Does California really want to boycott Arizona?

[Reverend Rick]

Some times it pays to think things through. :yes:

FOXNews.com - Arizona Official Threatens to Cut Off Los Angeles Power as Payback for Boycott

 

[Smoke]

That's just like an Arizona public official. Makes a threat that has no meaning apart from his office, and then says "that he was speaking for himself, not the entire commission."

 

[Mister_T]

Like I said when I originally saw this article by Fixed News (Los Angeles operating by candlelight? ), Pierce is making his "stick" out to be larger than it really is. Somehow, I think the city of Los Angeles will be just fine:

The LADWP currently maintains a generating capacity of 7,200 megawatts, in excess of the peak demand of 6,165 megawatts by the city of Los Angeles.[5] It provides this surplus electricity to other utilities, selling 23 million megawatt-hours in 2003. As of 2005, the LADWP operates four natural gas-fired generators within city boundaries, which account for 26% of capacity.[5] It receives 52% of its electricity from coal-fired plants in Utah, Arizona, and Nevada.[6] A further 11% is generated using nuclear power.[5] It receives about 6% of its electricity from hydropower, most coming from Hoover Dam and the rest coming from the aqueduct system itself as the water descends from its mountain sources.[7]
The LADWP, along with the California Department of Water Resources, also operates the Castaic Pumped Storage Power Station as a pumped storage facility. Water flows from the upper resevoir to the lower during the day, generating power when demand is highest, and is pumped back up at night when excess capacity is available.[8] About 1,600 megawatts, or 22% of the total capacity, is generated at this facility alone [7]. The Los Angeles City Council voted in 2004 to direct the LADWP to generate 20% of its energy (excluding Hoover Dam) from clean sources by 2010 [7]. Current "green power" sources account for 5% of the LADWP's capacity, but there are plans to add a 120 megawatt wind farm in Tehachapi, California, and produce electricity from geothermal sources in the Salton Sea area and photovoltaic sources.[7]

Los Angeles Department of Water and Power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Smoke]

Somehow, I think the city of Los Angeles will be just fine

Whether it is or not, Gary Pierce is talking about protesting a boycott by taking more business away from Arizona. What an idiot.

 

[Mister_T]

Whether it is or not, Gary Pierce is talking about protesting a boycott by taking more business away from Arizona. What an idiot.

Well if his past decison making is any indication, he's not exactly someone who thinks things through.

 

[monta]

The measures threatened by either state seem extreme, or even bully boy tactics, if the law is unconstitutional ,it should and I am sure, will be dealt with by the proper channels, is there really a need to start hissing at each other over state lines?

 

[enchanted_one1975]

All these boycotts have the potential to do is hurt the private businesses that are in certain states. Do you think any laws would change if a few companies are feeling a crunch? They may wind up paying less taxes in a boycott year, but by sticking with the new law, the states have the potential to save so much more money in the benefits that are currently being paid out to the illegals that will soon be departing.

 

[Smoke]

but by sticking with the new law, the states have the potential to save so much more money in the benefits that are currently being paid out to the illegals that will soon be departing.

I'd like you to try to document that claim. I don't think you can.

 

[enchanted_one1975]

I'd like you to try to document that claim. I don't think you can.

SOURCE

• $11 billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year by state governments.
• Illegal households only pay about one-third the amount of federal taxes that non-illegal households pay.
• Illegal households create a net fiscal deficit at the federal level of more than $10 billion a year. If given amnesty, this number could grow to more than $29 billion.
• $1.9 billion dollars a year is spent on food-assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC and free school lunches for illegal aliens.
• $1.6 billion is spent on the federal prison and court system for illegal aliens.
• $2.5 billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens.
• About 21 percent of the population of U.S. prisons is classified as “noncitizens” from Mexico, Colombia, Cuba and the Dominican Republic. About 5 percent is listed as “unknown.”

 

[Revoltingest]

A revolting ode to an ill considered embargo.

Will Arizona throw the switch?
Can So Cal take the power glitch?
But if they can't,
they ought recant
lest they be snubbed with "Take that, b....!"

 

[Smoke]

SOURCE

[/LIST]

The source cites a study by the Center for Immigration Studies, an anti-immigrant group. If you read the detailed explanation of that study (here), it explains that they include the costs of programs that benefit the U.S. citizen children of people they presume to be illegal aliens. That is, if someone the CIS deems likely to be an illegal alien has a child who is an American citizen, any federal benefits received by the that child are included in their cost totals.

The study also fails to account for the costs of enforcement, taking the position that immigration law is presently completely unenforced and that the supposed savings gained by enforcement would more than offset the costs. That's a very doubtful proposition.

Note also that this study considers only federal costs, and makes no reference to any state costs or to the contributions of illegal immigrants to state economies.

 

[Nepenthe]

SOURCE
[/list]

Yeah, this "source" is actually a notorious right-wing chain mail circulated in 2007. I was going to debunk it but Smoke already started to kick it in the teeth. Here's a complete debunking of the list and the source. Simply put the #s and the $ and the chain e-mail are a propogandistic lie:
Cost of Illegal Immigrants | FactCheck.org

 

[Autodidact]

All these boycotts have the potential to do is hurt the private businesses that are in certain states. Do you think any laws would change if a few companies are feeling a crunch? They may wind up paying less taxes in a boycott year, but by sticking with the new law, the states have the potential to save so much more money in the benefits that are currently being paid out to the illegals that will soon be departing.

The last claim is false for two reasons. First, states do not pay welfare to illegal immigrants. Second, illegal immigrants pay much more in taxes than they receive in benefits of any kind.

 

[Mister_T]

A revolting ode to an ill considered embargo.

Will Arizona throw the switch?
Can So Cal take the power glitch?
But if they can't,
they ought recant
lest they be snubbed with "Take that, b....!"

Arizona is high on crack
Discontinuing L.A.'s power won't do jack
It reminds us of an old adage:
"Hurry, raise the drawbridge!"
Screamed the mouse with an erection floating down river on his back.

 

[enchanted_one1975]

The last claim is false for two reasons. First, states do not pay welfare to illegal immigrants. Second, illegal immigrants pay much more in taxes than they receive in benefits of any kind.

Source?

 

[Reverend Rick]

I have been due to go on a rant, California should keep their nose out of Arizona's business.

If they want to slug it out in the mud with boycotts, the door swings both ways.

Why don't we just let the supreme court rule on the Arizona's new law and leave it at that?

 

[Smoke]

I have been due to go on a rant, California should keep their nose out of Arizona's business.

Cool. I'm for the boycott too.

 

[Mister_T]

I have been due to go on a rant, California should keep their nose out of Arizona's business.

And people who don't live in California should keep their nose out of it's business. California has the right to decide who they want to do business with and who they don't.

If they want to slug it out in the mud with boycotts, the door swings both ways.

Only one way swings more than the other. California won't be the ones hurting.

Why don't we just let the supreme court rule on the Arizona's new law and leave it at that?

Maybe when the supreme court does decide to do something, people will stop boycotting.

 

[Falvlun]

I understand the use of a boycott to show one's displeasure, and hopefully convince people that it is not in their interest to act in the way that they are acting.

However, I have found the tourism boycotts of Arizona a bit silly. Do people really think that Arizona, with the huge draw of the Grand Canyon, will really suffer enough of a dip in tourism to even care if a few people from California choose not to visit?

 

[Kathryn]

California - what a joke. The Greece of the United States.