On May 10, the multi-platinum rap group Cypress Hill canceled their May 21 appearance at the Rialto Theatre due to their opposition to SB 1070, the immigration bill recently signed into law by Gov. Jan Brewer.

Despite our fervent attempts to persuade the group to use the appearance as an opportunity to speak out against the law, they chose to engage in a boycott. The nonprofit Rialto Theatre Foundation will, as a result, lose thousands of dollars in much-needed revenue—and this may only be the beginning. This cancellation, and others that have already occurred or been threatened, portends ill for the state of Arizona.

Already, there are countless examples of business lost to opposition to 1070—conventions canceled in Tucson and Phoenix, a boycott by the municipalities of Los Angeles, Boston and San Francisco, etc.—the losses from which will run into the many millions. Undoubtedly, we’ve only begun to feel the economic impact in a state that, we hardly need to remind anyone, is wrestling with a multi-billion-dollar budget deficit.

Furthermore, the law is an unfunded mandate that will burden local law enforcement agencies and court systems, whose resources are already stretched to the limit.

The effect SB 1070 will have on our business is far from our only concern about it. Not only is there ample documentation of the bill’s racist origins; it is clearly invasive of the civil rights of citizens of all colors, not to mention the human rights of people here illegally. Quite simply, the law creates a climate of fear and discrimination against a group of people who may be perfectly law-abiding and entirely “legal” in regard to their presence in our state. It violates constitutional principles that are the basis of our civil society.

Even conservative leaders like Sen. Lindsey Graham and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush have grave concerns about SB 1070. “It’s difficult for me to imagine how you’re going to enforce this law,” Bush told Politico. “It places a significant burden on local law enforcement, and you have civil-liberties issues that are significant as well.” Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik has publicly stated that that he thinks the law is “unwise, it’s stupid, and it’s racist. If I were a Hispanic living in this state, I would be humiliated and angered, and from that point of view, I think it’s morally wrong.” We completely agree.

Since we exercised our right to free speech by announcing our opposition to SB 1070, we’ve seen quite a lot of reaction, both for and against our position. It has been disturbing to us to hear from ostensible patrons of the Rialto that “politics” has no place in music; or that as business operators, we should just keep our mouths shut; or that people who disagree with us are threatening to never patronize the Rialto again.

At the same time, it’s been heartening to hear from those who have appreciated our willingness to go out on a limb against a law that many in Arizona support. But let’s set the record straight: We aren’t in the habit of taking political positions as an organization, and we recognize that the problem of illegal immigration is a complex one that desperately needs to be addressed by our federal government. However, we feel that SB 1070 and similar efforts are the wrong approach to take.

Let’s also be clear that we know Arizona residents have carried a disproportionate share of the burden that has resulted from inaction by the federal government in dealing with problems along the border. The so-called war on drugs has resulted in the rise of unprecedented levels of violence along the border, further exacerbating what has become an almost intractable situation.

The Rialto Theatre Foundation’s mission is to be a steward of the historic Rialto Theatre through its restoration, management and programming. We are dedicated to delivering quality contemporary music and other cultural programming in a historic, exciting and comfortable venue. But SB 1070 is compromising our ability to fulfill our commitment to our community. We urge repeal of this misguided and damaging legislation.

Curtis McCrary (an occasional Weekly contributor) is the general manager of the Rialto Theatre. Douglas Biggers is the executive director of the Rialto Theatre Foundation.

This article appears in May 20-26, 2010.

12 replies on “Guest Opinion”

  3. “Furthermore, the law is an unfunded mandate that will burden local law enforcement agencies and court systems, whose resources are already stretched to the limit.” (Guest Opinion by Curtis McCrary and Douglas Biggers, this date)

    True. The problem is easily solved according to the suddenly cost-conscious and pawnshop-crazed morbidly obese TPD Chief Roberto Villasenor: tax ’em, these people who cost law enforcement so much! ==> Tax the brown people!

    As for “We urge repeal of this misguided and damaging legislation.” (Guest Opinion by Curtis McCrary and Douglas Biggers, this date) Fat chance with repeal. How incredibly naive and contradictory. Best shot at 1070 will be in the U.S. Ninth Circuit, possibly USA Supreme Court. Meantime, huge economic and social damage will be done and for what? There is, in McCrary’s and Biggers’ piece a huge misapprehension…a failure to understand and confront that 1070 is essentially a fund raising move by Maricopaland’s righty.

  4. More than 50% of Americans support the law.

    http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1591/public-su…

    The public broadly supports a new Arizona law aimed at dealing with illegal immigration and the law’s provisions giving police increased powers to stop and detain people who are suspected of being in the country illegally.

    Fully 73% say they approve of requiring people to produce documents verifying their legal status if police ask for them. Two-thirds (67%) approve of allowing police to detain anyone who cannot verify their legal status, while 62% approve of allowing police to question people they think may be in the country illegally.

  6. Nice datum point, C Note. The racists just can’t acknowledge their complicity in this nonsensical law. Big props to Gabrielle Giffords for opposing SB 1070 on NPR this afternoon!

  7. Right Doug, that C Note sure is a master of logical inference.

    premise 1 – 80% of southerners in the 60’s opposed civil rights (and by direct inference were racist).

    premise 2 – 73% of the current population approve of a measure that gives local police the authority to request documentation of citizenship.

    conclusion – everyone who approves of a measure that gives local police the authority to request documentation of citizenship is racist.

    It reminds me of Monty Python and the Holy Grail

    – witches are made of wood
    – wood floats
    – ducks float
    – if she weighs the same as a duck, she must be a witch

  8. ok since the editor seems to have an itchy trigger finger, let me rephrase: cah, your syllogism or whatever that is completely misses the point. so let me spell it out for you, and i’m typing really slowly now:

    a poll showing popular support for or against legislation involving civil rights is not at all indicative of whether that legislation is good policy. lots of problematic things are popular, and have been over the course of our history. the link i posted strongly suggests that civil rights legislation was very unpopular in the states most affected by it. and yet with the exception of rand paul, i think you’d be hard pressed to find people who would now say that the civil rights act wasn’t the right thing to do in 1964.

    ERGO, popular support for an anti-civil rights piece of legislation like sb 1070 is in no way supportive of the idea that it’s the right thing to do, or a good thing to do, from a policy perspective, and i think the courts will set the arizona legislature straight from a constitutional perspective.

    but feel free to find another tortured analogy to monty python if you like.

  9. c-note makes a VERY good point!
    “80% of southerners in the 60’s opposed civil rights” they were also Democrats.
    The Northern Democrats are also the ones who wanted blacks counted as 3/5th of a person, to keep the South from having equal representation.

    As for the ’64 Civil Rights Act, Rules Committee Chairman and avid segregationist Democrat Howard W. Smith attempted to stop the bill, but President Johnson forced it through, using the “bully pulpit” and “In honor of JFK”. Senator and Klansman Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) filibustered for 14 hours and 13 minutes opposing the legislation. Because the majority of Republicans were for the bill and so many Southern Democrats were against the bill (the “80%” c-note spoke of), it was claimed that when Johnson signed the bill he said “We have lost the South for a generation.”
    The Democrat party was the Pro-Slavery Party; their beliefs haven’t changed…only the color of the slaves.

    But judging by the comments, I don’t believe c-note has even read SB 1070. (But neither has lap-lackey Holder or Obama himself.)

    Maybe we need to adopted MEXICO’S policy and methods for dealing with Illegals.
    If we sealed the Border TIGHT, gave violators 2 years in State prison at actual hard labor, no food stamps, no Welfare, no free education, no healthcare, eliminate the “anchor baby” provision; it wouldn’t be long before there would be no need for SB 1070

  10. Don’t go to Tucson to spend money. They are suing their own state over this illegal immigration law.

  11. Master Wildfire,
    Your right on! It seems it’s always the criminal illegals who want to be the victim. No matter how many laws they break, it’s our fault! I thought they were all hiding in the shadows, so what are they worried about?

  12. Oh, Tuscon, sanctuary city and liberal haven. Just yell racism and the bad people fall to their knees to repent.

    Man, I am proud of Arizona, and I am proud to boycott all other states and spend my money here. I guess I will have to ask business whether or not they support SB1070 so I can pinpoint my support.

Comments are closed.