Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Inter-State Boycotts (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: Inter-State Boycotts
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well it had to happen. The City of Los Angeles is now boycotting Arizona:

LA Boycott

They're joining several other California municipalities. As I understand this, basically LA is shutting out Arizona contractors from City work and banning City employee travel to Arizona until the law is repealed. There is also talk of a Major League Baseball boycott, although that may be speculative at this point (but hardly surprising since Latinos make up half the league).

One wonders if this action could trigger a retaliatory boycott of LA by Arizona?

The problem I foresee here is that the Arizona law is quite popular, not just in Arizona but around the country. I have seen polls showing 60% to 70% support for the bill. Supporters of the LA boycott may see themselves on the moral high ground and think they will isolate Arizona, but this could backfire if they don't get a critical mass of public support at home and in other States.

Rather than rehashing the debate about the justness of the Arizona law, I'm more curious about the implications of inter-state (and inter-municipal) boycotts. Can the United States tolerate a scenario where State and Municipal governments across the country are boycotting each other? What are the implications for the struggling econonomic recovery if these boycotts spread?

What happens if "protest boycotts" start to become more prevalent? Given the support for the Arizona law nationally, and the possibility that other States may follow suit, what happens then? I know speaking personally that if I was from Arizona and some municipal politicians in California started issuing ultimatums to my government and boycotting my State I'd be mighty pissed off. Californians aren't exactly in any position right now to be making war with their neighbours, considering the economic meltdown that's occurring there.

Thoughts? What, if anything, can the Feds do about this?

[ May 13, 2010, 04:32 PM: Message edited by: jasonr ]

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The popularity of the law notwithstanding, AZ will come out a loser in this as a result. It has only made the problem worse with the latest measure cracking down on "ethnic studies" (geez, the dust hasn't even begun to settle on the immigration law).

Basically, to satisfy the demand for action on the issue of immigrants (both by the well-intentioned and the not-so-well-intentioned), AZ is in the process of slowly choking itself by developing a reputation for incendiary lawmaking (as if 'ethnic studies' classes are a serious enough problem to require state government intervention). They'll get a predictable response from the Hispanic community, and it should surprise nobody, least of all them.

Personally, I see no problem with boycotting them for it, since municipal governments have as much right to shop around for services wherever they please, and AZ's loss will be someone else's gain.

AZ has just committed an economically foolish and self-defeating act. They will lose millions and millions of dollars as a result, and it's going to get worse once the cheap labor pool starts to dry up. I hope the happiness they get from their crackdown is worth it to them, I really do. I have no sympathy for them in the inevitable backlash.

[ May 13, 2010, 04:44 PM: Message edited by: JoshCrow ]

Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm not sure if the Feds can do anything.

It does look like inter-state conflict.

I suppose at some point Arizona will boycott California, then other states could join in to show support on either side. Sounds far fetched to me though. The vast majority of the other states probably won't care. I can see New Mexico and Texas maybe getting involved.

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The popularity of the law notwithstanding, AZ will come out a loser in this as a result. It has only made the problem worse with the latest measure cracking down on "ethnic studies" (geez, the dust hasn't even begun to settle on the immigration law).

Basically, to satisfy the demand for action on the issue of immigrants (both by the well-intentioned and the not-so-well-intentioned), AZ is in the process of slowly choking itself by developing a reputation for incendiary lawmaking (as if 'ethnic studies' classes are a serious enough problem to require state government intervention). They'll get a predictable response from the Hispanic community, and it should surprise nobody, least of all them.

Personally, I see no problem with boycotting them for it, since municipal governments have as much right to shop around for services wherever they please, and AZ's loss will be someone else's gain.

AZ has just committed an economically foolish and self-defeating act. They will lose millions and millions of dollars as a result, and it's going to get worse once the cheap labor pool starts to dry up. I hope the happiness they get from their crackdown is worth it to them, I really do. I have no sympathy for them in the inevitable backlash.

I agree that the recent decision to ban "ethnic studies" was a boneheaded thing to do, although personally I agree 100% with the law on principle.

My issue is your assumption that Arizona is going to come out a loser in this, or more specifically, that they are the only ones who are going to be in the crosshairs. Given the public opinion polls on this issue and the groundswell of support for Arizona across the country, what makes you so sure that Arizona will lose? What makes LA and San Francisco so sure that can attack Arizona with impunity? Even if a counter-boycott doesn't manifest (and I'm betting one will) they're going to be up to their eyeballs in court if they just start unilaterally breaking their contracts just because the contractors are from Arizona. I would even speculate that there could be constitutional challenges, although that's just my gut reaction and not based on any specific legal theory.

My point is that the whole country could end up losers in this if this turns into an inter-state "boycott war".

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Latest PEW poll I heard shows 73% support for the AZ law. I think they'll get just as much support as they will boycotts.
Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Jason - support for the law is largely soft support. The fact that it's a majority won't matter... California has a lot of heft and more people are going to boycott than there are people who would be enticed to bring new business in. "Sympathy" gets you nice cards and a lot of talk, but I'm willing to bet not a lot of businesses will chirp up and say "let's give our dollars to these guys because they have tough immigration law". It's far more likely that Hispanic-related businesses will leave.

From CNN/Money:
quote:
The Los Angeles city council has asked all municipal employees to boycott Arizona -- and that's the last thing the hard-hit border state needs.

The Los Angeles city council voted 13-1 on Wednesday to boycott the state of Arizona, in protest of the state's controversial new immigration law. This could mean a loss of up to $56 million worth of business that the city conducts with Arizona each year, according to Gerry Miller, chief legislative analyst of Los Angeles.

This boycott includes suspending all travel to Arizona by municipal employees, as well as $7.7 million worth of city contracts with Arizona-based companies, such as Taser International (TASR).

"It's not going to cripple the economy, but when your economy is weak, you don't want to be losing any contracts," said Jim Rounds, senior economist with Elliot D. Pollack & Co., a real estate and economic consulting firm based in Scottsdale, Ariz.

He said that in reality the city council's boycott will probably only deny Arizona about $10 million worth of business. But he said that this, combined with an existing boycott on Arizona tourism, is an extra strain on a state that has already lost 10% of its jobs since the beginning of the recession.

"This thing is coming at a time when we're already struggling," said Rounds.

Arizona lost 82,200 jobs over the course of the year ending in March, according to the most recent figures from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. It's also the second-worst state for foreclosures; more than 163,000 properties there received foreclosure filings in 2009, according to RealtyTrac.

Gov. Janice Brewer of Arizona, who signed the immigration bill into law on April 23, called the boycott "thoughtless and harmful."

"An economic boycott against innocent people just adds to the massive economic burden Arizonans have sustained for years due to the federal government's failure to secure our borders," she said. "One example alone -- the unreimbursed costs paid by Arizona taxpayers to incarcerate convicted criminal aliens -- has cost Arizona taxpayers over $750 million just since 2003."

Paul Senseman, a spokesman for the governor, said the practicality of the boycott is "questionable," since the Constitution "specifically prohibits economic blockades by a state or city against another."

The law
The Arizona legislation requires law enforcement agents to "determine the immigration status" of anyone under "reasonable suspicion" of being an illegal alien. In other words, the law provides state police with the power and responsibility that is normally accorded only to federal immigration authorities.

The Los Angeles city council said that the bill, which goes into effect in July, will "promote racial profiling, discrimination and harassment." The cities of San Francisco and Oakland, Calif. are also boycotting Arizona.

The bill's proponents are concerned about the increasing lawlessness of the border region, where a rancher was murdered in March. Rounds said that Arizona is being unfairly punished for trying to pick up the slack for the federal government, which hasn't done enough to deal with illegal immigration.

"I'm in support that border states need to do something, [though] it's unclear if the specific language in this bill was the best way of doing it," said Pollack economist Rounds. "Whether you're opposed to it or in favor of it, there's no denying that there's going to be economic consequences for Arizona in the next year."

That's not counting the fact that the rug is about to be pulled out from under a lot of cheap but important labor.

You'll note the Constitution reference in there which is interesting, though. It could indeed be challenged. But this is capitalism for ya... can the Feds really make one state or city buy from another?

[ May 13, 2010, 05:12 PM: Message edited by: JoshCrow ]

Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Can the United States tolerate a scenario where State and Municipal governments across the country are boycotting each other?
Absolutely. As long as they're not actually closing their borders or taxing one state more than another, it's not only constitutional (IMO) but arguably healthy for individual governments to show more discretion in their business dealings.

[ May 13, 2010, 05:28 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Philadelphia_v._New_Jersey

City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey, 437 U.S. 617 (1978)[1], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that states could not discriminate against another state's articles of commerce.


--------------------------------

I didn't quite like that decision, but there you go. One state has to take another state's hazardous waste. I do agree though that the decision did support inter-state commerce and that the U.S. is better off for it. This will be very interesting from a Constitutional perspective.

Big bully California thinks they can pick on poor litte Arizona, but what they don't seem to realize or maybe are just too suicidal to care about (and that's not far off the mark the way they are killing themselves over there) is that Texas has Arizona's back. California will come out as the biggest loser when the dust settles on this high noon showdown. And I just mentioned Texas, but the fact is a lot of Americans across the country are going to side with defending our nation. The law or the courts may do something about elements of state governments boycotting each other, but there is nothing they can do about private citizens refusing to buy from somebody (Obamacare notwithstanding), and that's what can really bring California to its knees. I might even predict movie sales to plummet though I'm going to have to go out on a limb to do it. I'm not afraid though. It won't be the first time I've been wrong in a prediction.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Arizona needs to sweep up it's own troubles before it worries about the reaction from other states:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/36334_McCain_Counsels_Wrong_Sheriff

Two AZ Sheriffs that are responsible for about half of its border with Mexico are saying that this law will destroy the trust they have with Hispanic communities by making them suspicious of law enforcement, and one of them outright ordering his officers to not enforce it.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Let me get this straight (restate this in a biased way [Smile] ), a city that is willfully ignoring federal laws on immigration (LA is a sanctuary city) is boycotting a state which is taking steps to enforce federal laws on immigration? And LA expects the rest of America to follow their bold example?
Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Five states are already considering following Arizona's lead. If many states follow their lead, then LA would be forced to disband their boycott.

quote:
State lawmakers and others in Texas, Utah, Georgia, Ohio and Maryland are seizing on Arizona's hard-line approach to illegal immigration
Link

In general, I can't imagine the Supreme Court going along with internal boycotts. It would fracture the country, if every municipality could try and enforce it's view on every other. What's to keep any large state from enforcing it's will on any much smaller border state by threatening an economic boycott.

During the severe Atlanta drought last year, the Georgia Assembly actually entertained a motion to annex part of Chattanooga from Tennessee to get access to the Tennessee River. What would have been the effects if Atlanta had decided to boycott Chattanooga unless the city agreed to very preferential terms for its water.

quote:
Georgia officials have said the state line should be redrawn at the 35th latitude, where Congress established it in 1796, giving the state access to the river at Nickajack Cove. Surveyors with the rudimentary instruments of the early 1800s misidentified the line, the officials said.

Tennessee officials have said there’s no way they’re redrawing the state line.

Source

This was Tennessee's response:

quote:
The city of Chattanooga, facing a possible Georgia land grab as part of an effort to get access to the Tennessee River, is sending a truck load of bottled water to Atlanta.

Mayor Ron Littlefield said the water will be delivered on Wednesday by his aide Matt Lea wearing a coonskin cap.


The mayor has officially proclaimed Feb. 27, 2008, as “Give our Georgia Friends a Drink Day.” The proclamation comes as a result of the Georgia Legislature passing a joint resolution that seeks to pursue reestablishing the boundary between Georgia and Tennessee.

The truck load of bottled water along with the proclamation will be delivered to the Georgia Legislature Wednesday morning.

Source

[ May 13, 2010, 06:37 PM: Message edited by: JWatts ]

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It is interesting.

Should government economic interaction with individuals or organizations whos actions their constituency view as odious be mandatory?

Ie could Utah counties refuse economic interaction with California over gay marriage?

What about based on actions of a states federal senators or congressmen?

I don't know of any legal theory that would prevent it.

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Even if you could prevent municipalities for organizing a boycott another state, which I'm not saying one way or the other, you could not prevent private individuals from deciding to boycott a state as citizens, or as members of private groups.

So even if the supreme court stepped in and said that L.A. could not boycott Arizona, the supreme court could not prevent the citizens of L.A. from organizing themselves and boycotting Arizona as private citizens.

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It is also interesting to note that it was L.A. that first decided to boycott another state, over illegal immigration, rather then a different case.

Utah hasn't boycotted California over gay marriage.

Texas hasn't boycotted Massachusetts over state run health care.

Of course each case is different then the next. But if this becomes some sort of boycott battle, with multiple states engaged in inter-state economic sanctioning, L.A. will either go down in history books as the hero or the goat.

That's how this looks to me. Economic sanctioning of Arizona.

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Grant:
Even if you could prevent municipalities for organizing a boycott another state, which I'm not saying one way or the other, you could not prevent private individuals from deciding to boycott a state as citizens, or as members of private groups.

So even if the supreme court stepped in and said that L.A. could not boycott Arizona, the supreme court could not prevent the citizens of L.A. from organizing themselves and boycotting Arizona as private citizens.

That's absolutely true. But consider if a large company (say ExxonMobil) attempted a boycott vs a municipality in order to effect a change in the behavior of the municipality. Would the courts allow that to stand? I think not.

It verges onto an embargo when a large governmental body enacts a boycott.

I wonder how long it will be before some Arizona politician decides to, instead of incarcerating illegals, gives them the option of a one way bus ticket to LA with a strict injunction not to come back. I believe that would be legal too. After all, if LA's firmly convince illegal immigrants aren't any kind of problem, then this shouldn't present an issue, eh?

[ May 13, 2010, 07:39 PM: Message edited by: JWatts ]

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
JWatts,

quote:
That's absolutely true. But consider if a large company (say ExxonMobil) attempted a boycott vs a municipality in order to effect a change in the behavior of the municipality. Would the courts allow that to stand? I think not.
Companies already engage in similar behaviour. Threatening economic retaliation on states and cities that do laws that are against their interests or that they feel are immoral. You are aware that Google pulled out of China (sorta) over the issue of censorship.

[ May 13, 2010, 07:39 PM: Message edited by: LetterRip ]

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
Companies already engage in similar behaviour. Threatening economic retaliation on states and cities that do laws that are against their interests.

Can you site a case where a large company issued a boycott versus a municipality?
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
Companies already engage in similar behaviour. Threatening economic retaliation on states and cities that do laws that are against their interests.

Can you site a case where a large company issued a boycott versus a municipality?
How large do you have to be to be large?

I probably shouldn't do this but here goes.... it's the truth.

An unnamed private ambulance company in the south pulled out of a "county", of which they had a contract with, after the "county" invited a second private ambulance company inside as competition. The stated reason being that there was not enough business for two companies to be successful. The second company eventually folded, the first company moved right back in. The private ambulance company has numerous agreements with several "counties" to be the sole emergency medical service available within those "counties."

Now.... I'm not going to read between the lines on this one. I'm sure somebody else can do that for me.

This happened. Sorry I'm not giving particulars, you don't have to believe me if you don't want to, in fact, I would prefer if you did not.

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Did anyone else notice this quote from the Arizona governor?

quote:
"An economic boycott against innocent people just adds to the massive economic burden Arizonans have sustained for years due to the federal government's failure to secure our borders," she said. "One example alone -- the unreimbursed costs paid by Arizona taxpayers to incarcerate convicted criminal aliens -- has cost Arizona taxpayers over $750 million just since 2003."
Exactly how will making it a State crime to simply be an illegal alien help with paying for incarceration costs? [Wink] [Smile]
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
Exactly how will making it a State crime to simply be an illegal alien help with paying for incarceration costs? [Wink] [Smile]

If a large percentage of illegal immigrants leave Arizona, then Arizona will have less illegal immigrants committing crimes to incarcerate. [Wink]
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Jason - support for the law is largely soft support. The fact that it's a majority won't matter... California has a lot of heft and more people are going to boycott than there are people who would be enticed to bring new business in. "Sympathy" gets you nice cards and a lot of talk, but I'm willing to bet not a lot of businesses will chirp up and say "let's give our dollars to these guys because they have tough immigration law". It's far more likely that Hispanic-related businesses will leave.
I kind of agree with you on this, for the reason that the Latinos are now really really pissed about this law, enough that they are forming a powerful bloc. It's chump change compared to the overall support for the bill around the country (Latinos are not a majority yet) but it's cohesive. On the other hand, if the tea party movement takes up this cause the balance of power could shift perhaps?

I suppose Arizona could always cut off electricity to California... Now THAT would make those hippies withdraw their boycott in a heartbeat [Smile]

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
How can they keep their employees from visiting Arizona? Is this just a case where they asked pretty please and left it at that?

What would happen if all the big red food producing states in the middle chose to refuse to sell to the blue states on the coasts? What would happen port city blue states decided not to ship to red states? Is L.A. refusing to hire "legal immigrants" from Arizona or just not doing business with Arizona companies?

If state or municipality receives federal dollars are they required to be an equal opportunity provider? Could L.A. boycott Mormons because of Prop 8 or just Utah?

Posts: 3639 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
LoJ,

they are just not going to pay for employee travel to Arizona for conferences, etc. Not 'we will fire you if you do any travel to Arizona'.

[ May 13, 2010, 09:26 PM: Message edited by: LetterRip ]

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ah, ok. Thanks.
Posts: 3639 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
Companies already engage in similar behaviour. Threatening economic retaliation on states and cities that do laws that are against their interests.

Can you site a case where a large company issued a boycott versus a municipality?
Many never get to that point because the municipalities usually fold. In Pittsburgh the large banks and medical organizations have repeatedly threatened to pull out if they don't get assorted exemptions from municipal taxes or special considerations. Sports teams have done similar over getting new arenas as well.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Michelle
Member
Member # 3237

 - posted      Profile for Michelle   Email Michelle       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
So even if the supreme court stepped in and said that L.A. could not boycott Arizona, the supreme court could not prevent the citizens of L.A. from organizing themselves and boycotting Arizona as private citizens.
Or vica-versa...
California relies heavily on tourism from Arizona.

Posts: 800 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Maybe Rush will advertise another "Dan's Bake Sale" kind of event for Arizona.

Ultimately, I hope things improve there soon, one way or another. Whether by realizing the law needs to be changed or tweaked or by it actually being implemented the way people hope instead of the way people fear. I don't want them making things harder for Mexican Americans but I also hope they find SOME solution to their crime problem fast...even if it requires learning from mistakes. [Frown]

Posts: 3639 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think that this may be more about competition than about politics or policy. Arizona actively pursues California companies to encourage them to re-locate. By giving momentum to a "boycott Arizona" bandwagon, California state and local governments are making a competitive alternative look less palatable. In a sense, they are attempting to tarnish Arizona's brand. Nothing to do with hippies.
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
In Pittsburgh the large banks and medical organizations have repeatedly threatened to pull out if they don't get assorted exemptions from municipal taxes or special considerations. Sports teams have done similar over getting new arenas as well.

That's a different case. Plenty of companies go for the best deal they negotiate. They'll certainly have areas bid against each other to lower their costs.

But can you name a large company that has enacted a public boycott of a municipality. And I'm not asking this idly, but if someone can name an example and a source I want to find out what the results of the boycott were.

[ May 13, 2010, 10:40 PM: Message edited by: JWatts ]

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
But can you name a large company that has enacted a public boycott of a municipality.
Is it really a boycott if one company chooses not to do business with a given government? Because I can name lots of construction companies that, for example, refuse to work with the county government in which I live.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
They're joining several other California municipalities. As I understand this, basically LA is shutting out Arizona contractors from City work and banning City employee travel to Arizona until the law is repealed. There is also talk of a Major League Baseball boycott, although that may be speculative at this point (but hardly surprising since Latinos make up half the league).

One wonders if this action could trigger a retaliatory boycott of LA by Arizona?

Wait until this summer and CA starts running out of power and has to buy some from surrounding states ... like AZ.
quote:
California currently imports 20 percent of its electricity, and for years has been relying on generation in other Western states – most of which are also growing rapidly – to make up for the shortfall.
CA may see the light around July or August ... then again, maybe they won't have the power to turn them on. This could be a lot of fun. [LOL]

[ May 14, 2010, 09:57 AM: Message edited by: G2 ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If a large percentage of illegal immigrants leave Arizona, then Arizona will have less illegal immigrants committing crimes to incarcerate. [Wink]
This assumes that those illegal immigrants that leave Arizona are typically those who commit crimes.

If the incarcerations are from, let's say, drug runners, this law does little to change that, since such criminals are not likely to worry about being jailed for the lack of a driver's license when they have a couple of kilos of cocaine in their trunks. [Smile]

quote:
It is also interesting to note that it was L.A. that first decided to boycott another state, over illegal immigration, rather then a different case.
Actually, I heard on TV yesterday that L.A. had boycotted another state previously over another issue.

Apparently, a few years back, Colorado passed a law (later overturned by the Supreme Court) that prohibited gays from having any civil rights. Los Angeles boycotted them over that law.

So this really is nothing new for L.A.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Actually, I heard on TV yesterday that L.A. had boycotted another state previously over another issue.

Apparently, a few years back, Colorado passed a law (later overturned by the Supreme Court) that prohibited gays from having any civil rights. Los Angeles boycotted them over that law.

So this really is nothing new for L.A.

I see some difference here. Most people may not be avid proponents of gay rights, but only a small minority are willing to mobilize in defence of a law blatantly attacking gays.

In this case, the support for the Arizona law is not mere passive "not my problem" or "I don't care" support. Illegal immigration is a big issue and most people agree with Arizona's approach.

Point being, while I doubt anyone was likely to counter-boycott California for supporting gay rights, I'm not so sure about the immigration issue.

But it's all just speculation at this point. So far I haven't seen a major reaction to the boycott, legal or otherwise. Josh may turn out to be right about this one: the Latinos are definitely fired up against the AZ law, but it's still not clear whether the majority in favour can be effectively mobilized.

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Austin follows LA's lead:

quote:
Austin will not do business with Arizona
The Austin City Council decided Thursday to end business and travel ties with the state of Arizona to protest a new state law that will allow law enforcement officers there to detain people they suspect are in the country illegally.

There was little discussion before the resolution passed unanimously .

Source
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Michelle
Member
Member # 3237

 - posted      Profile for Michelle   Email Michelle       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It seems to me the road to solution, or at least a compromise -- is the government should pay the money it owes the state of Arizona. What is the hold up?

These boycotts are distracting from the very real and valid point that the government's failure to comply was the precursor to Arizona's actions.

Posts: 800 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Failure to comply with what? Should the government take some of the extra $2billion or so that it's increased the border security budget by in the past year and give that to AZ instead of spending it on more patrols and security?
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
These boycotts are distracting from the very real and valid point that the government's failure to comply was the precursor to Arizona's actions.
Actually, Arizona's actions are distracting from the very real and valid point that the government is failing to adequately control the international borders. The boycotts are merely a reaction to an ill-conceived law. [Smile]
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye
Member
Member # 6554

 - posted      Profile for flydye   Email flydye       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It is funny that Josh suddenly believes in the power of a municipal boycott. I wonder if he gave the same credeance to the US boycott of France back during Iraq.

Somehow a city of a few million is much more powerful then the disdain of 90 million plus Americans for France?

Boycotts seldom work

Posts: 702 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by flydye:

Boycotts seldom work

EEEEEE. Birmingham.
Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye
Member
Member # 6554

 - posted      Profile for flydye   Email flydye       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
But then there's this:

quote:
Consumer Boycotts: The Impact of the Iraq War on French Wine Sales in the U.S.
Larry Chavis, Phillip Leslie
NBER Working Paper No. 11981*
Issued in January 2006
NBER Program(s): IO


The French Opposition to the war in Iraq in early 2003, prompted calls for a boycott of French wine in the US. We measure the magnitude of consumers’ participation in the boycott, and look at basic evidence of who participates. Conservative estimates indicate that the boycott resulted in 26% lower weekly sales at its peak, and 13% lower sales over the six month period that we estimate the boycott lasted for. These findings suggest that business should be concerned that their actions may provoke a boycott which hurts their profits. We also find that neither political preferences or media attention are important determinants of boycott participation.




Posts: 702 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1