La Raza Lifts Arizona Boycott

The National Council of La Raza -- one of the country's most prominent Hispanic advocacy groups -- has lifted the boycott of Arizona that it called for last year to protest the state's then-new immigration law, according to the Greater Phoenix Convention & Visitors Bureau. The CVB reports:

La Raza announced the decision on Sept. 9 in a letter to the Real Arizona Coalition, a diverse collection of businesses, interfaith groups and community leadership organizations -- including the Greater Phoenix Convention & Visitors Bureau -- that had asked for the boycott to be lifted. 

In its letter to the Real Arizona Coalition, La Raza stated: " ... We understand and appreciate the reasons why you believe the boycott should end. In that vein, we are also aware of the hardship it has imposed on many of the workers, businesses, and organizations whose interests we seek to advance. We are hopeful that the more respectful and civil tone that you and many others have worked so hard to establish in recent months will continue. 

"In that spirit, effective immediately, our three organizations will suspend the boycott and cease all efforts to discourage conventions or meetings in Arizona, or to discourage our partners from participating in such meetings. In addition, we will communicate our decision to our allies and partners who supported the boycott in the hope that they will join us."

In its own statement, the Greater Phoenix CVB said:

"The lifting of the boycott is clearly a step in the right direction. It acknowledges that illegal immigration is not just an Arizona issue but a national one, and it makes it easier for our community to get back to the business of booking conventions."

It's unclear how much the widespread calls for boycotting Arizona ended up costing the Grand Canyon State in lost or canceled meetings business. A report from the Center for American Progress last fall -- which we reported on in Convene -- estimated it could be more than $200 million in direct spending.

UPDATE #3: Arizona Boycott

The 2010 Border Governors Conference, which was to be held in Phoenix in September, was cancelled by Arizona Gov. (and conference chair) Janice Brewer last week after the governors of six Mexican states announced they wouldn't be attending because of Arizona's new immigration law. (Read our previous posts about the controversial law here.) But, according to The Washington Post, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who is against the law, is trying to reconvene the conference in another location -- because it offers a valuable forum to hash out the issue:

"I feel very strongly, and so do the Mexican governors, that we need to have the conference because this is a conference that has been going for 30 years," Richardson said. "It's a conference that diffuses a lot of problems."

Brewer agrees. In a letter to the Mexican governors announcing that she had cancelled the conference, she wrote:

Naturally I am disappointed by your decision, as I sincerely believed the gathering of the Governors in Arizona would have presented a great platform to initiate dialogue about the legislation and other topics of great importance to the border region.

Well, maybe it's some kind of a start when people on both side of the issue agree about the power of meetings.

UPDATE #2: Arizona Boycott

DMAI, ASAE, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have come out against the economic boycott of Arizona -- with an emphasis on meetings and tourism -- proposed in response to the state's new immigration law. (Click here for a previous update.) From DMAI:

"More than anything, travel boycotts hurt the local communities and the workers who rely on jobs in the travel and tourism sectors," said Michael Gehrisch, president and CEO of DMAI. "In the case of Arizona, the Arizona Office of Tourism estimates that a boycott would affect 200,000 industry workers -- and their families."

According to ASAE:

A meetings and tourism boycott doesn't hurt the state legislators who drafted the bill; it punishes an entire industry that played no role in the measure's conception.

And the U.S. Chamber makes it three:

"It is very bad policy to boycott the businesses and harm the workers of Arizona based on actions of the state legislature," said R. Bruce Josten, executive vice president of Government Affairs for the U.S. Chamber. "The travel and tourism industry is essential to growth and job creation throughout this country. The last thing we need to do is punish those who are working hard to create the jobs that our nation's economy desperately needs."

None of these responses is what you'd call a surprise, coming as they do from organizations that are part of the meetings industry and/or the business community. But I don't think Rep. Grijalva and his followers would disagree with them, because ultimately, that's the point of a boycott: apply enough pressure and inflict enough damage until the other side caves in. At least one rank-and-file segment of the travel and tourism industry has aligned itself with the boycott: Service Employees International Union, which has announced that "the 2.2-million-member union will boycott conventions and meetings in Arizona in an effort to denounce the extremist, anti-immigration law 'SB1070.'"

This issue remains a moving target, so keep checking back for updates.

UPDATE: Arizona Boycott

Arizona's new immigration law is continuing to ripple through the meetings and hospitality industry, with U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva's call for an economic boycott of his state further muddying the waters. Last week, The Arizona Republic reported that "six groups have canceled meeting or convention plans in the state" because of the law. The U.S. Travel Association has called for an end to "counterproductive Arizona travel boycotts," while the Arizona Hotel & Lodging Association (AzHLA) is urging residents to avoid "driving our state's economy even further into decline and punishing the 200,000 families who rely on tourism for their livelihoods."

And today, the Greater Phoenix Convention & Visitors Bureau released a new statement to Convene:

Unfortunately, the Arizona convention and visitor industry is being used as leverage in a political issue with no direct connection to our industry. Anything intended to hurt the state's will directly impact 200,000 Arizonans and their families who rely on tourism for their livelihood.

The industry is an integral part of our State's economy, and in today's economic environment, it is more important than ever that we do everything we can to attract -- not discourage -- visitors to Arizona. Organizations choosing convention sites and visitors have choices, and we may never know the full impact that all the publicity surrounding the passage of Senate Bill 1070 will have on those choices. We urge any individuals or groups that are considering boycotts not to do so.

Is this issue going away any time soon? Should it?

UPDATE 2: AzHLA says it knows of 19 meetings that have been canceled "as a direct result" of the new law, according to the Phoenix Business Journal.

'A Large Source of Visitors and Revenue'

In response to Arizona's controversial new immigration law, U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) has called for an economic boycott of the Grand Canyon State -- especially as a meeting destination. Grijalva said in a statement:

We are calling on organizations not to schedule conventions or conferences in the state until it reverses this decision. This is a specifically targeted call for action, not a blanket rejection of the state economy. Conventions are a large source of visitors and revenue, and targeting them is the most effective way to make this point before it's too late.

Well, if anyone still needs a reminder that meetings mean business, there it is. As Steve Moore, president and CEO of the Greater Phoenix Convention & Visitors Bureau, tells Convene: "This issue clearly demonstrates the volatility of the convention and visitor industry. In this economy, it is more important than ever that we do everything we can to attract visitors to Arizona, not discourage them. Like conventions, visitors also have choices, and we will never know the full impact critical issues have on those choices."

Indeed, I can't help but wonder if meeting professionals should be, well, flattered. Because look at the economic and political muscle their conferences and conventions are perceived to have! But as a matter of policy, does Grijalva's idea make sense? Would it send a clear, powerful message, and garner the results that Grijalva is seeking? Or is it likely to do more harm than good, possibly opening the Pandora's box of unintended consequences?