LA City Council Votes to Boycott Arizona

[carlfense]

Something about this just doesn't seem right.

 

A city choosing to boycott goods and services from another state based upon said state's federally granted right to create its own laws? And then some of the legislature expressing interest in attempting to lure away conventions and jobs, based on that law that they find disagreeable?

 

Me thinks that California, at this time and place economically, should be fostering any business relationships it can get. Not severing ties...

 

Linky

 

So you're saying that one state has a right to create laws (even though this one will probably be found unconstitutional) but another state (or city, in this case) should not be able to react to the other state's choices? That seems hypocritical doesn't it?

[carlfense]

Here's the deal. Arizona's immigration law mirrors the federal statute to a T. When they crafted this law, they made sure they crossed all the T's and dotted the I's.

 

The Justice Dept. would have already had a hold put on the law with one of the the federal courts already if they had standing, but up until now they haven't found a way to challenge it.

 

If LA wants a pi$$ing match over this law then Arizona should cut the power and water off to LA. I wonder who would flinch in that game of chicken?

Doesn't matter if it's preempted by federal law.

[Bradr]

Something about this just doesn't seem right.

 

A city choosing to boycott goods and services from another state based upon said state's federally granted right to create its own laws? And then some of the legislature expressing interest in attempting to lure away conventions and jobs, based on that law that they find disagreeable?

 

Me thinks that California, at this time and place economically, should be fostering any business relationships it can get. Not severing ties...

 

Linky

 

So you're saying that one state has a right to create laws (even though this one will probably be found unconstitutional) but another state (or city, in this case) should not be able to react to the other state's choices? That seems hypocritical doesn't it?

 

You want hypocrisy?

 

How about a state passing a law that has been interpreted as broadly discriminating towards a group (Latinos) based upon their ethnicity.

 

Being countered by a state passing a law that that broadly targets a group (Arizonans) regardless of political ideology or thoughts in the matter.

 

Huh.

 

Edit:

And another thing irks me here.

 

Suppose some of those same Arizonans don't support Arizona's bill at all. Suppose too that one of those people owns a small business that has a contract in LA. Poof, contract gone. How would you feel if Nebraska's legislature pissed off another state, and you lost your contracts to do business in Iowa, Kansas, Colorado, or anywhere else because of a decision out of your hands? What are you supposed to do? Move out of state because you don't like a law passed here? Tell that to Arizonans whose property values have fallen worse than many other states in the nation.

[74Hunter]

The problem with this law is that, if you look Hispanic, you can be pulled over and required to show papers, whether you're American or non-American. That is a tremendous violation of civil rights.

That is the common misconception that is being spread around. The cops can't pull you over for looking Hispanic, that would be profiling, which has been, and still is illegal. This law pertains to people rightfully pulled over or stopped by police. Those people have to simply show proper ID or documentation.

 

It would be a shame if this law is found to be unconstitutional.

[holvy83]

The problem with this law is that, if you look Hispanic, you can be pulled over and required to show papers, whether you're American or non-American. That is a tremendous violation of civil rights.

That is the common misconception that is being spread around. The cops can't pull you over for looking Hispanic, that would be profiling, which has been, and still is illegal. This law pertains to people rightfully pulled over or stopped by police. Those people have to simply show proper ID or documentation.

 

It would be a shame if this law is found to be unconstitutional.

 

Is this really any different to when you get pulled over, hand them your ID they go run it and find that say you are wanted for something else and throw you jail? I do not believe for one second that this will turn into a racial profiling hunt for law enforcement as to which some think it will be, because if it was and I was a cop in AZ, I would be thinking of a career change!

[sarge87]

The problem with this law is that, if you look Hispanic, you can be pulled over and required to show papers, whether you're American or non-American. That is a tremendous violation of civil rights.

That is the common misconception that is being spread around. The cops can't pull you over for looking Hispanic, that would be profiling, which has been, and still is illegal. This law pertains to people rightfully pulled over or stopped by police. Those people have to simply show proper ID or documentation.

 

It would be a shame if this law is found to be unconstitutional.

You are correct. All the opponents of this law can only lie and distort what it actually details.

 

And the law won't be declared unconstitutional. Why you ask? Arizona has a history of writing sound laws that withstand legal challenges. The ACLU and MALDEF had so far failed to overturn two prior Arizona laws, one requiring proof of citizenship for voting and the other dissolving any business that knowingly hires illegal immigrants more than once. The latter case is before the U.S. Supreme Court.

[sarge87]

Here's the deal. Arizona's immigration law mirrors the federal statute to a T. When they crafted this law, they made sure they crossed all the T's and dotted the I's.

 

The Justice Dept. would have already had a hold put on the law with one of the the federal courts already if they had standing, but up until now they haven't found a way to challenge it.

 

If LA wants a pi$ing match over this law then Arizona should cut the power and water off to LA. I wonder who would flinch in that game of chicken?

Doesn't matter if it's preempted by federal law.

Really??? Then I guess you've never heard of 287(g).

 

Besides, AZ Senate Bill 1070 does not preempt anything. It only requires the state to enforce federal law which is perfectly legal. If that weren't the case, then the States couldn't prosecute capital crimes like bank robbery, kidnapping, and murder, because there are federal laws in place prohibiting those heinous acts.

 

You can't strike down a law as unconstitutional on "what ifs." So sorry, you are dead wrong here and I have constitutional scholars to back me up on this one.

[carlfense]

Here's the deal. Arizona's immigration law mirrors the federal statute to a T. When they crafted this law, they made sure they crossed all the T's and dotted the I's.

 

The Justice Dept. would have already had a hold put on the law with one of the the federal courts already if they had standing, but up until now they haven't found a way to challenge it.

 

If LA wants a pi$ing match over this law then Arizona should cut the power and water off to LA. I wonder who would flinch in that game of chicken?

Doesn't matter if it's preempted by federal law.

Really??? Then I guess you've never heard of 287(g).

 

Besides, AZ Senate Bill 1070 does not preempt anything. It only requires the state to enforce federal law which is perfectly legal. If that weren't the case, then the States couldn't prosecute capital crimes like bank robbery, kidnapping, and murder, because there are federal laws in place prohibiting those heinous acts.

 

You can't strike down a law as unconstitutional on "what ifs." So sorry, you are dead wrong here and I have constitutional scholars to back me up on this one.

So sorry, you are dead wrong here and I have constitutional scholars to back me up on this one.

[carlfense]

Something about this just doesn't seem right.

 

A city choosing to boycott goods and services from another state based upon said state's federally granted right to create its own laws? And then some of the legislature expressing interest in attempting to lure away conventions and jobs, based on that law that they find disagreeable?

 

Me thinks that California, at this time and place economically, should be fostering any business relationships it can get. Not severing ties...

 

Linky

 

So you're saying that one state has a right to create laws (even though this one will probably be found unconstitutional) but another state (or city, in this case) should not be able to react to the other state's choices? That seems hypocritical doesn't it?

 

You want hypocrisy?

 

How about a state passing a law that has been interpreted as broadly discriminating towards a group (Latinos) based upon their ethnicity.

 

Being countered by a state passing a law that that broadly targets a group (Arizonans) regardless of political ideology or thoughts in the matter.

 

Huh.

 

Edit:

And another thing irks me here.

 

Suppose some of those same Arizonans don't support Arizona's bill at all. Suppose too that one of those people owns a small business that has a contract in LA. Poof, contract gone. How would you feel if Nebraska's legislature pissed off another state, and you lost your contracts to do business in Iowa, Kansas, Colorado, or anywhere else because of a decision out of your hands? What are you supposed to do? Move out of state because you don't like a law passed here? Tell that to Arizonans whose property values have fallen worse than many other states in the nation.

The boycott is voluntary. No one will be required to void contracts and if they do choose to do so they will be subject to breach of contract suits like anyone else. Arizonans wanted this law and therefore they have accepted the consequences. (See Hazleton, PA and many others.) If you are going to pass questionable legislation you will face repercussions.

[knapplc]

The problem with this law is that, if you look Hispanic, you can be pulled over and required to show papers, whether you're American or non-American. That is a tremendous violation of civil rights.

That is the common misconception that is being spread around. The cops can't pull you over for looking Hispanic, that would be profiling, which has been, and still is illegal. This law pertains to people rightfully pulled over or stopped by police. Those people have to simply show proper ID or documentation.

 

It would be a shame if this law is found to be unconstitutional.

You are correct. All the opponents of this law can only lie and distort what it actually details.

 

And the law won't be declared unconstitutional. Why you ask? Arizona has a history of writing sound laws that withstand legal challenges. The ACLU and MALDEF had so far failed to overturn two prior Arizona laws, one requiring proof of citizenship for voting and the other dissolving any business that knowingly hires illegal immigrants more than once. The latter case is before the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

Right, right, right, I get all that. You guys know all about pretext, so let's not get bogged down with how they get pulled over. The fact is that if the cops want to pull a car over they can show probable cause in 90 different ways, from speeding to rolling stops to broken tail lights. At the end of the day they're still pulled over, and they still have to produce ID. Cops will not be doing this to Whites, hence the potential for discrimination.

[knapplc]

You want hypocrisy?

 

How about a state passing a law that has been interpreted as broadly discriminating towards a group (Latinos) based upon their ethnicity.

 

Being countered by a state passing a law that that broadly targets a group (Arizonans) regardless of political ideology or thoughts in the matter.

 

The primary difference here is that being an Arizonan doesn't put you in a protected class, like being White or Hispanic does. If you discriminate against White people for being White, you've got a problem; same goes for Hispanics. Arizona citizens do not form a protected class, just like Husker fans don't form a protected class.

[sarge87]

Arizona residents and businesses are fighting back.

 

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.

 

Tourism officials are striking back. In an open letter, they urge Arizona residents to overlook local politics and come to San Diego just as they always have for its mild climate, beaches and attractions. The visitors bureau, in conjunction with the San Diego County Hotel-Motel Association, plans to circulate the letter to media outlets and in advertising this weekend in The Arizona Republic.

 

The bureau says it has received about 25 to 30 e-mails from Arizona residents reacting to resolutions passed last month by the San Diego City Council and school board, which were little more than symbolic protests aimed at the neighboring state's lawmakers.

 

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.

 

More...

 

 

This is the "Dumbest Person in the World" quote of the day by the local San Diego politician who voted to censure Arizona...

"It's sad that people would cancel their plans to come here in reaction to that, but I still think we did the right thing," Jackson said. "Certainly, we know how important tourism is to San Diego, and it wasn't my intent to impact the tourism trade."

[sarge87]

The problem with this law is that, if you look Hispanic, you can be pulled over and required to show papers, whether you're American or non-American. That is a tremendous violation of civil rights.

That is the common misconception that is being spread around. The cops can't pull you over for looking Hispanic, that would be profiling, which has been, and still is illegal. This law pertains to people rightfully pulled over or stopped by police. Those people have to simply show proper ID or documentation.

 

It would be a shame if this law is found to be unconstitutional.

You are correct. All the opponents of this law can only lie and distort what it actually details.

 

And the law won't be declared unconstitutional. Why you ask? Arizona has a history of writing sound laws that withstand legal challenges. The ACLU and MALDEF had so far failed to overturn two prior Arizona laws, one requiring proof of citizenship for voting and the other dissolving any business that knowingly hires illegal immigrants more than once. The latter case is before the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

Right, right, right, I get all that. You guys know all about pretext, so let's not get bogged down with how they get pulled over. The fact is that if the cops want to pull a car over they can show probable cause in 90 different ways, from speeding to rolling stops to broken tail lights. At the end of the day they're still pulled over, and they still have to produce ID. Cops will not be doing this to Whites, hence the potential for discrimination.

Wow!!! You must be the Amazing Kreskin to know what's in a persons mind. So basically you're saying, if a black police officer pulls me over, then I should figure he's just making up for 200 years of slavery, or an Asian police officer having a chip on his shoulder because his/her Grandparents were interned during WWII, or a Hispanic police officer getting retribution for supposedly stealing the Southwest US from Mexico?

 

Since the Alien Act of 1940 passed, it's long been a requirement of federal law for aliens to have certain documents on their person while in the United States, just as it is a requirement of most countries on the planet for U.S. citizens who travel there to have their documents in their possession while in that country. I've traveled extensively to both Canada and Mexico and get asked for my papers all the time. Why should we not expect the same here?

 

Arizona has become ground zero for human trafficking, Mexican gangs, kidnapping, and drug violence, so you can't blame Arizona for enacting a law when the feds keep ignoring the problem.

 

Why don't you go out and secure yourself a Commercial Class A License and you can learn what it is like to get stopped for no reason at all but for driving a commercial vehicle. A law enforcement officer can stop you to look at your ID, paperwork, and daily logs at any time. You can be subject to search and seizure without warrant and required to take a drug test on the spot. Any refusal of the above is a one way ticket to the crossbar motel and your truck/cargo impounded.

 

On a side note....What if other states would have enacted this kind of law?

 

In the aftermath of 9/11, we learned that five of the 19 hijackers had violated federal immigration laws while they were in the United States. In other words, they were illegal aliens. Amazingly, in the months before the attack, four of those five terrorists were stopped by local police for speeding. All four could have been arrested—if the police officers had realized that they were illegal aliens. Mohammad Atta, the leader of the 9/11 terrorists was one of those stopped.

[knapplc]

"Wow!" ???

 

I'll do you one better. Instead of getting a Class A license, how about I go ahead and investigate several thousand discrimination charges in my career. Good enough for you to think I might know what I'm talking about?

[carlfense]

"Wow!" ???

 

I'll do you one better. Instead of getting a Class A license, how about I go ahead and investigate several thousand discrimination charges in my career. Good enough for you to think I might know what I'm talking about?

Nah. I'm sure being a trucker will make you more aware of legal rights than actually practicing law and investigating discrimination cases.