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

[JohnSmith2007 353]

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

By Judson Berger

If Los Angeles wants to boycott Arizona, it had better get used to reading by candlelight.

That's the message from a member of Arizona's top government utilities agency, who threw down the gauntlet Tuesday in a letter to Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa by threatening to cut off the city's power supply as retribution.

Gary Pierce, a commissioner on the five-member Arizona Corporation Commission, wrote the letter in response to the Los Angeles City Council's decision last week 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.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/19/arizona-official-threatens-cut-los-angeles-power-payback-boycott/

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

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

Doggone it?

Do people actually still talk like that? Outside of Andy Griffith reruns on TV Land, that is?

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Doggone it?

Do people actually still talk like that? Outside of Andy Griffith reruns on TV Land, that is?

Dag Nabit, don't make fun of him!

[SMR 368]

Doggone it?

Do people actually still talk like that? Outside of Andy Griffith reruns on TV Land, that is?

Yes.

[jimnlena 8]

As much trouble as California has paying its bills, may have to turn off electricity anyway

[DukeOfYork 28]

I love it.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I love it.

Electricity, like oil, is fungible. The only way for Arizona to ensure that LA didn't get any of power sourced in Arizona would be to not sell any at all.

[NigeriaorBust 4,087]

If LA is really boycotting AZ products wouldn't it be including AZ produced electricity or is this a for new media only boycott?

[DukeOfYork 28]

I'm just glad that AZ is standing up for itself in front of a non-enforceable boycott.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I'm just glad that AZ is standing up for itself in front of a non-enforceable boycott.

I'm just glad that enough level-headed Americans can see the kinds of constitutional problems with Arizona's new law and are willing to stand up in protest. I believe justice and our beloved Constitution will prevail. God bless America and everything it stands for.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I'm just glad that enough level-headed Americans can see the kinds of constitutional problems with Arizona's new law and are willing to stand up in protest. I believe justice and our beloved Constitution will prevail. God bless America and everything it stands for.

you really are delusional....

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I'm just glad that enough level-headed Americans can see the kinds of constitutional problems with Arizona's new law and are willing to stand up in protest. I believe justice and our beloved Constitution will prevail. God bless America and everything it stands for.

+1

[DukeOfYork 28]

I'm just glad that enough level-headed Americans can see the kinds of constitutional problems with Arizona's new law and are willing to stand up in protest. I believe justice and our beloved Constitution will prevail. God bless America and everything it stands for.

What constitutional problems?

Seriously. List them here so I can be informed.

As far as I know, state/local officials are now empowered to do what Federal officials can do.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

What constitutional problems?

Seriously. List them here so I can be informed.

As far as I know, state/local officials are now empowered to do what Federal officials can do.

No state may superimpose its own immigration enforcement regime if it decides that federal law isn’t harsh enough. By trying to do so, Arizona is resorting to self-help even more extreme than the unconstitutional denial of education and other public benefits under California’s Proposition 187 in the mid-1990s. In fact, Arizona has gone so far as to allow anyone to sue state and local officials who seem too lax in enforcing federal immigration law. Supporters of the Arizona law cite “the rule of law” as a justification. The rule of law clearly matters, but this is a very malleable phrase. In judging whether immigration enforcement adheres to the rule of law, it is most important to examine how laws are enforced. From this perspective, it is deeply troubling that Arizona’s new law uses a vague “reasonable suspicion” standard.

This standard gives institutional cover for selective immigration enforcement through racial and ethnic profiling, and for this reason it will lead to constitutional violations if the statute goes into effect. Moreover, though the statute targets noncitizens who are in the U.S. unlawfully, it has an impact on U.S. citizens and lawful immigrants who will be caught in the same enforcement net, denying them the rights of other Arizonans to live their lives free from unwarranted suspicion.

~ Hiroshi Motomura, the Susan Westerberg Prager Professor of Law at the U.C.L.A. School of Law

[DukeOfYork 28]

El Buscador,

Darn, I thought you were going to do the work yourself and demonstrate how the specifics of the AZ law violate the US Constitution. Instead, you posted a legal opinion.

This standard gives institutional cover for selective immigration enforcement through racial and ethnic profiling, and for this reason it will lead to constitutional violations if the statute goes into effect. Moreover, though the statute targets noncitizens who are in the U.S. unlawfully, it has an impact on U.S. citizens and lawful immigrants who will be caught in the same enforcement net, denying them the rights of other Arizonans to live their lives free from unwarranted suspicion.

Have you ever been pulled over as a passenger in a car? Where I live, the police ask me for my ID as well as the driver's ID. For people who are here legally, this isn't a problem. I think that's where the "reasonable suspicion" comes into play, don't you? No ID, no English [at least in many cases, but not all], inability to produce ID and then a check with Customs and Border Patrol shows that the subject did not enter with an inspection. I think that's reasonable, don't you? Would you have a problem if the same scenerio happened, but it was ICE or CBE that pulled the same vehicle over and did the same checks?

The AZ law was amended to allow the legal immigration check only when one is lawfully stopped, not just when they're out for their ice cream, as Barry Obama would have you believe.

If you are going to claim that this law is unconstitutional, you will have to unequivically back that claim up.