Arizona Official Threatens to Cut Off Los Angeles Power as Payback for Boycott

[EpyonXero]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...yback-boycott/

L.A. Mayor Dismisses Warning That Arizona Could Cut Off Power Over Boycott

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa on Wednesday defiantly rejected a warning by a top Arizona utilities official that the state could cut off power to Los Angeles should the city proceed with its boycott of all things Arizona.


Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa on Wednesday defiantly rejected a warning by a top Arizona utilities official that the state could cut off power to Los Angeles should the city proceed with its boycott of all things Arizona.

Spokesman David Beltran told Fox News that the message didn't even warrant a response.

"We're not going to respond to threats from a state which has isolated itself from the America that values freedom, liberty and basic human rights," Beltran said.

That was after Gary Pierce, a commissioner on the five-member Arizona Corporation Commission, wrote a letter to Villaraigosa slamming his City Council's decision to boycott the Grand Canyon State -- in protest of its immigration law -- by suspending official travel there and ending future contracts with state businesses.

Noting that a quarter of Los Angeles' electricity comes from Arizona power plants, Pierce threatened to pull the plug if the City Council does not reconsider.

"Doggone it -- if you're going to boycott this candy store ... then don't come in for any of it," Pierce told FoxNews.com.

In the letter, he ridiculed Villaraigosa for saying that the point of the boycott was to "send a message" by severing the "resources and ties" they share.

"I received your message; please receive mine. As a statewide elected member of the Arizona Corporation Commission overseeing Arizona's electric and water utilities, I too am keenly aware of the 'resources and ties' we share with the city of Los Angeles," Pierce wrote.

"If an economic boycott is truly what you desire, I will be happy to encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements so Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based generation."

Appearing to tap into local frustration in Arizona over the raft of boycotts and threatened boycotts from cities across the country, including Los Angeles, Pierce warned that Arizona companies are willing and ready to fight boycott with boycott.

"I am confident that Arizona's utilities would be happy to take those electrons off your hands," Pierce wrote. "If, however, you find that the City Council lacks the strength of its convictions to turn off the lights in Los Angeles and boycott Arizona power, please reconsider the wisdom of attempting to harm Arizona's economy."

Pierce told FoxNews.com that he was speaking for himself, not the entire commission, though he has the support of at least one other member. But Arizona has some serious leverage over Los Angeles, as well as the rest of California. The state and city get electricity from a nuclear power plant outside Phoenix, as well as from coal-fired power plants in northern Arizona and two giant hydroelectric power generators along the Colorado River.

Despite that, the Los Angeles City Council voted overwhelmingly last week to ban future business with Arizona -- a decision that could cost Arizona millions of dollars in lost contracts.

Los Angeles officials were furious with the Arizona immigration law passed last month and joined local officials in cities across the country in pushing boycotts to register their dismay. Critics say the law will lead to racial profiling and civil rights abuses.

Arizona officials have defended the law, saying the state needed to take its illegal immigration problem into its own hands. Pierce said he's "supportive" of the state's efforts to control the border.

The law requires local law enforcement to try to verify the immigration status of anyone they have contact with whom they suspect of being an illegal immigrant. It empowers them to turn over verified illegal immigrants to federal custody. The legislation explicitly prohibits screening people based solely on race or national origin.

Fox News' Ron Ralston contributed to this report

[the chi]

Awesome. Go Arizona!!

Honestly, are we back to the civil war era? State against state? And WTH is so wrong with the law they passed? Verifying someone's legality to be in the good ole US of A is now a bad thing? Turning illegals into the feds to have them sent back pending they get their paperwork filed and become a tax paying citizen?

*i am not familiar with the new law, nor have I given it much thought, so forgive me if I am interpreting it from the article.*

[askmrjesus]

Originally Posted by The Chi

Awesome. Go Arizona!!

This I can agree with. Nice way to call a bluff.

Originally Posted by The Chi

Honestly, are we back to the civil war era? State against state? And WTH is so wrong with the law they passed? Verifying someone's legality to be in the good ole US of A is now a bad thing? Turning illegals into the feds to have them sent back pending they get their paperwork filed and become a tax paying citizen?

*i am not familiar with the new law, nor have I given it much thought, so forgive me if I am interpreting it from the article.*

It's a Fourth amendment issue.

Being brown, is not probable cause.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

I would think most darker skinned Americans, would consider being pulled over for driving while brown, to be unreasonable.

JC

[Rider]

Originally Posted by askmrjesus

This I can agree with. Nice way to call a bluff.





It's a Fourth amendment issue.

Being brown, is not probable cause.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

I would think most darker skinned Americans, would consider being pulled over for driving while brown, to be unreasonable.

JC

How many white people are illegal and how many brown people are illegal? Seems fair to pull them over.

[askmrjesus]

Originally Posted by Rider

How many white people are illegal and how many brown people are illegal? Seems fair to pull them over.

By that logic, any motorcyclist under 40, should be allowed to be pulled over just so police can check the max speed record on their GPS, since younger riders tend to ride faster.

Sounds "fair" right?

JC

[Rider]

Originally Posted by askmrjesus

By that logic, any motorcyclist under 40, should be allowed to be pulled over just so police can check the max speed record on their GPS, since younger riders tend to ride faster.

Sounds "fair" right?

JC

Not the same.

[Tmall]

Originally Posted by askmrjesus

This I can agree with. Nice way to call a bluff.





It's a Fourth amendment issue.

Being brown, is not probable cause.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

I would think most darker skinned Americans, would consider being pulled over for driving while brown, to be unreasonable.

JC

Is looking different not probable cause when the whole idea behind the law is that people who look different are there illegally?

Seems like there would be a lot of cases thrown out of court since most times people are arrested based on a physical description..

[askmrjesus]

Originally Posted by Tmall

Is looking different not probable cause when the whole idea behind the law is that people who look different are there illegally?

No, because there are tons of people in Arizona who "look different", who are there perfectly legally.

Originally Posted by Tmall

Seems like there would be a lot of cases thrown out of court since most times people are arrested based on a physical description..

One of these works, one doesn't:

It was a white guy.

It was a large white guy, about 6'2", 210 pounds, green eyes, brown hair, wearing a red shirt and blue pants.

The first description is completely worthless. The second at least narrows it down to a reasonable suspicion of said white guy.

JC

[Tmall]

Originally Posted by askmrjesus

No, because there are tons of people in Arizona who "look different", who are there perfectly legally.



One of these works, one doesn't:

It was a white guy.

It was a large white guy, about 6'2", 210 pounds, green eyes, brown hair, wearing a red shirt and blue pants.

The first description is completely worthless. The second at least narrows it down to a reasonable suspicion of said white guy.

JC

But, how many 6'2" 210lb white guys might have their rights violated because of this?

I'm not going to debate the issue too much, but you have to see what I was saying.

[the chi]

While I see what you are saying, the intent of the law is not to pull someone over just because they are brown.

Will it get abused? I'm sure. But if its dark outside, someone has a headlight out, and they get pulled over, its not because they are brown, its because they have a headlight out. In the event they get pulled over and they cant establish legitimate residency or provide a valid drivers license or green card, are they supposed to get special treatment because they are brown, red or any other color? Illegal immigrants arent all brown you know...