When asked how those boycotts were progressing, Jack Kyser, director of the Los Angeles Economic Development Corporation, responds "The comment ‘not so well’ looks to be fairly accurate."
Los Angeles was one of those cities that made a huge showing of boycotting Arizona, but has found that it might not economically benefit their own residents, so they make "exemptions" to their own boycott.
The Los Angeles City Council on Wednesday granted itself an exemption to the city’s boycott of Arizona to keep a red light photo enforcement program operating. The program generates about $3.6 million in annual ticket revenue for the city. The day before, Oakland voted to approve a $1 million contract with a multinational advertising company with corporate offices in Phoenix.
San Jose, which has several contracts with Arizona companies cited potential economic harm in stopping short of a full boycott, voting instead for an official denunciation of SB 1070.
Jack Pitney, Professor of American Politics at Claremont McKenna College claims that a boycott of a state fails for three specific reasons:
“First you have to figure out which goods and services come from the state. In a complex economy, that determination can be very tricky.”
Next, officials must figure out which contracts may be lawfully canceled. Attorneys have to spend lots of billable hours on such questions, Mr. Pitney says.
“Then you have to arrange for goods and services from some other state," he says. "In many cases, the locality chose an Arizona company because it was the low bidder or was otherwise superior to the alternatives," he says. "In tough economic times," he adds, "it's hard to justify such a choice.”
They acted before they thought about their actions and now they find it impossible to boycott a state they depend on for certain goods or services.
Then again, when we see an example such as the one over at Hot Air, showing the type of people that vote on these boycotts, those that act before thinking and aren't actually the brightest bulb in the box.
Peggy West, Milwaukee County Board Supervisor, at a hearing that was open to the public, and caught on video, exemplifies my statement above.
Video below:
Text:
“If this was Texas, which is a state that is directly on the border with Mexico, and they were calling for a measure like this, saying that they have a major issue with, you know, undocumented people flooding their borders, I would say, I would have to look twice at this, but this is a state that’s a ways removed from the border."
Malkin suggests a geography lesson. I concur.
While it is entertaining to show the sheer ignorance of people like Peggy West, those in a position of a County Board Supervisor, it also is indicative of the continued misrepresentation of a law that does nothing more than mimic federal law and gives police the tools needed to enforce the law, which is their job in the first place.
For those that continue to portray the law as justification to racially profile and imply that police can simply walk up to anyone on the street that they believe is here illegally, perhaps they should read the law itself before speaking, they will look a lot less foolish.
• During a lawful stop, directs law enforcement officers to determine immigration status of individuals who they reasonably suspect to be illegal aliens, and for all persons who are arrested. (§ 2(B), page 1).
Provides that persons who present any federal, state or local identification documents that require verification of lawful status (e.g., an Arizona driver’s license) when issued are presumed to be lawfully present. (§ 2(B), page 1).
So, if I am driving along in my car and my foot gets a little heavy on the gas peddle and the police stop me and ask for my driver's license and registration as is their habit, do I get to scream racial profiling?
No.
Yet if an immigrant, here legally or illegally, gets asked for that same thing, they do get to scream racial profiling?
I call bullshit.
.
