City of Los Angeles boycotts Arizona to protest anti-immigrant legislation

The picture is hilarious. It's even funnier that the series in the NBA between Phoenix and LA starts on Monday in LA. The protests will continue. I want Phoenix to make it to the NBA Finals just because Arizona passed this law so that there will be more protests.

//"...the series in the NBA between Phoenix and LA starts on Monday in LA."// Thank you for contributing that very relevant point to this post, Adrian. As always, thanks so much for reading and commenting.

I am against this boycott because of the residual effects it has economically on private cititzens. I know its been used effectively in the past as civil disobedience, but in Arizona so many lower income people work in services industries that will be disportionately effected and could lose their jobs. In this case, I would favor demonstations and pressuring Arizona to repeal this law as well as the federal government for meaningful immigration reform.

I think the passive resistence of the Phoenix Suns wearing uniforms that say "Los Suns" is great. There are many ways to voice discontent without damaging the livelihood of those least advantaged.

a211423

You make a very, very good point. The LA boycott won't hurt anyone but the people on the bottom of the economic ladder. It's very poorly thought out.

Bottom line: Arizona won't repeal the law, and the more others protest, the stronger the resolve of the Arizona people and government will get.

I think the LA should worry more about LA and California... people in glass houses and all that...

You make excellent points, as always, a211423. Boycotts are ambiguous weapons which hurt many who are not responsible for the problem. Thanks for that perspective!

Hardy, our thought crossed; I didn't copy you--promise! :-) Of course there is historical precedent to boycotting as an effective means of social protest. The critical element is, as you say: is it a strategically considered action? The organizing community needs a strong consensus.

I think LA City Council would be better pressed to address their own issues in the Peoples Republic of Los Angeles, than expressing their issues with other states. People who live in glass houses and all that...

I think it makes a statement; to some it will be seen as a form of harassment, to others it will be seen as a valiant statement of protest. To most, I fear, it will be ignored.

Thank you Billie and Hardy : )

In some cases boycotting is appropriate like the Montgomery Alabama Bus Boycott in 1955, and the grape boycott by the United Farm Workers here in California led by Ceasar Chavez, but for me this is different because of the intersection of factors including the economic crisis that will make it impossible for these workers to get other jobs if they lose their current job as well as diminished social assistance available. These are different times, sadly. : (

Thank you for allowing me to have a different opinion.

I don't see our opinions as differing, a211423. I agree that the criterion you cite is critical for boycott organizers and participants to consider. This boycott is relatively new so the jury is out on whether or not the public consensus will be in support of the boycott. That the City of LA, after considerable debate, voted to join the boycott is one more --and a very significant --step indicating that consensus is growing in support. Thanks again for your viewpoint. I always appreciate the thought and critical comments you contribute.

I support Arizona 100%. This Boycott is the biggest joke ever. All Arizona has to do is cut the power to our state. LA is so bankrupt they owe IOU's to people anyway. This state needs to mind its own business and worry about it's own problems.

I have to say, I'm confused about the image of the walker--is there something here I'm not getting?

Why was the image of the walker chosen? Why does it support the cause? Could it unintentionally offend individuals with disabilities and the elderly?

If the goal is to rally people to change laws and thinking, could there be a more-inclusive, consensus-building image?:
http://altoarizona.com/artcampaign.html

I'd hate for the good work/education/message to be lost because an image was misinterpreted.

You're right, that could be offensive. Thank you for pointing that out, firstdown. I had selected that image because it featured the word "boycott." I'm sorry if the image caused offense to anyone. I have deleted it.

Obviously, the reason other states are taking offense with Arizona's immmigration law, is because it will impact interstate travel. Arnold made a joke about it, but his message is valid.

Since Los Angeles has committed to honoring the $58 million dollars in contracts it currently has with Arizona and the boycott would impede future contracts, I think it seems to be an effective way to protest and should not harm workers in the short term. It looks like other states are considering similar moves. Also, it might give another incentive for the reforms to be taken up at the federal level where it belongs.

Thanks for the report, Billie!

having lived in a country under sanctions, south africa, it had both good and bad effects. they learned to provide for themselves, developed oil from coal, from example. and they were capable of defeating any likely enemies, including the cuban-backed angolans. but emotionally it really hurt. people really didn't like being the world's pariah. that is one reason they surrendered to black majority rule.

so arizona is going to cut power to california. geeze then perhaps colorado will stop water to arizona, which wastes it on golf courses on arid line. they are already behind jackson, n.y., in making english the official language. jackson's reasoning, partly, was that anyone who wants to do business here should speak english. hope the japanese don't start thinking that way.

Robert, the demand that everyone speak English is just short-sighted and narrow-minded bigotry. Protesting with sanctions is a non-violent and civil way to take a stand and there really are few options that might make an impact.

I think the citizens of ARIZONA who live in ARIZONA and are in opposition to the new law should boycott ARIZONA by ordering from online merchants and crossing into border states when possible.

And as a Californian, I would like to see CA get its own house in order on a variety of pressing issues here first, thank you very much.

Thanks for the report,Billie.It's definitely a shame on the part of the authorities in the State of Arizona to show such hostile behavior to whom so ever they please who enters its jurisdiction.They should realize that if this attitude of theirs should continue other states are also bound to boycott visiting Arizona.'Stop being so prejudiced and wake up before its TOO late.'

"City of Los Angeles boycotts Arizona to protest anti-immigrant legislation"

love this title.....so the arizona bill is anti-immigrant? funny, i have read the bill and all i see it talking about is illegals

leciat,
I'm beginning to think that the only people who HAVE read the bill are you and me... you're spot on the money...

Absolutely! Punditty, my friend, you've hit the thumb dead on the nail.

I'm still wondering how many of the people who are so vociferous in their protests against Arizona have actually read the law...

It doesn't mandate that the police do anything, and should they choose to act, it mandates that any actions taken be consistent with federal immigration law, and be accomplished in a manner that preserves the civil rights of all parties...

How is this oppressive or racist? It's not hostile, nor is it confrontational.

from the Immigration Policy Center:
"Arizona’s harsh immigration enforcement law, "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act" (SB 1070, amended by HB 2162) inter alia, requires state and local law enforcement agencies to check the immigration status of individuals it encounters and makes it a state crime to be without proper immigration documentation."

The human rights organization Amnesty International USA opposed the bill before it was signed into law. See why here:
http://blog.amnestyusa.org/us/tell-arizonas-governor-to-veto-sb1070/

IPC is a leftwing group hoping to spread global marxism.
Look at its money sources.

The Los Angeles boycott will not work because if they boycott Arizona then Californians won't see business in their state by Arizonans and Californians will be crying there is no money coming to their state unless they have a subsitute state that will bring the revenues.

At some point, people will realize that the Hispanic community in California, Arizona et al are the indigenous tribes there. The manufactured laws are just manufactured. Pitting people against people or states against states can be very destructive in the end. All the demagoguery lacks the important point that we have to live together and figure out that the exclusion of anyone can result in revolt.

My country. If they want to live here they may do so. LEGALLY!!!!

@Nathanial,
No Hispanic community any where in North, Central or South America is in any sense of the word "indigenous", hence the term "Hispanic". They are as much interlopers as any other European invader.

Please take the time to review your World History text...

Thanks for your response, Billie, and for letting me share input. And thank you for sharing this story with us.

The quote you offer is a complete misrepresentation of the law. The Arizona law, in fact, REQUIRES no action; they can:

42 B. For any lawful STOP, DETENTION OR ARREST made by a law
43 enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law
44 enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or
45 other political subdivision of this state IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF ANY OTHER LAW
(next page)
1 OR ORDINANCE OF A COUNTY, CITY OR TOWN OR THIS STATE where reasonable
2 suspicion exists that the person is an alien who AND is unlawfully present in
3 the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to
4 determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination
5 may hinder or obstruct an investigation. Any person who is arrested shall
6 have the person's immigration status determined before the person is
7 released. The person's immigration status shall be verified with the federal
8 government pursuant to 8 United States code section 1373(c). A law
9 enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other
10 political subdivision of this state may not solely consider race, color or
11 national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to
12 the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution. A person
13 is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States
14 if the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency any of the
15 following:
16 1. A valid Arizona driver license.
17 2. A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license.
18 3. A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal
19 identification.
20 4. If the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States
21 before issuance, any valid United States federal, state or local government
22 issued identification.

In other words, if you're stopped, arrested or detained, law enforcement can ask for proof of citizenship, which is as easy as producing an Arizona drivers license, nonoperating ID, or a tribal ID.

Before screaming racism, please show me the pertinent offending text. Here's a hint: I've read the entire bill, and there isn't any.

Here's a link to the text of the bill, as implemented for anyone who really wants to see what's in it.

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/files/hb21622.pdf

For rational individuals, truth trumps fantasy every time...

Of course, the People's Republic of Los Angeles apparently has forgotten where they get a large portion of their electrical power... what if Arizona decided to boycott them?