copied in full with the express permission of the author.Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law: Why Boycotts Work
There has been some discussion whether an economic boycott of Arizona is warranted. Some say, with more than a grain of truth, that the boycott will disproportionately punish the very people who are at risk under this law -- the economic underclass of Arizona, who are also the likeliest to be undocumented persons.
Economic boycotts are powerful weapons, when properly and judiciously used. Ask South Africa. After years of "constructive engagement" by the United States and the United Kingdom, after years where Margaret Thatcher said that the African National Congress was a terrorist organization, the apartheid system became so intolerable that the Congress overrode Reagan's veto and passed the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986. The Act swiftly imposed a variety of punitive economic sanctions on the South African government, cutting its credit and sending its economy into a tailspin that finally resulted in the release of Nelson Mandela. And there is little doubt that the recession affected everyone in South Africa, including the members of the black community who were already just eking out a living while confined to their townships.
Of course, boycotts have limited effect if unilateral action does not translate into universal acceptance. France's continued relations with Iran, China's support of North Korea, etc. are all examples where boycotts or sanctions of one sort or another don't work. In the case of South Africa, once the United States acted, the United Kingdom and most of Europe followed, which is why the resulting sanctions were so devastating to the apartheid regime.
Arizona, of course, is not Iran. It is not North Korea. It is not South Africa, though the law comes perilously close to enacting a race-conscious two-tiered system of justice with echoes of Johannesburg. On the other hand, it is part of the economic web of conventions, recreation, and leisure travel of the United States which has, to its great fortune, many alternative places to convene, recreate, and otherwise be a pleasant layabout. Hence its vulnerability to a boycott.
And if anyone doubts that Arizona has and does feel the pinch: does anyone remember that the NFL pulled Super Bowl XXVII from Arizona in 1990 because of its refusal to adopt the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday? In addition, Arizona's refusal to recognize the holiday also resulted in a loss of convention and tourist revenue. It wasn't until the reality of lost tourist dollars and the humiliation of losing the game -- which was played in 1993 in Pasadena instead of Sun Devil Stadium in Tempe -- caused Arizona voters to approve the holiday in 1992.
The boycott has to be meaningful, not symbolic. Politicians should be meeting with friends in organized labor about convention schedules and informing them that they won't be crossing into Arizona airspace, members should be networking to pressure their national associations, and major investors and shareholders should be pressuring their boards of directors to pull already scheduled conventions in Arizona. Boycotts are toothless unless they are real. Chambers of Commerce and Hospitality Bureaus from San Francisco to Vegas to New Orleans to New York should be putting together attractive bid packages to offer alternatives to organizations who may be reluctant to pull the trigger. Rather than waste time enacting meaningless resolutions, this requires intensive, calculated, concerted action.
If we all act togther (sic), let's see how long they last this time.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/yaki/detail??blogid=68&entry_id=62311edit: Through correspondence with Mr. Yaki, I found out he's a commissioner on the US Commission For Civil Rights.
http://www.usccr.gov/Amazing the people you can end up talking to, as a result of just random web browsing, and firing off an email question!
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
