Thread: POLL: Was the L.A. City Council right to pass boycott of AZ?

Opinion L.A.

Poll: Was the L.A. City Council right to pass a boycott of Arizona?

May 13, 2010 | 11:15 am
City Hall did it:

The Los Angeles City Council, protesting Arizona's tough crackdown on illegal immigration, voted Wednesday to ban most city travel to Arizona and future contracts with companies in that state.

Council members argued that a new Arizona law, which will make it a state crime to lack immigration papers and requires police to determine whether people they stop are in the country illegally, would lead to racial profiling and discrimination. The law takes effect July 23. ...

The council also called on the city attorney's office to review all of the city's $58 million in existing contracts with Arizona companies to determine which can be canceled.

The resolution, which now heads to Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, would still allow city officials to travel to Arizona under "special circumstances" that are in the city's interests. Also, existing contracts with Arizona firms would be exempt from the ban if canceling them would lead to "significant additional cost" to the city.

I can think of one contract the city won't be able cancel, let alone modify because of the boycott: service by Arizona-based airlines US Airways and Mesa Air at LAX. Federal regulations prohibit public airports from unjustly discriminating against different carriers; telling US Airways it can no longer serve LAX because of an ideological disagreement between Los Angeles and Arizona probably wouldn't fly with the feds. Then there's the issue of whether the boycott is even constitutional at all.

The Times' editorial board may weigh in on the boycott in the next few days; for now, share your thoughts by taking our poll, posting a comment or doing both.

-- Paul Thornton


Was the L.A. City Council right to pass a boycott of Arizona?
Yes. Arizona needs to feel the consequences of enacting a bad law.

Yes, though the boycott should be more of a symbolic gesture than an official measure.

No, but only because doing so is probably illegal and not in L.A.'s interest.

No. The city should mind its own business.

Vote
View Results
Share ThisPolldaddy.com

http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/20 ... -poll.html

Yes. Arizona needs to feel the consequences of enacting a bad law. 11.4% (47 votes)

Yes, though the boycott should be more of a symbolic gesture than an official measure. 1.7% (7 votes)

No, but only because doing so is probably illegal and not in L.A.'s interest. 9.5% (39 votes)

No. The city should mind its own business. 77.4% (319 votes)

Total Votes: 412

View Comments
Return To PollShare This
PollDaddy.com

The resolution, which now heads to Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, would still allow city officials to travel to Arizona under "special circumstances" that are in the city's interests. Also, existing contracts with Arizona firms would be exempt from the ban if canceling them would lead to "significant additional cost" to the city.

In other words, this is just an attention stunt. Really, a non-binding resolution means nothing at all. Guess it made the Liberal city council of LA feel better, effective and got them some press coverage. Big Woop D Doo.

Sanctuary cities suck.

Dixie

Yes. Arizona needs to feel the consequences of enacting a bad law. 9% (90 votes)
Yes, though the boycott should be more of a symbolic gesture than an official measure. 1% (11 votes)
No, but only because doing so is probably illegal and not in L.A.'s interest. 6% (62 votes)
No. The city should mind its own business. 84% (850 votes)
Total Votes: 1,013

Thank you for voting!

Yes. Arizona needs to feel the consequences of enacting a bad law. 3.4% (122 votes)

Yes, though the boycott should be more of a symbolic gesture than an official measure. 0.5% (16 votes)

No, but only because doing so is probably illegal and not in L.A.'s interest. 3.7% (132 votes)

No. The city should mind its own business. 92.4% (3,279 votes)

Total Votes: 3,549

"The Times' editorial board may weigh in on the boycott in the next few days; for now, share your thoughts by taking our poll, posting a comment or doing both."

Think the Times editors will mention the very lopsided reader opposition to the LA boycott?

Yes. Arizona needs to feel the consequences of enacting a bad law. 3% (198 votes)

Yes, though the boycott should be more of a symbolic gesture than an official measure. <1% (27 votes)

No, but only because doing so is probably illegal and not in L.A.'s interest. 4% (266 votes)

No. The city should mind its own business. 93% (6,648 votes)

Total Votes: 7,139

This poll has exploded. There is obviously such a disconnect between American citizens and the media and/or politicians.

Was the L.A. City Council right to pass a boycott of Arizona?
Yes. Arizona needs to feel the consequences of enacting a bad law. 2% (301 votes)

Yes, though the boycott should be more of a symbolic gesture than an official measure. <1% (53 votes)

No, but only because doing so is probably illegal and not in L.A.'s interest. 4% (560 votes)

No. The city should mind its own business. 94% (13,567 votes)

Total Votes: 14,481

Yes. Arizona needs to feel the consequences of enacting a bad law. 2.1% (365 votes)


Yes, though the boycott should be more of a symbolic gesture than an official measure. 0.3% (61 votes)


No, but only because doing so is probably illegal and not in L.A.'s interest. 4.2% (742 votes)


No. The city should mind its own business. 93.4% (16,507 votes)


Total Votes: 17,675

Thank you for voting!

Yes. Arizona needs to feel the consequences of enacting a bad law. 2.2% (470 votes)

Yes, though the boycott should be more of a symbolic gesture than an official measure. 0.4% (78 votes)

No, but only because doing so is probably illegal and not in L.A.'s interest. 4.5% (934 votes)

No. The city should mind its own business. 92.9% (19,480 votes)

Total Votes: 20,962