In the wake of Arizona’s passage of SB 1070 many on the left have weighed in on various aspects of the new law, calling it “racist”, and “Nazi-like”, among other idiocies.
None that I’ve heard so far equal the elected officials of the city of San Francisco, considering their current circumstances.
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors is calling for a boycott of Arizona via a resolution that will call for the ending of any and all contracts the city has with businesses based in Arizona;
“We want to send a message,” Supervisor David Campos told a rally on the steps of City Hall this morning. “There are consequences when you target a whole people.”
First before I continue, what whole people is Campos referring to? Does the new Arizona law specifically mention and particular race, ethnicity, or country of origin of anyone “targeted” [oopsie, bad word] by the law? I’m just asking, because it sounds like somebody in SF city government is making racist assumptions to me.
Clueless as to how their own city would be affected;
“We’re trying to figure that out now,” Campos said. “We do know that we won’t be sending any city employees to conferences in Arizona.”
City attorney Dennis Herrera, who himself is calling for a boycott, is asking his staff to identify any such contracts which may be able to be broken without seeing the city get reamed in civil court, and had a gem of his own to offer;
Just as it did two decades ago when it refused to observe Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Arizona has again chosen to isolate itself from the rest of the nation. Our most appropriate response is to assure that their isolation is tangible rather than merely symbolic. San Francisco should lead the way in adopting and aggressively pursuing a sweeping boycott of Arizona and Arizona-based businesses until this unjust law is repealed or invalidated. My office is fully committed to work with San Francisco city departments and commissions to identify all applicable contracts, and to pursue termination wherever possible. And my office stands ready to assist in any legal challenges in whatever way it can.
So, the elected leaders of the City of San Francisco would like to cause economic damage to the entire state of Arizona, based on a law passed that basically agrees with federal law and requires state law enforcement to assist federal officials where possible, is that it? I’m probably boiling it down to its most simplistic of terms, but nowhere in the law is a specific race or nation targeted. Nowhere does the new law call for “people out walking their dogs” to produce their “papers”, as some have suggested.
Well, here’s my suggestion for the people of Arizona who overwhelmingly support the measure.
Many illegal immigrants now living in Arizona are seriously considering moving to other more “friendly” states and cities.
What better example of “friendly” is there than a self-identified Sanctuary City like San Francisco?
I believe a few strategically placed billboards in Arizona are in order which identify all the Sanctuary Cities, just in case anyone in the United States illegally and living currently in Arizona, fearful of facing the consequences, feels the need to find more friendly stomping grounds. San Francisco should figure prominently on such a billboard.
San Francisco shouldn’t mind, after all, look how well the sanctuary policy has worked for them.