Issue:  Vol. 47 / No. 50 / 14 December 2017
 

SF supervisors approve AZ boycott

San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors passed a resolution 10 to 1 on Tuesday, May 11 calling for a boycott of Arizona and Arizona-based businesses.

Supervisor Sean Elsbernd voted against the resolution, which was introduced by openly gay Supervisor David Campos (pictured at right) on April 27 in response to Arizona’s controversial immigration law. Governor Jan Brewer signed the law in April.

Among other provisions, the Arizona legislation encourages law enforcement officials to determine the immigration status of people they suspect are in the country illegally. Known as the “papers, please” law, it effectively requires legal immigrants to carry papers wherever they go in order to avoid arrest and detention. Critics of the bill said that it would result in racial profiling of Hispanic residents of the state.

Since Brewer signed the bill, Arizona lawmakers have revised the law, specifying that police may only question someone’s immigration status if they have already been stopped for a different reason.

The San Francisco resolution, which only “urges” city departments not to do business with the state if that is practical, says the Arizona law “will inevitably lead to racial profiling of people of color and limited English proficient persons.”

Elsbernd told the Bay Area Reporter last week he opposed the Arizona law, but he planned to vote against the resolution because he was concerned about unintended consequences the boycott could have.

For example, he expressed concern for employees of Arizona companies who could lose their jobs if San Francisco terminates contracts with companies based in the state.

Elsbernd also pointed to San Francisco’s dependence on tourism dollars, and said a boycott threatens the city’s ability to “turn the corner ” economically. He worried people in other parts of the country could engage in “retaliatory acts” such as not traveling to the city.

“Not that [hurting the city’s economy] is the intention, but why would we take that risk for a boycott that may not necessarily work?” said Elsbernd.

Joe D’Alessandro, the openly gay president and CEO of the San Francisco Convention and Visitors Bureau, has expressed similar concerns about the boycott.

This is a situation “where people are frustrated with a law passed by elected officials in Arizona” and a boycott just targets “working people that had nothing to do with enacting those laws,” he said last week.

D’Alessandro said after the passage of Prop 8 his agency got a lot of e-mails from people in places ranging from Massachusetts to Europe saying they weren’t coming to California because of the state’s same-sex marriage ban.

He recalled telling people, “You’re going to hurt the people you’re trying to help.”

D’Alessandro said his agency’s had about 200 e-mails from people wanting to cancel their trips to San Francisco if the city goes through with the boycott.

“The best thing for people to do would be to go to Arizona and try to talk to people on why this law is wrong, and I firmly believe it’s wrong,” said D’Alessandro.

Asked about the concerns over his resolution, Campos said, “Whatever negative consequences there are … will be minimal” in the end.

Campos noted other cities, including Oakland, have passed boycotts related to the Arizona law.

He also said, “The same argument as to why we shouldn’t do something has been applied to an number of things.”

For example, Campos referred to city’s Equal Benefits Ordinance, which requires city contractors to provide the same benefits to their employees with spouses and their employees with domestic partners.

He noted there had been fears of the ordinance causing a “backlash” but said, “In the end, none of that materialized, and we proceeded because with domestic partner benefits, it was the right thing to do. I think we should not be afraid to stand up for what is right.”

As to the changes made to the Arizona law, Campos said, “You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig.”

The law still “opens the door for racial profiling” and the amendments don’t really change the “fundamental problems with the law,” said Campos.

If anything, he said, the changes are “recognition of the fact that they are getting a lot of pressure, and they feel themselves isolated.”

Among other provisions, the San Francisco resolution says that unless Arizona rescinds SB 1070, the board urges city departments “to the extent practicable, and in instances where there is no significant additional cost to the city nor conflict with the law, to refrain from entering into any new or amended contracts to purchase goods or services from any company that is headquartered in Arizona.”

In an e-mail to the B.A.R. shortly after Brewer signed the bill, Paul Senseman, her deputy chief of staff-communications, wrote that if San Francisco supervisors “believe the new Arizona law is inappropriate then they need to direct their anger at the federal government, because the new Arizona law simply regulates and enforces immigration law the same way the federal law and federal authorities currently regulate, and have regulated for decades. Racial profiling is specifically written in the law to be illegal. No additional documents are needed for anyone, other than what federal law currently requires.”

— Seth Hemmelgarn, May 12, 2010 @ 11:36 am PST
Filed under: Uncategorized


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Comments are disabled at this time.


Follow The Bay Area Reporter
Newsletter logo
twitter logo
facebook logo