Foreclosures everywhere you look, including the swank areas like Scottsdale.

    I used to love driving on Arizona’s highways, which were some of the cleanest in the country; now there are little drifts of trash everywhere (just like SoCal!). My family and I went daytrippin’ to Patagonia, and couldn’t find an open rest stop between there and Phoenix (we used a friendly bush). There’s one rest stop open between Flag and Phoenix, and it’s always swarming.

    Who the hell makes the beds, cleans the rooms, cooks the food, and mows the lawns of those fine Arizona resorts, if not undocumented aliens? Who shops in Arizona’s stores and constitutes AZ’s economic base? Certainly not the ancient white retirees in Sun City, who came to my beloved state with the expressed desire NOT to be required to contribute anything (and have you seen the state of our schools?). Arizona’s economy is in the shitter and the engine of its prosperity — cheap labor — driven away, along with a goodly percentage of its customer base. Violent crime was actually DOWN in Arizona last year and the year before, but its cretinous white leadership still insists that brown people are walking around AZ packing heat and drugs and looking for white women to rape. (And don’t tell me that it’s all about Mexican “illegals;” listen to Arpaio, Pearce and Brewer for a bit and you’ll quickly learn that those morons don’t distinguish between citizen and undocumented.) Arizona is a beautiful state that’s being systematically destroyed by the crooks, whores and imbeciles infesting the Legislature, and by outsiders who looked at my home and looked right past its people and saw someplace to squat without consequence.

    Bitter much? Fuck, yeah.

    • Syncop8d1 says:

      I just came back from Phoenix on August 1st and I still think the roads are cleaner than So Cal (where I’m originally from). However, that isn’t saying much b/c So Cal is mostly a pit (particularly Los Angeles). Being a native Arizonan what is your opinion about the influx of Californians to your state? I don’t run into too many native Arizonans, so I thought I’d ask.

  40. Danny Boy says:

    People are confusing the argument……there are people who are in this country illegally. I think we all agree on that point. The question is “how” we deal with it. As long as you don’t mind showing YOUR papers (not just a drivers license) then you should be ok with this bill. Prove to a cop YOU are here legally, cause you’re next. That’s all we’re saying.