TPM LiveWire
CA Tea Party To SF: You Boycott AZ? Then We Boycott You!
Anti-immigration activists protest outside the office of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA)
Share
Send to a friend!
California Tea Party groups are calling San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's boycott and raising him a ... boycott.
The mayor raised the ire of California Tea Partiers this week when, in response to Arizona's passage of a controversial immigration law, he announced a boycott of the state, barring San Francisco city employees from entering Arizona and threatening to cut off economic ties. Local Tea Partiers who support the Arizona legislation answered his actions with a boycott of their own -- on the city of San Francisco.
"We are just tired of our representatives not representing our wishes," said Bridget Melson, president of the group Pleasanton/NorCal TEA Party, which called for the boycott on Wednesday. "I think if you interviewed the majority of Californians it would be staggering to find how few of them support this Arizona boycott. Mayor Newsom is just way out of touch with the American people and the San Francisco people."
The group has encouraged its members not to patronize local businesses. (Unlike Newsom, it has not asked them to avoid entering the city, which could prove problematic, given that a number of its members live there.) "Spend your money anywhere else...vacation elsewhere, dine elsewhere -- if you protest here, bring your own food, coffee and water," Melson writes in the boycott's official call to arms. "I am very worried about this country. This is no joke here...This is how civil wars start."
That's right. "Civil war."
The Pleasanton/NorCal TEA Party will also be protesting Newsom's actions, starting with a rally on May 1...in San Francisco.
Melson, despite advertising the event in her release, told TPM that she may or may not attend, depending on the availability of her bodyguard. "This one may get kind of out of hand," she said.
When asked if she saw the irony in kicking off her group's boycott of San Francisco with a protest in that city, Melson explained that the Pleasanton/NorCal TEA Party applies the term in reference to economics only. "The boycott is about not spending any money or furthering economic growth in San Francisco," she said. "They're trying to hurt Arizona -- so we're trying to hurt them back."
Comments (109) | Join the Conversation!
Inside TPM
-
Latest
-
Most Popular
All
TPMMuckraker
TPMDC
TPMLiveWire
-
Has Obama Cornered Republicans On Contraception?
-
Tax Avoidance Questions Continue To Haunt Romney
-
Obama To Draw Contrast With GOP In Budget
-
McConnell: GOP Will Fight To Let ANY Employer Deny Birth Control Coverage
-
The Delicate Dance Of Disassociating Oneself From 'White Nationalist' Groups At CPAC
-
Judge Won't Toss Weapons Evidence In Schaeffer Cox Case
-
Women's Groups Broadly Support Birth Control Compromise
-
British Man Using 'Sovereign Citizen' Tactics To Get Out Of Weapons Smuggling Charges
-
White House Seeks To Mute Catholic Uproar Over Contraception Rule
-
The Conspiracy Videos In The Hutaree's Library
© 2011 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Arundhati
April 30, 2010 12:08 PM
San Francisco is very nice to visit. Arizona is a beautiful state, with Grand Canyon, Navajo Nation, etc. How can people boycott their own country? Weird.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
farnsworth
April 30, 2010 12:33 PM in reply to Arundhati
It is easy to believe that you aren't capable of understanding.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
miaforever
April 30, 2010 1:32 PM in reply to farnsworth
Obviously it's a fact that Arundhathi has trouble with comprehension!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DownriverDem
April 30, 2010 2:36 PM in reply to Arundhati
How can people in our country hate each other so much?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Anandakos
May 1, 2010 5:38 PM in reply to Arundhati
Arundhati,
You are right about the beauty of Arizona. But the people there tend to be seriously unkind. My wife's sister was in an eating disorder rehab facility in Wickenburg, and my wife spent a week there in support of her.
She shared a car with her sister's husband and dad, so there were times when she was walking around the town. FIVE TIMES she tole me she was crossing an intersecting street with a "Walk" light and had cars come to a screeching halt honking expecting her to RETURN TO THE CURB to allow them turn right. One actually did not stop and sped by her with less than a foot of clearance.
People like that are dirt. And that's who most white Arizonans are. So it's no wonder they pass legal abominations like this.
Yes, we have a problem with illegal immigration (though considerably less than two years ago since there are many fewer restaurant and hospitality jobs now). We could do a lot to fix it by making the penalties for employers stiffer while at the same time creating formal opportunities for people who have the skills and motivations to do the sorts of unpleasant jobs that immigrants do.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
onecrappyusername
May 3, 2010 1:54 PM in reply to Anandakos
Well, that settles it, if I ever meet an Arizonan I'll be sure to tell him that he's dirt. I'm sure he'll agree after hearing the compelling testimony of some random jackass on the internets' wifes' sister.
Dumbass.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tiowally
April 30, 2010 12:10 PM
The TeaHags are finally making a lot of people happy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LAB
April 30, 2010 12:24 PM
Thank you teabaggers! Now I won't have to stand in line behind your fat a$$ to wait for the cable car!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
miaforever
April 30, 2010 1:34 PM in reply to LAB
LOL!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cheesenstein
April 30, 2010 12:33 PM
The Tea Baggers' announcement and all their press materials for this protest event instruct participants to assemble at the Civic Center at 24th and Mission Streets.
The only problem is... the Civic Center is not *located* at 24th and Mission.
I'm hoping they'll arrive at the assembly point, get hungry, and go for a burrito.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JefferyK
April 30, 2010 12:46 PM in reply to cheesenstein
I DARE them to hold a rally in the Mission.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Maurizio
April 30, 2010 1:10 PM in reply to cheesenstein
24th & Mission???!!!!
They really were going to 24th & Mission for an ANTI-IMMIGRANT RALLY?
Hay muchas taquerias buenas @ 24th and Mission. El Farolito's my fave.
O lord these people are hilarious.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tiowally
April 30, 2010 1:22 PM in reply to Maurizio
I understand they've had a change of plans. They are now going to hold an anti-gay marriage rally at 18th & Castro.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MyMy
April 30, 2010 2:23 PM in reply to cheesenstein
They are abysmally stupid. And 24th & Mission is the very heart of Hispanic San Francisco.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
happycamper
April 30, 2010 12:34 PM
I think the woman in Pleasanton has no clue that Gavin Newsom is representing his city (over 84% of the people in San Francisco voted for Obama). SF is also a Sanctuary City. Just because she's within an hour's drive doesn't mean they're just like her.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JefferyK
April 30, 2010 12:39 PM
Just how many members does this group have? My guess is five.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dustbunny44
April 30, 2010 12:46 PM
Put me down as another Northern Californian supporting the boycott of Arizona while they take constitutional rights away from anyone.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
nomad28
April 30, 2010 12:51 PM in reply to dustbunny44
I didn't realize illegal aliens had "constitutional rights," but, heck, you liberals think that terrorists deserve these same rights, so what the heck, right? Constitutional rights to EVERYONE! LET'S PARTY!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
davewtf
April 30, 2010 1:28 PM in reply to nomad28
Yes, we believe that all people in America enjoy the rights enumerated in our constitution. So sad that you believe otherwise.
But of course, this is just more proof that the Teabaggers are not about less taxes and less government spending, but are just plain and simple RACISTS.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
nomad28
April 30, 2010 2:21 PM in reply to davewtf
I'm Mexican. I was born in Mexico. I came to this country legally. I'm now a U.S. citizen. I'm sorry, but where in our consitution are these rights conferred to someone not here legally? I might've missed that during civics class.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lestatdelc
April 30, 2010 2:24 PM in reply to nomad28
How did you manage to pass the citizenship test then since you seem to be utterly clueless about the Constitution?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
nomad28
April 30, 2010 2:35 PM in reply to Lestatdelc
I'm still waiting for an answer.. simple question.. where in our constitution are rights conferred to those here illegally? Anyone???
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dudeguy
April 30, 2010 2:52 PM in reply to nomad28
The law requires unconstitutional conduct to determine if someone is here legally. Therefore, every time law enforcement determines that someone is in fact here legally, they will only do so by violating the rights of that person.
This is not hard.
So, born in Mexico? How do you say troll in Spanish?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
calbearinillinois
April 30, 2010 2:55 PM in reply to nomad28
Every place that the Constitution discusses persons or people, rather than citizens, you twit. Things like the 4th Amendment, 5th Amendment, 6th and 14th. The 14th for example, specifically differentiates between the rights of "citizens" and the fact that no "person" can be deprived of equal protection or due process under state law.
That's why even accused terrorists have certain fundamental rights to due process. The Constitution also reserves the right to deal with naturalization and the borders explicitly to the Federal Legislature, which is why if the GOP really wants something done they should work with Dems rather than playing up "government inaction" in supporting the illegal, overbroad Arizona law.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
emsfca
April 30, 2010 3:04 PM in reply to nomad28
Because the Supreme Court says so. The Constitution extends to ALL people in the US, permanent or temporary, legal or illegal, because the Supreme Court has said that's what the Constitution says. You may not like it, but until the Constitution is amended, or until the Supreme Court changes its mind, that's the way it is. So go ahead and argue about whether this makes sense or not but don't waste too much time arguing that it's not in the Constitution, because you'd be wrong.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
calbearinillinois
April 30, 2010 3:10 PM in reply to emsfca
Don't overstate it. Certain clauses of the Constitution only apply to citizens - the privilege and immunities clauses, the first part of the 14th Amendment, etc. But nomad's being stupid, so it is easy to overreact.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
emsfca
May 1, 2010 1:24 AM in reply to calbearinillinois
I should be more precise. The Privileges and Immunities Clause applies by its terms to citizens only. However, the 14th Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection clauses apply to "any person" and this has been taken to include aliens and citizens alike. Many would argue that while the Privileges and Immunities Clause has been de-emphasized by the courts, the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses have been given primacy, and now include most fundamental Constitutional protections, including those which would otherwise have been available only to citizens under the Privileges and Immunities Clause or otherwise.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
May 1, 2010 12:35 PM in reply to emsfca
excellent... you should make a blog out of this.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hbobrien
April 30, 2010 3:03 PM in reply to nomad28
In Wong Wing v. U S, 163 U.S. 228 (1896), the Supreme Court stated (in citing a previous case and affirming 14th Amendment rights):
"The fourteenth amendment to the constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says: 'Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.' These provisions are universal in their application to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.' Applying this reasoning to the fifth and sixth amendments, it must be concluded that all persons within the territory of the United States are entitled to the protection guarantied by those amendments, and that even aliens shall not be held to answer for a capital or other infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."
Of course, that was only 114 years ago, and I understand news travels slowly in some parts of the country.
Also, the judgement relies on a literal application of the words of the Constitution, and I also understand some people prefer their judges to be activist.
You can support the Constitution, or you can support the Tea Party. You can't do both.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Effin Rightman
April 30, 2010 4:57 PM in reply to hbobrien
They might also want to check their bibles:
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Turnaround
April 30, 2010 6:26 PM in reply to Effin Rightman
Excellent reference, Effin!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Effin Rightman
April 30, 2010 7:14 PM in reply to Turnaround
Thank you, but I picked it up from another posting person.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Russell
April 30, 2010 3:38 PM in reply to nomad28
I think you're a liar nomad....lets see your papers! Because your skin is brown I am just going to assume you're here illegally. See how that works! Bet you arent so crazy for that law now!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CranialRectalLoopback
April 30, 2010 4:24 PM in reply to nomad28
Go back to your country and fix it. It's a piece of shit.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chameleon
April 30, 2010 5:43 PM in reply to nomad28
Prove it. Show us your papers. Idiot.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hollywood
April 30, 2010 8:24 PM in reply to nomad28
Yes, you missed a lot of "civics class" and a lot of "christianity" and a lot of common sense and decency.
You got yours! Send the rest of them back where they belong eh?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
farnsworth
April 30, 2010 1:35 PM in reply to nomad28
I know you are really stupid, but I will type very slowly, so maybe you will understand.
If an American citizen is brown, he is subject to persecution under the new law. This takes constitutional rights away from American citizens.
Do you understand?
Didn't think so.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ladyfractal
April 30, 2010 1:50 PM in reply to farnsworth
You presume, in the spirit of goodwill, that the person you're responding to actually considers people with brown skin to be *legitimate* citizens of the United States. It is quite possible that, in fact, they do not. It might be unthinkable to them that someone with brown skin was actually, I don't know, *born* in the United States.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
nomad28
April 30, 2010 2:30 PM in reply to farnsworth
Have you read the law? If you did, you'd know that there are several legal thresholds that must be met before anyone is subjected to "persecution," as you put it. First, there must be a "lawful contact." Do you know what that means, or must I spell it out for you? That's one threshold.
After that threshold is met, then IF a peace officer has "reasonable suspicion" that whomever s/he came into "lawful contact" with, is here illegally (ie, no identification, can't speak the language, etc), then they can proceed with asking about their legal status. Seems like a pretty modest law to me.
By the way, federal courts have issued hundreds of opinions defining what "reasonable suspicion" means, so don't come to me with a bullshit argument that AZ is treading on new legal ground here.
Stop fearmongering, you friggin' idiot.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cracker Jack
April 30, 2010 3:02 PM in reply to nomad28
So you support US Citizens being stopped and forced to show their papers? Because they will. Some police officer will have 'reasonable suspicion' but they will be wrong. And if the citizen in question doesn't have the appropriate paperwork on them they will be detained. And you find this constitutional?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
calbearinillinois
April 30, 2010 3:09 PM in reply to nomad28
Let me explain to you what "lawful conduct" is - that is any public interaction with police. Any time you are on the street, anywhere, a police officer can make lawful conduct with you.
"Reasonable suspicion" as tied to objectively observable facts and criminal activity has been well fleshed out, and basically relies on the expertisee police have in dealing with criminal activity. All it allows, by the way, is momentary stops for weapons in most cases - if you frisk someone under "reasonable suspicion" and find nothing, you don't get to ask for id like this law.
What is a "reasonable suspicion" based on in terms of illegal immigration? It can't be a failure to speak English fluently or lack of i.d., because neither of those are a lawful requirement of citizenship or legal residence. Loitering at Home Depot, speaking Spanish, seeking day labor - none of those are linked to illegal status with the level normally required for "reasonable suspicion." The fact they borrowed a term that is well understood in other contexts doesn't help when there's nothing explaining how it will be applied.
Plus if a police officer rolls up on me and asks for id for no reason (which would be lawful conduct) I can say no thanks, walk away and he better damn well not use that to build any sort of suspicion if he wants to keep his badge. That's why they had to amend the law to places where another violation is the basis for a stop - but that still won't help much, since unless the nature of the stop says something unique about status, it won't do squat over existing laws (except maybe wind up spending a lot more money locking up illegal immigrants in prison for a few months, only to have to keep holding them because of the Federal Government's backlog on deportations).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hbobrien
April 30, 2010 3:13 PM in reply to nomad28
"First, there must be a "lawful contact." Do you know what that means, or must I spell it out for you?"
I would prefer the legislature of Arizona say what it means -- I'm not able to find anywhere they do.
Since there is no definition by them what they meant by the term, it means whatever the officer on the spot thinks it means.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
farnsworth
April 30, 2010 3:20 PM in reply to nomad28
Pretty hilarious for a supporter of the fearmongering Right to accuse someone of rearmontgering.
What, are you jealous that I might be stealing your shtick?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Russell
April 30, 2010 3:43 PM in reply to nomad28
Only idiot here is you nomad! Brown skinned huh...lets see your papers cuz I suspect you to be an illegal alien! I'm using typical white mans interpretation of 'reasonable suspicion'. See how that works!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kenga
April 30, 2010 2:12 PM in reply to nomad28
Constitutional rights to EVERYONE! LET'S PARTY!
Well, that's not how the Supreme Court has phrased their decisions about the subject.
But that was the gist.
The fucking Onion has become frighteningly true to life. It's almost not funny anymore.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pikaomega
May 1, 2010 6:53 PM in reply to nomad28
Um, yeah, we ALL have constitutional rights in this country. If you're here on vacation, the basic tenets of our country apply. Well, after the last decade... But everyone, while on US soil, gets the same somewhat, kinda, sorta rights-ishes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kenga
May 2, 2010 12:21 PM in reply to pikaomega
I think I've been more vague than intended - I tend towards a fair degree of ambiguity with a dash of irony.
Having been out of the US on a tourist visa in the UK, and a mumblemumble in Mexico, I've been confronted first hand with "home rule". In neither country do any Constitutional rights accrue to US citizens(yeah yeah, embassies.) And in both, one of the chief concerns is keeping
non-residents from working.
I'll admit - being in London with no 1st Amendment rights was much less harrying than being in the Yucatan without Miranda protections ...
Dunno if you've seen this before ...
Worth bookmarking, if only to have as a wordless response to comments of the sort.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-man-passionate-defender-of-what-he-imagines-c,2849/
(although it may be, like some of my comments, too subtle to get the point across to whomever it's sent to. an explanatory sentence or too(two?) might be worthwhile. )
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pikaomega
May 2, 2010 6:49 PM in reply to kenga
Gotcha.
Yes, as a civics nerd who ALWAYS has a copy of the Constitution on my person, that was the greatest thing I have ever seen on The Onion. It is amazing how often I have to pull it out, but one hell of a way to win an argument.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Commander
April 30, 2010 12:47 PM
"We are just tired of our representatives not representing our wishes,"
Well, we are tired of you claiming to represent our wishes, and disrepecting the duly and legally elected representative that we put into office.
Quite!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JefferyK
April 30, 2010 12:54 PM in reply to Commander
And we are tired of you using the royal "We" to give the impression that there are actually more than five people who agree with you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
afisher
April 30, 2010 3:02 PM in reply to Commander
Unfortunately, the Gov of AZ was not elected, she was appointed...duh! As for the will of the people - was there a referendum vote? NO
So you seem to be guessing that the majority of that state approve of this measure. Even the national Gallup Poll from Apr 27-28 say that 51% of those who know about this bill approve and only 75% of those polled knew about the bill. The poll has its flaws, or to say the least, the amount of data released is wide open to interpretation. If 90% of the respondents were not part of the group of US citizens who could be falsely charged by this bill, then is that a real representative group.
No one is saying that we as a country would not like to address the illegal alien issue. What many are saying is that the AZ S1070 is poorly conceived and not well thought out. Now before you get all uppity, the bill is being modified (as I write) in order to try and clarify some of the legal problems that were immediately apparent.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dustbunny44
April 30, 2010 12:48 PM
Put me down as another Northern Californian supporting the boycott of Arizona while they take constitutional rights away from anyone.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
nomad28
April 30, 2010 12:54 PM
I think I'll go see the Grand Canyon this summer.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JefferyK
April 30, 2010 12:57 PM in reply to nomad28
Good. And hopefully someone will push you in.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
nomad28
April 30, 2010 2:42 PM in reply to JefferyK
Typical radical leftist. Always so violent.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hbobrien
April 30, 2010 3:18 PM in reply to nomad28
Ah. So you and the Tea Partiers are "radical leftists" by this definition, then? Given your overall ignorance and contempt for the Constitution and the American way, I guess I'm not surprised.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AlexSmo
May 1, 2010 6:11 PM in reply to nomad28
Funny, I thought it was the Tea Party crowd that carried assault rifles to their rallies.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AlexSmo
May 1, 2010 6:09 PM in reply to nomad28
Don't forget to bring your papers!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BluGrass
April 30, 2010 12:56 PM
The teabagger-woman's arrogance is astounding. She holds NO public office... has had NO person ever vote for her, and yet she says SHE represents the voice of the people instead of Newsom, who IS elected by the people. Awesome, lady. Isn't hearing voices in your head, that no one else can hear, called auditory hallucinations? And doesn't that mean that you're what the DSM-IV calls a "nut?"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
April 30, 2010 1:16 PM in reply to BluGrass
AZ is an evil state that infringes on human rights and privacy. Certainly, immigrants should NOT be asked to prove their legality in this country. I can't believe that someone suggested microchips for illegals. Racists. All of them.
No. This infringement is reserved for those who have lived and paid taxes in this country for decades or even hundreds of years. Yup. Take your shoes off and walk through the body scanner, Grandma, to prove your innocence.
Hmmm. National id cards? Well, so long as it doesn't OFFEND illegal immigrants! We wouldn't want to infringe on their human rights!!!
..................................................
Dems spark alarm with call for national ID card
By Alexander Bolton - 04/30/10 06:00 AM ET
A plan by Senate Democratic leaders to reform the nation’s immigration laws ran into strong opposition from civil liberties defenders before lawmakers even unveiled it Thursday.
Democratic leaders have proposed requiring every worker in the nation to carry a national identification card with biometric information, such as a fingerprint, within the next six years, according to a draft of the measure.
The proposal is one of the biggest differences between the newest immigration reform proposal and legislation crafted by late Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).
The national ID program would be titled the Believe System, an acronym for Biometric Enrollment, Locally stored Information and Electronic Verification of Employment.
It would require all workers across the nation to carry a card with a digital encryption key that would have to match work authorization databases.
“The cardholder’s identity will be verified by matching the biometric identifier stored within the microprocessing chip on the card to the identifier provided by the cardholder that shall be read by the scanner used by the employer,” states the Democratic legislative proposal.
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/95235-democrats-spark-alarm-with-call-for-national-id-card
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kenga
April 30, 2010 2:17 PM in reply to Silence
Um, most of the ire I've seen regarding national ID cards has come from the libertarian right.
And the black helicopter crowd.
Because that registry is the first thing that'll be handed over to the UN. And the database will be all to easily linked with the BATF lists ...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pikaomega
May 1, 2010 6:58 PM in reply to kenga
No, unfortunately he's right on one point.
"The Democrats' proposal, whose main backers include Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, makes it clear that the ID cards are intended solely for the purpose of eliminating undocumented immigrants from the work force. It would be illegal for any corporation, level of government or law enforcement officer 'to require or even ask an individual cardholder to produce their social security card for any purpose other than electronic verification of employment eligibility and verification of identity for Social Security Administration purposes.'"
"Sen. Dick Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, defended the proposal in the face of early criticism, telling The Hill that he believes the public has become more comfortable with the idea of a national identification card."
Boo.
http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0430/dems-immigration-national-id-card/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kenga
May 2, 2010 12:04 PM in reply to pikaomega
Well of course socialists like Schumer and Durbin would say the program is something innocuous like a mechanism to weed out improperly documented immigrants.
It's just a matter of time before the BATF and UN take over the program!
[Sigh] Figures they'd word it in the only fashion that could possibly get a pass from the camouflage hordes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
blueskies4every1
April 30, 2010 12:59 PM
Tea baggers fail miserably at both empathy and critical thinking skills. Or maybe it's just the simply GOP as a whole that fail.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Matt Jones
April 30, 2010 1:00 PM
Man, the gay hookers in SF are going to be bummed. How are they supposed to make a living without all the teabaggers on the DL? :)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
traitorjoe
April 30, 2010 1:34 PM
Once the Tea Baggers realize the cable car won't take them to a Wal-Mart they won't come to San Francisco anyway.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
nomad28
April 30, 2010 2:44 PM in reply to traitorjoe
Nice little racist remark there. But it's against white people, so it's A-OK! Damn you liberals. Your idiocy never ceases to amaze me.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cracker Jack
April 30, 2010 2:56 PM in reply to nomad28
Sorry -- are you assuming that tea baggers are all white or Wal-Mart customers? Your trolling is so hard to unravel.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Effin Rightman
April 30, 2010 3:09 PM in reply to nomad28
So, you admit that Teabaggers = white people. Yes?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Russell
April 30, 2010 3:58 PM in reply to nomad28
oh damn you liberals....the ones who gave us 40 hour work weeks, public schools, medicare and social security, clean water, civil rights, voters rights for women, equal pay for equal work...yea those damn liberal! Name one thing a conservative president or politician has ever given to America that benefitted ALL AMERICANS and not just big business or the wealthy. And aren't all abortion doctor murderers right wing christians? Isn't the guy who flew his airplane into the IRS a white right winged fanatic? Wasn't Tim McVeigh a white right wing gun nut fanatic? Isn't it the right wingers like you who are always threatening to overthrow a democratically elected President because "hes not one of us"...I could go on nomad but you are obviously too blind and filled with hate to see the ridiculousness of your points. I dont ever recall anti war protesters taking guns to protest Bush for 8 years but it was less than 6 months into Obamas term that you worms and your guns slithered out from under your rocks to protest big government interference but you were no where to be found during 8 years of insanity under Bush. I dont believe for a New York minute you're hispanic.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rainyday
April 30, 2010 1:39 PM
Let's talk to 'majority of Californians' ... You mean of couse white, over 60 y/o Californians..
the ones on Soc Sec and Medicare, VA Medical etc who hate BIG GOVERNMENT?
Sorry, to disappoint here is near Medicare CA who love the idea of the entire country boycotting AZ!
PS. You did see where group who wrote SB1070 says only whites should be alllowed to propogate. No children for the 'mentally challenged' e.g. brown, black, red, or yellow skinned.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JefferyK
April 30, 2010 1:50 PM in reply to Rainyday
It really is the lasp gasp of a dying-off ruling class. And it will get uglier, I'm sure.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Effin Rightman
April 30, 2010 3:15 PM in reply to JefferyK
Very observant. This, I wanted to say as well. But you have done it quite well. Mazltov.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
May 1, 2010 12:32 PM in reply to JefferyK
"the lasp gasp of a dying-off ruling class..."
But, like vampire fiction, they seem to reconstitute in new manifestations every generation.
Anti-progressives, sucking the lifeblood out of the middle-class commonwealth with derivatives and short-selling that benefits a chosen few.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
happycozy
April 30, 2010 2:02 PM
I'm sure teabaggers flocked to SF before the boycott. Okay--not those teabaggers.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Leftflank
April 30, 2010 10:44 PM in reply to happycozy
Score!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbeats
April 30, 2010 2:09 PM
Actually thats fine, the only place you assholes ever go in San Francisco is the Fishermans Warf, and you are always the stupid assholes who are stopped in the Fastrack lane trying to pay the bridge toll having no idea why there are 6 cars behind you honking.
Stay away.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
calbearinillinois
April 30, 2010 3:16 PM in reply to rbeats
When I saw the headline I thought "Yay. More seats at good restaurants." Then I realized who these people are and thought of the only places they go to - Pier 39, Ghiradelli Square - and stopped caring.
Although the sea lions won't have as many people scraps to eat, which is a little sad.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
free2bme
April 30, 2010 2:19 PM
Ha...that is the funniest thing I heard today. Yeah, the California economy is so threatened by Arizonians not coming here. Please, Califonia makes more in a couple months than Arizona makes all year. California is in the top 10 internationally for GDP, as a single state. We could buy and sell you Arizona.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbeats
April 30, 2010 2:28 PM in reply to free2bme
No it's not Arizonians, It's the Teabaggers that inhabit the central region of the State and San Diego area and the burbs of Los Angeles that are going to boycott SF.
Of course they will go on blogs, and Craigslist, and Facebook to bitch abut San Francisco, while most of the servers and employees of said companies reside in San Francisco or the immediate suburbs.
Either way we will get money from them. Idiots.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lestatdelc
April 30, 2010 2:21 PM
As if the Teahadists were all ready to go to "lefty Mecca" what with all them liberal gays, socilaism 'n stuff. What whiny little wusses these reactionary "conservatives" are.
What next form these brave "patriots"? The "I am rubber you are glue gambit"?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
What Me Worry?
April 30, 2010 3:21 PM
As a resident of Northern California, I support the boycott of Arizona. And as a resident of the East Bay who is offended by right wing wackos, I will now boycott the Pleasanton area as well.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
calbearinillinois
April 30, 2010 3:25 PM
I really hope they have a rally in the City. How do they plan on getting there, by the way? Bart (fees go to multi-county group)? Private car (tolls into the city, plus parking)? Walk or bike several hours from Pleasanton? Gonna wind up pretty hungry and tired on that last one, plus have to walk through equally liberal places like Berkeley and Oakland (or Marin if they come over the Golden Gate). No matter what, going to wind up giving back to the City, if only in the permit fees for the rally.
While being in the Mission would be great for these people, I'd also love to see them do this in City Hall Plaza, on the edge of the Tenderloin. While the taquerias aren't as plentiful, the homeless and immigrants are, and the homeless would really love a fresh group of people to panhandle from/freak out.
Thanks for the contribution to the most wonderful city in the US. Now go home before you bring down the tolerance quotient permanntly.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EastBayToughGuy
April 30, 2010 4:10 PM
What Me Worry,
As resident of Pleasanton, I don't think you need boycott Pleasanton. Melson and her group of bigots DO NOT REPRESENT Pleasanton as a whole. Pleasanton has more registered Democrats than Republicans and is becoming increasingly diverse. Yes, I’m truly embarrassed by nutjobs like Melson, but there is no need to take it out on Pleasanton.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
April 30, 2010 4:16 PM
If you go to San Francisco, you're either going to be spending money there to park or you're going to be spending money there on BART. And if they really are going to be in the mission district then parking will not be cheap.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CranialRectalLoopback
April 30, 2010 4:21 PM
Great news for SF. No need for retards* running amok in SF.
*retards used for satirical purposes only.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
April 30, 2010 4:25 PM
HELL NO...
I just ordered my AZ Diamondback Ball Cap, T-shirt and bumper stickers...Ya Hue...I'm going to wear em to the Padres, Dodgers and Giants games...
GO AZ DIAMONDBACKS....
CHEERS
GOOD NIGHT NOW!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
farnsworth
April 30, 2010 4:38 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
I thought you had crawled back into your hole. Oh well. I guess we have to put up with a few idiots, no matter where we go or what we do.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
April 30, 2010 4:43 PM in reply to farnsworth
Seditious bastard says, "What?"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
btmom
April 30, 2010 4:56 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
Oh, nice to see urine town again, Douggie! Get hit with any balloons lately by every single illegal in the country, genius?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
April 30, 2010 4:59 PM in reply to btmom
Nope, but the USA Soccer Team sure did a few years back...it wasn't funny, numb nutts!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Anandakos
May 1, 2010 5:42 PM in reply to DugFmJamul
Duke,
I see you are wearing vestments in your icon. Having a nice time with the boys?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
neesy08
April 30, 2010 4:45 PM
so i take it the tea partiers support the law, then? lets see, if ca boycotts itself, then lets let every state boycott itself and see how far we get!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Hobbes83
April 30, 2010 5:06 PM
I think that the residents of SF don't give a flying fuck about the boycott. They're probably happy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JefferyK
April 30, 2010 5:44 PM in reply to Hobbes83
As a resident of San Francisco, I have two words for Ms. Melson: Good riddance.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ironcomments
April 30, 2010 5:20 PM
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
At least Ike didn't live to see his party tsunami-ed by a wave of tea party stupidity.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
suzdav
April 30, 2010 5:26 PM
I think you would be astounded at how many in Calif. DO NOT support this law. They're already changingi it because of all the negative furor. The tea partyites ARE NOT THE MAJORITY. Our reps are listening to the MAJORITY. The one with the MOST VOTES WINS and is the MAJORITY, you dodos.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sexxybeast1973
April 30, 2010 6:53 PM
Apparantly the teabagger idiots dont mind a police state next door in arizona. Where is the faux outrage?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Hobbes83
April 30, 2010 6:57 PM in reply to Sexxybeast1973
In the same place it was when the former president created the unitary executive; nowhere.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
PJEvans
April 30, 2010 10:24 PM
They're going to have to avoid Los Angeles also.
That doesn't leave them with a lot of places where they'll get national news coverage of their tantrums.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Leftflank
April 30, 2010 10:53 PM
How did Pleasantown get its name again & exactly how many tea-baggin' representatives are there in SF. (1 pun intended, 1 not)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
PJEvans
May 1, 2010 10:42 AM in reply to Leftflank
It's named (misspelled) for the Civil War general Pleasonton.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TomGADem
May 1, 2010 3:25 PM
Just wondering, is being boycotted by the teabaggers a bad thing or a good thing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JohnMcCSF
May 1, 2010 5:55 PM
PLEASE DO!!!!!!!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GTFOOH
May 1, 2010 6:43 PM
Teabaggers don't realize that threatening to not visit in other cities is not a negative to most places?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
John
May 1, 2010 7:35 PM
I promise to eat more Rice-A-Roni to offset the economic effects of the boycott. I would not want all those pretentious affluent people I saw in San Francisco to suffer.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mary Alice
May 1, 2010 10:08 PM
Ah, Bridget Melson.......I have a feeling that she may be a prototypical member of the Tea Party, or Parties as the case may be. Where this really makes me uneasy is that when I read the thoughts and insights of like people like Bridget I get that awful feeling that patronization is coming over me. I think patronizing is a hateful and really nasty way to behave toward anybody. I guess I just need to shut up while I can.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mary Alice
May 1, 2010 10:09 PM
Ah, Bridget Melson.......I have a feeling that she may be a prototypical member of the Tea Party, or Parties as the case may be. Where this really makes me uneasy is that when I read the thoughts and insights of like people like Bridget I get that awful feeling that patronization is coming over me. I think patronizing is a hateful and really nasty way to behave toward anybody. I guess I just need to shut up while I can.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tosh
May 12, 2010 7:35 AM
AZ is an evil state that infringes on human rights and privacy. Certainly, immigrants should NOT be asked to prove their legality in this country. I can't believe that someone suggested microchips for illegals. Racists. All of them.
No. This infringement is reserved for those who have lived and paid taxes in this country for decades or even hundreds of years. Yup. Take your shoes off and walk through the body scanner, Grandma, to prove your innocence.
Hmmm. National id cards? Well, so long as it doesn't OFFEND illegal immigrants! We wouldn't want to infringe on their human rights!!!
cialis kamagra
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?