1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Does California really want to boycott Arizona?

Discussion in 'North American Politics' started by Reverend Rick, May 19, 2010.

  1. Reverend Rick

    Reverend Rick Frubal Whore Staff Member Premium Member

    Messages:
    20,908
    dust1n likes this.
  2. Smoke

    Smoke Done here.

    Messages:
    19,902
    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."
     
  3. Mister_T

    Mister_T Forum Relic Staff Member Premium Member

    Messages:
    14,592
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    Like I said when I originally saw this article by Fixed News (Los Angeles operating by candlelight? :facepalm:), 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:

    Los Angeles Department of Water and Power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     
    Nepenthe likes this.
  4. Smoke

    Smoke Done here.

    Messages:
    19,902
    Whether it is or not, Gary Pierce is talking about protesting a boycott by taking more business away from Arizona. What an idiot.
     
  5. Mister_T

    Mister_T Forum Relic Staff Member Premium Member

    Messages:
    14,592
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    Well if his past decison making is any indication, he's not exactly someone who thinks things through.
     
    Last edited: May 19, 2010
  6. monta

    monta .

    Messages:
    8,198
    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?
     
  7. enchanted_one1975

    enchanted_one1975 Resident Lycanthrope

    Messages:
    9,703
    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.
     
  8. Smoke

    Smoke Done here.

    Messages:
    19,902
    I'd like you to try to document that claim. I don't think you can.
     
  9. enchanted_one1975

    enchanted_one1975 Resident Lycanthrope

    Messages:
    9,703
    SOURCE
     
    Kathryn likes this.
  10. Revoltingest

    Revoltingest Ignorant Atheist Capitalist Engineer Libertarian

    Messages:
    65,033
    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....!"
     
  11. Smoke

    Smoke Done here.

    Messages:
    19,902
    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.
     
  12. Nepenthe

    Nepenthe Tu Stultus Es

    Messages:
    4,323
    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
     
  13. Autodidact

    Autodidact Intentionally Blank

    Messages:
    23,259
    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.
     
  14. Mister_T

    Mister_T Forum Relic Staff Member Premium Member

    Messages:
    14,592
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    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.

    :rolleyes:
     
  15. enchanted_one1975

    enchanted_one1975 Resident Lycanthrope

    Messages:
    9,703
    Source?
     
  16. Reverend Rick

    Reverend Rick Frubal Whore Staff Member Premium Member

    Messages:
    20,908
    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?
     
    dust1n likes this.
  17. Smoke

    Smoke Done here.

    Messages:
    19,902
    Cool. I'm for the boycott too. :)
     
  18. Mister_T

    Mister_T Forum Relic Staff Member Premium Member

    Messages:
    14,592
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    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.

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


    Maybe when the supreme court does decide to do something, people will stop boycotting.
     
    Smoke likes this.
  19. Falvlun

    Falvlun Earthbending Lemur Staff Member Premium Member

    Messages:
    10,493
    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?
     
  20. Kathryn

    Kathryn Most Spoiled Woman Ever

    Messages:
    15,613
    California - what a joke. The Greece of the United States.
     
Verification:
Draft saved Draft deleted