- Joined
- Aug 26, 2007
- Messages
- 50,241
- Reaction score
- 19,243
- Location
- San Antonio Texas
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
FOXNews.com - Cities Discovering an Arizona Boycott May Do More Harm Than GoodBoycotting 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.
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."
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
If you can't produce ID on request they can detain you. Sounds more like a police state to me.
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.
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.
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??
When did I say anything about the Constitution?
And thanks for the dig at my nationality. It was really mature.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?