L.A. County boycott of Arizona approved by divided Board of Supervisors

After heated debate, Los Angeles County supervisors voted 3 to 2 today to boycott Arizona in response to the passage of its controversial illegal immigration law.

“This law simply goes too far,” said Gloria Molina, the boycott’s primary sponsor. “A lot of people have pointed out that I am sworn as an L.A. County supervisor to uphold the Constitution. All I can say is that I believe that Arizona’s law is unconstitutional.”

Molina’s boycott was supported by Supervisors Zev Yaroslavsky and Mark Ridley-Thomas and opposed by Supervisors Mike Antonovich and Don Knabe.

“We need solutions, not boycotts,” Antonovich said.

Ridley-Thomas was the last to announce his position and was the focus of much of the public comment, drawing dozens of people on both sides of the issue.

Among the speakers against the boycott were the family members of Jamiel Shaw II, a football player who was recruited by Stanford and Rutgers before he was gunned down in 2008, allegedly by Pedro Espinoza. A member of the 18th Street gang in the U.S. illegally, prosecutors say, Espinoza had been released from jail a day before the shooting after serving time for an earlier offense.

Molina first proposed suspending county-funded travel to Arizona unless the county’s chief executive determines it would seriously harm county interests.

The boycott also calls for a divestiture of Arizona’s state and municipal bonds by the county’s pension fund. The county’s auditor-controller estimated that the county has spent about $122 million over the past five years on Arizona goods and services.  Treasurer-Tax Collector Mark Saladino said the county had no commercial paper or investments that would be affected by the boycott.

The Arizona law requires police to determine the immigration status of anyone they stop and suspect is in the country illegally. It also makes it a state crime to lack proper immigration papers. Top U.S. Justice Department officials have drafted a legal challenge asserting that Arizona's law is unconstitutional because it impinges on the federal government's authority to police the nation's borders.

-- Garrett Therolf at the L.A. County Hall of Administration

Photo: Immigration protesters after a May Day march in downtown L.A. Times file

Comments

[Josh]

Flat out ridiculous. Boycotting Arizona businesses is NOT the way to go about fixing this problem (if it really even is one). So much postering that's only going to worsen the situation in Arizona, not fix it. You want to talk about pissing off a whole state, well you've done it.

[Beth]

This boycott is absolutely ridiculous and immature. The Arizona law mirrors the federal laws on the issue! LA is unjustly punishing the people of Arizona who had nothing to do with the passage of the law.

[minie]

Boycotting only hurts the people of Arizona and not the law.

[HeatherB]

A boycott is not going to get the outcome you want. Not buying from Arizona is going to hurt low income, local business, basically the end of the chain.

Second, what Arizona is trying to do is not unconstitutional. It is basically what is already on the books as federal law.

[Mcgrath]

As I spend several days in Southern California, I will make sure all my gas, food, hotel and entertainment purchases are not in LA County. I would not want to cause conflict of interest for any businesses or entities. I will be sure my fellow Arizonans know to avoid causing problems for citizens of your county.

[Mcgrath]

As I spend several days in Southern California, I will make sure all my gas, food, hotel and entertainment purchases are not in LA County. I would not want to cause conflict of interest for any businesses or entities. I will be sure my fellow Arizonans know to avoid causing problems for citizens of your county.

[Mstockton]

Read CALIFORNIA Penal code 834b (California)

834b. (a) Every law enforcement agency in California shall fully
cooperate with the United States Immigration and Naturalization
Service regarding any person who is arrested if he or she is
suspected of being present in the United States in violation of
federal immigration laws.
(b) With respect to any such person who is arrested, and suspected
of being present in the United States in violation of federal
immigration laws, every law enforcement agency shall do the
following:
(1) Attempt to verify the legal status of such person as a citizen
of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted as a permanent
resident, an alien lawfully admitted for a temporary period of time
or as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of
immigration laws. The verification process may include, but shall not
be limited to, questioning the person regarding his or her date and
place of birth, and entry into the United States, and demanding
documentation to indicate his or her legal status.
(2) Notify the person of his or her apparent status as an alien
who is present in the United States in violation of federal
immigration laws and inform him or her that, apart from any criminal
justice proceedings, he or she must either obtain legal status or
leave the United States.
(3) Notify the Attorney General of California and the United
States Immigration and Naturalization Service of the apparent illegal
status and provide any additional information that may be requested
by any other public entity.
(c) Any legislative, administrative, or other action by a city,
county, or other legally authorized local governmental entity with
jurisdictional boundaries, or by a law enforcement agency, to prevent
or limit the cooperation required by subdivision (a) is expressly
prohibited.

Sound like Arizona's? Yeah its our law too.