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 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: Inter-State Boycotts
flydye
Member
Member # 6554

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

Boycotts seldom work

EEEEEE. Birmingham.
For the reading impaired:

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:
quote:
Originally posted by Grant:
quote:
Originally posted by flydye:

Boycotts seldom work

EEEEEE. Birmingham.
For the reading impaired:

Boycotts seldom work

Wow, touchy. I wasn't contradicting you. I did read the seldom part. But to connect the dots.....

Birmingham lead to:

Greensboro
Richmond
Nashville
Atlanta
Alexandria
New Orleans

And that is just touching on a smigen of the civil rights movement.

Now I'm not positive that Boycotts only work seldom unless I have a complete list of all boycotts and compared the number that failed to the number that succeeded. Since I don't have that I will assume that Boycotts are only seldom successful, because I have no other information other then your statement.

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 
This guy agrees with you:

Seven traits of a successful boycott
Arizona could be in trouble if activists follow these tips.
By Ambreen Ali

Arizona faces a boycott over its new immigration law but, if history is an indicator, there may be little for the state to worry about.

Few boycotts succeed, even though the tactic has part of the fabric of American activism since before the Boston Tea Party. They work by hurting the income that companies and states generate, but that's not easy to do.

"It is so hard to affect the bottom line of a company," said Lawrence B. Glickman, author of "Buying Power: A History of Consumer Activism in America." It's especially hard to hit the bottom line of a state, which has numerous sources of income.

Boycotts can even backfire, hurting the very population that they aim to protect. Many of Arizona’s Latino community work in the very sectors that immigrant rights groups are targeting.

Still, people are taking notice of the Arizona boycott. Some of the state's hoteliers have already spoken up against the state law, citing economic consequences.

Glickman, who teaches history at the University of South Carolina, believes this may be one of the rare instances where this activism tactic can work.

Here are some traits of a successful boycott:

Clear target. Boycotts work when a significant part of a company's customer base stops patronizing the business, forcing the owners to take action.

"The very, very local boycotts tend to be among the most successful," Glickman said, citing labor boycotts in the 19th century where communities got local butchers and bakers to allow unions.

Immigration activists are planning to target Arizona-based companies like U.S. Airways and U-Haul in this boycott, but both of those have large numbers of consumers that could make it difficult to damage the businesses’ bottom lines.

Publicity. Businesses are more likely to speak up when they know people are listening. Lawmakers, too, take notice of the issues in the media. For a boycott to be successful, it has to have both economic and media ripples.

"Boycotts depend entirely on publicity," Glickman said. "If a boycott happens and nobody knows about it, it doesn't really count."

The Arizona boycott has gotten national media attention, but that must be sustained for a while since boycotts take time to work.

Visible allies. A handful of vacationers aren't going to hurt Arizona's tourism industry enough to get state laws changes. For the boycott to work, activists need high-profile businesses to pull their annual conventions and events out of the state.

That can be a challenge, since many conventions are planned years in advance.

"We want to have this idea that regular people can do something about it, but regular people are not making the decision about where the NFL is having the Super Bowl," David S. Meyer, author of "The Politics of Protest," said.

That may be why the activists have called for a boycott of the Arizona Diamondbacks and to move the All-Star Game out of the state. The Phoenix Suns have already given the movement a boost by donning "Los Suns" jerseys during the basketball playoffs.

Populist support. Boycotts are a way for the public to express its will and demand change. But a majority of the public needs to be on board for them to work.

Many Americans support Arizona's new law, and they serve as the biggest roadblock to the boycott's success. In fact, a counter boycott has already started to offset the efforts of the immigrant rights' groups.

"The state has to become a pariah. I'm not sure that's where the country is on this," said Meyer, a professor at the University of California, Irvine.

Leadership. Some of the most successful boycotts have had a prominent leader to carry them.

Julian E. Zelizer, a history professor at Princeton University, points to Martin Luther King Jr.'s role in the Montgomery bus boycott and labor organizer Cesar Chavez’s leadership in the 1960s boycott of table grapes .

"There has to be someone to really sell the cause," Zelizer said, adding that there may be a leader who has yet to emerge on the immigration issue.

Purchasing power. Boycotts don't work if they are only symbolic, Zelizer said. Activists have to constitute a concentrated buying power for the company or state they are targeting to make a significant impact.

In the Montgomery bus boycott, Zelizer said that blacks made up a large portion of bus ridership and hurt the city’s revenue.

The immigration push could be very successful if legal immigrants, who make up a large portion of the nation, feel compelled to join in on the fight.

"If they use their collective pocketbook muscle, I think it could be pretty devastating," Zelizer said.

The recession also helps the activists, because their dollars mean that much more to businesses – especially smaller ones.

Messaging. Many boycotts fizzle away because participants forget why they were doing them or because the public momentum dies off.

That happened to one of the longest standing boycotts – one against South Carolina for having a Confederate flag on capital grounds. When the flag was moved off the State House onto a thinner pole, the boycott lost some of its momentum.

"People are too busy or too impatient to look at all the nuance," said Monroe Friedman, a retired professor and author of "Consumer Boycotts: Effecting Change through the Marketplace and the Media."

Friedman said activists must offer a clear message that "hits you right in the gut."

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  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:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
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?

The government's failure to comply with federal law, Prytolin. Where is the money that is due Arizona? The money for the fence is a seperate issue. I'm talking about the money that belongs in the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program.

From January 6 of this year:
quote:
PHOENIX -- State Treasurer Dean Martin says he's updating and resubmitting to the federal government bills for jailing illegal immigrants that former Gov. Janet Napolitano long pursued.

Martin said at a press conference on Wednesday that Arizona is now owed more than $1 billion under terms of a federal law that compensates states for the costs of imprisoning criminal illegal immigrants.

Napolitano pushed the issue yearly as governor, but never was able to get the federal government to fully pay up. Martin says he's hoping the former governor helps push the issue now that she's Homeland Security secretary in the Obama administration.

The State Criminal Alien Assistance Program is administered by the U.S. Justice Department.

Martin, a Republican, is considered a possible candidate for governor this year.

http://www.azfamily.com/news/local/State-treasurer-Arizona-is-owed-money-80793297.html
Posts: 800 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  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 
Michelle,

SCAAP is not a mandatory payment from the federal government to states from what I can find, thus it is not 'owed'. Instead that bill authorizes the federal government to pay states for part of their costs incured in housing criminal illegal aliens - it is purely a discretionary part of the budget.

Personally I don't think the federal government should pay any SCAAP. If Arizona and Californa among others, weren't employing illegal aliens in large numbers, then the number of illegal alien criminals would drop drastically.

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  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:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
Michelle,

SCAAP is not a mandatory payment from the federal government to states from what I can find, thus it is not 'owed'. Instead that bill authorizes the federal government to pay states for part of their costs incured in housing criminal illegal aliens - it is purely a discretionary part of the budget.

Personally I don't think the federal government should pay any SCAAP. If Arizona and Californa among others, weren't employing illegal aliens in large numbers, then the number of illegal alien criminals would drop drastically.

The new law itself may reduce the numbers. Illegal aliens to leave over Arizona Law
Posts: 800 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Grant:
I'm not sure if the Feds can do anything.

I'm not sure that they even have to do anything. An inter-state boycott, imposed or organized in any way by a state government, may violate the passive commerce clause. And the CC certainly does empower the Feds to prevent boycotts.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 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 
quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:

Personally I don't think the federal government should pay any SCAAP. If Arizona and Californa among others, weren't employing illegal aliens in large numbers, then the number of illegal alien criminals would drop drastically. [/QB]

I have to agree completely. All these laws are essentially mandating the enforcement of existing federal law, but nothing is being done to address the employment of illegal aliens for slave wages by employers. Deport illegal aliens? Fine, it's already the federal law anyways. But something needs to be done about the employment of individuals within the united states for less then minimum wage, without payroll tax, without benefits. Send these supporters of slavery to jail. If you are found employing an illegal alien, you will be sent to federal prison.

In addition, you can apply for a visa for your illegal employee, if you don't want to go to prison, allowing them to stay in the country under a work program, provided they are paid at least minimum wage and taxed.

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  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:
Originally posted by Grant:
quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:

Personally I don't think the federal government should pay any SCAAP. If Arizona and Californa among others, weren't employing illegal aliens in large numbers, then the number of illegal alien criminals would drop drastically.

I have to agree completely. All these laws are essentially mandating the enforcement of existing federal law, but nothing is being done to address the employment of illegal aliens for slave wages by employers. Deport illegal aliens? Fine, it's already the federal law anyways. But something needs to be done about the employment of individuals within the united states for less then minimum wage, without payroll tax, without benefits. Send these supporters of slavery to jail. If you are found employing an illegal alien, you will be sent to federal prison.

In addition, you can apply for a visa for your illegal employee, if you don't want to go to prison, allowing them to stay in the country under a work program, provided they are paid at least minimum wage and taxed. [/QB]

Oh, please...

You can't enslave the willing.

Posts: 800 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You can't enslave the willing.
Of course you can. Selling oneself to slavery, because life's hardships required it, was a very popular model.

When wages are low enough that you'll never be free from your dependency on your employer, employment is nothing but wage-slavery.

Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  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:
You can't enslave the willing.
Perhaps not (though that hinges on whether they realize that what you're doing is enslaving them), but the desperate? Most people will choose slavery over death when pushed to the line- especially as preferable the deaths of their families.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Michelle,

1. There is no consent without knowledge.
2. Even with knowledge, "willingness" can be coerced through various circumstances.
3. Historically, the "willing" have often been enslaved; the term for that is indentured servitude.

-----
edited to add: looks like all three of those points were covered by Aris and/or Pyr.

[ May 17, 2010, 11:43 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 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 
quote:
Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
quote:
You can't enslave the willing.
Of course you can. Selling oneself to slavery, because life's hardships required it, was a very popular model.

When wages are low enough that you'll never be free from your dependency on your employer, employment is nothing but wage-slavery.

Well, I will make one amendment to my statement. The final distinction between illegal workers, wage slaves, and actual slavery, is that illegal workers and wage slaves can actually leave their job, attempt to find better employment, or starve. An actual slave cannot legally leave their job. Perhaps "slavery" was hyperbole, but I have little sympathy for anyone who employs men and women for the sole ability to pay them such low wages as to relegate them to poverty. If you want to hire a Mexican immigrant, sponsor someone in the work program, pay them the legal minimum wage or higher. I don't care if you're a housewife with an illegal maid, you're just as bad as any CEO of a large corporation paying their employees below minimum wage. If you want to complain about the economic hardships of Mexican migrant workers, then you can start by eliminating the way they are paid almost nothing.
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 
Michelle,

Then you had no problem with the 'company town' model of a few decades ago. If you did, why?

Posts: 702 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
heh:
quote:

San Diego tourism leaders and hoteliers fear they could lose a sizable chunk of business this summer from valued “Zonies” who are so angered by elected leaders’ recent censure of Arizona for its illegal-immigration law that they’re mounting an informal boycott of their own.

The San Diego Convention & Visitors Bureau and several hotels report receiving e-mails and letters from Arizona visitors saying they intend to change their plans to travel here in light of local outcry over their home state’s anti-illegal-immigration stance.

<snip>

Still struggling from the prolonged economic downturn, San Diego’s visitor industry can ill afford to lose any of the 2 million Arizonans it counts on annually, said ConVis President Joe Terzi.

“We’re in a very tough environment already because of everything else going on, and we don’t need another negative impact to our industry,” Terzi said. “This affects all the hardworking men and women who count on tourism for their livelihoods, so we’re saying, don’t do something that hurts their livelihoods.”

<snip>

“I’ve been approached by a number of hotels who are very concerned because they’ve received cancellations from Arizona guests,” said Namara Mercer, executive director of the county Hotel-Motel Association. “It’s a huge piece of business for not just the hotels but for all of San Diego. Everybody’s excited because they think occupancies will be stronger this summer, and now this.”

<snip>

Charles Holladay, manager of the Ramada Plaza in Mission Valley, noted that as much as 50 percent of his summer business originates in Arizona, and he already has received a cancellation from a regular customer.

This gets funnier every day. [LOL]
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ratcheting it up a notch is Arizona utilities Commissioner Gary Pierce:
quote:


Dear Mayor Villaraigosa,

I was dismayed to learn that the Los Angeles City Council voted to boycott Arizona and Arizona-based companies — a vote you strongly supported — to show opposition to SB 1070 (Support our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act).

You explained your support of the boycott as follows: “While we recognize that as neighbors, we share resources and ties with the State of Arizona that may be difficult to sever, our goal is not to hurt the local economy of Los Angeles, but to impact the economy of Arizona. Our intent is to use our dollars — or the withholding of our dollars — to send a message.”

I received your message; please receive mine. As a state-wide elected member of the Arizona Corporation Commission overseeing Arizona’s electric and water utilities, I too am keenly aware of the “resources and ties” we share with the City of Los Angeles. In fact, approximately twenty-five percent of the electricity consumed in Los Angeles is generated by power plants in Arizona.

If an economic boycott is truly what you desire, I will be happy to encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements so Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based generation. I am confident that Arizona’s utilities would be happy to take those electrons off your hands. If, however, you find that the City Council lacks the strength of its convictions to turn off the lights in Los Angeles and boycott Arizona power, please reconsider the wisdom of attempting to harm Arizona’s economy.

People of goodwill can disagree over the merits of SB 1070. A state-wide economic boycott of Arizona is not a message sent in goodwill.

Sincerely,

Commissioner Gary Pierce

LA gets Los Angeles gets 25% of its power from Arizona, who's going to blink first? [LOL]

[ May 18, 2010, 07:20 PM: Message edited by: G2 ]

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 G2:
LA gets Los Angeles gets 25% of its power from Arizona, who's going to blink first? [LOL]

Threatening to stop the power is silly. It would be exactly the same as if CA had decided to boycott AZ power, with a lot of bad PR to boot.

No, a much better approach would be to lobby for an AZ law that adds an export tax to all AZ power that leaves the state. Then size the tax to be equal to the expected revenue loss from the CA boycotts. That way you have the citizens of CA directly paying for the policies of their government.

I'm assuming that AZ probably doesn't export significant power to any other state, since most other states don't actively try and export their pollution to just over the state border.

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  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 
Heading out to AZ in a few weeks for the 4th time in 2 years; doing my part to keep the economy going.
[Razz]

Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  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 
Enjoy your trip, Colin. After all, you have as much right to ignore a boycott as to keep it.

Just remember to bring your ID. [Big Grin]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  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 
Colin doesn't have brown skin. He's fine.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[Roll Eyes]

I used to feel stupid when I left my wallet at home. Now I realize it's my constitutional right to drive a car, buy alcohol, etc, without having any ID on me.

I mean, if the local PD pulls up in my driveway, and finds me huffing down with 10 tanks of nitrous oxide in my back yard, and asks to see my "papiers" showing that I'm running a dental office, I should just call the cop a Nazi and educate him on my constitutional right to not be treated like somebody in 1940s Germany. That will really keep me out of jail.

Oh yeah, and what about my fertilizer collection? All 2000 lbs of it. Where is my farm? "Up yours smokey, I don't need a permit to buy 2000 lbs of fertilizer, and electronic detonators, and 500 gallons of gasoline, this isn't Russia!"

See, it's true, all those innocent farmers, dentists, chemists, and lawn care business owners that are being unjustly imprisoned.

Screw the bank when they say they need picture I.D. Damn communists!

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 
But you're also standing in the United States of America, Grant. And your dog was barking.

So show your papers, or be hauled in until you do!! [Smile]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  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:
I mean, if the local PD pulls up in my driveway, and finds me huffing down with 10 tanks of nitrous oxide in my back yard...
You would be well within your rights to refuse to show him those papers, even if you had them. The officer, in fact, has no right to pull into your driveway, unless he saw you "huffing" from your backyard -- as the subsequent court case would establish.

I'm sure the government is gratified by your absolute faith in its benevolence.

Posts: 22935 | 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 TomDavidson:
quote:
I mean, if the local PD pulls up in my driveway, and finds me huffing down with 10 tanks of nitrous oxide in my back yard...
You would be well within your rights to refuse to show him those papers, even if you had them. The officer, in fact, has no right to pull into your driveway, unless he saw you "huffing" from your backyard -- as the subsequent court case would establish.

I'm sure the government is gratified by your absolute faith in its benevolence.

Problem being that, per the AZ law, if you don't produce those papers, you're now illegal and don't get that trail, never mind guaranteed access to the attorney to argue that you should get it.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  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 
Actually, as I mentioned a few weeks ago, when I was there Feb last year and driving back from Mexico, we were stopped and profiled by ICE. It was a checkpoint about 30 miles north of the border.

They didn't check ID they just asked "are you all US citizens?" - to which we all answered in passable English "yes, we are". I do wonder what would have happened if my sister in law - who was born in Guatemala & is a US citizen - was with us. They might have asked to see her ID, maybe not being in a car full of pale-faces... Maybe next trip.

The comical thing is those ICE checkpoints are more over the top than the AZ law.

Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  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 Grant:
[Roll Eyes]

I used to feel stupid when I left my wallet at home. Now I realize it's my constitutional right to drive a car, buy alcohol, etc, without having any ID on me.

I mean, if the local PD pulls up in my driveway, and finds me huffing down with 10 tanks of nitrous oxide in my back yard, and asks to see my "papiers" showing that I'm running a dental office, I should just call the cop a Nazi and educate him on my constitutional right to not be treated like somebody in 1940s Germany. That will really keep me out of jail.

Oh yeah, and what about my fertilizer collection? All 2000 lbs of it. Where is my farm? "Up yours smokey, I don't need a permit to buy 2000 lbs of fertilizer, and electronic detonators, and 500 gallons of gasoline, this isn't Russia!"

See, it's true, all those innocent farmers, dentists, chemists, and lawn care business owners that are being unjustly imprisoned.

Screw the bank when they say they need picture I.D. Damn communists!

You're missing here that all of those ID checks are prompted by specific, defined acts. There's no arbitrary "reasonable suspicion" element, but a strongly defined trigger that doesn't leave making such a check up to the the discretion of the authority in question. The law doesn't say "check ID if you think the person isn't doing this without meeting the requirements, it says check ID regardless of what you think about the person's status.

This is also why certain permits have to be publicly posted (to server alcohol, to do major construction, to dispense medicine, etc...) Suspicion isn't as issue, because the act itself is flagged for a universal check.

So, unless you're willing to say that everyone should have to get a permit to work in their garden, or to walk on the sidewalk, your parallel doesn't work. If police want to detain someone, they've got enough leeway to invent a reason, and after that everything else is out the window if that person doesn't happen to have ID.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ken_in_sc
Member
Member # 6462

 - posted      Profile for ken_in_sc   Email ken_in_sc       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don’t see any mention here about buycotts, as opposed to boycotts. I have seen several mentions on other sites of people organizing support efforts to encourage buying and visiting Arizona because of this issue. If I had a choice between buying something from Arizona or California, I’d choose Arizona.
Posts: 159 | Registered: May 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 Pyrtolin:

You're missing here that all of those ID checks are prompted by specific, defined acts. There's no arbitrary "reasonable suspicion" element, but a strongly defined trigger that doesn't leave making such a check up to the the discretion of the authority in question. The law doesn't say "check ID if you think the person isn't doing this without meeting the requirements, it says check ID regardless of what you think about the person's status.

This is also why certain permits have to be publicly posted (to server alcohol, to do major construction, to dispense medicine, etc...) Suspicion isn't as issue, because the act itself is flagged for a universal check.

So, unless you're willing to say that everyone should have to get a permit to work in their garden, or to walk on the sidewalk, your parallel doesn't work. If police want to detain someone, they've got enough leeway to invent a reason, and after that everything else is out the window if that person doesn't happen to have ID.

Point to you, Pyr.
Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ken_in_sc
Member
Member # 6462

 - posted      Profile for ken_in_sc   Email ken_in_sc       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In case you think from my previous post, that I am anti-Hispanic or anti-immigration, I'm not. At one time I had a favorable impression of the illegal immigrants here in the US and in the local area. I thought they were a benefit to our community. I had seen some Hispanic construction workers—I am pretty sure they were illegal—at a previous job and I was impressed with their work ethic and the quality of their work. However, after the May Day demonstrations of 2006 I changed my mind. When I saw the Mexican flags, the Reconquista posters, claims that parts of the US was Azatlan and belonged to them and the demands for voting rights for people who were not citizens and living here illegally, I was appalled. I then realized that no matter how beneficial they were economically, this was a national security issue and something had to be done about it. As a result, I support Arizona’s new law and I think other states should follow suit. There is some kind of undue influence going on at the national level and the state level seems to be more responsive on this issue. People who want to come here should come here legally and respect our laws and customs, the same, as we have to do in their countries.
Posts: 159 | Registered: May 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:
Problem being that, per the AZ law, if you don't produce those papers, you're now illegal and don't get that trail, never mind guaranteed access to the attorney to argue that you should get it.
That is, of course, a lie.
Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  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 
Although it is an exageration (oh, OK, it's a lie [Smile] ), there have been several people on this forum who have argued that Constitutional Rights do not apply to citizens of other countries.

Under that reasoning, illegal aliens do not require a fair trial before being deported. [Wink]

[ May 20, 2010, 02:31 PM: Message edited by: Wayward Son ]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 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 jasonr:
quote:
Problem being that, per the AZ law, if you don't produce those papers, you're now illegal and don't get that trail, never mind guaranteed access to the attorney to argue that you should get it.
That is, of course, a lie.
Check back to what Pete has said about the problems with dealing with the legal issues around immigration, never mind the problems that have led to citizens nearly or actually being deported because they were denied the chance to prove their case.

Once you're flagged as being here illegally, it becomes very difficult prove otherwise.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  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:
Check back to what Pete has said about the problems with dealing with the legal issues around immigration, never mind the problems that have led to citizens nearly or actually being deported because they were denied the chance to prove their case.

Once you're flagged as being here illegally, it becomes very difficult prove otherwise.

Again, are you suggesting that the Arizona police have the authority to physically deport suspected illegals to Mexico? How does this process work exactly? Let's say I'm a cop who grabs some Hispanic looking dude off his lawn in his underwear while he's going to pick up the morning paper, and I find no paperwork and refuse to give him the chance to produce his papers that he left in his house (along with his pants). What now? Do I roll him up in a carpet, drive up to the Mexican border and toss him over the line? Does he get loaded into a C-17 and parachuted into Mexico?

I don't know, you'd think that physically deporting a person requires some paperwork. After all, how does the Mexican government know that this person is really one of their citizens and not some criminal the U.S. government is trying to pass off to them? So the government can't be bothered to check the suspect's paperwork before deporting him, but they can be bothered to file the necessary paperwork with Mexico to deport him?

I'll let Pete speak to this issue, but needless to say, I find the very concept of U.S. citiziens, or even landed immigrants, being deported as illegal aliens to be very difficult to wrap my head around. Moreover, since (for the millionth time) Arizona law enforcement CANNOT ever under any circumstances deport anyone, what does this even have to do with the Arizona law?

[ May 20, 2010, 03:08 PM: Message edited by: jasonr ]

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  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:
I'll let Pete speak to this issue, but needless to say, I find the very concept of U.S. citiziens, or even landed immigrants, being deported as illegal aliens to be very difficult to wrap my head around. Moreover, since (for the millionth time) Arizona law enforcement CANNOT ever under any circumstances deport anyone, what does this even have to do with the Arizona law?]
It seems to me that you're nitpicking a linguistic simplification. The police can't deport him, but they can turn him over to INS as an illegal immigrant, and INS handles the processing from there on out.

And natural US citizens facing deportation or in fact being deported due to errors of one sort or another is not unheard of; I posted a link earlier that talks about at least one case of such happening and estimates that there are probably better than a thousand US citizens somewhere in the process, but the number is hard to count because INS refuses to keep statistics on mistakes that they've made.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  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 Pyrtolin:
It seems to me that you're nitpicking a linguistic simplification. The police can't deport him, but they can turn him over to INS as an illegal immigrant, and INS handles the processing from there on out.

And natural US citizens facing deportation or in fact being deported due to errors of one sort or another is not unheard of; I posted a link earlier that talks about at least one case of such happening and estimates that there are probably better than a thousand US citizens somewhere in the process, but the number is hard to count because INS refuses to keep statistics on mistakes that they've made. [/QB]

Then it seems to me that the actual problem lies with the INS. But I somehow doubt that if the INS made no mistakes at all, that you would still not support the police rounding up suspected illegals due to lack of proper identification.

[ May 20, 2010, 04:34 PM: Message edited by: Grant ]

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:
Then it seems to me that the actual problem lies with the INS. But I somehow doubt that if the INS made no mistakes at all, that you would still not support the police rounding up suspected illegals due to lack of proper identification.
Exactly. If INS are prone to accidental deportations, then they can just as easily mistakenly deport someone caught by one of their agents, and this really has nothing whatsoever to do with the Arizona law.
Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rallan
Member
Member # 1936

 - posted      Profile for Rallan   Email Rallan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Grant:
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.

I don't exactly have my finger on the pulse of the American Southwest (unsurprisingly, since I live on the wrong side of the Pacific Ocean [Smile] ), but I can't see it happening. The Arizona boycotts are happening because of outrage at something that's fairly real and tangible and incredibly divisive.

But a counter-boycott of California by other states? There's just not a clear enough point to rally around. So some municipalities in California are boycotting Arizona because they're upset at its new laws. Whoopee. So some of the boycotts of Arizonan stuff across America are happening in California. Even bigger whoopee. I can't see it turning into boycotts of Californian products unless California suddenly and irrationally becomes a lightning rod for unexplainable anger like France did a few years ago.

Posts: 2570 | 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 
As I said, it's far fetched, but the area where it is most divisive is in the southwest. And the majority of citizens in the southwest.....support the Arizona law. This can either be attributed to racism, or the fact that they have a clearer view of the picture, or some combination of the two.

The basic idea is that most people let other states do what they want to do, without boycotting them. The fact that one municipality decided to boycott Arizona was probably seen as bullying, or at least "breaking the rules." You could take an individual who really doesn't even like the Arizona law, and they still may not agree that L.A. should be boycotting the state.

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:
But a counter-boycott of California by other states? There's just not a clear enough point to rally around.
You don't think people might get a little pissed off at some California lawmakers boycotting their State over an issue where the majority of the country sides with Arizona? So let me get this straight, you consider the hysterics and hyperbole of the pro-illegal immigration lobby "tangible" and capable of generating outrage, but an boycott damaging Arizona's economy and hitting its voters in the pocket books, that's not "tangible"?

My thinking on this is that one of two things will happen. First, either LA and San Francisco and the others threatening boycott are going to pussy out on this and quietly back away from this position when they calculate the money it's going to cost them to carry through with their plans. Hint: a Municipality can't unilaterally breach a contract just because some politician wants to score political points. These municipalities are playing with legal dynamite and risking some serious monetary consequences when they get their self-righteous asses sued.

However, let's say the municipalities do have more balls than I credit them for and they find a way to make this boycott sting, either by just breaking their contracts (to hell with the cost) or by gradually phasing out Arizona contracts by simply not renewing or exercising whatever cancellation with notice clauses are built in. At that point, if they start to do real damage to Arizona's economy and local Arizona businesses you're in lalaland if you think Arizonans won't retaliate.

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 
"And the majority of citizens in the southwest.....support the Arizona law."

The stats I saw a week or so back show around 50% approval from the Hispanic citizens. Obviously, they are a bunch of self-haters. Furthermore, you can't swing a dead cat in the SW without hitting someone with Hispanic roots, so blanket statements that the region is racist is just hyperbole and lazy debating.

It's easy to throw around incendiary bombs; much more difficult to try to understand what's really going on.

It is interesting that, with around 70-some% of people supporting this, the broad outrage and boycotts” is even getting that much attention. Of course, look @ the MSM talking heads, and look at the painfully obvious globalist talking points… Of course they are outraged.

Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  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