In statewide boycotts, who really suffers?

Several people and organizations are pushing for a boycott of Arizona, to protest that state's draconian new anti-immigration law.

While I strongly oppose Arizona's new law, I am uncomfortable with the idea of boycotting the entire state. I felt the same way last November when there was a buzz about boycotting the state of Maine after voters there passed a referendum to repeal a short-lived law that had legalized same-sex marriage.

My discomfort comes from thinking about whom such a boycott would really affect. And it's not the folks in the statehouse.

If organizations moved their conventions out of Arizona, and families diverted their vacations from the Grand Canyon to Yellowstone instead, the economic hit could be considerable. And, while that's the whole point of a boycott, the people who would suffer the most have nothing to do with the state's immigration policies. The people who would suffer the most are the workers. Hotel and restaurant staff would likely be downsized due to reduced demand for hospitality services during a boycott. Local transportation workers and retailers would suffer as well.

Similarly, if people were to stop purchasing products made or grown in Arizona, would it not disproportionately harm the factory workers, farmers, and other innocent bystanders who had no hand in writing or passing that law, but who stand to suffer if their products stop selling?

Do these "little people" not matter? Are they to be written off as "collateral damage" in an effort to make a bigger point?

Would our energy not be better spent in pushing for ways to overturn the offensive new law and make Arizona a warmer and more reasonable place for residents and visitors alike?