“Representatives at three levels of California government were quick to call for economic measures against neighboring Arizona this week in the wake of its passage of a tough new immigration law. . .On Tuesday, seven members of the Los Angles City Council signed a proposal for a boycott that urged the city to ‘refrain from conducting business’ or participating in conventions in Arizona. Also on Tuesday, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom imposed an immediate moratorium on city employees traveling to Arizona. And California Senate leader Darrell Steinberg said the state should consider a boycott of Arizona. He sent a letter to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, asking which Arizona businesses and government agencies California does business with.”
California officials are being hypocritical to attack Arizona, given that Arizona’s new immigration measure is actually far less sweeping than one California adopted in 1994, which was invalidated by the federal courts. (That California law, Proposition 187, would have barred illegal-immigrant children from the schools — something Arizona has not done.) Even liberal law professors like Jack Balkin who vehemently dislike the Arizona law admit that it may be constitutional, and that it “was deliberately written” to comply with the standards laid down by the Supreme Court’s 1976 De Canas v. Bica decision, which upheld a state’s ban on hiring illegal aliens. Arizona’s law was drafted by a noted legal scholar and former Bush administration official, and while it contains some unwise provisions and furthers a misguided political agenda, that does not make it illegal.
These boycott calls by California officials are unprincipled and have nothing to do with any belief in freedom of movement. Mexico has far more onerous immigration restrictions than Arizona does, including harsh prison sentences for illegal immigrants (most of them fleeing the much poorer countries to the south of Mexico, which make Mexico look rich by comparison), and bans on political activity by legal and illegal aliens alike. But California officials don’t care about those immigration restrictions, and have no problem conducting business with Mexico or visiting it. They reserve their vitriol and boycotts for fellow Americans.
Moreover, for California to impose sanctions against residents of a sister state like Arizona may well violate the Constitution. As Justice Cardozo observed in Baldwin v. G.A.F. Seelig, Inc. (1935), “the Constitution . . . was framed upon the theory that the peoples of the several states must sink or swim together, and that in the long run prosperity and salvation are in union and not division.”
A variety of constitutional provisions restrict discrimination against residents of other states in various contexts. In cases like United Building and Construction Trades Council v. Mayor of Camden (1984), the Supreme Court has said that the Privileges and Immunities clause of Article IV of the Constitution generally forbids states from discriminating against the residents of other states in things like employment on public works. (Aliens, by contrast, are not entitled to the protections of this provision.)
The Equal Protection Clause also sometimes forbids states to discriminate against residents of other states. (See Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Ward (1985)).
The dormant-commerce clause limits state discrimination against businesses and commerce from other states (see, e.g., Baldwin v. G.A.F. Seelig, Inc. (1935)), and although there is a limited exception to that rule for government contracts, that exception does not allow state or local governments to use its power of the purse to pursue essentially regulatory measures aimed at other states (like attempts to meddle inside another state), as opposed to merely promoting a state’s own economic development (see South Central Timber Development, Inc. v. Wunnicke (1984)).
RSS Updates 
RSS E-Mail Updates 
Twitter 
Facebook 
CEI.org 
WorkPlaceChoice.org 
GlobalWarming.org 
CEI On Demand Video 
Liberty Week Podcast 
{ 5 comments }
I support America not illegal's .Arizona's new law? its about time!!!
The state is generally free to do business as it wishes. It may not discriminate against residents of other states in favor of its own residents, or articles of commerce with origins or destinations in other states to the benefit of articles with in-state origin or destination. That's not what's going on here.
That sort of discrimination IS what's going on here, if liberal officials have their way. Officials want to discriminate based on state of origin. The fact that the discrimination reflects animus towards another state, rather than merely bias towards in-state residents, hardly makes it better. If anything, it makes it worse and more divisive.
Discrimination is discrimination regardless of why it happens, as long as differential treatment exists. See UAW v. Johnson Controls (1990). And here, the proposals would leave California residents and businesses with an advantage over Arizona residents — indeed, the discrimination would be worse than that, since it would completely exclude Arizonans.
boycot Arizona that not right when mexico has
Reglamento de la Ley General de Poblacion — the General Law on Population enacted in Mexico in April 2000, which mandates that federal, local and municipal police cooperate with federal immigration authorities in that country in the arrests of illegal immigrants.
Under the Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony, punishable by up to two years in prison. Immigrants who are deported and attempt to re-enter can be imprisoned for 10 years. Visa violators can be sentenced to six-year terms. Mexicans who help illegal immigrants are considered criminals.
The law also says Mexico can deport foreigners who are deemed detrimental to "economic or national interests," violate Mexican law, are not "physically or mentally healthy" or lack the "necessary funds for their sustenance" and for their dependents
Maybe it is time for the people of Colorado to Boycott the city of LA.
I for one intend to do this and furthermore I have just purchased a home in Az and intend to live there at least 5 months of the year—so you can take your gang infested city and keep it ALL FOR YOUR SELVES.
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 1 trackback }