Spin looks at Sound Strike, the boycott of Arizona by musical acts and other artists in response to Arizona’s new immigration law:

Curtis McCrary, general manager of Tucson’s 90-year-old Rialto Theatre, doesn’t know how much longer he can last. Since Cypress Hill canceled a show at his venue in May to protest the controversial Arizona anti-illegal immigration law known as SB1070, which, pending legal challenges, was due to take effect this month, McCrary has seen about a half-dozen other bands drop the nonprofit theater from their touring plans. “It’s been a drip, drip, drip thing,” he says. “There’s a very real possibility that it could drive us out of business.”

So far, the most visible effect of efforts like Zack de la Rocha’s Sound Strike — which has rallied such artists as Kanye West, Conor Oberst, and Massive Attack to avoid Arizona until SB1070 is off the books — has been to frustrate the state’s club owners, concert promoters, and music fans who oppose the law. But, boycotters say, pain has always been part of solidarity movements, ranging from Artists United Against Apartheid in the 1980s to the recent politically motivated shunning of Israel by the Pixies and Elvis Costello. “It’s a combined voice saying we will not tolerate bigotry,” says System of a Down singer Serj Tankian, who’s aligned with Sound Strike. “Justice sometimes has to be served in putting aside profits.”

State Sen. Frank Antenori weighs in:

“If these groups don’t want to come here, fine, we’ll bring someone else who will entertain us and take our money,” says Republican Arizona State Senator Frank Antenori. “My decisions are made on what’s the right thing to do, and the right thing to do is to enforce the law.”


Read the whole thing here.

This article appears in Jul 22-28, 2010.

Getting hassled by The Man Mild-mannered reporter

6 replies on “SB 1070 Fallout: Spin on Sound Strike”

  1. How about enforcing the constitution Frank? It clearly gives the Congress & President the exclusive right to control foreign policy and immigration. Ever heard of the doctrine of preemption & the supremacy clause? Or, is the consitution only important when it agrees with your views Frank?

  2. Jeff,

    We are following the Constitution and we agree that the federal government has the authority to set immigration law. That’s why we adopted federal law word for word. Nothing in the Constitution prevents states from ENFORCING federal law.

    The Supreme Court has ruled that states may adopt legislation that mirrors federal law and also enforce federal laws. We may not adopt laws that conflict or exceed federal law because it might violate the supremacy clause in which case the federal law would preempt the state law. Since SB 1070 is a measure to ENFORCE existing federal law, there is no preemption issue.

    States have adopted federal labor laws, environmental laws, and laws dealing with controlled substances, just to name a few. States enforce federal laws such as bank robbery, counterfeiting, smuggling, capitol murder, embezzlement, etc. It’s never been an issue.

    What one really has to wonder is why cities, that clearly violate the constitution by implementing their own immigration laws/policies in direct conflict to federal law, are not held to your standard? The federal government should instead sue cities that have decided to implement their own sanctuary policies, an obvious and clear violation of federal law and a cut and dry example of preemption. They would have a better argument and a better likelihood of success.

    The Supreme Court will eventual decide this issue, and if they follow the Constitution and previous precedent, SB1070 will stand.

    Regards,

    Frank

  3. How’s Antenori coming alone in finding group to take the place of those that were lost? Are they groups that enough of his supporters to keep Rialto in business want to see?

  5. That’s complete b.s. Frank. It does not track the federal law word for word. That’s just a “talking point” that wing nuts keep repeating & has no basis in fact. There are numerous sections that have no such comparable law in the U.S. Code and others which usurp the President’s and Congress’ prerogotives in both foreign affairs & immigration.

    Maybe you ought to 1) Read the constitution; 2) read SB 1070 in its entirety; and, then 3) read the Federal Government’s plainly written complaint filed in Federal Court. You don’t have to be a lawyer to understand this simple stuff.

    Why do you think the US Supreme Court granted cert in the Az Employers’ Sanctions bill? It certainly wasn’t to AFFIRM the 9th Circuit’s decision that it was constitutional. And, that law is admittedly a closer call than SB 1070. Most sections of SB 1070 are clear cut examples of areas of law that are preempted and thus subject to the supremacy clause.

    Your examples of bank robbery, etc are inapplicable. The Feds have made no attempt to preempt those areas of law.

    And, the government and courts have only allowed immigration laws which were either incidental or did not conflict with federal law or it’s enforcement. Az’s 1070 is niether. This law will work its way throught the courts, but even the 5-4 wing nut dominated Supreme Court will find this a no-brainer to strike down.

  6. Why is our state rep concerned about a boycott by musicians? What does he mean by his decisions are made by the right thing to do? Doesn’t he continually push for less government intervention? I have not seen or heard much from Frank Antenori regarding real, wide-reaching proposals to help get AZ back on track both in terms of economic and educational needs. We need to change partners in LD 30 – check out a new face :

    Todd Camenisch at AZVote4Todd.com

Comments are closed.