• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Cities Discovering an Arizona Boycott May Do More Harm Than Good

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Boycotting Arizona is harder than it sounds.

Though the passage of the state's immigration law was met in late April with immediate threats to cut ties with Arizona in protest, a number of cities have either scaled back or created exemptions to their own boycotts.

The resolutions also have demanded a mountain of work by officials at the city level tasked with reviewing hundreds of internal contracts for any trace of Arizona to see whether it's prudent to cut ties. As the review process gets underway, the result may be a patchwork of targeted boycotts rather a blanket ban on all things Arizona.

The Los Angeles City Council was the latest to amend its boycott last Wednesday, when lawmakers voted to make an exemption so that an Arizona-based company that operates enforcement cameras at Los Angeles intersections can continue to do business there.
FOXNews.com - Cities Discovering an Arizona Boycott May Do More Harm Than Good

This, has to be the funniest **** I've seen in months. These boycotts were announced to protest "civil rights violations" that AZ was going to commit, to show the Hispanics of these cities, that they were "with you man!".

Well, they were till reality slapped these morons across the face, a good old fashioned bitch-slapping good time of it from the looks of it.

Yes, idiots, you passed these boycotts and now you are learning that oh... it's not so easy. So how committed are you to "Civil Rights" again? This is just... too damned funny if you ask me.
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,433
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
That's too freaking hilarious.

"reality check" - "our **** matters more than yours . . . sorry!"

Freaking hypocrites! But what would happen if the company bit the bullet and nulled ITS contract with LA? Interesting!

The Los Angeles City Council was the latest to amend its boycott last Wednesday, when lawmakers voted to make an exemption so that an Arizona-based company that operates enforcement cameras at Los Angeles intersections can continue to do business
there.

The program earned the city $6 million last year. City officials cited economic as well as public safety concerns in arguing to extend the contract with American Traffic Solutions, based in Scottsdale. Los Angeles Councilman Richard Alarcon said the boycott was "never intended to impede public safety."
 

theangryamerican

Can't stop the signal...
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
2,233
Reaction score
1,184
Location
The Wild West
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
A certain reverand once made a statement about "chickens coming home to roost" that seems like it may apply here.
 

Moon

Why so serious?
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
9,944
Reaction score
5,114
Location
Washington State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I guess this is how they stand up for their principles.
 

VanceMack

MSG Benavides TAB
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
73,541
Reaction score
30,963
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Im STILL waiting for ANYONE to explain how the Arizona law which simply enforces federal law is discriminatory in the least. The fed has authorized (and the supreme court upheld) INS agents to investigate legal status MERELY on the basis of LOOKING Mexican...the Arizona law specifically PROHIBITS profiling. Yet what we hear all the time is "enforcement should only be done by the FED." Excpet of course the fed has been training state law enforcement officers on immigration enforcement so THAT idiotic argument also goes out the window. (I know its a stretch expecting people to actually debate or defend their argument AGAINST a law that they havent even bothered to actually READ).

There is one very simple and basic truth...leftists want NO enforcement of the illigal immigration laws. period. They are threatened because the STATE is willing to do what the FED has compeletely refused to do.
 

jallman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
36,915
Reaction score
11,283
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
That's too freaking hilarious.

"reality check" - "our **** matters more than yours . . . sorry!"

Freaking hypocrites! But what would happen if the company bit the bullet and nulled ITS contract with LA? Interesting!
Oh you know LA's not going to give up any of it's ability to take money from the citizens here. "Public safety concerns" is just code for "added taxes by way of fines".
 

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Oh you know LA's not going to give up any of it's ability to take money from the citizens here. "Public safety concerns" is just code for "added taxes by way of fines".
I wonder what those folks that really believed these boycotts were based on principle think now... Fairweathered supporters of "Hispanic Rights" is how they should be seen. (Not that I think these boycotts were any such thing, but that's the claim for them being made).
 

Chappy

User
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 24, 2009
Messages
2,443
Reaction score
733
Location
San Francisco
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
I think this story about the challenges of imposing a boycott represents good news for Arizona … and very bad. Good news that it is much harder to single out businesses solely based on their location and perhaps more important to terminate existing relationships and contracts. But also very bad news in that when new opportunities are lost, they will be lost for a considerable time for the same reason, probably outlasting the obnoxious state policy and responding boycott.

What Arizonans are seeing now is decades of consequences being heaped on their heads. Businesses will think twice (or more) about locating there; others will examine moving out of there; workers will follow their jobs to other states; new houses for those workers will built where they go; etc., etc. The boycott must overcome inertia initially which favors Arizona, but, the boycott's eventual momentum will be very bad for Arizona. Of all the states Arizona is probably among the most dependent on new residents moving there; without the incentives that come with a growing economy one shudders and what will become of our youngest contiguous state.
 

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
I think this story about the challenges of imposing a boycott represents good news for Arizona … and very bad. Good news that it is much harder to single out businesses solely based on their location and perhaps more important to terminate existing relationships and contracts. But also very bad news in that when new opportunities are lost, they will be lost for a considerable time for the same reason, probably outlasting the obnoxious state policy and responding boycott.

What Arizonans are seeing now is decades of consequences being heaped on their heads. Businesses will think twice (or more) about locating there; others will examine moving out of there; workers will follow their jobs to other states; new houses for those workers will built where they go; etc., etc. The boycott must overcome inertia initially which favors Arizona, but, the boycott's eventual momentum will be very bad for Arizona. Of all the states Arizona is probably among the most dependent on new residents moving there; without the incentives that come with a growing economy one shudders and what will become of our youngest contiguous state.

No, what Arizona is seeing is a that most of these boycotts are half hearted, and will have no lasting effect. The LAW will stand, and spread once it beats Obama's ill considered legal challenge supposidly coming this week.
 

Orion

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,083
Reaction score
3,918
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
It's kind of sad that the view is "Haha LA is losing!" instead of "These are two states in a union and they should be getting along."

Why hasn't there been some kind of federal intervention to repair ties?

I would just wait for SCOTUS to toss out the Arizona law - which it will - before taking such drastic boycott measures.
 

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
It's kind of sad that the view is "Haha LA is losing!" instead of "These are two states in a union and they should be getting along."

Why hasn't there been some kind of federal intervention to repair ties?

I would just wait for SCOTUS to toss out the Arizona law - which it will - before taking such drastic boycott measures.
No the SCOTUS will uphold the law. The liberal fantasy that Arizona allowing police to inquire into citizenship during the course of police work is somehow unconstitutional is quite amusing.
 

Orion

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,083
Reaction score
3,918
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
No the SCOTUS will uphold the law. The liberal fantasy that Arizona allowing police to inquire into citizenship during the course of police work is somehow unconstitutional is quite amusing.
The law was made while declaring it was simply enforcing federal law, but the federal government has already explained why that doesn't make sense. If it gets to SCOTUS it will be shot down based on simple logic.

But I know logic is something alien to you.
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,433
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
The law was made while declaring it was simply enforcing federal law, but the federal government has already explained why that doesn't make sense. If it gets to SCOTUS it will be shot down based on simple logic.

But I know logic is something alien to you.
So says the mighty Orion from Canada about issues involving the US Constitution. :shrug:

It's far more complicated than that - and there hasn't been any cases quite like it come to SCOTUS so it will ultimately be up to them to decide if Arizona is within their means or not.

The question of the issue isn't really Constitutionality - it's whether or not a state has open permission and ability to enforce certain federal laws. A state can't make money, for example - so - can a state enforce federal regulations where there's no particular code deeming the action to be acceptable/unacceptable?

This type of situation simply hasn't been addressed. . . . thus, no one really knows what the court will decide.
 

VanceMack

MSG Benavides TAB
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
73,541
Reaction score
30,963
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The law was made while declaring it was simply enforcing federal law, but the federal government has already explained why that doesn't make sense. If it gets to SCOTUS it will be shot down based on simple logic.

But I know logic is something alien to you.
This should be fun...

Pray tell...other than the ludicrous profiling argument, what is the federal governments opposition to this law? I mean...after all...the federal government DID spend millions training state police agencies on INS tactics and enforcement. And since AG Holder AND BO both admitted they ranted on about this state law for weeks without actually READING it...
 

mike2810

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
23,990
Reaction score
8,661
Location
arizona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I think this story about the challenges of imposing a boycott represents good news for Arizona … and very bad. Good news that it is much harder to single out businesses solely based on their location and perhaps more important to terminate existing relationships and contracts. But also very bad news in that when new opportunities are lost, they will be lost for a considerable time for the same reason, probably outlasting the obnoxious state policy and responding boycott.

What Arizonans are seeing now is decades of consequences being heaped on their heads. Businesses will think twice (or more) about locating there; others will examine moving out of there; workers will follow their jobs to other states; new houses for those workers will built where they go; etc., etc. The boycott must overcome inertia initially which favors Arizona, but, the boycott's eventual momentum will be very bad for Arizona. Of all the states Arizona is probably among the most dependent on new residents moving there; without the incentives that come with a growing economy one shudders and what will become of our youngest contiguous state.
Yep, California is way ahead of Arizona. What is your budget deficit? You think that is going to bring in new businesses by leaps and bounds? If I was to wager, I bet Arizona economy (state) despites its problems will fair better than CA over then next 10 years. Seems the 9th circuit supported our 2007 law that went after businesses that hired illegals. Now its up the the Supreme Court. If it rules against AZ, many other states will have to change some of their employer laws.
 

Orion

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,083
Reaction score
3,918
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
So says the mighty Orion from Canada about issues involving the US Constitution. :shrug:

It's far more complicated than that - and there hasn't been any cases quite like it come to SCOTUS so it will ultimately be up to them to decide if Arizona is within their means or not.

The question of the issue isn't really Constitutionality - it's whether or not a state has open permission and ability to enforce certain federal laws. A state can't make money, for example - so - can a state enforce federal regulations where there's no particular code deeming the action to be acceptable/unacceptable?

This type of situation simply hasn't been addressed. . . . thus, no one really knows what the court will decide.
:confused:

When did I say anything about the Constitution?

And thanks for the dig at my nationality. It was really mature.
 

The Mark

Sporadic insanity normal.
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
26,004
Reaction score
6,496
Location
Pennsylvania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
I find this amusing.

LA gov to Arizona: "Screw you, Arizona, we don't like your law directed at illegal immigrants, so we're going to boycott everything from your state."

LA gov internal dialog: "Ok, gotta stop trading with those barbarians from Arizona, now, what we are actually trading with Arizona... Uhh... Wait, this is gonna be HARD. It might actually HURT our reelection chances...Can't have that!"

But on a more serious note, I read a good portion of the Arizona law, and saw little issue with it.

Then again, I don't know what parameters it must fit to be accepted by the SCOTUS...

But IMO, they should uphold it - barring info I have yet to discover.
 

Orion

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,083
Reaction score
3,918
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I find this amusing.

LA gov to Arizona: "Screw you, Arizona, we don't like your law directed at illegal immigrants, so we're going to boycott everything from your state."

LA gov internal dialog: "Ok, gotta stop trading with those barbarians from Arizona, now, what we are actually trading with Arizona... Uhh... Wait, this is gonna be HARD. It might actually HURT our reelection chances...Can't have that!"

But on a more serious note, I read a good portion of the Arizona law, and saw little issue with it.

Then again, I don't know what parameters it must fit to be accepted by the SCOTUS...

But IMO, they should uphold it - barring info I have yet to discover.
If you can't produce ID on request they can detain you. Sounds more like a police state to me.
 

VanceMack

MSG Benavides TAB
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
73,541
Reaction score
30,963
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
If you can't produce ID on request they can detain you. Sounds more like a police state to me.
Is that REEEEEEAAAALLLLYYY what the law says?

Gosh...THAT sounds a little more like Canada and the G20 than it does Arizona's law. Of course...if that WERE the case it would be similar to the INS and US IMMIGRATION laws and federal enforcement...
 

Chappy

User
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 24, 2009
Messages
2,443
Reaction score
733
Location
San Francisco
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
The best thing that could happen for Arizona is to have the court system throw the law out. That way the politicians can say, “Well, we tried,” and the boycott movement would end before real lasting damage to the Arizona economy is suffered.
 

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
If you can't produce ID on request they can detain you. Sounds more like a police state to me.
Yeah, cause making people have their DL on them, is like EVIL MAN. EVIL.

Oh WAIT, they cannot do this "detain you" stuff until they have all ready made contact with you because you are suspected of some criminal activity and are actively investigating you?? ****ING HELL WHAT IS THIS COUNTRY COMING TO??
 

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
The best thing that could happen for Arizona is to have the court system throw the law out. That way the politicians can say, “Well, we tried,” and the boycott movement would end before real lasting damage to the Arizona economy is suffered.
And that would be the worst thing for the country.
 

VanceMack

MSG Benavides TAB
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
73,541
Reaction score
30,963
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The best thing that could happen for Arizona is to have the court system throw the law out. That way the politicians can say, “Well, we tried,” and the boycott movement would end before real lasting damage to the Arizona economy is suffered.
NAH...The BEST thing for Arizona will be for the Fed to sue and then for Arizona to countersue the HELL out of the Fed for failure to satisfy their requirements. Sue them for every dollar illegal immigration costs them.
 

Orion

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,083
Reaction score
3,918
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Yeah, cause making people have their DL on them, is like EVIL MAN. EVIL.

Oh WAIT, they cannot do this "detain you" stuff until they have all ready made contact with you because you are suspected of some criminal activity and are actively investigating you?? ****ING HELL WHAT IS THIS COUNTRY COMING TO??
That is not the way the Arizona law works. Cops can do ID inspections anywhere they please, including if you are just walking down the street. They only need the pre-tense of you being an illegal immigrant to demand ID. If you can't produce it then they can detain you, even if they didn't have prior probable cause (i.e. you were committing a crime). Simply accusing you of being an illegal is enough.

Kind of reminds me of the PATRIOT Act in that as soon as they fabricate a terrorism accusation, your rights go out the window.

People should be opposed to the Arizona law because of this. However, people are sheep and if it supports their pet causes they will gladly let rights be trampled on. Same thing with the recent SCOTUS ruling that lets the Fed extent detention to an indefinite period if you are a "dangerous" sex offender, and without trial by peers.
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,433
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
:confused:

When did I say anything about the Constitution?

And thanks for the dig at my nationality. It was really mature.
My snark about you being in Canada comes from the G20 debacle - a fair snark more about Canada than you in which carding and arresting people is in action.

You might not have mentioned the Constittuion - but that is where the federal government and the states are granted their seperate - and joint - powers. . . in the Constitution.
So in order to determine whether or not Arizona has overstepped it's bounds the places to look are the Constitution and the stacks of federal-regulations. . . and break it down into two parts:

1) What federal regulations is Arizona executing, are they within the means of those regulations (this is easy - all the regulations that Arizona is adhering to are referred to in the Arizona bill that's in question)
2) Does Arizona has the power to execute these federal regulations on it's own accord - this is not found in federal regulations, but within the Constitution.
 
Top Bottom