Obama Dodges "Boycott Arizona" Question

By Jeralyn, Section Obama Administration
Posted on Thu May 27, 2010 at 10:12:35 PM EST
Tags: Boycott Arizona (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

President Obama today was asked whether he supports a boycott of Arizona due to its immigration law. He dodged.

"I'm the president of the United States, I don't endorse boycotts or not endorse boycotts," he replied. "That's something that private citizens can make a decision about."

At least he repeated his opposition to the law:

Mr. Obama reiterated his disapproval of the measure at this press conference, complaining about potential risks to civil liberties as well as the potential the measure has to help create a "patchwork of 50 different immigration laws around the country in an area that is inherently the job of the federal government."

He also again called for a "comprehensive approach" to immigration reform, one that includes a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants who learn English, pay a fine and "get in the back of the line" when it comes to attaining legal status.

Meanwhile, Los Angeles County is considering a strong boycott measure: [More...]

Los Angeles County Supervisor Gloria Molina introduced a motion this week that would authorize the county to boycott Arizona unless it suspends or repeals its controversial immigration law.

The motion, co-sponsored by Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, would direct county officials to suspend all travel to Arizona and investigate withdrawing investments and canceling contracts.

The Los Angeles City Council previously adopted a boycott resolution. Here's a list of cities that as of May 13th, have passed a boycott measure.

Also today, a coalition of music groups announced they will not perform in Arizona.

The campaign, called the Sound Strike, has been organized by Zack de la Rocha, the lead singer of the rap metal band Rage Against the Machine, and is endorsed by English-language rock and rap performers like Massive Attack, Kanye West, Conor Oberst, Sonic Youth and Joe Satriani.

< House Votes to Repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" | Meth-Craving Snails >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Obama Dodges "Boycott Arizona" Question | 67 comments (67 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

A Border Patrol Agent told me a man (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by oculus on Fri May 28, 2010 at 12:52:16 AM EST

he talked to today, who had come across the California border from Mexico, told the agent he was afraid to re-enter U.S. via Arizona.

That should make the majority... (none / 0) (#22)
by kdog on Fri May 28, 2010 at 08:18:26 AM EST

very happy...the majority love bullies and making people fear for their freedom...especially people of darker shades.


Come on man (none / 0) (#26)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 28, 2010 at 09:36:15 AM EST

Why do you think it is right for anyone who wants to come into the country to just have the right?

What limits would you put on this?

And what would you do to Mexico and Canada to insure they have the same laws?


To answer your questions... (none / 0) (#28)
by kdog on Fri May 28, 2010 at 09:57:06 AM EST

Because I believe the world is our oyster..we should all have the freedom to move.
Limits? I can live with a cursory background check...not much more than that.
I'd have a N. American summit to get us all on the same freedom loving page...like a NAFTA for flesh and blood...let us all move around in pursuit of opportunity and happiness....eventually make it worldwide.

As you can see I'm basically an open borders guy.

Basic problem with open border (none / 0) (#34)
by nyjets on Fri May 28, 2010 at 11:03:59 AM EST

The basic problem with open borders is it will destroy our economy. We simply can not take in any more populations. We do not have the jobs or the resources for any more people.
People from other countries do not have the right to enter this country whenever they want. It is the job of the government to protect American citizens only. Not American citizen and non-American citizens.


You missed the memo... (none / 0) (#35)
by kdog on Fri May 28, 2010 at 11:10:30 AM EST

it's a global economy now nyjets...seems to me allowing non-human capital to move relatively freely around the globe, while the human capital is forced to accept the deal where ever the birth lottery landed 'em is a recipe for unfairness and exploitation.


My friend sd. he used to have all the (none / 0) (#36)
by oculus on Fri May 28, 2010 at 11:56:32 AM EST

answers re immigration reform but doesn't now.


Fear the person... (none / 0) (#39)
by kdog on Fri May 28, 2010 at 12:39:01 PM EST

who says they've got all the answers...your friend sounds like he's gained some wisdom on the job.


I kind of highjacked the party quizzing (none / 0) (#40)
by oculus on Fri May 28, 2010 at 12:51:52 PM EST

him about all things immigration. Interesting discussion.


Highjacked? (none / 0) (#41)
by kdog on Fri May 28, 2010 at 12:53:24 PM EST

Do you mean hijacked, or were guys using some cool new drug I haven't even heard of?...:)


White wine. Old hat. (none / 0) (#42)
by oculus on Fri May 28, 2010 at 12:54:16 PM EST

Nothing wrong with old-school... (none / 0) (#43)
by kdog on Fri May 28, 2010 at 01:06:46 PM EST

my preferred is even older than wine...besides why choose only one?...:)


: I think you know the answer to that question. (none / 0) (#54)
by oculus on Fri May 28, 2010 at 07:05:42 PM EST

The problem is that the world (none / 0) (#44)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 28, 2010 at 01:09:15 PM EST

isn't full of nice guys like you and me.


I think we're in the majority... (none / 0) (#45)
by kdog on Fri May 28, 2010 at 01:12:25 PM EST

and could increase our numbers by attempting to level the playing field.

Interesting factoid I heard in "The End of Poverty?" documentary...the societies with the highest crime rates aren't the poorest societies, but the societies with the greatest wealth inequality.


What can you take... (5.00 / 3) (#46)
by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri May 28, 2010 at 01:38:21 PM EST

...of material value from someone who has nothing to begin with--especially when everyone around them shares the lack of material wealth?

The only thing you can take from those people is their human dignity and self-worth. That's an even higher crime than those that involve the theft of material goods.


Well said brother... (5.00 / 1) (#47)
by kdog on Fri May 28, 2010 at 01:42:54 PM EST

and it seems to be one of the most popular crimes running...the theft of human dignity.

And sticking to form, that kinda theft is apparently perfectly legal.


And poverty is exactly what you would get (none / 0) (#49)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 28, 2010 at 02:07:24 PM EST

if you allowed Open Borders.

That the current mess allows some variation of Open Borders doesn't mean that more of the same will fix the problem.

It won't. It will just get worse.


Poverty is what we have already... (none / 0) (#51)
by kdog on Fri May 28, 2010 at 02:14:39 PM EST

my man, it's just the worst of it has been outsourced...hence the people "breaking in" to where the poverty is just broke, not broke and hungry.

Open borders would eventually equalize wages and working conditions (in theory, absent further market rigging)...when too many come here for the higher wage and better conditions, the wage here will fall while it rises where there is a new shortage of workers.

I don't know about you, but a rigged game in our favor (in favor of some here more than others, of course)makes me toss and turn a little at night with conscience pangs.


: The reverse will happen (none / 0) (#52)
by nyjets on Fri May 28, 2010 at 03:59:30 PM EST

So with an open border, non-American citzens will come to this country stealing jobs and causes wages to drop. The end result is that the economy will be destroyed. Then the non-American citizens will leave and American citizens will be out of luck.
I am sorry, opon borders would destroy this country.

: kdog, I admire your love for the world (none / 0) (#53)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 28, 2010 at 04:02:36 PM EST

but your holding a set looking at a straight across the table.
Poverty has not been out sourced, our jobs have went to people who will work for zip in conditions that are bad. The more people we let in here the more competition we have for the jobs we have left all so that we can have cheap cars and clothes.
That use to be a Repub position. It saddens me to see the Demos and the Left adopt it but time changes everything.
Labor is a commodity. And as soon as someone shows up saying he'll do your job for X amount than what you get he will be in and you will be gone.

I watched him say that sentence (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by Joan in VA on Fri May 28, 2010 at 08:00:32 AM EST

and got the impression that he was in agreement with the boycott. Just reading the sentence doesn't convey that. Just a bit of a pause and a sly look before "or not endorse boycotts". fwiw.

Finally some transparency... (5.00 / 1) (#38)
by DaveCal on Fri May 28, 2010 at 12:04:07 PM EST

Oh, not in his administration, in his comment.

The only reason he backed off his "Arizona acted stupidly" comments (yes, that's snark) is because 80% of the American public is against Boycotting Arizona.

See the last Question (#38) here:

Balked? (3.00 / 2) (#1)
by squeaky on Thu May 27, 2010 at 10:33:37 PM EST

Seems to me like he answered the question. As President, he does not support the boycott.

If he, as President, were to support the boycott, AZ would be designated a terrorist organization. Imagine Sherif Joe Arpaio an enemy combatant, forced to wear pink.... lol

Don't think so (5.00 / 2) (#2)
by Jeralyn on Thu May 27, 2010 at 10:39:09 PM EST

He said "I don't endorse or not endorse" which means he isn't taking a position. He could have said he opposes the law but a boycott is not the appropriate reaction. He didn't.


He takes no stand.. (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by jeffinalabama on Thu May 27, 2010 at 10:44:56 PM EST

Again. He should be ashamed.


'boycottS' (5.00 / 2) (#19)
by ruffian on Fri May 28, 2010 at 06:12:29 AM EST

Which means that as president it is not his job to take a side about any kind of a boycott about anything. Do we really want the president out there encouraging boycotts of anything?

I wish the question had been asked in a better way, without the boycott word, like 'what do you say to Hispanic federal employees who must visit Arizona on business and are now afraid they will end up with time in detention? Should they go anyway or stay home?'

Lazy media here. Shocking.


Yeah (3.00 / 2) (#4)
by squeaky on Thu May 27, 2010 at 10:46:31 PM EST

Well, he may have dodged the question, but he answered it for those hoping he would support.

And, I do not think that the President can support a boycott of a state, considering that there are citizens who may have voted for him living there, and as for the rest, he represents them too.

But if is clear that he is opposed to the law.


He took no stand, again. (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by jeffinalabama on Thu May 27, 2010 at 10:49:04 PM EST

Again, squeaky. PPUS I suppose.


No Stand...? hmmmm (3.00 / 2) (#6)
by squeaky on Thu May 27, 2010 at 10:52:01 PM EST

The president reiterated his disapproval of the Arizona measure, which was signed into law last month and goes into effect in July.....
Mr. Obama reiterated his disapproval of the measure at this press conference, complaining about potential risks to civil liberties as well as the potential the measure has to help create a "patchwork of 50 different immigration laws around the country in an area that is inherently the job of the federal government."

Has there ever been a president that supported a boycott of a particular state? And that is post civil war.


You must be paid by the post.. (4.00 / 3) (#7)
by jeffinalabama on Thu May 27, 2010 at 10:59:13 PM EST

I'd say I admire that, but your support and/or defense for all thnigs Obama is tiresome.


BS (3.00 / 2) (#8)
by squeaky on Thu May 27, 2010 at 11:02:47 PM EST

I have no love for Obama, but it is a fact that Obama has decried the AZ law several times.

And if you think a President can support a boycott of a State, please give me an example of a President who has done that.

I do not think that Obama can legally support the boycott of a state.


He could state tonighghtt that (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by jeffinalabama on Thu May 27, 2010 at 11:09:35 PM EST

the law is unconstitutional and any support of that uncosnstitutional approach is wrong and wrongul governance. He could, but he won't. His 'disapproval' doesn't mean anything, and it isn't a stand. It leaves everyone, from his dirextor of homeland security to the officers alreast in the ground in Arizona, in limbo. he needs to state, one way or the other, his administrations position, and take a frikking stand. One way or the other.


Ummm... (3.00 / 2) (#11)
by squeaky on Thu May 27, 2010 at 11:28:30 PM EST

Violation of Civil Rights, is unconstitutional. He seems pretty clear about it to me, and apparently the wingnuts see him as defending the law.

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.

Obama was right to criticize Arizona for passing the highly controversial Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhood Act (SB 1070). He was right, too, in underscoring the federal government's own irresponsibility in the intensifying immigration policy crisis.
Obama lambasted the bill for threatening "to undermine basic notions of fairness," adding that the law puts community trust in the police at risk while endangering civil liberties. "Our failure to act responsibly at the federal level will only open the door to irresponsibility by others,'' said Obama. Moreover, he warned, "if we continue to fail to act at a federal level, we will continue to see misguided efforts opening up around the country.''

Not that it is an entirely pretty picture, as Obama has supported Homeland Security initiatives developed by BushCO, that are right wing, imo.


Holder today said he has not decided (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by Jeralyn on Thu May 27, 2010 at 11:53:49 PM EST

if DOJ will sue. The complaint was drafted and they are studying it and a decision is at least weeks away. He didn't commit either.

I agree that no President would endorse a boycott of a specific state. But then, he should say he doesn't or can't endorse a boycott. Instead, he added he refused to "not endorse" the boycott. That's the dodge.


: OK (2.00 / 1) (#14)
by squeaky on Thu May 27, 2010 at 11:57:50 PM EST

heh (none / 0) (#25)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 28, 2010 at 09:32:18 AM EST

I didn't know the law had been through a court challenge.

Sneaky, eh?


Not really (none / 0) (#27)
by Yman on Fri May 28, 2010 at 09:40:46 AM EST

Read it in context. Jeffinalabama was clearly stating his opinion of the law's consitutionality, not claiming it had been adjudicated unconstitutional.


I see that my sarcasm didn't show through (none / 0) (#29)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 28, 2010 at 09:57:58 AM EST

Sarcasm Alert!

There.

;-)


With you wingers ... (none / 0) (#48)
by Yman on Fri May 28, 2010 at 02:06:48 PM EST

... it's sometimes difficult to tell. Rush does the same thing - makes a point, gets the obvious pointed out to him, then suggests he was being sarcastic or "funny". As it turns out, ...

... it's neither.


"WIngera?" (none / 0) (#50)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 28, 2010 at 02:08:51 PM EST

heh

It is plain you haven't been around here very long.


Jim (none / 0) (#59)
by jondee on Sat May 29, 2010 at 09:26:14 AM EST

You might try looking up the name Malcom X before you go parroting what other wingnut geniuses say about who was involved in the Civil Rights movement and who wasn't..

Also, using quotation marks around a made up quote, ie., "..rich Muslim heritage in America" that you then attribute to Obama, is not only dishonest, it's just plain dumb.

: Malcom X represents a (none / 0) (#60)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 30, 2010 at 05:33:25 PM EST

separatist movement, not an inclusive civil rights movement. Or at least that is what this "White Devil" thinks.
;-)
And you need to read This story from the NY Times. See the top of page 2.

I agree (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by ruffian on Fri May 28, 2010 at 06:17:00 AM EST

I for one don't want any president calling for boycotts of anything, as such.

If his agencies decide to move their conferences and other meetings elsewhere for a legitimate concern about their employees, that is another matter and I don't see how they can do arnything else.


If it's 'legal' for Obama to endorse assassinating (1.00 / 1) (#10)
by FoxholeAtheist on Thu May 27, 2010 at 11:22:44 PM EST

a U.S. citizen, surely he can find the 'legal' standing to endorse a boycott of Arizona.


Really? (3.00 / 2) (#12)
by squeaky on Thu May 27, 2010 at 11:31:10 PM EST

Your analogy is absurd, imo.

The capture or kill orders are in compliance with national and international laws of war.

The AZ measure is a state measure. Obama has told his DOJ and AZ that he thinks the law is bad. He is not in a position to support a boycott of any state in the US.

Apples and gorillas.


it's not a legal issue (none / 0) (#15)
by Jeralyn on Thu May 27, 2010 at 11:58:32 PM EST

and he didn't base his comment on legal grounds. He said it's not his place. The capture or kill order is a legal statement and involves an official federal action. Endorsing or refusing to endorse a boycott is a political statement, I don't see the connection.

Squeaky,you can disagree with Foxhole Atheist, but please do so more civilly. Leave the mocking out of it.


"Mocking" is the least of it as you know (5.00 / 4) (#18)
by FoxholeAtheist on Fri May 28, 2010 at 05:54:16 AM EST

I know there's no "legal" issue (5.00 / 1) (#55)
by FoxholeAtheist on Fri May 28, 2010 at 07:26:52 PM EST

with regard to Obama's stance on the boycott. I was riffing on a comment by Squeaky, who, evidently, and incorrectly, believes it is a "legal" issue:

Squeaky: I do not think that Obama can legally support the boycott of a state.

Hmmmm (1.00 / 2) (#56)
by squeaky on Fri May 28, 2010 at 11:33:49 PM EST

I thought you were moving off to another site. Couldn't help posting another personal attack on your way out while slamming the door?

See ya. lol


Lol. Squeaky, you are one twisted GUY. (4.00 / 4) (#57)
by FoxholeAtheist on Sat May 29, 2010 at 04:00:53 AM EST

I've never called you names before, thought I'd try it on for size. Lol.

Hey, remember back when you were trying to pass yourself off as a woman? And I said I wanted to "see the DNA on that". Lol.

Well, big guy, Jeralyn inadvertently outed you last night in the process of acknowledging that you had gifted her an iPad, lol:

Squeaky has been generous, but I call him out and delete his comments that are inappropriate when pointed out to me, and iPad or no IPad, I'll continue to do so.

I know your type of man Squeaks, and I can smell it over the intertubes -- so can a number of other women here at TLolol.

Now, if you want to complete the cycle of abuse and remorse, just pop an a iPad in the mail for me m'kay. Lol.

If you bother me again I'll tell your mommy and come after you for cyber-stalking. Lol. Annnnd, end scene.

(Delete away Jeralyn.)


Wow (none / 0) (#61)
by squeaky on Sun May 30, 2010 at 10:22:06 PM EST

Quite a rant. Angry much?


A male who supported Hillary Clinton (none / 0) (#62)
by oculus on Mon May 31, 2010 at 12:05:28 AM EST

in the primaries.


I go away for a few days (none / 0) (#63)
by Cream City on Mon May 31, 2010 at 05:56:08 PM EST

and miss the outing of Squeaks? Lying even about his gender? I certainly also remember his comments claiming to be a woman. What a hoot!


it's all happenin (5.00 / 1) (#66)
by The Addams Family on Mon May 31, 2010 at 09:19:55 PM EST

at the zoo . . .


BS (none / 0) (#64)
by squeaky on Mon May 31, 2010 at 06:11:28 PM EST

Lying? Please back up your claim.


: So you ARE a woman, ... (5.00 / 1) (#65)
by Yman on Mon May 31, 2010 at 08:02:08 PM EST

... or you're a man but never claimed to be a woman?
Inquiring minds want to know.

i think it's more (none / 0) (#67)
by The Addams Family on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 04:16:37 PM EST

abt letting others refer to him as a woman w/o correcting them & then using that misinformation to supposedly validate whatever he says abt Hillary, Stupak amendment, etc - because squeaky is a "she" you know . . .

the passive aggressive approach

but not a good idea to challenge a historian to track down the goods in TL comment history!

lol


: That's what I was thinking ... (none / 0) (#68)
by Yman on Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 08:22:36 PM EST

... was the most likely scenario, given "her" personality.

Sorry About the Mocking... (3.00 / 2) (#16)
by squeaky on Fri May 28, 2010 at 12:01:28 AM EST

Thanks for pointing it out..


huh? (none / 0) (#32)
by sj on Fri May 28, 2010 at 10:42:12 AM EST

That's a leap.

If he, as President, were to support the boycott, AZ would be designated a terrorist organization.

So I assume you were joking. But really, where do you get this stuff?

I kind of think he dodged the question, but I don't have a real problem with that. He doesn't think particularly well on his feet in my opinion so it was a little clumsily stated, but I'm fine with that response.


Maybe it's better... (none / 0) (#23)
by kdog on Fri May 28, 2010 at 08:21:03 AM EST

for the boycott effort if Obama sits it out...gives the boycott more street cred.

I mean he is the authoritarian-n-chief....it would be hypocritical of him to support a boycott based on human rights while he tramples human rights...no?

I hope the bill that just passed (none / 0) (#24)
by itscookin on Fri May 28, 2010 at 09:06:07 AM EST

our senate passes the house before summer really hits because it would be great if the boycott of Massachusetts could begin before all of those out-of-state tourists clog up the highways to Cape Cod. I'm also wondering if Boston is going to boycott the rest of Massachusetts.

: I'll start now... (none / 0) (#30)
by kdog on Fri May 28, 2010 at 10:21:59 AM EST

based on the Senate passage...what a buncha Mass-holes:)
Now to figure out how to boycott my own state for all it's dirty...all 50 got something to boycott, so I guess we gotta prioritize:)

: still has to be signed (none / 0) (#33)
by CST on Fri May 28, 2010 at 10:45:07 AM EST

by the gov. Unclear whether or not it will be.
Reading about the bill, I think it will not spark the same kind of outrage as it seems mostly to target employers. And it's no where near as far reaching as Arizona. The other parts of the bill are largely irrelevant as things like in-state tuition are not currently offered to illegal immigrants anyway.
I do not like the language of the bill, but it has not been signed yet. And speaking for this Boston resident, sorry rest of MA, you are still $hit out of luck, because the city gets hot as hell during the summer. Besides, we support a lot of the rest of the state with jobs, the least we could get in return is a trip to the beach :)

: I'm hoping the Zonies boycott "our" (none / 0) (#37)
by oculus on Fri May 28, 2010 at 11:58:15 AM EST

beaches. Invasion begins this weekend til Labor Day. Too much traffic.

Refuse Federal Funding (none / 0) (#31)
by mmc9431 on Fri May 28, 2010 at 10:38:17 AM EST

Maybe Arizona should return the millions of dollars the feds have given them for border security, since they've determined they can handle the problem on their own.