« | »

SF Employees Banned From Travel To AZ

From the San Francisco Chronicle:

City workers banned from official travel to Arizona

By John Coté | April 27 2010

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom announced today a moratorium on official city travel to Arizona after the state enacted a controversial new immigration law that directs local police to arrest those suspected of being in the country illegally.

The ban on city employee travel to Arizona takes effect immediately, although there are some exceptions, including for law enforcement officials investigating a crime, officials said. It’s unclear how many planned trips by city workers will be curtailed

San Francisco’s move comes as the Board of Supervisors introduced non-binding resolutions calling for comprehensive immigration reform and a boycott of Arizona because of the new law, which requires police to try to determine the immigration status of anyone they reasonably suspect of being in the country illegally. There are also online boycott campaigns calling for everything from a boycott of the Arizona Diamondbacks baseball team to the Grand Canyon…

Supervisor David Campos and City Attorney Dennis Herrera have called for a boycott of Arizona and businesses based there. If the resolution passes, Herrera will try to identify contracts with Arizona companies that could be legally terminated.

Newsom, while blasting the Arizona law as "unacceptable," has expressed skepticism about unintended consequences from a city-instituted boycott, including opening up San Francisco to lawsuits if it includes rescinding already-awarded contracts. He also questioned what companies it would cover.

To address those questions, the mayor today convened a taskforce that includes representatives from the City Attorney’s Office, Controller, city purchasing office and his chief of staff to look at a "smart and effective" targeted boycott, Newsom spokesman Tony Winnicker said.

The recommendations from that group will form the basis of a proposed ordinance that would be binding on the city if approved by the board and signed by the mayor, Winnicker said.

It looks like those San Francisco city employees will be spending their six figure incomes somewhere else this summer.

Apparently, San Franciscans can tolerate just about anything, except enforcing the law of the land.

Though we can’t help but notice that these high minded Bay officials did not offer to take any of the illegal alien population off of Arizona’s hands.

(Thanks to BillK for the heads up.)

This article was posted by Steve on Wednesday, April 28th, 2010. Comments are currently closed.

27 Responses to “SF Employees Banned From Travel To AZ”

  1. BillK says:

    More fun from Pelosi’s town.

    From the San Francisco Chronicle:

    City workers banned from official travel to Arizona

    San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom announced today a moratorium on official city travel to Arizona after the state enacted a controversial new immigration law that directs local police to arrest those suspected of being in the country illegally.

    The ban on city employee travel to Arizona takes effect immediately, although there are some exceptions, including for law enforcement officials investigating a crime, officials said. It’s unclear how many planned trips by city workers will be curtailed.

    The move comes amid a cascade of criticism of Arizona’s law, which has been denounced by civil rights groups, some police officials and President Obama, who said it threatens to “undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans.” Legal challenges are being weighed to overturn it.

    San Francisco’s move comes as the Board of Supervisors introduced non-binding resolutions calling for comprehensive immigration reform and a boycott of Arizona because of the new law, which requires police to try to determine the immigration status of anyone they reasonably suspect of being in the country illegally. There are also online boycott campaigns calling for everything from a boycott of the Arizona Diamondbacks baseball team to the Grand Canyon.

    The law is popular with many in Arizona, whose border with Mexico is the site of more illegal crossings than any other in the nation. Supporters say in the wake of a failed federal immigration policy, the law will reduce crime. Opponents, including San Francisco Police Chief George Gascón, say it will have the opposite effect, deterring victims and witnesses of violent crime from coming forward out fear of being arrested as an illegal immigrant.

    Supervisor David Campos and City Attorney Dennis Herrera have called for a boycott of Arizona and businesses based there. If the resolution passes, Herrera will try to identify contracts with Arizona companies that could be legally terminated.

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/cityinsider/detail?entry_id=62275

    Nice to see the left is reliable.

    • sheehanjihad says:

      Arizona officials should pack up all arrested illegals and bus them to San Francisco, drop them off in the center of town, and go back for another load. If Newsom wants solidarity with illegals, then let him house, feed and employ them.

  2. Enthalpy says:

    Gavin Newsom should be serving a prison term for his efforts to protect non-citizen felons in his community. Of course, the citizens of San Francisco receive exactly what they deserve-at every level. It’s a pity that their rampant delusions spill over into our lives.

  3. AcornsRNutz says:

    “a controversial new immigration law that directs local police to arrest those suspected of being in the country illegally.”

    This passage is intentionally misleading. People are detained and arrested (two different things) on suspiscion every time, since they cannot be considered guilty until they have gone to court and been convicted, so the wording is technically correct, but it certainly is misleading in its presentation. This makes it seem as if cops can slam a guy in the county pen just becasue they think he is an illegal. That is not the case. The operative word being”suspected”. Cops can only arrest someone when they have suspiscion of a crime in the legal sense of the word, as in there is some obvious evidence that the cop can legally observe and verfiy on the scene. In this case it would be that the suspect does not have his green card or any other documents to verify his legal status. Those documents, by the way, are required to be maintained by the individual by federal law. It is small wonder that after reading things like that, small minded libwits get all bent out of shape about things they do not comprehend.

  4. misanthropicus says:

    The more fuss about the AZ law (actually the way I see it, the fuss is losing pressure), the more people see that the Arizonians are damn right on the issue –
    As far as huffin’ and puffin’ (in lterms of legal action) I see not much around – the liberals are sure diggin’ but it appears that not even they see much as prospective in attacking the law –
    And now coming to Gavin Newsome – frankly, this is really scary, when Newsome joins Al Sharpton (possibly Sean Penn), and says that Arizone will face the consequences –
    Yea, this is really scary – Gavin is something one should worry about –

  5. proreason says:

    San Francisco = Oakland

  6. GetBackJack says:

    What a win for Arizona!

    Bonus points – San Francisco (series of descriptives) banning themselves from soiling Arizona’s otherwise lovely landscape.

    Things are looking up all around.

    • AcornsRNutz says:

      Just think how great it would be if the rest of the country did this! We would put a dent in illegal immigration and end the spread of SF dipshittery!

  7. Mithrandir says:

    I always thought it was the best policy for every state, city, and town, to give 1-way tickets for the homeless to liberal enclaves like Ted Kennedy’s Massachusetts, illegal immigrants to….San Francisco!

    All the liberals who pipe-up should expect truck-loads of illegals to pour in and crumble their social services.

    Look what happens in Madison, Wisconsin when a building, in a rich liberal area, is to be converted into a low-income housing unit! As soon as the burden of tolerance falls on their shoulders, they start making excuses, stating stereotypes, and basically vomit on their own policies! http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/article_fc830a3e-eac6-11de-aa19-001cc4c03286.html

    Drown San Francisco in illegal immigrants—-go west!

    • GetBackJack says:

      Well, guess what?

      It’s the other way around, Mith. Mesa County Colorado – on the western edge of Colorado with Utah – was inundated with homeless and criminals just before the Millennia. Inquiring what the heck happened all of a sudden, turned out the Federal Government was paying Los Angeles to ship their over-abundance of prison population to places where the jails were only partly occupied. When Mesa County paroled the criminals, there was no Federal Money to send them home.

      They stayed.

      And the county changed.

      So … it’s the lib-infested hell holes that ship out their crappy walking talking pie holes and not the other way around.

    • Mithrandir says:

      That’s true! I remember seeing a documentary in college about welfare recipients, and it was supposed to make us sad and weepy, I was INCENSED!

      Guess where this woman with 6 kids (no father) went when Illinois didn’t pay enough in support? She picked up and went to WISCONSIN, where welfare paid more!

      Oh her story of woe, she was a drug addict, had kids from at least 2 different fathers, no job, didn’t finish high school UGH!

      When their Governor, Tommy Thompson, enacted W-2 (welfare to work) this parasite was video taped, and we had to watch how ‘cruel’ Republicans really were.

      When I tried to point out, after the video was over, how her problems were HER FAULT, of course the liberal teacher said, “Let’s not blame the victim here…..” —double Ugh!

      You’re right, liberals always push off their problems on more fertile conservative areas.

  8. Astravogel says:

    A long time ago, and far, far, away, there was a happening called “Freedom Rides”
    taking young folks to the South for civil rights activity. These really slowed down
    when several localities down there offered “Reverse Freedom Rides,” a one-way
    ticket to Hyannis Port and the Kennedy Compond, to any black folks who wanted
    to take advantage of the opportunities for advancement “up Nawth.” Perhaps the
    same could be offered to folks in Arizona who want to “better themselves and meet
    interesting people” (quote from Officer and a Gentleman) with removal to the world’s
    largest outdoor insane asylum. Mexico probably wouldn’t be a viable alternative.

    Democratica Delinda Est!

  9. Reality Bytes says:

    What Courage! What Conviction! WHAT A DOPE!

  10. canary says:

    San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsome holding Americans hostage & prisoner in California, denying freedom to travel to Arizona, dictating where Californias can go.

    This may rise from his dyslexia he struggled with, but Mayor Gavin’s aunt being married to Nancy Pelosi’s husband, and billionaire Gordon Getty pulling the kid out of the gutter to make a mulit-millionaire business from PlumpJack Wines, led to the American Dream.
    Mayor Gavin Newsome had an affair with a wife of one of his aids. After hanging with Mayor Gavin Newsome, of course the bimbo had to go to rehab for substance abuse, and told her husband aid to Gavin, of the Affair. Now Mayor Gavin is married to a bimbo movie star.
    This is wonderful news, because the Mexicans will all head towards California like hardworking ants, trails and trails. Yea!

    San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsome sending his personal gestapo illegally across the Arizona border to spy as investigators & cause chaos.

    Can you believe this is the same Mayor Gavin Newsome
    ran on a ticket, whining how CA made him put in a special sink to catch fungus growing wine spills in the building he started his first little PlumpJackWine store.
    That he would fight against such dictating regulations.

    Heyah Hitler Nazi Mayor Gavin Newsome, do you regulate your wines by putting safety warning labels on your wine as being dangeous & intermitten for people with learning disabilties. Do you label your wine that it may lead to improper bedfellows or bi relationships that might not otherwise occur?

    Time to check in Whino Mayor Gavin Newsome, though you, personally deserve lock down, to save America.

    SouthCoast Recovery

    Dyslexia & Addiction Treatment,…

    Dyslexics are ten times more likely than the overall population to become addicted to drugs and alcohol, a recent University study of 50 dyslexic …

    Learning Disabilities and Drug Rehab, Unfortunate Bedfellows

    At SouthCoast Recovery, it’s about living.

    We CAN help… CALL NOW.

    1-866-403-8427

    http://www.southcoastrecovery.com/learning_disabilities_and_drug_rehab.html

  11. bullforever says:

    Just curious, but is it not wholly Uncontitutional for State A to offically endorse or cause sanctions against any other State? Is it not Unconstitutional for any State government to limit, impair, infringe upon, or otherwise restrict the rights of citizens of this Country to move freely in any capacity amongst the several States?

    I am thinking Commerce Clause. I am thinking Individual liberties. I am thinking Employment law.

    If anyone can pick up on my train of thought an elaborate, I’d love to hear it.

    Imagine if State A could impose an import tarrif against State B’s exports? Is that any different than a local government telling it’s employees that they are not allowed to go into the boundaries of another State? Such a mandate deprives one State of equal standing, but also deprives one State of potential revenue from moeny that woudl have otherwise have been spent in thier State if the mandate did not exist. Is one State allowed to refuse to recognize another State? What about the employment law aspects here? What if a private employer told you that you woudl be fired if you travelled to New Jersey? Can a local Governmental entity tell thier employees that they will be fired and have no liability under employment law?

    Just thinking out loud folks.

    • proreason says:

      “is it not wholly Uncontitutional for State A to offically endorse or cause sanctions against any other State”

      Sounds right to me. Everything you said sounds very true.

      Isn’t the purpose of a federation to keep the members from working against each other?

      You should call in to Mark Levin. He’s quite the Constitutional scholar, so he would probably know what sections or clauses apply.

    • Mithrandir says:

      Right, but I don’t think California is doing this exactly. I don’t think they are raising tariffs, but just regulating who and how they do business. They can restrict officials from using gov’t funds to take trips, and so forth. And, California can decide to do business with the State of Oregon, instead of Arizona if it chooses.

      So starts the balkinization of America. Soon, states will have to choose sides, make alliances, sign pacts for common defense, make exclusive financial agreements, and perhaps choose to secede if the federal government continues to confiscate their money, and redirect it to states whom they agree with.

      (sigh) Perhaps it’s better to just fight it out and get it over with.

  12. Reality Bytes says:

    Hey – looks like somebody clocked Gavin on the chin. Is that a black n blue welt I see? Gee, with his background the possibilities are endless.

  13. Rusty Shackleford says:

    Yes, yes, boycott Arizona as it gets into full summer swing, when most of the snowbirds leave anyhow. I doubt they will feel anything as the annual migration takes place.

    But really, what a seriously lacking motive. Just what or whom do they intend to hurt? Within ohours of its “announcement” the ignorance is already coming to the fore. Yes, boycott Arizona Tea. Oh, that’s rich.

    One thing Rush did not mention today is that the left is so riled by this because it shows how afraid they are of real laws that make sense, that protect the people of the US.

    And, I had that epiphany again today that the left calls people Nazis whenever a rule or law is considered (by them) “unfair”. It matters not the basis for this opinion, other than they don’t like it, even if they cannot explain why. They call it “racist”, it’s not. They say it will make “illegals” criminals. Well…..(shaking head).

    Honestly, I remember getting into these types of discussions with my “fellow” enlisted members years ago. The limits of their ignorance were boundless. And yet, supposedly those in our government are the smartest ever elected. If that is true, why the hollow, emotional arguments? Simple, it gets votes by appealing to the ignorant masses. Those masses made ignorant partly through their own choosing and helped along by the “education system” where again, everyone is led to believe they are “special”. My answer was and always has been, “Special how? Special stupid, special slow or special ignorant?”

    It’s a funny thing when you point out someone else’s stupidity. When it’s done to me, and I’ve truly done something idiotic, I am forced to admit it and recover. But when you do it to a liberal, they get absolutely furious. They get downright violent at times even. They cannot possibly believe they are stupid, for, after all, they are “special”.

    Well, to all the special people. Hey, you’re stupid and it’s annoying.

    • Mithrandir says:

      Boycott Arizona, and watch them recoup the money by laying off or firing DEMOCRAT workers: government parasites, overpaid teachers, union labor.

      They are punching themselves in the face. “Go for it.”

  14. canary says:

    Mayor Gavin difficulty speaking while on cocaine
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcq9IUU07Zg&feature=related

    Mayor Gavin’s meltdown after being questioned about his drinking problem. Note Gavin doing his best to snort that white powder up his nose fast. lol
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUb8Xv6m7lU&feature=related

    Mayor Gavin Newsom shows up at hospital intoxicated.

    SF GATE: AIDE QUITS AS NEWSOM’S AFFAIR WITH HIS WIFE IS REVEALED / Campaign manager confronts mayor, who is ‘in shock’
    January 31, 2007|By Phil Matier, Andrew Ross, Cecilia M. Vega, Chronicle Staff Writers

    Alex Tourk, 39, who served as Newsom’s deputy chief of staff before becoming his campaign manager in September, confronted the mayor after his wife, Ruby Rippey-Tourk, told him of the affair as part of a rehabilitation program she had been undergoing for substance abuse, said the sources, who had direct knowledge of Wednesday’s meeting.

    The mayor’s personal life has come under scrutiny in recent weeks.

    In December, several witnesses at a late Friday night vigil for a mortally wounded police officer at San Francisco General Hospital reported that Newsom appeared to have been drinking when he arrived.

    A spokesman for the mayor declined to comment on those reports.

    http://articles.sfgate.com/2007-01-31/news/17229155_1_newsom-alex-tourk-mayor-s-office

  15. BillK says:

    A little follow-up and breath of rare economic sanity from the San Francisco Chronicle:

    Tourism chief opposes Arizona boycott

    By Andrew S. Ross

    When Proposition 8, the ballot initiative outlawing same-sex marriage, passed in November 2008, “we got calls threatening to boycott California,” recalls Joe D’Alessandro, CEO of the San Francisco Convention & Visitors Bureau. “We told them they were going to hurt the very LGBT businesses they were trying to support.”

    That’s one reason why D’Alessandro is opposed to the boycott-Arizona movement, especially when it comes to travel. “It hurts the people it’s supposed to help,” he said. In this case, mostly workers in Arizona’s hospitality industries – including, of course, Latinos – should the boycott, as San Francisco leaders appear to want, have some bite.

    D’Alessandro said the bureau received 25 or more calls and e-mails Wednesday proclaiming the intention to boycott San Francisco. “I can’t tell if it’s a movement, but getting that number in a day on a single subject is not routine.”

    Arizona is one of San Francisco’s top 10 markets for tourism and convention business, he added.

    — Steve Falk, CEO of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, feels the same way about San Francisco’s boycott plans, having received similar messages.

    “And a reverse boycott would hurt San Francisco businesses and employees more than elected leaders making bad policy decisions,” he said.

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/04/28/BUOP1D5QFP.DTL

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      25 calls A DAY?????

      My god, how do they deal with the volume?

      Better hire two….no THREE more workers to take the overflow.

      Barely a blip on the blip-o-meter.

  16. joeblough says:

    Glenn Beck is broadcasting about a move on in congress to turn Puerto Rico into a state.

    This despite the fact that the Puerto Ricans keep voting not to become a state. Apparently our current crop of dems has figured out an angle to get around that and, basically, fool them.

    Anybody watching this development?


« Front Page | To Top
« | »