Austin Mayor Pro Tem Mike Martinez, along with Mayor Lee Leffingwell and City Council member Bill Spelman are set to introduce a resolution at the May13th to limit employee travel to and terminate business relationships with Arizona. In a statement, Mike Martinez said the reasons for this resolution are 1) not exposing city employees to a hostile environment and b) announce that our community stands opposed to racial discrimination. Martinez also added that the measure is not without precedent, citing “we’ve previously passed policies prohibiting the city from doing business with manufacturers who utilize sweatshop labor.” Mayor Leffingwell added “I’m supporting this resolution because I believe that we have a responsibility not only to protect our own employees, but also to speak out loudly against racial discrimination wherever it exists.”
It is my opinion that the city council should not be proposing a boycott like this. The Austin city council is charged with overseeing Austin’s business, not worrying about how other states handle their business. In a recent Rasmussen poll, 70% of Arizona voters favor the new law. Why is the city council trying to tell the residents of another state how to run their state? The statements of Mike Martinez and Lee Leffingwell show their biases in this issue. Mike Martinez stated he did not want to expose city employees to a hostile environment. What makes him think the environment will be hostile? Are the police stationed on the corner, accosting everyone who walks by? Will they breakdown doors and interrupt dinner to check on immigration status? Mayor Leffingwell stated it he has a responsibility to speak out against racial discrimination. While it is true we all have a moral responsibility to put an end to discrimination and injustice, the Mayor also has responsibility to residents of Austin. It is not the responsibility of the city residents to shoulder the burden associated with a boycott to satisfy the political agenda of a few. A boycott can have huge repercussions for the city and can ultimately backfire.
In the end, this law has not even been enacted yet. We don’t know how the law enforcement agencies of Arizona will react. We don’t know how the environment in Arizona will change. By acting before knowing, the city is putting itself in a bad position. Let ask the city council to act like adults and gather information and make an informed decision. Not just jump on the bandwagon that cities like San Francisco and Washington D.C. seem to be driving.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
The blog I read was, Curious Cat's Guide to Texas Poltics by Rob Catledge. Rob wrote the same article I did for blog 7 but we both had different view points. Rob didn’t voice much opinion about Arizona’s new law he focused more on that Austin should be more focused on Austin itself and not about other states. He did say though that we should just sit back and see what really happens with the law and not be quick to judge Arizona. He also said Rasmussen poll showed that 70% of Arizona voters favor the new law. This shows me he did research on the topic. He believes that the boycott shouldn’t even be taking place and that Austin city council job is to worry about Austin business not other people. Rob also doesn’t understand why Austin is trying to tell residents of another state how to run their state.
I respect Rob’s argument and see the point of telling Austin to be more focused on its own regular day to day activities. But like I stated before I don’t agree with this law at all racial profiling is still a big deal in this law and they can’t just send officers out there and ask them to make a decision between who is legal and who isn’t. That’s not what they are train to do and can’t be taught that either. Even though Austin has its own problems, banning travels from Austin to Arizona is still smart because maybe other cities will follow and won’t be scared to voice their opinion. We know that Washington and San Francisco already are doing the same kind of ban and those are big cities. Rob believed we are jumping on a “bandwagon” just because these two cities did it and I don’t believe that’s the case I think we are trying to send out a strong message that not a lot of people support this law.
The idea of not sending city officials to Arizona to protect them from incidents like being question or any racial profiling is smart. But Rob said that “What makes him think the environment will be hostile? Are the police stationed on the corner, accosting everyone who walks by? Will they breakdown doors and interrupt dinner to check on immigration status?” Maybe they won’t be but we aren’t sure and we don’t want to find out if we send these city officials there and something bad happens before we have to ban it after so we might lay down the ban of traveling now before something bad happens. I think many people still stand strong on that the law should be removed and not enacted at all and hope the federal government can do something about it.
Post a Comment