An Open Letter on the Arizona Boycott
Hon. Tom Barrett, Mayor of Milwaukee
Hon. Scott Walker, Executive of Milwaukee County
Gentlemen:
Resolutions are now pending in both the Milwaukee Common Council and the County Board calling for boycotting Arizona because of the new law which requires police to check on the immigration status of people suspected of criminal activity. I am writing to urge you both to VETO these measures.
1. Validity of the Arizona Law
The Obama Administration is determined to test the new law in the federal courts, and the case will probably be argued all the way to the US Supreme Court. If so, I predict that the Court will uphold the law, which would undermine the case for a boycott. If, on the other hand, the Court overturns the law, no boycott will be needed.
2. Consistency
The human rights situation in China, Zimbabwe, Sudan and a lot of other countries is much worse than it is in Arizona, even if the new law is applied in a discriminatory way. Yet we do not boycott any of these countries. (I do not plan to visit any of them anytime soon, but that is a personal choice.)
But should we not hold American states to a higher standard than foreign countries?
Even if we do, consider these cases:
When many southern states systematically barred black people from voting, we did not boycott them.
When Nevada legalized gambling and prostitution (1), we did not boycott Nevada.
When Oregon legalized assisted suicide, we did not boycott Oregon.
So, we do not routinely pass judgement on the morality of the laws or acts of other states. Yet the proponents of the Arizona boycott would have us impose this drastic penalty on a state that merely requires people to produce a card (such as a driver's license or state ID) to prove that they are in the state legally.
3. Risk of Retaliation
If the proposed boycott takes effect and seriously affects the economy of Arizona, do not be surprised if Arizona responds by boycotting Milwaukee and its industries. Ask local manufacturers if their businesses would be adversely affected if they lost all customers in Arizona. Ask hotel owners if they would not mind losing all visitors from that state. Consider these possible consequences before approving a "trade war" with one of our sister states.
I understand the political pressure that you face from the Latino community to boycott Arizona. Yet I believe that the majority of your constituents do not support the boycott, although the intensity of sentiment on the Latino side is clearly greater . Again, I urge you both to say NO to the boycott.
Gerald S Glazer
2944 N 50th Street
Milwaukee, WI
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Nevada state law does not prohibit either activity, but permits individual counties to ban them.
Hon. Scott Walker, Executive of Milwaukee County
Gentlemen:
Resolutions are now pending in both the Milwaukee Common Council and the County Board calling for boycotting Arizona because of the new law which requires police to check on the immigration status of people suspected of criminal activity. I am writing to urge you both to VETO these measures.
1. Validity of the Arizona Law
The Obama Administration is determined to test the new law in the federal courts, and the case will probably be argued all the way to the US Supreme Court. If so, I predict that the Court will uphold the law, which would undermine the case for a boycott. If, on the other hand, the Court overturns the law, no boycott will be needed.
2. Consistency
The human rights situation in China, Zimbabwe, Sudan and a lot of other countries is much worse than it is in Arizona, even if the new law is applied in a discriminatory way. Yet we do not boycott any of these countries. (I do not plan to visit any of them anytime soon, but that is a personal choice.)
But should we not hold American states to a higher standard than foreign countries?
Even if we do, consider these cases:
When many southern states systematically barred black people from voting, we did not boycott them.
When Nevada legalized gambling and prostitution (1), we did not boycott Nevada.
When Oregon legalized assisted suicide, we did not boycott Oregon.
So, we do not routinely pass judgement on the morality of the laws or acts of other states. Yet the proponents of the Arizona boycott would have us impose this drastic penalty on a state that merely requires people to produce a card (such as a driver's license or state ID) to prove that they are in the state legally.
3. Risk of Retaliation
If the proposed boycott takes effect and seriously affects the economy of Arizona, do not be surprised if Arizona responds by boycotting Milwaukee and its industries. Ask local manufacturers if their businesses would be adversely affected if they lost all customers in Arizona. Ask hotel owners if they would not mind losing all visitors from that state. Consider these possible consequences before approving a "trade war" with one of our sister states.
I understand the political pressure that you face from the Latino community to boycott Arizona. Yet I believe that the majority of your constituents do not support the boycott, although the intensity of sentiment on the Latino side is clearly greater . Again, I urge you both to say NO to the boycott.
Gerald S Glazer
2944 N 50th Street
Milwaukee, WI
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Nevada state law does not prohibit either activity, but permits individual counties to ban them.
Labels: Arizona, boycott, immigration
posted by Gerald S Glazer at 6:16 AM
1 comments
