Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Facebook
Twitter
Google+1
del.icio.us.
Digg!
Yahoo! Buzz
Diigo
google
newsvine
reddit
technorati
Yahoo!
MyspaceLocal politicians, scholars, and community organizers denounced Arizona’s recently passed immigration law May 16 at a Forum for Community Values hosted by PUEBLO, with some elected officials endorsing boycotts of the state.
Santa Barbara City Councilman Das Williams, who is also running as a Democrat for a California State Assembly seat, and First District Supervisor Salud Carbajal both endorsed a boycott of Arizona.
“I will be asking the Board of Supervisors to look at all business with Arizona and cease all business in the future,” Carbajal said.
Williams said he would propose to exclude the Navajo Nation, an Indian reservation in northern Arizona, from the boycott.
“If people have a problem with laws that are so racist,” Williams said, “they should choose other places to visit, like Santa Barbara.”
Goleta City Councilmember Ed Easton said Goleta might consider a similar sort of boycott. “Goleta might take this up too,” Easton said. “I’ll see what can be done.”
Arizona has already been the target of boycotts by a number of city councils and businesses following the April 23 passage of the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act, an anti-illegal immigration law that would require people to carry identification and documentation at all times proving their right to be in the U.S.
While speakers at this event, hosted in Saint Raphael Catholic Church in Goleta, universally blasted the bill, they also focused on issues affecting migrant workers in the Santa Barbara community.
Greg Prieto, a UCSB sociology graduate student, said checkpoints intended to catch drunk drivers results in the impoundments of a large number of cars driven by perfectly sober but undocumented workers, who cannot get drivers’ licenses. “The disproportionate and growing impact of impounds on the Latino and undocumented community is to breed fear, insecurity, and distrust,” Prieto said. According to Prieto’s research, presented in PowerPoint form to an audience of about 100, the number of cars taken from unlicensed drivers far outstripped the number taken from drunk drivers.
“Unlicensed driver are not like drunk drivers and should not be treated the same way,” Prieto said, adding that the law indicates that the police don’t have to tow a car if a licensed driver can remove it within a certain amount of time, but police seldom choose that option.
Impounds have been an ongoing issue, Williams commented, and he hopes to work with the police department to shift the timing of sobriety checkpoints. “I want to look at what time the checkpoints are,” Williams said. “I want to have them in the evening or night when you can nab drunk drivers.”
Santa Barbara Police Lieutenant Brent Mandrell said he was saddened to hear of the impact of the impoundments on the local community, and hoped a solution could be reached soon. “We can only move forward here,” Mandrell said.
Previous Month
Comments
I wish they would give up on trying to be social saviors and do their jobs here first. On a statewide level CalPERS is now $600 million dollars short, which will have to come out of general fund so we can lose a few more teachers, cops, social workers. Das and Salud rather than deal with real problems (like our local budget) that impact what services can be offered here would rather distract us with talk of Arizona.
I am opposed to the Arizona law, but doubt either of those fine public servants or anyone at Pueblo actually read it. Its not different than our Federal Law on the subject, which is epitomized by the fact the only lawsuit that analysts seem to agree may stand a chance of stopping it, is basing its case on the fact that AZ is usurping Federal power.
As for taking away cars from unlicensed drivers, as the recent fatal accident on State showed us, legal or illegal no license you shouldn't be driving and should lose the vehicle if you don't. I have no doubt that Salud and Das will have a different answer on whether they support that because with them, its which crowd they are in front of that decides their position.
pointssouth (anonymous profile)
May 19, 2010 at 11:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Owning a tow company in Southern California, taking my comments with a grain of salt is wise. Yes, I profit from the impounding of vehicles (for many reasons, not just unlicensed drivers) and wish to be upfront.
That being said, unlicensed drivers (never licensed, suspended or revoked licenses) cause great harm to the licensed and insured motoring public. AAA conducted a major survey and results showed that unlicensed drivers were involved in serious injury or fatal collisions far more often then licensed drivers. Most hit & run accidents are at the hands of those that do not want police involvement, unlicensed or under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
Allowing time for a licensed driver to arrive at the scene of a possible impoundment for being unlicensed is a terrible waste of limited law enforcement resources. It has been shown that when the vehicle of an unlicensed driver is released to a licensed driver that action only stalls what will always happen shortly thereafter. The unlicensed driver is given their car back by the licensed driver (friend or family) and once again is on the street endangering the rest of society. Driving is not a right, it is a priviledge.
In addition, the unlicensed driver complains about the cost to them of retrieveing their vehicle from an impound facility. These costs are minimal when compared to the costs born by legally licensed drivers for uninsured or underinsured motorist insurance, insurance deductibles when your car is struck by an unlicensed driver either while driving or a hit & run accident, higher insurance rates, time lost from work, etc. The costs to society by unlicensed drivers runs into the many millions of dollars each and every year.
RQuizmo (anonymous profile)
May 20, 2010 at 5:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Jump on the bandwagon! Hey Carbajal, why don't you talk about something everybody wants to hear-The touchy turban talk.
AZ2SB (anonymous profile)
May 20, 2010 at 6:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well, like the Obama administration, I see these Representatives have also not read the bill. It's 20 pages and I read it! NO WHERE in the law is it racist in fact Arizona law places more limitations on Law Enforcement Officers than our Federal law. All Arizona law does is enforce the FEDERAL LAW we have! Here is the link:
http://www.numbersusa.com/content/fil...
Honestly, you wonder why Americans are angry. THIS is why. Uninformed, boycotting a law you obviously know nothing about and not dealing with your own mess but instead getting involved in what's none of your business, these are the many reasons people are fed up.
NoHollabackGirl (anonymous profile)
May 21, 2010 at 10:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This is ridiculous. It is not racist to want everyone living in the country to be here legally. And 'mexican' isn't a race, it's a nationality. AZ is doing what the rest of the country to too chicken to do. They're upholding the constitution and enforcing fines on businesses that hire illegals and pay them under the table. How is this state going to get out of debt if we keep hiring people who do not pay taxes, get free housing, free medical care, and get paid under the table? Pay taxes! That'll finally help us get out of debt!! AZ believes every person has the right to be armed and every person should be here legally. It's a policy CA should take up so the rest of the country will stop seeing us as fruits and nuts.
Muggy (anonymous profile)
May 24, 2010 at 11:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
A recent roundup of the complicated nature of this issue may be of interest to you Muggy. Turns out even if you could stop illegal immigration (my personal preference as well) the impact would not be as you desire:
This is well worth reading, and is the final paragraph:
"The irony is that for all the overexcited debate, the net effect of immigration is minimal (about a one tenth of 1 percent gain in gross domestic product, according to Hanson). Even for those most acutely affected—say, low-skilled workers, or California residents—the impact isn't all that dramatic. "The shrill voices have tended to dominate our perceptions," says Daniel Tichenor, a political science professor at the University of Oregon. "But when all those factors are put together and the economists crunch the numbers, it ends up being a net positive, but a small one."
http://www.newsweek.com/id/238028
Chester_Arthur_Burnett (anonymous profile)
May 24, 2010 at 11:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)