Travel Ban to Arizona

Edit to respond to your edit: In my view the "see your papers" portion of the law is not likely to be ruled facially unconstitutional but will lead to civil rights violations in enforcement of it. The constitutional question doesn't really interest me that much. Lots of bad laws are Constitutional. That doesn't make them good laws.
Click to expand...

But no or, at the most, few good laws are unconstitutional.
 
Damocles said:
Other questions I'd ask would be:

Wouldn't this be exactly like a government entity officially celebrating a religious holiday and expressing their religious views? How is it we try to get them to stop that expression, but stand for this type of expression?
Click to expand...

Because separation of church and state is constitutional.

Again I ask, how many of them boycott Mexico itself because of their far more draconian immigration laws? What about China? Shouldn't our government entities long ago began boycotting China due to their horrible human rights stances?
Click to expand...

We're not responsible for immigration policies and human rights abuses of these countries, disgusting that they may be. For the PTB in this country, money trumps all.
 
Damocles said:
Boycotts work if there is large public support. IMO, this will be a wash (people will go there that otherwise would have gone elsewhere to "support" the law they think is "good").

What is happening now isn't a stand for ethics, as they don't equally boycott other entities with even worse records on the exact same issue. It makes it obvious that they are willing to prostrate themselves to attempt to drive a wedge for party politics.
Click to expand...

The average American and average American politicians aren't directly affected by bad records in other countries. I've signed countless petitions over the years to punish various countries for their abuses, Sudan comes to mind, but realize it's probably an academic exercise. You should know people are more likely to vote for or against something if it has an economic impact on them, the Tea Party, for example.
 
Topspin said:
how can seriously reduced riders not be an economic impact?
Click to expand...

Exactly. It has an impact even when a hot-button issue like immigration isn't the reason for seriously reduced ridership. Reduced ridership on public transit is a big economic problem here in Pgh.
 
I am suprised you feel qualified to make a blanket statement about the protitability of the bus system of a small Alabama town, almost 50 years ago... and be so sure of it!
 
Boycott's are useful in drawing attention. Unless they are extremely broad they tend to do little economic damage. But the economic damages are not something that is really that desirable anyway. The real goal is political change. I seriously doubt the bus boycott had a significant economic impact, which made it perfect.
 
I have studied the MBB. My father lived in Montgomery at the time. I know a lot about it. About 70% of the ridership of the PROFITABLE Montgomery Bus Company was Black. Almost 99% of the black riders instantly quit riding the city buses.

The Montgomery Bus Company, a company that had a City Charter to operate buses in the city, scrambled immideatly to broker a resolution. They suggested several compromises until finally relenting and agreeing to equal access of all citizens on its busses. The State of Alabama had the final word however when the Alabama Circuit court declared that the Bus Company must impose state regulations re: segergation while operating in the city of Montgomery.

The boycott continued untill after much lobbying from downtown business groups and the "owners" of the bus company caused the city and the state to change the segregation regulations and open the busses equally to all riders.
 
if I lived in any of those cities I would demand they put a ban on traveling anywhere.....why should my tax money be used to send city employees on vacations....if they need to learn something they can learn it on the internet......
 
evince said:
Its called sacraficing for what you believe in.

They full well know it who it will impact.

EVERY boycott involves sacrafice of the people doing it.
Click to expand...

Now you're saying that the people who will lose their jobs and have their lives affected by a boycott are saying:
YEAH, I want to make less money and have my family go hungry; just so everyone else can make a point.
 
Damocles said:
And what you get are lawsuits, especially if one can prove that people are getting tickets based on race. If, say, the Nortonion County Sheriff's Dept. (I made the place up, if it exists in reality anywhere it isn't my fault they have such a silly name) gave out 100 tickets for driving only 3 over the speed limit, and all 100 tickets were given to those of a certain pigmentation, it could easily be proven, and therefore a lawsuit more than easily won, that they were not making "legal contact".

Legal contact is more restrictive than you think.
Click to expand...

C'mon Damo.
Now you're just being logical and you know that the presentation of facts are not going to convince those that have their minds allready set in stone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top