Violent crime has been steadily decreasing in Arizona, but you wouldn’t know it by listening to AZ’s Governor, Jan Brewer—or GOP superstar, Sarah Palin, speechify about the need for the state’s new "papers-please" immigration law.
Indeed, top Arizona officials, including Governor Jan Brewer, convened an emergency "huddle" late last week, to try to figure out how to cope with the state’s $10 million in lost business resulting from the controversial law, SB 1070. Initial reports suggest that Arizona businesses are at risk of losing a total $90 million if the law is not repealed in a timely fashion.
According to Debbie Johnson, CEO of the Arizona Tourism Alliance and the Arizona Hotel and Lodging Association, the rest of the country won’t return Arizona’s phone calls:
To date, dozens of cities and groups have announced boycotts. Arizona has lost at least 30 to 40 meetings and conventions, she said. [...]
"We're hearing from our sales people in the hotels and resorts, that people aren't returning their calls anymore - that they don't even want to talk to Arizonans," she said.
Tourism officials huddled for nearly two hours in Brewer's offices at the state Capitol on Thursday, discussing early strategies and devising ways to push the rebrand out to the public. They offered no time frame for fixing the problem but acknowledged this will have to be a long-term effort.
Instead of approaching the controversy as a simple exercise in "rebranding," however, business leaders in Arizona would do well to question why they are working to actively alienate whole swaths of the U.S. population, who no longer feel comfortable stepping foot in their state. With everyone from major cities (read: LA) to major civil rights organizations calling for the country to stop doing business with Arizona, it is time for a more substantive approach to immigration policy in Arizona.
Honest businesses across the state should now step up to tell their leaders it’s time to deal with the issues at the heart of immigration reform, not simply to score cheap political points by flogging the issue with absurd laws like SB 1070, written by the likes of Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).
NCLR President and CEO Janet Murguía has argued this in response to concerns that boycotts will adversely affect even those caught in the cross-hairs of the new law:
We believe that the inherent, permanent, and systemic profiling and discrimination that will occur as a result of this law far outweigh any short-term impacts from a boycott... A clear majority of Latinos in Arizona support a boycott. Americans are legitimately concerned... our system is broken, but this Arizona law is not the answer. Our immigration system should reflect both our nation’s interest and our values. This law is not American.
Wade Henderson of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights continues, explaining the perils of profiling:
"...Besides the humiliation and degradation of the victims, racial profiling is unconstitutional, un-American, and violates fundamental human rights to which all Americans subscribe...Racial profiling is also... ineffective and a waste of precious law enforcement resources."
In fact, the first to sue over SB 1070 was a 15-year veteran of the Tucson police department, who believes that this type of legislation prevents them from doing their jobs and keeping communities safe. A substantial and perhaps surprising number of cops share his sentiment, and find the law to be a distraction from both their work and the pressing need for a real, federal immigration overhaul.
According to AZ Central:
Brewer attended the meeting for the first hour, and both she and others said there was no discussion of delaying enactment of the immigration law.
The governor said much of the furor is caused by what she characterized as "mistruths" about the new law.
As an example, Brewer said it has been erroneously reported that the new immigration law would allow racial profiling and that visitors can't come to Arizona without ID or they'll be arrested.
"You aren't going to be asked for ID unless you first commit a crime," she said.
Here, Brewer again demonstrates she has no idea what’s in this law. While it’s true that the "new and improved" version of SB 1070 attempts to limit when a cop can ask for your papers (now, in the course of any lawful stop, detention, or arrest), the law remains extremely controversial because city ordinances are included right along with violent crimes.
Tall weeds? Barking dogs? Loud music? Show me your papers, amigo...
As Andrea Nill points out over at the Wonk Room, Kris Kobach, an attorney who played a large role in crafting SB 1070, admitted to the bill’s sponsor, State Senator Russell Pearce, that the inclusion of the "municipal ordinances" provision would be able to make up for the loss of the "lawful contact" language which the amendments would eliminate. The entire amendment effort appears to be more a way to fend off court challenges than a real improvement in the law, as the amendments cast a wider net against who can be deemed "reasonably suspicious" and do nothing to address law enforcement’s valid complaints.
According to Nill:
More importantly, Kobach is basically admitting to Pearce that by allowing police to use the violation of "any county or municipal ordinance" as a basis for inquiring about a person’s immigration status, the bill will still cast a wide enough net to help offset the effect of omitting the "lawful contact" language which would’ve allowed police to ask just about anyone they encounter about their immigration status. The examples Kobach provides, "cars on blocks in the yard" or "too many occupants of a rental accommodation," suggest that net will mostly end up being cast over the poor.
Here’s hoping that rebranding effort morphs quickly into an actual rethinking—or better yet, repealing—effort real soon.
With Sarah Palin now lending her star-power and foreign affairs know-how (she can see Russia from her window, folks) to the state, there’s no limit to how rogue Arizona could go.
More: