I find the results of this pool (and a significant number of comments) appalling. Except for Catherine Stinson's, the comments and the votes seems to completely miss the symbolic value of this boycott, and to focus on immediate, pragmatic and personal effects. The idea of solidarity with the colleagues and the students could not attend or would not dare to, the imposture of the "international" dimension claimed by the conference - a claim they will still use when it will come to list the "international conferences attended" in their CV... -, in other words: the simple moral dimension of this boycott is for the most part ignored!
Perhaps the problem is that APA meetings are a) not really international research oriented but rather are a big local job market fair. b) Attendees go there not because of their intellectual appetite for international research (conveniently delivered at home) but because either they have to be there to interview a candidate for a job or they are scheduled for a job interview. Or because they feel they need to build up their network by showing up and easily pile up one more line for their CV. So why bother with applied moral principles ? To claim that we are against the ban is far enough, and has the huge advantage to position ourselves correctly in the wildly liberal field of humanities, without having to sacrifice anything! "The art of the deal"!