Thread: L.A. vs. Arizona: Who wins in immigration law dust-up?

csmonitor.com

Los Angeles city council members Janice Hahn and Ed Reyes talk with reporters after the city council approved a resolution to seek sanctions against Arizona for its illegal immigration law, in downtown Los Angeles on Wednesday.


L.A. vs. Arizona: Who wins in immigration law dust-up?
L.A. Has voted to boycott Arizona because of its immigration law, and the UN has suggested it could violate human rights. Will any of this matter to Arizonans?

By Daniel B. Wood, Staff writer
posted May 13, 2010 at 7:25 pm EDT

Los Angeles —
Two recent high-profile actions – the Los Angeles City Council voting to boycott Arizona, and a United Nations statement condemning the state's new illegal immigration law – raise the question: what are the potential impacts of these moves?

Los Angeles on Wednesday became the largest US city to authorize sanctions against Arizona because of its tough new immigration law. The city council voted 13-1 to prohibit the city from conducting business with Arizona unless SB 1070 – signed into law April 24, and set to take effect July 29 – is repealed. The UN statement, released Tuesday, said SB 1070 could violate international human rights standards that are binding in the US.

The law requires police to ask for proof of citizenship or legal residence from anyone they stop, if officers have reasonable suspicion they are in the country illegally.

Analysts are split on how much effect the two actions will have. Some say the amount of money at stake in the boycott is too small to create any monetary incentive for Arizona to change the law. Estimates on its financial impact range on Arizona from $7 million to $52 million. But the port, airport, and utility companies of Los Angeles are run by semiautonomous city agencies that can’t be forced to comply.

[b]The financial hit will be worth it, says Bob Dane, national spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform. “Even if the boycotts results in lost revenue, the odds are that the money lost will be far less than the $2 billion it costs Arizona taxpayers for illegal immigration in education, health care and incarceration,â€

ill spend my money in arizona anyday before i spend it in LA

Three lawsuits seeking to block the implementation of SB 1070 are pending in federal court.

Really? As far as I knew none had actually been filed yet, just under consideration.

Holder admitted on TV that he hasn't even read the law yet.

The law requires police to ask for proof of citizenship or legal residence from anyone they stop, if officers have reasonable suspicion they are in the country illegally.

Wrong again A-hole. They can't just stop anybody without a lawful reason.

Originally Posted by agrneydgrl

Holder admitted on TV that he hasn't even read the law yet.

Yet, he wants to sue AZ? Why am I not surprised?

Originally Posted by Ratbstard

Three lawsuits seeking to block the implementation of SB 1070 are pending in federal court.

Really? As far as I knew none had actually been filed yet, just under consideration.

Good catch! Also, everybody forgets to mention that AZ is 3 for 3 in rulings with the supreme court. They did an excellent job in making sure that the state law follows FEDERAL law. I am so pissed at my fellow liberals for following the same propaganda that FOX news viewers are so quick to believe, AND they are constantly dogging FOX FOR THE SAME THING!! They are just too stupid to realize that their source for news is just as bad as FOX.