Should You Boycott the Diamondbacks?

By now, you’ve probably heard about Arizona’s proposition SB1070 — the “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act” — which was signed into law by Gov. Jan Brewer on April 23, just two weeks after MLB announced that the 2011 All-Star Game would be held in Phoenix, for the first time ever. The law will go into effect in three months. It “requires a reasonable attempt to be made to determine the immigration status” if “reasonable suspicion exists” that the person is an illegal immigrant. Because of the high proportion of Latin and Hispanic players in baseball, and the Diamondbacks are one of the most prominent (and most mobile) of all Arizona corporations, that means that baseball — and the Arizona Diamondbacks — are caught squarely in the middle of all this.

Boycotts and picket lines for Diamondbacks games have already been threatened. There was a picket line at Coors Field yesterday, and there’s a Facebook page calling for a picket and boycott of tonight’s game against the Cubs at Wrigley Field. The Seattle blog HorsesAss.org called for the Mariners to pull out of the Cactus League. Washington Post columnist Robert McCartney came out in favor of a boycott of D-Backs games, and New York Daily News columnist Mike Lupica called for next year’s All-Star Game to be moved out of Phoenix. The blog La Nueva Raza called for a complete boycott of all things from Arizona. So has Rep. Raul Grijalva — a Democrat from Arizona, advocating a boycott against the state he represents.

The team feels unfairly squeezed, issuing a statement to the Arizona Republic newspaper: “Although D-backs’ Managing General Partner Ken Kendrick has donated to Republican political candidates in the past, Kendrick personally opposes (Senate) Bill 1070… The D-backs have never supported (Senate) Bill 1070, nor has the team ever taken a political stance or position on any legislation.” It’s hardly a full-throated condemnation, but the team is certainly trying to set itself apart from the bill. Certainly, if any of these boycotts take hold, they could stand to lose a fair amount of cash. The issue of moving the All-Star game is bigger, though. All-Star Weekend is a major revenue driver for a city, as it lasts for days and is the center of the baseball universe for the better part of a week, with no other games taking place.

Many have pointed out that there is Arizona precedent for a sports league to relocate a major event on the basis of a disagreement with state law. In 1991, the NFL moved the 1993 Super Bowl out of Arizona after the governor canceled observance of a holiday honoring Martin Luther King, Jr. That had an immediate effect: the holiday was approved by voters in 1992, and the 1996 Super Bowl took place in Tempe. A similar action by MLB would likely provoke a similarly strong reaction from the Arizona electorate, though a strong reaction is no guarantee of a repeal of the bill.

But is a boycott fair? Is it fair for baseball fans to punish the Arizona Diamondbacks for being based in a state which has passed a law that is unpopular in other states? Is it sensible to assume that refusing to see Diamondbacks games is the best way to change the law? Is it sensible to assume, as Dave Zirin of The Progressive writes, that “a boycott is also an expression of solidarity with Diamondback players such as Juan Gutierrez, Gerardo Parra, and Rodrigo Lopez”?

Whether or not the bill lives or dies will have little to do with whether Robert McCartney or Mike Lupica decide to go see the D-Backs when they’re in town. So it’s purely a decision about your personal morality. I’m not quite sure where I stand. What about you?



Print This Post



Alex is a writer for FanGraphs and The Hardball Times, and is a product manager for The Washington Post. Follow him on Twitter @alexremington.


Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
GZ
Guest
GZ
6 years 3 months ago

Sure it’s “fair” to punish the Diamondbacks. The point is that this law (or any law worth boycotting something over) is much bigger and more important to the boycotters than the well-being of the business being boycotted.

If you think this law is really important and really evil, then it is okay to boycott the D-Backs and any other entity, if doing so helps repeal the law.

Logi Berra
Member
Member
Logi Berra
6 years 3 months ago

It’s fair, sure, and there is definitely a precedent for boycotts with political motivations. But the question for me is whether the boycott can be an effective political demonstration in this case. As the article says, there is no connection between the Diamondbacks and the immigration law except that both hail from Arizona. To boycott the Diamondbacks for a crappy law would be like boycotting the Mets because of their loose connection to Citibank. It’s misguided and insensible, and I don’t think it’s going to make a damn bit of difference.

tommybones
Guest
tommybones
6 years 3 months ago

This type of boycott worked in the past in Arizona, when the state egregiously declined to honor the MLK Jr. holiday (notice the trend). This law is an abomination and it needs to be harshly fought with every resource available, which certainly includes boycotting Arizona businesses, due to the national implications of allowing such a horrific and discriminatory law to stand. As we speak, Texas is considering a similar law. Perhaps they change their mind when they see how much it hurt Arizona’s economy. In other words, this is much bigger than Arizona.

james
Guest
james
6 years 3 months ago

Instead of boycotting the diamondbacks, how about we boycott the illegal immigrants and the legal immigrants that protect them. The sheer number of illegal immigrants has become a drain on the economy and on every person that has the legal right to be in this country.

If you want laws like this to be unnecessary then do something about the cause not the effect. If you are a legal immigrant getting a card verifying that you belong here and carrying it should not be a big issue.. I have two, one is called a social security card and the other is a state issued license.

I get so sick of liberals and legal immigrants protecting these criminals and thats exactly what they are it needs to become more strict not less until all the illegals are back in the country that they belong in regardless of what country that is. If they want the rights guaranteed to them by our constitution then they need to come here legally.

Kevin S.
Member
Kevin S.
6 years 3 months ago

James, do you carry your social security card with you at all times? Most people I know don’t, for safety reasons. Also, a driver’s license is not proof of citizenship.

David
Guest
6 years 3 months ago

James – legally speaking being here illegally is not a criminal offense, but a civil matter.

B N
Guest
B N
6 years 3 months ago

Re: James

Show me your papers, now. Or we will have to go downtown.

The problem is not about controlling illegal immigration. It is about how you are allowed to do it. And asking people to prove that they’re citizens on the street is just not okay. It will be the result of profiling, and you know it. So let’s just not do that, k?

Not to say that all profiling is horrible. In some cases, it does in fact make sense to put extra attention on a 20-something Islamic male rather than a 90-year old grandmother on life support. Distasteful, but true. But in this case, where there is no imminent potential for harm and you’re talking about a huge portion of the population? Seriously? It’s an abuse of power.

Let’s put it this way. A Canadian and a Mexican are both living in Arizona illegally. Who gets carded first? If you know the answer to that question, this is a law that shouldn’t pass.

james
Guest
james
6 years 3 months ago

this is a misconception that illegal immigrants and their supporters want you to believe.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/8/12/II/VIII/1325

Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States
at any time or place other than as designated by immigration
officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration
officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United
States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the
willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first
commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or
imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent
commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or
imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

james is wrong
Guest
james is wrong
6 years 3 months ago

james is wrong – it is NOT a misconception. The statute he quotes says that CROSSING THE BORDER ILLEGALLY is a crime. Being here illegally is NOT a crime, it is a civil offense. For example, someone who crosses the border legally – to shop, or on a temporary visa – and then doesn’t go back when the visa expires, has not thereby committed a criminal offense.

james
Guest
james
6 years 3 months ago

lol so its not really illegal for me to be in your house without your permission just the actual entering, so once im there its all good as long as im not caught in the act of coming in?

The fact that they are here without a legal right to be here just PROVES that they broke the law against entering ;)

Eddie
Guest
Eddie
6 years 3 months ago

Yes its fair, and I hope it works.

james is wrong
Guest
james is wrong
6 years 3 months ago

Learn to read, James. I will repeat this for you again. You can enter the country legally (say, on a temporary visa) and then stick around after your visa expires. In that case, you no longer have a legal status in this country, but you did not cross the border illegally (you were allowed to cross the border when you did) and you have committed no crime under U.S. law.

Alex
Guest
Alex
6 years 3 months ago

Way to read the entire law. You say its not against the law to enter the country legally, but stay longer you said you would. That would mean you lied when you crossed the border, right? At least about how long you would be here. That would seem to violate the part of the law that states its illegal to ” attempt to enter or obtains entry to the United
States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the
willful concealment of a material fact,” wouldn’t it?

I’m in no way stating an opinion on AZ’s law here, just pointing out that you seem to have missed a major part of this particular law that James quoted.

Paul Thomas
Guest
Paul Thomas
6 years 3 months ago

For that to be relevant, the person would have to have entered the US with the intent, at the time he entered, of overstaying his visa.

I’m sure that captures a percentage of overstays, but I imagine that it’s far less than half of them. Most people probably overstay because they end up in a better situation than they thought they would and want to keep a good thing going.

Alex
Guest
Alex
6 years 3 months ago

So you’re contention is that saying you’re just visiting the US and then deciding you’re going to stay because you like it doesn’t constitute obtaining entry to the US by a willfully false or misleading representation? I’m pretty sure a court would disagree with you on that one. The person said you were definitely going back to Mexico when in fact they were at least considering making the move illegally. I could see a few special circumstances where they might have an argument, but staying because you ended up in a better situation than you thought you would doesn’t seem like it should be one of them. Literally every single person who was here illegally could use that defense whether or not they had already decided to try and stay here illegally before they crossed the border. If a law is written in such a way that such a defense is possible, then its a terrible law that should have been rewritten almost immediately after being passed. Generally, laws with gigantic loopholes like that don’t last very long.

Ted Hoppe
Guest
Ted Hoppe
6 years 3 months ago

Agreed!, ask Jimmy Carter how boycotting the Olympics went.
Besides, how many people commenting here how to live with the problems that AZ has. What’s the crime rate in Phoenix? Did anyone see the movie “No Country For Old Men”? Areas to the border lands are lawless.
People commenting here seem to think illegal immigration is not costing this country, and AZ, money already. Passing this law, even if it is overturned, drew our attention to the problem AZ deals with on a daily basis.
Should we just open the border to everyone? No? Then what do we do?

Matt
Guest
Matt
6 years 3 months ago

America is not so much a nightmare as a non-dream. The American non-dream is precisely a move to wipe the dream out of existence. The dream is a spontaneous happening and therefore dangerous to a control system set up by the non-dreamers.

— Bill Burroughs

That, my friends, is a fun quote. Burroughs wins!

catholiclutheran
Member
catholiclutheran
6 years 3 months ago

Let us do evil, that good may result? Of course…the end always justifies the means. It’s baseball. Keep the political garbage in the sewer where it belongs.

You'reTheProblem
Guest
You'reTheProblem
6 years 3 months ago

Way to stick your head in the sand. WAKE UP. If you think a boycott is evil, you should have your head examined. Likewise, if you think baseball and politics have never collided in the past, I have a book on the Negro Leagues you should read.

catholiclutheran, you should try being a bit more Christ-like and care about the wellbeing of others.

kriscl
Guest
kriscl
6 years 3 months ago

I read about 50 or so comments in this thread and it is apparent that nobody has read the actual legislation. The strawman arguements involving “Native Americans” and “every brown person” were funny as hell. The joke however is on most of the people on this thread, many of whom seem to share a very liberal view of the world. If NJ, Mass., and Virginia didn’t give you a big enough hint, you are going to be hit by a landslide in November. If you think the issue of protecting illegal immigrants is a winner with the American public, then keep your insults flying. The more times you call someone a racist for wanting the law to be enforced, the more people turn away from your self-righteous form of hate. I suggest a ban on Goldman Sachs since they contributed more money to Obama than any other canidate. Why Fangraphs put this thread up is beyond me. Unless it was a lesson to illustrate how un-informed most liberals really are.

Peter
Guest
Peter
6 years 3 months ago

If you boycott the Diamondbacks, then what next? The Cardinals during football season? How about any team from any State where you do not agree with the what the politicians are doing? Heck, that means I should never go to another game of any sort here in California. Please don’t mix politics with sports. They each have enough issues of their own.

David
Guest
6 years 3 months ago

The point is that you boycott businesses tied to the bill, even if it’s a bit attenuated. If the Cardinals owner doesn’t dabble in politics, it makes less sense, but it still would be somewhat sensible b/c you might make the owner say, “Alright, enough, this bill isn’t worth this hassle. Let’s try to help get it overturned.” A big argument for immigration bills like this is that there is an enormous economic cost as a consequence of poor immigration control (not saying I agree with that). It makes perfect sense to do a counterpoint – hurt the economy in AZ the other way because one disagrees with it.

As for mixing politics and sports – come on, it’s a big, interconnected world with big, interconnected problems. And immigration laws – whether you support them or not – are more important than baseball.

Chris
Guest
Chris
6 years 3 months ago

If the owner of the D-Backs chooses to donate money to a candidate doesn’t mean that they automatically support everything that a candidate does. How many Obama supporters are pissed that we’re beefing up forces in Afghanistan? Wait, by your logic they all support it, and aren’t complaining about it saying the most outrageous crap of how Obama was anti-war and going to end both wars.

Seriously, candidates do crap and pass legislation that their supporters don’t always like and Ken Kendrick already says that he doesn’t support the bill, so why not protest something logical, like, I dunno, the state legislature?! Picket that building and I’m sure you’ll get some awesome reactions that you’re dying for, or maybe picket the state supreme court until they rule it unconstitutional? That makes sense, picketing a baseball team that has nothing to do with it is stupid and more likely to hurt the fans if they decide to relocate because of the bill and the fallout.

quincy0191
Guest
quincy0191
6 years 3 months ago

This is a ridiculous assertion. If you want to boycott businesses that are tied to the bill, you’re going to have to boycott every business ever. All Arizona business pay taxes, which may or may not assist in the costs incurred while enforcing the new laws. And if they don’t (I don’t know where it draws its revenue stream), you’re definitely paying the salaries of people who voted for and proposed the bill. So every business in Arizona is “tied” to the bill.

And since the businesses pay taxes to the federal government, and every business in America (and some outside America) pays taxes to the federal government, and the state of Arizona receives funding and services from those taxes, and some of that funding and some of those services are tied to the bill or the people who voted for the bill, then you shouldn’t patronize those business either. Eventually it becomes some ridiculous “Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon” type thing, and where do you draw the line? No matter where, it’s going to be an arbitrary distinction, which is rather unfair to those business who fall under the “tied to the bill” heading, and will likely vary from person to person.

Instead, perhaps you should do what I said below: publicly display your displeasure, contact your representative, contact the governor, and vote for the other guy next election. These are all actions directly tied to the people who supported the bill, and that’s what you should be doing: things that clearly and directly impact the people who passed the bill, not punishing groups vaguely associated to it. Now, if the entire Diamondbacks ownership has come out in public support of the bill, then go ahead and boycott them. Otherwise, do things which actually stand some chance of being connected to the law.

David
Guest
6 years 3 months ago

Picketing a legislature or a judicial courthouse is not at all akin to a boycott. Legislatures don’t sell anything; as such they cannot be boycotted. Judges can’t rule anything unconstitutional until the case is brought before them.

“If you want to boycott businesses that are tied to the bill, you’re going to have to boycott every business ever.”

THIS is a ridiculous assertion. The point of boycotting is to protest against a business that is tied in one way or another to the bill. The Diamondbacks owner (or part owner) is a known backer of the bill. I fail to see why boycotting a business that has political ties to a party supporting a bill that you fundamentally disagree with is “ridiculous.” It’s entirely different than boycotting, say, Hormel, because they sell hot dogs in the Diamondbacks stadium, which is where your assertion seems to lead. That would be pretty attenuated, especially if the owner of Hormel demonstrates no political affiliation. And like I said, boycotting the Cardinals, for example, makes less sense than the D-backs, but in my opinion, it makes some sense b/c of the visibility and pull the Cardinals would have on the local economy. “Illegal immigration is bad for the economy? Well, so is this bill,” would seem to be the message.

quincy0191
Guest
quincy0191
6 years 3 months ago

See, that’s the question, though: where does the tie to the bill become ridiculous, and why (I know boycotting every business ever is a ridiculous assertion; that’s the point, I want to know where you draw the line between silly and reasonable and why, because I certainly don’t see it)? Why is boycotting Hormel’s, which provides additional income to the owner who backed the bill, and is perfectly willing to make money via an organization that supports the bill, a bad thing and boycotting the Diamondbacks organization is just fine? Is it just public support, or perhaps we should examine their financial records and see if they donated to anyone who supported the bill. And then, of course, if they’re entirely innocent, by not going to D’backs games you’re not buying hot dogs, which is hurting their bottom line simply because they’re tangentially associated with a guy who supported the bill (it may seem like I’m arguing both sides of the coin here, which is somewhat true, but the point is boycotting almost always means you either unfairly punish innocent bystanders or hypocritically don’t punish some people involved with it; it seems rather difficult to purposefully single out individual companies because of how interconnected the economy is). If you want to flex your muscles as a consumer, that’s fine, but why stop at Diamondbacks games? Just keep boycotting until the entire economy shuts down; that’ll prove your point more effectively!

And if a part-owner expressed support for the bill, but the other owners didn’t, why should they be punished along with the idiot? Perhaps you should boycott in proportion to his stake of the team; if he’s a 50% owner, go to 50% fewer games.

I also don’t see how the boycott becomes tied to the bill unless it’s publicly stated, and it seems that a public demonstration against the bill would accomplish the same goal without hurting business.

Basically, I see no way a boycott is going to effectively punish all the guilty parties and none of the innocent ones; and this may seem obvious, but I think it’s important. There’s no way to not be a hypocrite about it, and when other forms of protest (demonstrations, voting, letters to your representatives, donations to groups that fight the bill) work just as well, perhaps better, without that unfortunate side effect, I don’t understand why people would choose a boycott.

quincy0191
Guest
quincy0191
6 years 3 months ago

I’m in this boat. Sure, boycotting D’Backs games sends a message to the state government that you oppose this law, but only if you expressly say that that’s the reason you’re not attending D’Backs games; unless you do so, there’s no reason to connect the two events, because they’re really not related. To achieve this, you’d have to protest outside the stadium, saying you won’t go to games until they repeal this law. So let’s see what we’ve done here:

Cause: State passes stupid law you disagree with.
Effect: You deprive the Diamondbacks of revenue, associate them with a draconian and ridiculous law, and refuse to patronize them until they fix something they did not create and cannot change, while doing very little to actually directly express your displeasure to the state government.

You want to show you dislike this law? Picket government buildings, vote for the other guy, show your displeasure in a way that’s actually connected to the thing you’re angry about. The Diamondbacks did nothing wrong, and so you shouldn’t punish them for others’ mistakes.

You'reAlsoTheProblem
Guest
You'reAlsoTheProblem
6 years 3 months ago

Same thing I said to catholiclutheran, GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF THE SAND. Politics and baseball have mixed plenty of times in the past, and thank God they did, or else we may still have segregation. Arizona is quickly becoming a police state. Why should we have anything to do with something as un-American as this new law? Boycott teams, products, hotels, whatever it takes to get the legislature to wake up and repeal the law.

Jason W.
Guest
Jason W.
6 years 3 months ago

Just a minor nit — SB 1070 isn’t a “proposition”. In fact, that’s what “SB” stands for: “Senate Bill”.

To the substance, though, I don’t have any ethical qualms about a boycott in this situation. I like GZ’s comment above, since it’s put in procedural terms: “if you think this law is really important”, then it’s ok. I feel like a lot of the argument so far has come out that people who are against the law are ok with boycotts and people who are in favor of the law are against them. Those people are, to me, not asking the right question.

I don’t agree with anything the Tea Partiers believe in substantively, but as to their demonstrations, marches, promises to buy twice as many products from advertisers who stick with Glenn Beck, and so forth? I’m all for it. Express your political voice. It’s the American way.

West
Guest
West
6 years 3 months ago

They took errrr jobs!!!

RonDom
Guest
RonDom
6 years 3 months ago

Dey tok r jobs!

disco burritos
Guest
disco burritos
6 years 3 months ago

terkerderrrrr!!

Randy Marsh
Guest
Randy Marsh
6 years 3 months ago

Everyone back to the pile!

David
Guest
6 years 3 months ago

It’s a perfectly legitimate form of speech, especially since the Supreme Court has basically said that money = speech (Citizen’s Bank case). As far as whether or not it’s sensible, from a political standpoint it makes a ton of sense if you oppose the bill: hit a backer of the party that supports the bill where it hurts – in the wallet – in the hopes of pressuring politicians to repeal something you disagree with. As far as whether or not this is an expression of solidarity with the AZ players – that’s a tougher sell, I think. I don’t know much about the players, so I’ll leave that for someone else to discuss.

Paul Thomas
Guest
Paul Thomas
6 years 3 months ago

Perfectly legitimate form of speech– unless you’re a labor union. Then it’s a tort and an unfair labor practice!

No, I don’t understand how that’s constitutional either.

MiekS
Guest
MiekS
6 years 3 months ago

While a boycott may get this horseshit repealed faster, I don’t see how this law can stand.

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. ”

I’m not a lawyer, but I don’t see how the state of Arizona can go to court against the inevitable lawsuit and correlate “reasonable suspicion” with “probable cause.” ACLU lawyers are probably having a massive game of rock-paper-scissors right now to determine who gets to win this one.

David
Guest
6 years 3 months ago

The “articulable suspicion” is actually a 4th Amendment exception that the Supreme Court has carved out (case is called Terry v. Ohio). Typically, the idea is that a police officer often has a suspicion that something illegal is going on – it’s more than just a “hunch” but it’s not probable cause either. The Court said that if the officer can offer a reasonable suspicion that something illegal is occurring that they can articulate, they can do pat down searches to search for weapons (but nothing else). The Court justified this exception largely on police safety grounds. So, the “reasonable suspicion” part legit and part of Supreme Court precedent. But the application to papers is a lot more questionable – does that really have anything to do with officer safety?

james
Guest
james
6 years 3 months ago

Actually you are required to provide your name, address, social security number to an officer of the law if they ask.. you dont have the right to remain silent when asked to identify yourself. These people dont have social security numbers so that is the problem they are trying to get around.

David
Guest
6 years 3 months ago

Good point – my bad.

MiekS
Guest
MiekS
6 years 3 months ago

Again, not a lawyer, but it was my impression that this exception exists to allow the police to search for weapons if they believe a crime is being committed and exists solely in order to protect them from bodily harm. You pointed all that out, I just don’t see how that can be extended to asking every brown person walking down the street for their papers.

Whether you are a fan of illegal immigration or not, this is harmful. The reasons are obvious if you are liberal. If you are conservative laws liek this just make you look like a hate monger. The backers end up looking bad on TV and have to fight in court. It’s a no win situation from a PR standpoint.

David
Guest
6 years 3 months ago

Right – my point was just to point to the fact that the language comes from a constitutional source. It’s just that the application is very, very dubious. I personally think that, while police can ask to see identification (I’m not real clear on how far this goes), it’s a different story to require people to have their immigration papers/SS numbers. I believe, and hope, that the bill will be found unconstitutional.

Matty
Guest
Matty
6 years 3 months ago

It’s not just the 4th amendment issue, this thing is a hornet’s nest of constitutional problems. 14th Amendment Due Process and Equal Protection, and probably most importantly – field preemption. This basically says that some areas of legislation are peculiarly federal in nature, and a state is not allowed to interfere with federal policy in that area. Immigration is perhaps the most established area of the law in this regard. The idea is that immigration deals with issues of national citizenship, so states setting their own, possibly disparate, standards is simply unworkable and yields to the supremacy of federal power. Another provision of the law seeks to prohibit laborers from soliciting work in public places, which raises its own legal issues. Basically, this thing is just going to create a ton of litigation and tie up the courts, and in the end I think it probably won’t stand. My personal feelings on the matter: Illegal immigration is a huge problem, but this is not the way to address it. We all know that the requisite reasonable suspicion will be found primarily on the basis of race. During WWII we sought to neutralize potential 5th column dissident elements in America through an internment system. You know how we figured out who these “elements” were? They were Japanese. Sure, its not a perfect analogy, but the precedent in this area is troubling enough to put this law to rest.

Kevin S.
Member
Kevin S.
6 years 3 months ago

To be fair, one could (and many have) made the same argument against sanctuary cities.

tommybones
Guest
tommybones
6 years 3 months ago

The legislation in question is an egregious violation of American values and might very well be unconstitutional. I fully support boycotting anything having to do with the state of Arizona until this horrific bill is repealed.

C.J.
Member
C.J.
6 years 3 months ago

While I don’t agree with the new law, I am disappointed that people would be so quick to promote the boycotting of Arizona-based businesses in retaliation. I realize that big businesses have long-reaching arms in our capitalist country, and thus provide an easy way to attempt to sway the opinions of our elected officials. But, there are a lot of people that work for the Diamondbacks (or any other Arizona business) that probably don’t agree with this new law. Taking any action that could negatively affect their lives seems, to me, to be the wrong approach. In the case of the Diamondbacks, it’s not just the ownership that will feel the affects of a boycott. Think about all of the people working in the stadium: grounds crews, security, vendors etc.

Matt S
Guest
Matt S
6 years 3 months ago

For better or worse, the financial bottom line of a large company has a massive say in politics, locally and nationally. If Arizona is hurt by a loss of revenue by the D-backs then that is probably one of the best ways to bring about a change in policy- whether it is fair to the D-Backs as an organization or not.

I think it is VERY fair to use your power as a consumer in this way, though, since the various MLB teams often use their economic might to ensure their interests are protected (see nearly any stadium deal in the last ten years). It is silly to think that street won’t run both ways.

ogZayYsj3r7CGsz
Member
ogZayYsj3r7CGsz
6 years 3 months ago

If a protester of this bill was beaten to death, that could sway public opinion against it.

Two wrongs don’t make a right.

tommybones
Guest
tommybones
6 years 3 months ago

Boycotting businesses isn’t a crime, while beating someone to death is a crime. Strange analogy.

ogZayYsj3r7CGsz
Member
ogZayYsj3r7CGsz
6 years 3 months ago

It’s the idea that it doesn’t matter who you hurt so long as you get what you want.

JAH
Guest
JAH
6 years 3 months ago

By that logic I am doing something wrong by buying Pepsi instead of Coke because my main concern is quenching my thirst, and who cares what other companies get hurt. People are not obligated to support a company by spending money their there if they don’t feel like it. It’s their money.

ogZayYsj3r7CGsz
Member
ogZayYsj3r7CGsz
6 years 3 months ago

Where you spend your money is your business.

Telling other people to boycott a company is your right.

Trying to force change in Arizona by boycotting the Diamondbacks is just stupid. Do something more productive than not going to their games if you want any real change.

Mike G.
Guest
6 years 3 months ago

I’m a Hispanic, first-generation American (my father came here legally on a work visa), so I won’t be setting foot in Arizona any time soon. However, a boycott of the Diamondbacks is rather pointless. They certainly didn’t support or pass the legislation, and for the players on the field I’m sure they just want to play the game and live their lives. This isn’t like boycotting a company that poisons the environment, hires or contributes to the hiring of child labor, or hires illegal immigrants. The best “boycott” that could happen in Arizona is for residents to move out of the state to a more tolerant environment, creating a brain drain that will eventually hurt the economy and send jobs and economic innovation to more tolerant states like mine.

james
Guest
james
6 years 3 months ago

how can someone who is here legally support people who are stealing from your country and are here illegally? You are in fact a major part of the problem and the reason this bill is passed. you should be turning in every person that is here against the laws of your country.

JH
Guest
JH
6 years 3 months ago

Why exactly is your hatred limited to the immigrants themselves, james? You’d think if your stand was truly principled, you’d save at least a little of your ire for the people who knowingly employ undocumented workers at wages legal citizens wouldn’t tolerate. Just once I’d like to see some of the anti-undocumented worker zealots out there blame the people actually driving the market forces that give rise to their presence here in the first place.

JH
Guest
JH
6 years 3 months ago

And “stealing from your country?” Last I checked (which is every Thursday at a low-wage worker clinic I volunteer at), undocumented workers pay payroll taxes just like the rest of us.

Joe P.
Guest
Joe P.
6 years 3 months ago

Yes, because holding a viewpoint different from your own means he is harboring illegal immigrants. Go pee in someone else’s swimming pool.

Mike G.
Guest
6 years 3 months ago

Your response has a pair of false assumptions:

1) You assume that I am for illegal immigration. I am not. As the son of a legal immigrant who followed the rules to get into this country, I resent illegal immigrants.

2) Your assumption mirrors Arizona’s assumption that there is some kind of magical way to spot an illegal immigrant. Skin color, income level, or where someone lives don’t tell me whether someone is an illegal or not. I’m all for arresting and deporting illegal immigrants. Harassing honest, taxpaying citizens is not a good method of solving this problem.

james
Guest
james
6 years 3 months ago

Its not hatred other then my disdain for criminals in general. I feel that people that break the law should be punished and people who are here illegally are in fact just petty criminals that are stealing from you and me. I think that people that employ them and hide them are in fact just as bad if not worse than the illegal immigrants themselves.

Zack
Guest
Zack
6 years 3 months ago

“how can someone who is here legally support people who are stealing from your country and are here illegally? ”

Because that is different than what “we” did to Native Americans?
None of us came here legally, they floated across the sea, hit land, and claimed it, slaughtered the Natives, and then treated each wave of immigration after them (easter europe, asia) as lower class, sailed to Africa and kidnapped people in order to be their slaves.

But no, Mexicans crossing the border to get jobs is ruining America.

james
Guest
james
6 years 3 months ago

illegal immigrants steal from you by costing your government money. in 1996 it was estimated that it cost 33 billion dollars to pay for the cost of the illegal immigrants. this was offset by the 12 billion its estimated they paid in taxes so 15 years ago it cost 20 billion, want to guess how many more billions it costs now?

question for james
Guest
question for james
6 years 3 months ago

If tomorrow we amended our immigration laws so that we quadrupled the number of people who were legally allowed to come in from Mexico, would you have a problem with that? I’m not talking about anyone who came in before the law changed, I’m talking about the millions of additional Mexicans who would be immigrating here legally. Would you welcome them with open arms?

james
Guest
james
6 years 3 months ago

Well thank you Zack for helping to prove my point. We invaded land that belonged to native americans and conquered them and took it (has happened since time began a more powerful group takes land from a less powerful one). Your making the point that they are invading our country and need to be driven out forcibly before they take over.

Zack
Guest
Zack
6 years 3 months ago

If you believe they are invading out country to take it over then you are paranoid my friend.

question for james
Guest
question for james
6 years 3 months ago

I see that james is avoiding my question. I think it’s obvious why. Because even though he claims to be upset about Mexicans being here “illegally,” what he’s *really* upset about is just the *number* of them that are here. If we made it legal for millions of Mexicans to be in this country, he would still hate them.

OTerry
Guest
OTerry
6 years 3 months ago

You could make the argument that undocumented workers are incredibly beneficial to the USA, because they provide low-cost labour, in industries that many American’s would consider undesirable. They receive none of the social benefits that are enjoyed by American citizens so are not the fiscal “burden” on society that certain people could claim they are.

By exploiting their labour, American employers make big profits, and tax revenue is generated.

Just saying.

For the record, I think the AZ bill is atrocious.

james
Guest
james
6 years 3 months ago

Sorry I didnt see the question. I have no issue with legal immigrants. I don’t care where they are from, I am not a racist in any sense of the word. I do not like the fact that these people come here illegally causing billions of dollars of our tax money to be wasted. if they are here legally then all of their work will be taxable just like mine and they will gain lawful employment and have the same rights and responsibilities of any other citizen of this country.

Matt W
Guest
Matt W
6 years 3 months ago

It warms my heart to see a sane baseball community on the internet. Seriously.

I keep hearing people claim that sports and politics shouldn’t mingle, and it makes me laugh. They’re not mutually exclusive. See: Muhammad Ali, Jackie Robinson, Jack Johnson, Pat Tillman, etc.

don
Guest
don
6 years 3 months ago

I thought teams kept their home game gate receipts – do they get a portion of away games?

I.e. – would this boycott only apply to out of state visitors to home Diamondback games? These people would seem to me to be rather few in number. Another political cause I can throw myself behind without having to actually do anything.

Poopanaga
Guest
Poopanaga
6 years 3 months ago

It’s like 85-15 and 90-10 for the home team depending on league. So while there might be a little economic pinch felt, for the most part it would probably be more for the publicity.

JoeIQ
Guest
JoeIQ
6 years 3 months ago

I see the D Backs might be “in the middle of it” but I don’t see a connection between the bill and boycotting games. That would be like moving Zambrano to the bullpen. IT’s not the best solution and doesn’t even have a plus side to it.

thegeniusking
Guest
thegeniusking
6 years 3 months ago

What’s great about boycotting and picketing the Diamondbacks is that people can now picket in front of every ballpark they visit, thus allowing say, those of us here in Chicago, a real chance to make a physical stand against a state very far away.

DavidCEisen
Guest
DavidCEisen
6 years 3 months ago

This is a good point.

Zach
Guest
Zach
6 years 3 months ago

Great baseball discussion today. Oh wait.

DavidCEisen
Guest
DavidCEisen
6 years 3 months ago

This is just as much of a business of baseball site as it is a baseball one.

Zach
Guest
Zach
6 years 3 months ago

And about 10% of this discussion has been about baseball or the business of baseball. The rest has been pure politics. I don’t think politics falls under the “business of baseball” umbrella. Maybe Alex didn’t intend for it to be this way but he had to have known that it would have.

Schu
Member
Schu
6 years 3 months ago

Stick to writing about baseball, not politics. Arizona is doing nothing more than what the Federal Government is supposed to be doing, controlling our borders. It’s got nothing to do with race and everything to do with enforcement of the laws already on the books. It wouldn’t matter if they were Chinese immigrants or German immigrants or whatever else, the pigment of their skin is inconsequential.

thegeniusking
Guest
thegeniusking
6 years 3 months ago

Schu, I have a reasonable suspicion that you might be a racist. I have no firm evidence, but because of this new law, I’m allowed to search and detain you. Isn’t America grand?

Mike G.
Guest
6 years 3 months ago

It has nothing to do with race until they pull someone over who “looks” Hispanic but is a U.S. citizen. Then it has everything to do with race.

Schu
Member
Schu
6 years 3 months ago

Mike, if the vast majority of illegal immigrants in the area were of Swedish and German decent and I got pulled over and asked to show my ID, I would have no problem doing so. There’s only two real roles that government should play and those are in Justice and Defense. This bill that Arizona has passed touches on both.

Adam T
Guest
Adam T
6 years 3 months ago

Respectfully, the law does not allow POs to pull someone over just because he or she “looks” Hispanic. In fact, the law expressly forbids it.

Adam T
Guest
Adam T
6 years 3 months ago

Having read the bill, I believe it is constitutional. So from that standpoint, boycotts seem silly. Especially so when the D-Backs really have nothing to do with the bill. That said, if people want to make a political statement, they have that right.

People should NOT boycott the D-Backs, but are free do to so.

DavidCEisen
Guest
DavidCEisen
6 years 3 months ago

The law is preempted by federal law and violates the Supremacy Clause of Article VI. As long as the federal government’s position is that Arizona’s efforts are having a negative effect on immigration enforcement, which is the position it is taking, the law should be found to not be constitutional. However, due to the current conservative activist Supreme Court, this may not be the case.

Adam T
Guest
Adam T
6 years 3 months ago

Your demagougery aside, you have a point about the Supremacy Clause. Of course, the question of negative effect would be moot, thus making it unjusticiable, given the fact that the law hasn’t even taken effect yet.

And even a “conservative activist” Supreme Court would recognize the possible Supremacy Clause issues. After all, those darn conservatives are the ones who look to apply the plain language of the Constitution.

However, the Guaranty Clause, which requires the federal government to protect the states, and Article I, Section 10, which empowers state action in certain cases in the case of invasion, could be counters to the Supremacy Clause argument. Surely it can be agreed that the federal government has been shortcoming in its immigration enforcment efforts.

Would make for an interesting argument, that is for sure.

DavidCEisen
Guest
DavidCEisen
6 years 3 months ago

“After all, those darn conservatives are the ones who look to apply the plain language of the Constitution.”

hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!! I love conservatives. Please explain the Constitutional basis for Bush v Gore, Citizen United, or Scalia’s views on the 11th Amendment. Please conservatives have been co opting the Constitution for a century.

Paul Thomas
Guest
Paul Thomas
6 years 3 months ago

The Supreme Court has always been “activist.” It’s a somewhat fluky historical accident that it briefly happened to be activist in a liberal direction in the 1960s and 1970s, because the entire remaining history of the institution has it in or to the right of the mainstream. Chisholm v. Georgia… Fletcher v. Peck… Dred Scott… the Slaughterhouse Cases… the Civil Rights Cases… Plessy v. Ferguson… Lochner v. New York… the list just goes on and on.

DavidCEisen
Guest
DavidCEisen
6 years 3 months ago

Quit ruining my fun! However the two Justices that have overturned the most legal precedents in the history of the court are current ‘conservative’ justices.

Schu
Member
Schu
6 years 3 months ago

Well, I’m on my way out to the mall to buy myself a D’backs hat and jersey. I’m a Mets fan but that’s alright, gotta be a counterweight to those who don’t put any thought into the opinions they hold.

Matt W
Guest
Matt W
6 years 3 months ago

Yes, people that disagree with you obviously aren’t thinking clearly.

Schu
Member
Schu
6 years 3 months ago

Those that have likened this bill to the Nazi’s forcing Jews to wear yellow stars on their clothes aren’t thinking clearly and in discussions I’ve had since it’s passed, all I hear is rage. If it had been a Democrat Senate and Governor who had passed the bill, I guarantee it wouldn’t have even made the news. The media bias in this country is astounding.

And no, I’m no Republican either, I’m a libertarian (and not a Glenn Beck wannabe).

Paul Thomas
Guest
Paul Thomas
6 years 3 months ago

A Democratic senate and governor wouldn’t have passed the bill, because the Democratic party is not filled with hysterical racists. Talk about a nonsensical argument.

cpebbles
Guest
cpebbles
6 years 3 months ago

So in your mind, the liberal bias of the mainstream media is confirmed because you presume that if the Democratic party had passed a law which runs counter their ideals, the media would have reported it.

Seriously, seek help. This rises to the level of mental illness.

Jason B
Guest
Jason B
6 years 3 months ago

Yes, and that’s all conservatives are – racists and bigots. While libs are commies, socialists, and tree huggers.

Golly gee, stereotyping is grand. Can we get beyond that and realize that reasonable people may differ on issues? Discuss policies and not people?

Joe R
Guest
Joe R
6 years 3 months ago

Yes, and that’s all conservatives are – racists and bigots. While libs are commies, socialists, and tree huggers.

Golly gee, stereotyping is grand. Can we get beyond that and realize that reasonable people may differ on issues? Discuss policies and not people?

I just enjoy how even on fangraphs, a site where its users are generally intelligent, a “NO U” war breaks out.

If you support the bill, you’re obviously a racist hatemonger.
If you oppose the bill, you’re obviously a hippy douchebag who spends all day smoking weed and dreaming of new ways to save the world while your parents pay for your graduate degree in philosophy.

YEAH ZING! PWN3D!

Paul Thomas
Guest
Paul Thomas
6 years 3 months ago

I didn’t say every conservative was a racist. I said the Republican party is filled with racists. Which is objectively true.

A very substantial proportion of the population that votes Republican is comprised of people with genuinely pathological viewpoints– when you combine the theocrats, the white supremacists, and the plain old fascists… well, it starts adding up.

Joe R
Guest
Joe R
6 years 3 months ago

While true that the GOP attracts more racists (at least white ones) than the Democratic party, it’s simply incorrect to do as many have, which is write off the view as nothing but racism.

Here’s the neutral “sissy” way to look at the bill. In terms of really taking a ballsy stand v. illegal immigration, three cheers to Arizona. But the law stinks. I know they tried to call racial profiling illegal in this case, but how many white people will be stopped and questioned in AZ? Heck, how many black people or asians? It’s most certainly a law directed at hispanics. And while I won’t act like the self-righteous guy and be all offended so that I can turn my view into sympathy, it’s very obviously a flawed law that will hurt people here legally.

Jason B
Guest
Jason B
6 years 3 months ago

“I said the Republican party is filled with racists. Which is objectively true.”

Well it’s good to see that we got beyond the 3rd-grade level name calling. Yes, the Republican party is home of many racists and bigots and otherwise bad seeds. Granted. Given. The Democrat party is home to many ne’er-do-wells also. And they “start to add up”, too. As comfortable as it is for both sides to hate and smear everyone with a different viewpoint, let’s move past that and talk on issues.

(I love commenting as much as anyone, I guess, but trying to change anyone’s mind on politics or religion is tilting at windmills…)

Knowing that…let’s chill out and watch John Buck sock a few dingers!!!

Chris K
Guest
Chris K
6 years 3 months ago

The fact that you would spend your money to counteract other people’s boycott is a testament to why libertarians shouldn’t be allowed within 5,000 feet of power.

Schu
Member
Schu
6 years 3 months ago

That’s the funniest thing I’ve read all day. Thanks :)

“How dare you have a different opinion than mine!”

Chris K
Guest
Chris K
6 years 3 months ago

Not “how dare you”. More like “you should consider a political philosophy not predicated on a scarily amoral indifference to the oppressive effects of accumulated capital on the indigent”.

But if you don’t think that pissing away money to stick it to dem libs is indicative of the individual recklessness that would turn a libertarian utopia into the America featured in “Running Man”, then buy authentic, and not replica.

DavidCEisen
Guest
DavidCEisen
6 years 3 months ago

So says the guy who claimed everyone who disagrees with you hasn’t thought about the issue.

Mike G.
Guest
6 years 3 months ago

Funny, I consider myself a libertarian too, but one of the big libertarian precepts is to say “NO!” anytime the police (or any authority figure) asks you anything about what’s in your car, your house, or where you’re from without probable cause that you have committed a crime.

Kevin S.
Member
Kevin S.
6 years 3 months ago

Yeah, I would also say I’m a libertarian, and trying to counter a boycott is the last thing I’d attempt to do, and if I did, it likely wouldn’t have anything to do with my feelings on the limitations of government.

C
Guest
C
6 years 3 months ago

I’m not sure if your position vis-à-vis those who disagree with you is earnest or not, but I’ll assume it is.

That someone disagrees with you does not ipso facto mean that no thought was put into his stance. I understand that you’re certain that you’re correct; but what you have to realize is that people who disagree with you are just as certain about their position. You _know_ you’re right, of course… but so do they.

This is one of the reasons that any sort of reasoned debate is so difficult. The other side is always considered stupid, so the conversation goes like this:

A: I believe XYZ (maybe reasons are given).
B: I disagree (maybe reasons are given).
A: You’re an idiot.

It’s especially disheartening when facts are actually presented. So often one person will simply ignore actual fact that contradicts his position, even if it’s directly pointed out to him. That’s the result of staking out a position and justifying it after the fact. It goes back to knowing you’re right, so anything contrary to your position cannot be valid in any way.

If you (and I mean everybody who is guilty of the above) could stop and think about the fact that somebody who disagrees with you might actually be an intelligent person (or at least no dumber than you), things might not devolve quite so quickly. Please stop thinking that disagreement means lack of thought.

Schu
Member
Schu
6 years 3 months ago

You’re absolutely correct. Devolving arguments happens far too easily over the internet. I’m guilty of it myself rather often because I see very, very little original thought on the part of most people. 99% of the time I just assume that they’ve received their opinions from their favorite blog or television news program with very little input of their own into the given topic. It’s like arguing with a freshly minted liberal arts graduate who can only argue from the point of view of the books he or she was assigned for class. It’s frustrating :)

Alan C
Guest
Alan C
6 years 3 months ago

I’m glad to read that some people disagree with this law, I was starting to believe that everybody was ok with it and it was sad, I’m a legal immigrant coming from Mexico, 10 years of living, studying and now working in this great country but I won’t go to spring training in AZ anymore, it’s not worth the risk.

Texas is now considering a law like this one, Arnold will do the same, he hates immigrants even when he was one. If we don’t do something this law will be in the majority of the states so leaving one state will have the same result. I hope that the MLB players do something about this, a boycott might not do all the work but it sure will help.

Thank you guys, I was very disappointed with the society.

Adam T
Guest
Adam T
6 years 3 months ago

With all due respect, Alan – you are in no risk of getting stopped by a policeman if you are obeying laws. The law in question does not allow for a police officer to stop you on a whim. He can only ask about your immigration status if: (1) he stops you for a lawful reason (such as if you were speeding in your car), and (2) he has a “reasonable suspicion” that your immigration status is not legal (this means he has to have specific, articulable facts and not a hunch supporting why he asks about immigration status).

This law requires more of Arizona law enforcement than it does of federal immigration agents. Further, any person can bring civil charges against the law enforcement agency if question if he or she feels the agency acted wrongly.

I hope this talk of boycotts doesn’t get too out of hand. It would be nice to have reasonable debate before the livelihood of so many unassociated with this law suffer for it.

Evan
Guest
Evan
6 years 3 months ago

I don’t think that’s the only way to read the law (first requiring a stop for some independent reason). If that’s how it’s enforced, it’s certainly less of a big deal, but it’s still unclear to how one would create reasonable suspicion that they are an illegal immigrant.

Adam T
Guest
Adam T
6 years 3 months ago

Evan – I’ve got one for you: A police officer pulls over a speeding van near the US/Mexico border. This, of course, is lawful. While performing the stop, he hears noises from the back of the van, and asks the driver to open the rear doors. In the back are 15-20 people. Given the history of immigrant smuggling, this very well could allow for the necessary “reasonable suspicion.”

The key will be how the law is enforced, and the “reasonable suspicion” requirement (which is established by constitutional jurisprudence) will be the kicker.

But again, there are civil remedies for persons wrongly accused, and the law requires more than is required of federal agents under existing federal statutes (and I haven’t heard much complaining about those statutes).

Evan
Guest
Evan
6 years 3 months ago

To Adam T, there are definitely situations where you’re right, reasonable suspicion would exist. I just think they’re few and far between (I guess the counter here is that the law isn’t that big a deal, but I guess we’ll have to wait and see how it’s enforced). I also think that the law didn’t have to go as far as did to cover the situation you described. If the law just said that illegal crossing the federal border is a violation of Arizona law, then police could still have arrested for probable cause without getting into this murky reasonable-suspicion area.

james
Guest
james
6 years 3 months ago

It is the governments responsibility to defend our borders. I for one believe that stricter laws need to be instituted to make it much harsher on illegal immigrants (regardless of color or nationality) maybe start iding everyone walking down the street. Its not a right to not identify yourself as a citizen if asked by a law enforcement officer. I for one as a citizen would have no problem identifying myself to an officer of the law or even carrying a right to be here id at all times. You have the rights but refusing to identify yourself even if your doing nothing wrong isnt among them.

roycesweeney
Member
roycesweeney
6 years 3 months ago

To Adam T: “A police officer pulls over a speeding van near the US/Mexico border.” The officer would be able to inquire into their immigration status without the relevant law.

Doug Lampert
Guest
Doug Lampert
6 years 3 months ago

He can inquire all he wants. But without this law his inquiry is IRRELEVANT. Because Arizona can’t enforce Federal law and an illegal was not in violation of any Arizona law prior to this law.

Getting someone deported or hoilding someone on immigration charges without this law requires federal action and cooperation, which Arizona has claimed it is not getting.

roycesweeney
Member
roycesweeney
6 years 3 months ago

That’s all well and good, but all you need to take this one step at a time. The ability to arrest for being an illegal alien is a separate issue. The issue being discussed here is when is an officer going to have reasonable suspicion that someone is illegal. All I’m pointing out here is that the law, in this hypothetical, is unnecessary.

Giving the state police the powers of ICE is a separate issue. I think there would be less uproar over this law if that’s all it did.

Doug Lampert
Guest
Doug Lampert
6 years 3 months ago

So you think an officer SHOULD have the power to hold illegals. But SHOULD NOT have the SAME EXACT POWER that federal officials have to ask to see papers proving legality when there is a reasonable suspicion that someone is an illegal.

Is that actually your possition? That a police officer should NOT be allowed to check if someone is legal even if he has a reasonable suspicion that he is illegal, but that if the officer SOMEHOW KNOWS the man is illegal despite NOT being authorized to check he should be able to hold?

Seriously?

How do you know if you can’t check with reasonable suspicion? Psychic powers? It’s a serious question. Really. If you WON’T let an officer check on reasonable suspicion then how do you expect him to check those people he just found in the back of a sealed van.

Your distinction and objection strike me as senseless.

roycesweeney
Member
roycesweeney
6 years 3 months ago

I don’t know where you got the idea regarding what my position is or isn’t. All I was saying was that your response to my post was irrelevant.

To tell you the truth I don’t get the point you’re trying to make. Or maybe I do…is your essential point that state officers should have the same power to inquire into legal status as federal officials? That’s not the question I am addressing. All I am saying is that a regular police officer, when pulling over a speeding van near the border crammed full of people, has, indeed, should, inquire into the passengers’ legal status. This is because the officer would be investigating a crime–smuggling aliens. Determination of legal status is evidence of the crime of smuggling aliens. So without the relevant law, the officers would be able to inquire into the passengers’ legal status.

Another way of saying this is that the officer in the van hypothetical has reasonable suspicion that a crime, smuggling, is taking place. Therefore, the officer can inquire into legal status, because the officer is pursuing the duty of gathering evidence.

AGAIN, I ask, in what situation would an officer have “reasonable suspicion” that a person is an alien that would not already be covered under existing law?

Unfortunately, I’ve been asking this question over and over again in this post, and no one has responded. So I’m going to give up now.

George
Guest
George
6 years 3 months ago

Texas isn’t considering a law like this…a lunatic member of the Lege has proposed it but it won’t go anywhere.

Gabe
Member
Gabe
6 years 3 months ago

As an Arizona resident, I’m on the fence. I guess if a boycott is the way you want to state that you’re against the law, then fine. You’ll also be harming a bunch of people who had nothing to do with the law and are “on your side,” but what’s a little collateral damage, right?

Regarding the actual law, I do find it somewhat funny that everyone is up in arms about giving local law enforcement the right to enforce a federal law, because that’s all this really does. I guess it’s hard to imagine why you might need laws such as this when you don’t live in the #2 city for kidnapping in the Western Hemisphere and have several instances a year where police officers are killed by illegals. It’s not as if this makes “driving while Hispanic” a crime as some would have you believe. If you’re stopped for doing something illegal, and can’t prove that you’re in this country legally, then you’ll be arrested. I don’t really have a problem with it.

Zach
Guest
Zach
6 years 3 months ago

Thank you. For some reason, not even Obama can grasp what this law actually says. First, be in this country legally. Nobody should be opposed to that. Second, don’t break any laws and you’ll never have an issue. The Police can’t just pull you over under “suspicion.” Actually, they are strictly prohibited from doing that so some people around here need to actually read the law before declaring some national crisis.

Evan
Guest
Evan
6 years 3 months ago

It’s strange to say that the police can’t pull you over under “suspicion” when that’s exactly what the law authorizes them to do.

roycesweeney
Member
roycesweeney
6 years 3 months ago

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE
PERSON’S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

Evan
Guest
Evan
6 years 3 months ago

I’m against the law, but I agree with a lot of what you wrote re: the majority of the country not understanding the problems that Arizona faces because of the large influx of illegal immigrants. I’d dispute, however, that “all this really does” is give local law enforcement officers the right to enforce a federal law. The law actually requires (“shall”) any police officer with a reasonable suspicion that an individual is an illegal immigrant to stop that individual. That goes farther than just giving them the right to enforce any federal law. I also think the next-to-last sentence is somewhat bizarre. First, you don’t have to actually be doing something illegal to get stopped. Second, you shouldn’t have to prove that you’re in this country legally to avoid getting arrested. It’s the officer’s burden to prove grounds for arrest.

Zach
Guest
Zach
6 years 3 months ago

So it requires police officers to do their job rather than giving them a right to do their job. Don’t really see the problem.

Gabe
Member
Gabe
6 years 3 months ago

You are wrong. The first provision is “during any legitimate contact made by an official or agency of the state or a county” (that’s a direct quote from the bill). Which means that there has to be some primary violation. “Driving while Hispanic” is not a crime and therefore any stop such as that isn’t legitimate contact.

So once the contact is made and if he has reason or suspicion, a police officer can then attempt to determine the immigration status of the person. Upon inspection, if the person is found to be in violation of federal law, then he gets turned over to ICE.

I just don’t see it being that big of a deal.

Evan
Guest
Evan
6 years 3 months ago

Responding to Gabe below and others elsewhere, I don’t see why “lawful contact” (which I think is the correct quote, unless I’m looking at the wrong part of the bill) has to come from a stop for some other crime. If a police officer starts a conversation with me, that’s “lawful contact,” as long as he hasn’t restricted me from leaving. If they meant to only allow the immigration investigation after a stop for some other offense, there are certainly much clearer ways to say that.

Gabe
Member
Gabe
6 years 3 months ago

The definition of “lawful contact” in this context is that the potential offender is already detained due to the violation of some other law. Starting a conversation does not meet this standard.

Evan
Guest
Evan
6 years 3 months ago

I don’t know where you’re getting that definition of “lawful contact” from. I would think that lawful contact is any contact that is not unlawful–which would describe most contact with the police.

roycesweeney
Member
roycesweeney
6 years 3 months ago

“Lawful contact” does not necessarily meant that the person is detained…starting a conversation is a “lawful contact.” I promise you.

Gabe
Member
Gabe
6 years 3 months ago
roycesweeney
Member
roycesweeney
6 years 3 months ago

I’m sorry, but he’s just plain wrong. Second, what he thinks it means is not relevant.

From what I know, the term “lawful contact” is not contained in other laws, so a court would have to define it. The only contact that would not be “lawful” would be an unlawful contact. A police officer is perfectly free to start a conversation with you. Therefore the contact is lawful.

I challenge you to find any true support for the notion that the term “lawful contact” means requires that the person contacted violated, or was under suspicion for violating, a law.

What the person who wrote it thinks it means is not controlling.

Gabe
Member
Gabe
6 years 3 months ago

I think you might be right . The more that I dig, the more I think that it’s probably going to have to be defined. It’s probably very purposely crafted such that it both can’t be found unconstitutional and at the same time is open to enough interpretation to give law enforcement the ability to use it.

I still don’t think that the intent or reality of the bill is that police will be allowed to just walk up to someone and demand that they prove they’re legitimately in the country.

roycesweeney
Member
roycesweeney
6 years 3 months ago

I’m glad that you can concede that point. The question is then whether it is constitutional. The challenges will focus on federal preemption and whether it invites racial profiling. I don’t think that the issue we were debating will influence the outcome of either of these challenges. Regarding the latter, it should not matter whether the person is detained or not, because the issue is what can give an officer reasonable suspicion that a person is in the US illegally?

I can’t think of a situation in which an officer would have reasonable suspicion that’s not simply based on racial bias that wouldn’t already be allowed under existing law. For example, someone here posed the hypothetical of a van speeding near the border that has a bunch of people crammed into it. Under existing law, the officers could ask for confirmation of immigration status of the passengers because smuggling aliens is a crime, and one of the elements of that crime is surely that the aliens are aliens.

I can’t see how anyone can say with a straight face that this law doesn’t invite racial profiling. I would love to hear a reasonable argument to the contrary.

DavidCEisen
Guest
DavidCEisen
6 years 3 months ago

“but what’s a little collateral damage, right?”

I’m sorry, but you guys voted all of these people into office. I recall a few years back no one had a problem with boycotting France for opposing the Iraq war.

“I do find it somewhat funny that everyone is up in arms about giving local law enforcement the right to enforce a federal law”

Perhaps you think local law enforcement should also fight wars? Or maybe you local community board should negotiate treaties?

“don’t live in the #2 city for kidnapping in the Western Hemisphere”

Citation please? The best I can find is on Wikipedia, which states that Phoenix was ranked #50 in the US for kidnapping.

Gabe
Member
Gabe
6 years 3 months ago

I don’t see a connection between local law enforcement fighting wars… I just see that local police can now enforce a federal law. If the act is against U.S. law, then how does it make sense that a local law enforcement agent’s hands are tied when they come across the violation.

And I’m happy to provide a citation – http://www.nationalterroralert.com/updates/2009/02/13/kidnapping-capital-of-the-usa-phoenix-arizona/

DavidCEisen
Guest
DavidCEisen
6 years 3 months ago

The point being that the Federal government is better at enforcing policies that have national ramifications–such as immigration policy. The fact is that local law enforcement don’t have the same amount of training as federal authorities. Frankly I don’t trust some small town sheriff’s office to enforcement immigration policy.

DavidCEisen
Guest
DavidCEisen
6 years 3 months ago

Not a credible citation in the least either. Please come up with something halfway respectable.

Gabe
Member
Gabe
6 years 3 months ago

You’re sourcing Wikipedia and you demand a better source than a MSM news source? No less than four major organizations have ran major stories on kidnapping and violence in Phoenix over the past couple years… Give me a break.

I guess you can just read this if you really don’t believe me – http://www.justice.gov/ndic/pubs38/38661/index.htm

DavidCEisen
Guest
DavidCEisen
6 years 3 months ago

Again you can’t back up your claim that Phoenix is the number 2 city for kidnappings in the Western world. There are nearly 300,000 kidnappings of just children a year in this country. According to your first link there were 370 kidnappings in Phoenix. I doubt that Phoenix lead the country in kidnappings.

Phoenix doesn’t have a ‘Mexican’ problem. You have a drug and gun problem. There is a market for drugs, and like this site constantly points out, the market is efficient when there is sufficient demand. However, a market can be regulated–if legal. Legalize pot. Part two is that a significant portion of the weapons used to kill Americans originate in America. Every American should have access to a gun, but we should not give them away like candy. Close the gunshow loophole to begin with.

As a liberal I believe we need to better manage our border. If we are going to provide basic measures like health care and social security, we cannot allow anyone to enter our country and become a citizen. However we cannot treat poor immigrants as criminals, and the ones that have been in this country for a few years should be able to stay. We need better immigration policy, but what Arizona is doing is bunk.

Gabe
Member
Gabe
6 years 3 months ago

You’re right, I can’t back it up. I can’t give you a list where Phoenix falls at #2. You also probably can’t give me a list where they don’t. Whatever.

I’m pretty sure you’re also confusing kidnappings with missing persons. Of your 300,000 figure, only somewhere around 3000-4000 are actual kidnappings. If Phoenix was only at 370 or whatever (which I’ve seen mentioned as a third of the true number), that’s 10% of all US kidnappings. Regardless of whether it’s really #2 (and as I mentioned, there are a bunch of major news organizations who make the claim), it’s still a serious problem that is mainly due to illegal immigration (coyotes, drop houses, etc.).

You’ll get no argument from me about drugs and guns. I say legalize and think we’d be a lot safer if everyone comfortable toted a handgun. But I still don’t see this law as being that big of a deal.

DavidCEisen
Guest
DavidCEisen
6 years 3 months ago

“You’re right, I can’t back it up. I can’t give you a list where Phoenix falls at #2. You also probably can’t give me a list where they don’t. Whatever.”

Correct, but I didn’t make up a statistic!

Gabe
Member
Gabe
6 years 3 months ago

I didn’t make it up either! I guess I just regurgitated what ABC, CNN, and several others “made” up!

DavidCEisen
Guest
DavidCEisen
6 years 3 months ago

The problem, frankly, is that kidnapping is not a scientific term–it means a number of things. For example, my statistic on nearly 300,000 kidnappings of children is based off the statistic that 200,000 children are abducted by a parent and 50,000 by a non-parent, which isn’t exactly a comparable to what kind of kidnappings you were talking about. So there isn’t likely a top kidnapping list. And looking at the word ‘kidnapping,’ the context I was using is likely the best context. Whereas you may want to use the phrase ‘taken hostage.’

I still can’t find any real statistics, though.

Boxkutter
Guest
Boxkutter
6 years 3 months ago

I don’t get it. You don’t like A, so you’re going to boycott C, because B connects them?

Now, I am all for MLB rescinding the AS Game like the NFL did with the Superbowl. But I don’t see how boycotting the baseball games is a sensible reaction to the bill. If anything, more people should attend games, and bring signs or wear shirts that critcize the law. Picket the games, but don’t boycott them. I can even see players refusing to sign with Arizona teams because of the law. But everyone is talking about trying to financially hurt the players who have nothing to do with this. I wouldn’t even blame the owners of sports franchises if they tried to relocate, and I support the idea of cactus league teams moving their spring training.

The government is responsible for this unconstitutional law, not the teams who reside there.

Paul Thomas
Guest
Paul Thomas
6 years 3 months ago

It doesn’t hurt the players. They have guaranteed contracts. It damages the franchise as a whole, but it’s not like the D-Backs are going to go belly-up like Portsmouth soccer. They’re not in anything close to that kind of fiscal trouble.

roycesweeney
Member
roycesweeney
6 years 3 months ago

I agree to a certain extent. I will not be going to AZ anytime soon. The question then becomes does the $ I spend to attend one of ARI’s away games benefit the state? Not in the same way that having the super bowl there would, but it has to benefit them. But by boycotting an ARI away game, I’m damaging the other team as well, and very likely more so. So I’d have to say I’m still going to ARI away games, for now.

NTC
Guest
NTC
6 years 3 months ago

I’m a D-backs fan. And I’m a libertarian who strongly opposes this law.

While it’s undoubtedly true that economics shapes politics, I don’t quite get the logic of boycotting businesses (that don’t have anything to do with politics) in order to enact political change.

If we want to get rid of this Arizona law, we shouldn’t penalize hardworking people who simply choose to run businesses (that is, provide goods or services to people who want them, and at the same time, provide jobs) in the state that happened to pass a really bad law. This has less to do with a boycott of the D-backs than the more general boycotts I’ve read about.

We should direct our energy and resources (money and volunteer hours) to removing those from office who are responsible for passing the law. Boycotting anything to do with Arizona might have some kind of effect — there’s certainly a lot of media attention — but there are other, more important things to do. Public displays of protest can be a lot of fun, and sometimes the people in charge listen. But they listen more if they’re sure that public protests correspond to actual votes. A protest outside Wrigley Field doesn’t really do that. Giving money to candidates who oppose the law can.

As an aside, the state has a strong tradition of two different kinds of Republicans, those who tend to favor immigration (Goldwater, Flake, McCain — until McCain cowardly supported the bill to help himself in his primary) and those who tend to be the worst restrictionists in the country. Given the obvious demand for immigrants in MLB, I’m inclined to think Kendrick is closer to the former, and I take him at his word that he opposes this law.

Paul Thomas
Guest
Paul Thomas
6 years 3 months ago

The purpose of secondary boycotts is not to “punish” the secondary target, it’s to leverage that target into doing something about the primary target. Assuming for the sake of argument that the D-Backs really don’t have a horse in this race, well, if they’re being boycotted, then suddenly they DO have one– and it’s on the side of opposing the law.

exactly
Guest
exactly
6 years 3 months ago

It sucks to be the D-Backs. But a political movement that isn’t willing to cause collateral damage to achieve its goals is a political movement that has already decided to give up and let its opponents win. The anti-immigrant movement has already shown that it’s willing to cause a great deal of collateral damage. If you don’t want to fight fire with fire, you might as well go and support the other side.

DW
Guest
DW
6 years 3 months ago

What a great law.

Finally we can kick out these low life ILLEGALS who rob, rape and murder without repercussion.
They are illegally here. Finally, a law that gets around the PC bull S and uses stereotyping the way it should be used.
If you are against this law, you are FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS STEALING YOUR TAX DOLLARS.

DavidCEisen
Guest
DavidCEisen
6 years 3 months ago

I’m for illegal aliens getting my tax dollars. It sure beats the hell out of it going to oil industries and the top 5%.

But you should be aware that crime rates for illegal immigrants are much lower than for normal citizens. Also they are generally a positive factor in our economy.

Jason B
Guest
Jason B
6 years 3 months ago

Yes all tax dollars funnel to the illegals and poor who are unwilling to get off their asses and work (if you’re a Rep) and/or to Big Oil/Big Pharma/Fat Cats on Wall Street/the rich (if you’re a Dem).

Breathe into a paper bag…drop the sweeping generalizations. Sharpen your arguments. Aaaannnddd….GO!

DavidCEisen
Guest
DavidCEisen
6 years 3 months ago

I was being a bit facetious, sorry to have offended you. Next time I’ll post a 50 page thesis on my specific opposition to our recessive tax policies.

Jason B
Guest
Jason B
6 years 3 months ago

I wasn’t offended, and a 50-page thesis isn’t necessary. 35, perhaps, but with addendums. =) People just turn on the flames so damned easily on whatever easy target they have in their crosshairs, and it detracts from a meaningful argument or position (not you in particular, internet message boards are chocked FULL of rampant, ill-informed hysteria and paranoia, which makes them humorous and interesting, but rarely informative…present company [generally] excepted).

For the left the easy targets are those stinkin’, cheatin’ rich bastards on Wall Street and Big Oil, soaking the poor and climbing on their backs on the way to the top, taking advantage of tax shelters and loopholes all along the way and never working one honest days’ work in their life. For the right, it’s those lazy worthless gun-totin’, drug-smugglin’ negroes and Mexicans who shouldn’t even be here in the first place and are squandering all my hard earned tax dollars…

Me? I like to stay above the fray, ask for a little civility and focus, and let people passionately argue (when no one’s mind will be changed, but gee it sure felt good to unload that lengthy diatribe/rant), and hope against hope that the Blue Jays close out the season on a 140-game-win streak.

Alan C
Guest
Alan C
6 years 3 months ago

If I was an illegal immigrant the first thing I would try to avoid is having problems with the law, if they get me they will kick my ass to where I came from and that means that my family won’t have something to eat or a place to live.

Are illegal immigrants really that bad? I think that legal immigrants and people born here are the ones that do that kind of stuff.

DW
Guest
DW
6 years 3 months ago

They send their kids to public schools..eating your tax dollars
They demand everything in Spanish..eating you tax dollars
They join gangs and sell drugs
They lower property values
The work for slave wages, driving down the wages for legal Americans.

I am all for immigration. just do it legally and pay your taxes like everyone else.

Chris K
Guest
Chris K
6 years 3 months ago

Really? You don’t want American citizens who are going to live in this country their whole lives obtaining the best education possible? I mean, the state of education in Arizona leaves a lot to be decided, but their children are predominately US citizens…

Who has demanded anything in Spanish, and how does this cost the US taxpayer a dime?

Illegal immigrants commit crimes at a much lower instance than US citizens.

It’s a sad reflection on the state of this country that black people lower property values. What’s your point? That you don’t want minorities living around you?

I fail to see how illegals making less than minimum wage could possibly impact the wages of legal employees, set at a minimum of a shade over 7 dollars (don’t recall offhand).

Take your nativist bigotry elsewhere. Here at fangraphs you must be this educated to comment.

DW
Guest
DW
6 years 3 months ago

They are born here. The parents dont pay anything to the government. The children as far as I’m concerned dont deserve the same things my parents paid for me to get. Just ship them out if they dont have a green card. How is this anything but logical. If you go to a baseball game and dont have a ticket…you dont deserve to enter for free.

Formatting everything into other languages takes time, along time (which is money) and money to alter everything that is already in English. We have to train our teachers extra because the illegal children dont speak English.

DW
Guest
DW
6 years 3 months ago

Speaking of lack of education, you really have no knowledge of economics. Minimum wage is bad for business because it forces firms to pay above market value for labor.

Paul Thomas
Guest
Paul Thomas
6 years 3 months ago

If you really believe that minimum wage is a bad thing for businesses, then you should be in favor of completely opening the borders so that illegals suppress wages to “efficient” levels. Your arguments are literally logically incompatible.

DW
Guest
DW
6 years 3 months ago

It is against the law to have illegals working for you. So whats you point? The market will determine wages, and if we had better boarder security, the illegals would not drag dont wages, and minimum wage would be obsolete.

DavidCEisen
Guest
DavidCEisen
6 years 3 months ago

“They are born here. The parents dont pay anything to the government. The children as far as I’m concerned dont deserve the same things my parents paid for me to get. Just ship them out if they dont have a green card. How is this anything but logical. If you go to a baseball game and dont have a ticket…you dont deserve to enter for free.”

Unfortunately the Constitution makes them citizens. Why do you hate the Constitution?

DavidCEisen
Guest
DavidCEisen
6 years 3 months ago

“Speaking of lack of education, you really have no knowledge of economics. Minimum wage is bad for business because it forces firms to pay above market value for labor.”

Lol. I love that people pass off economic opinion for economic fact. The debate on minimum wage is still very much being waged, but it seems that more economists are moving to the position that minimum wages are a good thing.

mowill
Member
mowill
6 years 3 months ago

Yes there is an ongoing debate about minimum wages.

On one hand Keynsian economists believe min. wages create wage competition and increase the standard of living. Wage competition means that wages for higher skilled work increase as a result of a higher minimum wage. An honest Keynsian will admit that a higher min. wage means that some people are paid more than their true worth in real dollar terms.

Laissez-faire economists believe that minimum wages, and higher wages in general, lead to inflation. Also that minimum wages distort the labor market, although they believe this distortion to be much stronger than most other economists.

And Austrian or Libertarian economists believe simply, that wages should be market based and represent the true value of the work being done.

Amazingly in this case I would tend to agree with Keynsian economists. A strong minimum wage is akin to a rising tide lifting all boats. And the link between wages of any kind influencing inflation has just about been disproved. Wages rose the most in the 80’s and 90’s, both times of low inflation. Wages were the most stagnant during the 70’s and 00’s, decades during which inflation conditions were more than ideal.

Unfortunately illegal immigrants work outside the realm of lawful employment and this does have a negative effect on wages in the less skilled parts of the labor force.

Mike
Guest
Mike
6 years 3 months ago

I generally watch sports to get away from politics, so I will not be boycotting.

Zach
Guest
Zach
6 years 3 months ago

They would have to be pulled over for another violation so no, Evan, they are not authorized to just pull over whoever they want. Again, read the law.

Evan
Guest
Evan
6 years 3 months ago

I responded to the same point above, but I don’t think that’s the only way to read the law. Nor do I think (though I certainly could be wrong) that the governor made that argument when she was trying to defend the law.

Alan C
Guest
Alan C
6 years 3 months ago

The problem is at the border, not at the city.

Now what will I have to tell my children? be careful, others can make mistakes but you can’t and don’t forget your birth certification, don’t lose it, if you do it you will have problems because of the color of your skin. Does that sound equal? is that freedom?

I agree that illegal immigration is a problem, but is not my fault or other legal immigrants that the security of our border is having problems or that the economy in Latin America is really bad. After all, the security of the border is the real problem, drug and illegal immigrants come from the border with Mexico and weapons enter from the United States to Mexico.

Brian
Guest
Brian
6 years 3 months ago

This is beyond stupid. What the hell do the Diamonbacks have to do with the Arizona legislature? Apparently the people of Arizona are fed up with this problem and Washington’s refusal to fix it. The tea party crowd takes to the streets to protest and they’re labeled hatefull. Another crowd takes to the streets to protest a law against ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION and they’re called noble and caring because they support lawbreakers?

thegeniusking
Guest
thegeniusking
6 years 3 months ago

1. The tea party is full of hateful people. Not all of them, obviously, but at this point, if you associate with them, you will be labeled an ignorant hate monger.
2. What do the Diamondbacks have to do with Arizona Legislature? They gave large amounts of money to the republican campaigns, thus financially supporting the people who passed this Bill.
3. No person is illegal.

Pennant
Member
Pennant
6 years 3 months ago

No person is illegal? Try going to another country even Canada without passport and then ask for free medical care if you dont have insurance here.

Tea Party full of hateful people? I guess you disagree with their politics.

mowill
Member
mowill
6 years 3 months ago

I covered a tea party event and found the people there to be some of the most patriotic Americans I have meant. There complaints are about taxes and spending and it is the spending that inflames them most.

The tea party movement is a direct result of the flouting of public opinion by the U.S. Congress when it passed the TARP legislation. It has nothing to do with Obama or healthcare or racism or bigotry. If not for Congress ignoring the 90% of Americans against the corporate bailouts the tea party would not exist.

Mr. Wells
Guest
Mr. Wells
6 years 3 months ago

“May I see your papers, citizen?”

The future is scary.

mowill
Member
mowill
6 years 3 months ago

Yes, I believe members of both parties support a national ID card. With R.F. capabilities and biometrics.

That truly is much scarier than this immigration law.

LV51
Guest
LV51
6 years 3 months ago

The key here is “illegal” in illegal immigrants.
THEY are breaking the law. Go Arizona, and thank you for taking a leadership position. I appreciate Arizona and will make a point of visiting Arizona and going to a Diamondbacks game.

Schu
Member
Schu
6 years 3 months ago

Chris K, since I can no longer reply to that ‘thread’… what exactly do you think it means to be a libertarian? Why does the concept of individual freedom warrant your contempt? Do you feel that it’s the governments job to make your daily decisions for you? Is it the job of elected politicians to meddle in the marketplace while simultaneously creating a system of crony capitalism? Does the idea that people should be responsible for their own actions and be free from persecution as long as they do not infringe on the life or liberty of others bother you?

Libertarianism is what this country was founded upon. ‘Classically liberal’ is another term for it since the original ‘liberal’ has been corrupted into meaning it’s antonym.

I like my freedom enough that I was willing to serve this country in its defense. Have you put your life on the line for your beliefs?

Chris K
Guest
Chris K
6 years 3 months ago

Thank you for your service, but holding a rank is not a prerequisite to engaging in political discourse. If the United States is ever threatened by an enemy against which a military could be effectively used, I’ll be first in line. I was unable to enlist after 9/11, and by the time I turned 18 we were involved in Iraq, so no, I chose not to fight in wars to which I am ideologically opposed and which I believe are ultimately detrimental to American interests.

I am a civil libertarian, and have been a card carrying member of the ACLU since I was 16. I am not an “economic libertarian”, because the inequitable distribution of income necessitates government action. If we were all born into a Hobbesian state there may be merit to libertarian arguments, and I’d much rather have Ron Paul in office than Tom Tancredo, but I still believe that libertarianism is a morally bankrupt and practically unworkable belief system.

This country was founded upon the richest men in the colonies seeking to preserve their fortunes. Liberty was an incidental concern. While it would be improper of me to sit in judgment of the morals of 18th century America with my 21st century knowledge of what is right and wrong, it is an irrefutable fact that most of the founders were primarily concerned with their own economic interests. Individual citizens were no more free under the AoC than they were under the crown, and the Bill of Rights wasn’t ratified until well after the conclusion of the war. Please don’t invoke the founders to bolster your argument.

Since this is a baseball blog, I’d just like you all to take a moment to reflect on the fact that Ozzie Guillen had Juan Pierre batting DH before Quentin pulled his hamstring today. Being a Sox fan used to be a lot of fun…

Schu
Member
Schu
6 years 3 months ago

I most certainly can invoke the Founders. Thomas Jefferson not only wrote the DoI, but he wrote Virginia’s Constitution as well which became the framework for the national one (he’s also rumored to have written the French Constitution during the Revolution). He most certainly held libertarian beliefs and was influential enough that he ended up as our third president as well.

Are you going to mention that he held slaves to discredit him now? I’m sure you’re a smart kid, but your liberal arts bias is showing heavily.

Chris K
Guest
Chris K
6 years 3 months ago

Since when is having a liberal arts degree a strike against you?

Yes, I do think that raping people you keep in shackles demotes your liberty-cred just a tad, authorship of the VA constitution aside. I’m more than a little perplexed that you don’t.

verd14
Guest
verd14
6 years 3 months ago

too many smart an opinionated people read this site to post something like this. shame on you alex.

Matt
Guest
Matt
6 years 3 months ago

I concur. Interesting to see the political affiliations of typical fangraghs readers, though.

Evan
Guest
Evan
6 years 3 months ago

So there’s about a 50-50 chance that this was just an attempt to win a bet about how many comments it’d be possible to get in a short period of time, right? (Not that I didn’t fall into the trap.)

CaseStreet
Guest
6 years 3 months ago

Should you boycott the D-Backs?
Since the D-Backs owner has supported the Republican politicians that wrote and passed SB-1070, it only makes sense that if you don’t agree with the bill, you should protest those that enabled these politicans to pass the bill so that the funders will stop financing the politicians. Pulling donations when elections are coming up can be a very strong tool.

The bill is wrong for many reasons, including it’s a violation of civil rights, it’ll bankrupt Arizona to attempt to implement it, crime rates will increase and it’ll pit neighbor against neighbor.

Klatz
Member
Klatz
6 years 3 months ago

In regards to the boycott question. Yes it’s perfectly valid to boycott the Arizona Diamondbacks although the target of the ire is a bit misguided. It would be better to ask that people boycott the state by not spending money there, booking conventions, etc.

In regards to the law itself the constitutionality is not clear cut. To me the most egregious part of the law is that lawful immigrants are required to carry immigration papers and that it’s a misdemeanor to fail to do so. This is where I think the strongest challenge can be made. While there is a Federal Law requiring the carrying of immigration papers, the Arizona now makes it a State crime. It also requires State Police to determine if a person is an illegal, under the vague rubric of “reasonable”, and arrest them without a warrant if immigration status can’t be determined. Also State Police Departments can be sued if a private citizen feels that the police are failing to enforce the law.

erik
Guest
6 years 3 months ago

I thought Diamondback fans were already boycotting their own team.

Big Nate
Guest
Big Nate
6 years 3 months ago

I applaud the efforts of Arizona to finally enforce a law that the federal government has chosen to ignore. Citizens of Arizona agree overwhelmingly with the passage of the bill as they have seen the growing impact that illegal immigrants have had on social services, crime, and the general well-being of taxpaying American citizens. The dollar costs of illegal immigration is becoming very real as the states have begun to fall into bankruptcy.

It took a great deal of courage of Arizona politicians to address this issue. No politician in his right mind wants to touch immigration or be considered “anti-immigrant” or better yet a “racist” as I see people throwing the word around on this board. But that’s how we got in this mess in the first place – by ignoring it. There is a process in place to becoming a legal resident in this country.

There was a protest a few blocks away from where I’m sitting now at Wrigley Field this afternoon. The tone was clearly one of calling out Arizona as a state of racists and bigots. Clearly they don’t understand or have been misinformed that the motivation behind this bill was not anti-immigration but anti-illegal immigration. How can you protest against a state for upholding laws? All of this fake outrage as a result of a state finally deciding to take action where the federal government has not is ridiculous and I hope more states follow suit.

C
Guest
C
6 years 3 months ago

“How can you protest against a state for upholding laws?”

Very easily, if you think the law is immoral. The fact that a law exists is, at least for a lot of people, not enough of a reason to get behind that law. This is the reason there were, for example, protests against Jim Crow laws.

Your argument appears to be that because something is illegal, it must be bad. Surely you can see how that’s not necessarily the case. You can argue that a person should attempt to change the law, rather than flout it, if he disagrees with it; and that’s certainly a tenable position. But if you think a law should be changed, why would you not protest against it?

I’m not making an argument one way or the other about Arizona. But I do think you need to realize that it’s not a simple issue of “you need to support this because it’s the law”. Nobody needs to support a law he disagrees with, and while disagreement doesn’t (necessarily) give one the right to break laws, I simply can’t see how you can have a problem with protesting a law you don’t like.

Big Nate
Guest
Big Nate
6 years 3 months ago

“Your argument appears to be that because something is illegal, it must be bad. Surely you can see how that’s not necessarily the case.”

Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying. If something is “illegal”, as in “illegal” immigration it against the law. The law should be enforced and those that violate the law should be punished accordingly.

If something that is illegal is not necessarily bad, I challenge you to give me 5 reasons why “illegal” immigration is a good thing for this country. And you can skip the song and dance about how the enforcement of immigration laws would break up families – that was a known risk assumed when they decided to come to this country illegally. How does it positively impact the lives of American citizens (because that’s who we should be most concerned with)?

And you’re comparing the enforcement of illegal immigration laws to Jim Crow? Good luck with that.

C
Guest
C
6 years 3 months ago

“The law should be enforced and those that violate the law should be punished accordingly.”
“And you’re comparing the enforcement of illegal immigration laws to Jim Crow? Good luck with that.”

I compared immigration to Jim Crow in the sense that both make something illegal, and both had people protesting against them. That is a valid comparison insofar as it makes it obvious things aren’t as black-and-white as you think they are. If they were, you wouldn’t express incredulity at the comparison. Either all laws are necessarily good, or not all laws are necessarily good. You explicitly claim the former, but implicitly claim the latter by dismissing Jim Crow comparisons.

The problem, I think, is that you don’t necessarily think illegal is, by definition bad (even though you imply that that’s the case); but you are certain this law is good, so you (probably unconsciously) assume that you cannot be wrong; or that you cannot be disagreed with. To you, this law is good, so illegal=bad. If another law came around that you disagreed with, you could very easily find that law bad. Or–and this is a serious question–do you consider all laws to be good, and change your stance as the law changes?

I will reiterate: I made no argument about the Arizona law itself. I pointed out that your position of illegal=bad is not universally believed (probably even by you). It’s simply not valid to say “This is illegal, so you must be against it”. Please also understand that it’s perfectly possible to agree with a person’s conclusion without agreeing with how he arrived there.

I simply think that if you’re going to make an argument for why a law is good, you cannot point out that it’s good because the behavior it constrains is illegal. That’s begging the question. The first paragraph of your initial post, by and large, addressed (albeit without references) _why_ you agree with the law; and that is the proper way to argue in favor of it. The second paragraph is more or less fluff, although the last sentence is also useful in helping explain your position. Your last paragraph really adds nothing to the argument.

I really would like to know, though, if you agree with all laws. Or if you don’t, whether you think it’s acceptable to argue against those you disagree with.

psrowlan
Guest
psrowlan
6 years 3 months ago

Honestly, this has no business on a baseball site. There are plenty of political websites on the web.

OTerry
Guest
OTerry
6 years 3 months ago

I just wanted to say that up here in Canada things are great.

We’ve got universal health care (we live 2 years longer on average than Americans), a quality education system, a reasonable approach to immigration that has given us a wonderful and diverse country. We’ve got our funding problems, who doesn’t? But at least here you can’t wander around with weapons, and our crime rates are really low.

Yeah, and it’s all funded by our taxes. But you know what, I’m fine with that. Taxes build civilization (it helps not to have the world’s largest GDP% spending on the military, very cost effective). Oh and we have rights, and free-speech, and all the same freedoms that you do.

Come watch the Jays! (we’ve got a slight attendance problem as the hockey playoffs are still on right now… seriously, come)

roycesweeney
Member
roycesweeney
6 years 3 months ago

Ohhhhhhh…… Thank you for explaining the horrible attendance at Jays games. Seriously, every time I see a clip I think they’re due to be relocated. What you said makes a lot more sense.

Paul Thomas
Guest
Paul Thomas
6 years 3 months ago

I’m not sure it really DOES explain it… I mean, the Leafs are friggin’ terrible. Montreal and Vancouver are hundreds of miles away. The Senators are out of the playoffs.

james
Guest
james
6 years 3 months ago

You Canadians are welcome, your lack of military funding is based entirely on the belief that should the need arise we would defend you.. basically claiming what a great place you live in because you dont have to spend on military and downgrading the country you count on for that protection isnt very smart.. its akin to biting the hand that feeds you.

OTerry
Guest
OTerry
6 years 3 months ago

The “I’m in a bunker and I need nukes, lots of nukes” mentality is a relic of cold-war thinking.

The US Military spends almost as much as the rest of the world, and nines more than the second highest spender which is China.

You could slash military spending costs faster than the Florida Marlins shed contracts, and still have the largest military in the world.

The point I was making had nothing to do with the USA being a hegemonic super power the feels responsible for maintaining world peace as it sees it. It was that Canadian civil society sees no need to spend over 5% (!!!) of GDP on defence, and values other things.

Ben
Guest
Ben
6 years 3 months ago

I understand the informed opposition to this bill and while the bill is far from perfect and a bit misaimed, I’m generally in favor of it. What I don’t understand is the claims by the uninformed who have heard this or that about what the bill does without actually looking at the language. All the bill essentially does it expand the federal laws against illegal immigration and make illegal immigration a crime under state law. The bill also grants the local police powers to enforce the immigration laws (something Sherriff Arapaio has been doing for years). Now on its face I think most would agree there isn’t an issue with any of that. The federal government just simply isn’t doing it’s job enforcing the border/dealing with or taking swift action on the problems we have with illegal immigration. If the border states want to utilize their resources to help the border patrol then have at it, it’s beneficial to all of us.

Now, those who ignorantly oppose the bill all seem to point to one “fascistic” principle in the language; if you are stopped and questioned because you are deemed to potentially be an illegal immigrant you must produce papers stating that you are, in fact, legal. Sounds pretty Nazi like to me. But, here’s the thing. The federal law REQUIRES THE EXACT SAME THING! If you have legally come to this country you are required to carry with you, at all times, proof of your legal status within this country. If you’re a naturalized citizen odds are you’ve got a legal and valid license, unless you’re a minor, of course. Otherwise you’ve got your Visa or whatever other documents you were given to substantiate your legality to be here. So if you’ve got a problem with the law based on the document requirement then you should take issue with Congress, not Arizona. Arizona did not make this stuff up, Congress did and to punish the Diamondbacks, Cardinals, or any other business entity is ridiculous. We should be boycotting the business who hire and employ the illegal immigrants. The businesses that hire illegally should be the ones fined and punished. The only way we’re going to reduce the burden of illegal immigrants on this country is to reduce the incentives to come here illegally. Crack down on illegal work opportunities and end welfare incentives and we won’t need a border fence. No one would want to be here illegally without those incentives.

Oh, and @Chris K, do me a favor and Google “Arizona kidnappings.” Arizona has a very big problem with illegal immigrant violence.

Chris K
Guest
Chris K
6 years 3 months ago

My girlfriend is from Scottsdale; I’m well aware of the kidnappings. Statistics from people more in the know than you or I show that, per capita, illegal immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than legal immigrants or US citizens, anecdotal evidence aside.

That said, in no way do I mean to diminish the severity of the problems facing Phoenix and southern Arizona right now. I would argue that a better way of dealing with the problem would be to legalize drugs, thereby eliminating the raison d’etre (sp?) of the Mexican gangs, rather than passing a bill that was unwanted by AZ police and will only encourage one-off peace officers to engage in racial profiling. Hell, the bill even creates a private cause of action for xenophobes not content that the police aren’t doing enough to enforce the law.

Please don’t assume that I’m ignorant just because I disagree.

Llewdor
Guest
Llewdor
6 years 3 months ago

I certainly wouldn’t boycott the Diamondbacks over this – I think Arizona should be allowed to set whatever laws it likes (I’m a big fan of states’ rights). That said, I do wonder if this law would effectively force everyone to carry ID all the time. I know that I don’t carry ID most of the time because I don’t think the police (or anyone else) should be able to know who I am without my permission, so even if they search me (and they’d need cause to do so) they still wouldn’t learn my identity.

My identity is mine. No one else can have it without my consent.

Chris K
Guest
Chris K
6 years 3 months ago

Supreme Court says that you have to at minimum give your name. If they arrest you for not giving ID, however, you’d have a helluva 1983 suit on your hands.

roycesweeney
Member
roycesweeney
6 years 3 months ago

That’s not what they said. The Supreme Court said that it does not violate the constitution for a state to pass a law requiring you to give your name, if requested.

roycesweeney
Member
roycesweeney
6 years 3 months ago

And, under the relevant law, the officers had to have some suspicion of wrongdoing.

Nevada has a “stop-and-identify” law that allows a peace officer to detain any person he encounters “under circumstances which reasonably indicate that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime”; the person may be detained only to “ascertain his identity and the suspicious circumstances surrounding his presence abroad.” In turn, the law requires the person detained to “identify himself”, but does not compel the person to answer any other questions put to him by the officer. As of April 2008, 23 other states have similar laws.

Chris K
Guest
Chris K
6 years 3 months ago

mea culpa re: the over-simplification.

HarbingerOfMonotony
Guest
HarbingerOfMonotony
6 years 3 months ago

First, to clarify some incorrect info from above:

“… which was signed into law by Gov. Jan Brewer on April 23, just two weeks after MLB announced that the 2011 All-Star Game would be held in Phoenix, for the first time ever.”

The Diamondbacks were awarded the 2011 All-Star Game on April 11th, 2009. The Bill was signed April 23rd, 2010. I can understand the misjudgment, however, as two weeks traveling near light speed would probably factor out to about a full year, give or take a few months.

“…there’s a Facebook page calling for a picket and boycott of tonight’s game against the Cubs at Wrigley Field.”

The game was actually played this afternoon, and the protesters did indeed show up.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h-8TR8MrflVCdnTvcU5wcOy-JMRAD9FCVSUO0

Now that we have that cleared up, I would like to state that a) barring any blatant violations of habaes corpus in the near future, there is no way the All-Star Game is removed from Arizona; and that b) boycotting a team to put the squeeze on politicians is completely ineffective and, frankly, pretty darn stupid.

Those who are vehemently calling for a boycott of D-Backs Baseball need to examine the real consequence of such action. A drop in team revenue would not impact politicians in any way, much less influence them to change their opinion on the Bill. In fact, boycotting the Diamondbacks is a double-edged sword; by not going to see them play your team, you are actually harming your hometown club more than you are the Diamondbacks.

Furthermore, even if the All-Star Weekend was pulled out of Arizona, the State Legislature — and citizens for that matter — would be more incensed than remorseful. This is a much different situation than the Super Bowl/MLK fiasco. If the Diamondbacks are punished, no one wins.

Overall, the fact of the matter is that I doubt any AZ politicians who supported the Bill actually think it will hold up in court. Rather, this was a medium for legislatures to posture for the upcoming elections and identify that they would like to address the state immigration policy sooner rather than later.

Lastly, I feel it necessary to end by stating that I do not support the bill. However, there is no reason to boycott the tourism market of Arizona, nor, more importantly, the Arizona Diamondbacks.

Alex Remington
Guest
6 years 3 months ago

Thanks for the update on the Cubs game. Sorry about the mistake on the award of the All-Star Game. You’re right, it was a year and two weeks.

Pennant
Member
Pennant
6 years 3 months ago

Sure, boycott if you want to. It’s the American way.

Heard Rush said that Gov. Brewer ought to make known directions to get to San Francisco and any other sanctuary city. On illegal immigration, I am pro-choice too, you want’em, you pay for’em. By the way, maybe we should boycott all mexican baseball players too, I heard that Mexico treats Guatamalan border crossers horribly, far worse than the AZ law, which will probably never go into effect.

Illegal immigration is a real problem that our 2 major parties , both abandoning their constitutional duty to protect our border, have both winked at it for different reasons but its Arizonans who have paid a lot more in taxes and crime while so many call foul from their ivory towers. AZ legislature is presumably democratically elected fair and square and they want to do this and they probably have good support. For years, the Fed government refuses to enforce the law, which I hear is identical to this one, so I guess the AZ, though identical to the Fed law, goes too far and is racist,lol.

Yes, it might be an inconvenience to me if Mexico was white and I had to start carrying papers. Wahwah! Think of the 1040 forms I just filled out! All the forms every year to renew car licenses, registrations, plates, professional licenses! Do I like it no? Am I still free, yes!

I especially like the canard that people who hold similar views as this are racist. Racism, the last refuge of a man out of arguments. It is amazing how some can read people’s minds and just know their motivations. Like an innocent person accused of cheating on his spouse, there is no way to prove a negative. Hello Joe McCarthy of 2010! Here is what we want: the border closed and the law, made by our representative government followed, whether its whites, blacks, or browns, asians or whatever. We can not feed educate and pay for medical care for every person who steps in to the USA.

Jesse A
Guest
Jesse A
6 years 3 months ago

Your last point is undoubtedly true. The problem here isn’t with the AZ legislature trying to solve the problem, it’s the ridiculous and unconstitutional solution they conjured. There are very few out there disputing the fact that this country cannot afford to fund social programs for everyone in the world should they all choose to cross our borders. However, the simple fact that there’s a legitimate problem does not legitimize all possible solutions.

catholiclutheran
Member
catholiclutheran
6 years 3 months ago

Offer $100 for every illegal immigrant turned in. In weeks they’d be gone on their own.

DrBGiantsfan
Guest
6 years 3 months ago

Just out of curiosity because I don’t know. What is necessary to prove you are a citizen or in the country legally. Driver’s license? Passport? Birth Cerificate? I just carry a driver’s license. Would that be enough?

Chris K
Guest
Chris K
6 years 3 months ago

A valid driver’s license creates a presumption of legality. I don’t know what type of aggravating factors could justify an officer asking for more, but you should be in the clear so long as you’re not doing anything illegal.

DrBGiantsfan
Guest
6 years 3 months ago

So, if you are stopped for, say speeding, don’t they already ask you for your driver’s license? What is being added by this law? Obviously something is, or they wouldn’t have made a new one.

Jesse A
Guest
Jesse A
6 years 3 months ago

DeBGiantsfan – they can now stop you purely based on the suspicion that you are an illegal immigrant (the police cannot simply run around stopping people for no reason — like you pointed out, they have to have legitimate grounds for stopping you, such as for speeding). Problem is, under this law, apparently an officer can explain his suspicion as being based simply on someone being “brown.” And the difference between stopping someone for violating speed-limit laws and stopping for someone for having brown skin… well, that difference is found in the 14th Amendment.

DrBGiantsfan
Guest
6 years 3 months ago

Man, I’m really confused, because supporters of this law insist that it does not allow the police to stop someone just because they look Mexican, but if that’s not the case, then why did they have to pass a new law when you already have to show ID if you are stoped for a traffic violation.

Last night, Chris Matthews had the Pima County Sherriff on who doesn’t like the law. He said they already apprehend illegals when they are identified and turn them over the the INS. Under the new law, they will have to take them to the county jail, which is already overcrowded.

A latino woman who lives in Arizona said that everybody will now have to carry a birth certificate in addition to their driver’s license. If true, that would represent a significant loss of freedom for everybody under the new law.

It will be very interesting to see what the practical consequences and political fallout from this law is. I’m guessing that Republicans in Congress don’t want to run this fall with this monkey on their backs, so they will be much more cooperative with Obama and the Democrats in passing comprehensive immigration reform.

LorenzoStDuBois
Guest
LorenzoStDuBois
6 years 3 months ago

The story of America is desperate people coming here to make a better life for themselves. Those who want to hunt them down are hateful, cowardly and lack any modicum of empathy.

People who are paying attention can see that all of our money is being stolen by the powerful, e.g. banks and wars. Only bigots and paranoid fools fear the weak rather than the strong.

Pennant
Member
Pennant
6 years 3 months ago

So how many illegal immigrants have you invited to move in with you? Legal immigration fine, i am all for it. Illegal, NO!

are you implying that all immigration should be legal all the time?

really
Guest
really
6 years 3 months ago

Let’s increase legal immigration from Mexico by 500% then. You shouldn’t have a problem with that.

Joshua
Member
6 years 3 months ago

I don’t think he’s trying to imply that “all” of anything should be legal “all the time.” Words of sweeping generalization usually tend to dumb down an argument, especially when they’re being shoved into someone’s mouth in attempt to counter their point using an ignorant rhetorical device.

And what does harboring illegal immigrants have to do with supporting a peaceful existence for them? This seems like the political equivalent of reasoning the only creditation for being able to talk about baseball is having professionally played the game.

A majority of the people you’re going to hear debate this issue will be those directly unaffected by it. However, that leaves them no less entitled to have a valid opinion on the subject. If someone is going to bring rationale and factual evidence to the table, then more power to them.

Also, I don’t know, but I reasonably suspect you may be a little confused about your own stance on this issue. If you’re truly “all for” legal immigration, and your position has no basis in discriminatory hatred or xenophobia, then you would have no problem with legislation that suddenly granted legal citizenship to all aliens currently residing here illegally?

schlomsd
Member
schlomsd
6 years 3 months ago

Personally, I’m going to boycott every state that enforcing the speed limit. I think that law is full of sh*t and I think I can (and everyone else against it) should be able to ignore it. I’m also not much of a fan of paying of income taxes either although if I boycott every state that enforces that law I’m not exactly sure where I can live.

Jesse A
Guest
Jesse A
6 years 3 months ago

You, sir, are either a skilled satirist or a complete moron.

schlomsd
Member
schlomsd
6 years 3 months ago

In this context I’m not sure which one I’d rather you’d accuse me of being.

Jesse A
Guest
Jesse A
6 years 3 months ago

Since the conversation here has turned to constitutionality… I don’t understand how Arizona isn’t preempted from passing this law in the first place! Forget 4th Amendment grounds (facial or as-applied), it’s unconstitutional even before we get that far!

Also, dude, chinaman is not the preferred nomenclature. Asian-American, please.

Paul Thomas
Guest
Paul Thomas
6 years 3 months ago

Yup. The law doesn’t even make it to the second semester of Con Law… if EVER there was an area of the law where federal law preempts the entire field, it’s border control. That’s been true since 1789.

That’s not a liberal or conservative thing. It’s just the law as it is, period.

JayCee
Guest
JayCee
6 years 3 months ago

I’ve already been boycotting Red State shitholes like Arizona as much as possible.

Who is John Galt?
Guest
Who is John Galt?
6 years 3 months ago

“I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.” — John Galt

Jesse A
Guest
Jesse A
6 years 3 months ago

Ha. Well if you’re an Ayn Rand follower, we never expected you to understand compassion, let alone constitutional equality, anyway, so we’re neither terribly shocked nor concerned with your apathetic stance on this subject, either.

JayCee
Guest
JayCee
6 years 3 months ago

unless you’re Long Term Capital and my homeys have money at stake

SF 55 for life
Member
SF 55 for life
6 years 3 months ago

My opinion fight at the borders not the cities. Wouldn’t investing into keeping out illegal immigrants be less intrusive and beneficial. The easiest way to keep people out is to not let them in, letting them in and trying to find them after the fact seems a little backwards to me.

Paul Thomas
Guest
Paul Thomas
6 years 3 months ago

Letting them in allows you to rip them off for unpaid wages, overtime, etc etc and THEN kick them out when you’ve no further use for them.

Come on, that’s so much more efficient.

JayCee
Guest
JayCee
6 years 3 months ago

Don’t forget they pay federal income and SS taxes but are not eligible for any federal benefits.

pinball1973
Guest
pinball1973
6 years 3 months ago

Yes.

Current “Republicans” deserve neither respect nor trust. And the Teabaggers – actually just particularly ignorant, willingly-misinformed, often insane, anxious to see violence (from a safe location) done in the name of their “cause,” folk far beyond the venality of the ordinary, dishonest, closeted-racist, creepy “Republicans” – who support this sort of “law” with truly nazi-like glee need to be, legally, firmly, and without quarter, opposed in their every venture.

It’s a pity the greed of the “Republican” party, and “conservatives” generally, has led to this. When named the “enemy” by violent, dishonest people, one has the right to deal with them as your enemy. May the few sensible among them admit their errors and work towards solving the problems before us, not simply before their corporate masters.

Paul
Guest
Paul
6 years 3 months ago

Right, because “corporate masters” like Swift Foods really hate illegal immigration? On one side of this argument we have seen in this thread people stating that they support a state passing a law to… allow for the enforcement of a federal law. On the other, hyperventilating about those same people being racist, nazi, corporate shills… for supporting the enforcement of a federal law that nobody seemed to have a problem with before a state brazenly decided to enforce it. I’m willing to bet that throwing grenades like this is not going to have the political impact you wish it would come November.

Pennant
Member
Pennant
6 years 3 months ago

Liberals see them as potential voters as they figure they will be easily bought off by entitlements.

Republicans maybe even more gutless and cynical, see them as cheap labor.

Piss poor leadership by both. Immigrants are obviously a part of our history but not under these circumstances.

Your post is quite hateful actually

JayCee
Guest
JayCee
6 years 3 months ago

How are they voters, trailer-park?

Barry
Guest
Barry
6 years 3 months ago

“unpopular in other states”? Actually, the law has the support of 60% of the Unites States outside of Arizona, and 70% of Arizona agrees with it. In fact, 5 other states are currently considering implementing the law in their own state.

It’s obvious where Alex Remington stands on the issue.

This law simply mimics what is ALREADY Federal Law. The Feds aern’t carrying out their constitutional responsibility to protect the citizens of the Unites States by securing the border, and Arizona has paid a staggering fiscal price for their neglect – and now people are dying. They can’t afford it anymore and they are taking action. Phoenix, not Baghdad or Kabul, is #2 in the world for kidnappings (Mexico City is #1), it is directly related to the drug and human smuggling into AZ.
People are being lied to and whipped up into a frenzy over this law. People are not going to be randomly approached by police and asked to show a license or green card. (Non-citizens are ALREADY required to carry a Green Card or “papers” on their person at all times). That is specifically prohibited in the law. Only people who, in the course of coming in contact with the police for a prior law breaking incident like a traffic violation, are going to be asked to show ID, which WE ALL are already required to do at a traffic stop.
Outrage over this law only displays your own ignorance over what it really is.

I’ll be buying a Diamondbacks T shirt in the near future. Boycott that.

Alex Remington
Guest
6 years 3 months ago

If the law weren’t unpopular, there would be no boycotts. I didn’t say anything about public polling or the will of the majority, and I haven’t seen the snap polls. It’s a state law, obviously, so the majority opinion in Georgia or Washington, DC or anywhere else doesn’t really matter. But it’s a state law that many people in other states oppose. And that opposition has been vocal.

JayCee
Guest
JayCee
6 years 3 months ago

A majority of the public also supported Jim Crow laws. We don’t let the majority simply vote on the inalienable rights of the minority, Cletus.

Henry Clay
Guest
6 years 3 months ago

I say bring back the Jim Crow laws — at least I had my own drinking fountain.

Simon
Guest
Simon
6 years 3 months ago

I may have to boycott Fangraphs for hosting such an inane thread.

Just what we need on a baseball site: Yet another place where the political netroots can vent their anger and ignorance, screaming that everyone they disagree with is “objectively” a fascist or a racist.

David
Guest
David
6 years 3 months ago

I did a search for “fasc” on this page. Two hits came up – one guy in opposition to the bill claiming that fascists make up a significant portion of the Republican Party, one guy in support of the bill complaining about being called a fascist (and of course your post).

The worst comment about racism seems to be:

“I didn’t say every conservative was a racist. I said the Republican party is filled with racists. Which is objectively true.”

I wouldn’t go that far, but there are objective data that show tea partiers are racist:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/04/new-data-on-tea-party-sympathizers.html

Seeing as the Tea Party is the most in-the-spotlight conservative group at the moment, and they’re objectively racist, is it that much of a stretch for someone to apply that label to the Republican Party? I realize that a large majority of Republicans are not involved with the Tea Party, but to your average American, they are closely linked in viewpoint at least.

Pennant
Member
Pennant
6 years 3 months ago

i checked your link and this is a liberal site and amazingly most of comments were quite critical about this analysis.

I guess what it comes down to is if someone disagrees with a liberal about policy, he is a racist. Gee, Joe McCarthy, move over.

C-lit
Guest
C-lit
6 years 3 months ago

I don’t think anyone here is saying they are for illegal immigration. There is certainly a problem with illegal immigration, but as others have said above me this is not the way to fix the problem. As long as the borders stay as weak as they are, the immigrants that the Arizona authorities kick out will probably just make it across again anyway.

It makes me laugh when conservatives decry the federal gov for not devoting more attention and resources to the border, while the wars that they have vehemently supported for the past decade continue to kill our budget.

Pennant
Member
Pennant
6 years 3 months ago

I did not support a ground war in Iraq. fwiw to you.

David
Guest
David
6 years 3 months ago

It’s akin to conservatives largely labeling pro-choice advocates as being “pro-death”. (For example, a search for “pro-choice” on michellemalkin.com returns 173 hits, while a search for “pro-death” AND abortion returns 227). Nobody but the most psychopathic of Democrats actually “supports” abortion – I think it’s safe to say most pro-choice people see it as a necessary evil, and quite a few I’m sure consider it morally abhorrent but still believe it’s a choice we should have.

Pennant
Member
Pennant
6 years 3 months ago

In Kentucky, a 45 year old nurse recently was killed in an auto accident apparently by an illegal alien. he was charged with a misdemeanor, failed to show, and now is target of arrest:

Police say back on April 5th, 23 year-old Christobal Ramirez-Cordoba swerved into Hutchison’s lane on Briar Hill Road in Bourbon County, hitting her head-on.

She’d been on her way to UK Hospital where she worked as a nurse.

At the time, Cordoba was cited for driving without a valid drivers license – the second time he’s faced that charge. (!!!!!!!_not deported the first time!, thanks, government I pay taxes to protect me!!)

Cordoba was scheduled to be in court Monday for that charge, but never showed up.

An officer was at the courthouse waiting to arrest him for other charges related to the crash.

A grand jury has indicted Cordoba for 2nd degree manslaughter, driving under the influence, and failure to maintain insurance.

Authorities say a federal warrant for unlawful flight to avoid prosecution will be issued, to help track Cordoba down.

I hear this is the 5th recent death in KY related to illegal immigrants. Tragedies can not be eliminated.

C-lit
Guest
C-lit
6 years 3 months ago

So you’re saying that American citizens don’t hit and run? That American citizens don’t show up for trial? Say the law that we’re talking about was in place when those events happened. The guy all of sudden decides to show up to court because he has papers? That was just a piece of shit person that committed those crimes not a piece of shit illegal immigrant.

Pennant
Member
Pennant
6 years 3 months ago

Point is he was arrested once before for similar issue, not deported. he shouldnt be here, that is the point. If the govenment was doing its job, this American nurse who has paid taxes and done her part is alive.
Yes crap happens, but what does that mean, let’s not care and even let more happen?

George
Guest
George
6 years 3 months ago

The point is that the woman is alive if the guy was either stopped at the border or arrested for being illegal prior to killing her.

smcfee
Member
smcfee
6 years 3 months ago

The law is abhorrent, a boycott is justified.

mike thomas
Guest
mike thomas
6 years 3 months ago

I think this is a tough question. The law is terrible and attempts to get it changed are probably generally valid. On the other hand, it doesn’t have anything to do with the DBacks. I like the idea of boycotting Arizona by not traveling to Arizona. I don’t think that not going to DBack games is fair though.

For the dude who says this isn’t a valid thread for Fangrahs, that’s nonsense. It has become a baseball issue, so it’s valid. Simple as that.

David
Guest
David
6 years 3 months ago

Primary conservative arguments against gun control:

1) it’s a violation of our individual rights.
2) the vast majority of gun owners do not commit violent crimes.
3) the punishment for carrying a gun illegally is far outweighed by the punishment for committing a crime with that gun, so it’s not actually an effective deterrent.

Primary liberal arguments against this law:

1) it’s a violation of our individual rights.
2) the vast majority of illegal immigrants do not commit violent crimes.
3) the punishment for committing a violent crime far outweighs the punishment for being in this country illegally, so this law isn’t actually an effective deterrent.

Speaking as someone who is not particularly pro-gun control, but unabashedly against this immigration law, please point out the fallacy in my comparison.

David
Guest
David
6 years 3 months ago

I should also add that the punishment for being caught as an illegal is presumably better than the alternative (a really bad life in your home country), regardless of whether or not you commit some other crime here.

mowill
Member
mowill
6 years 3 months ago

A boycott is stupid when the law has broad public support outside the most progressive areas of the country. Even mayor Newsom has said he will not support a boycott because counter boycotts could see the city of San Francisco lose millions.

I for one cannot believe the rhetoric in the comments on this post.

True bigots have always come from the left, it is the left that believes in “helping” minorities with government programs because they are uncapable of helping themselves.

It is the left that has been instrumental in a holocaust of African-american children through legalized abortion. Many people don’t know this but of the around sixty million abortions performed since Roe v. Wade, around half have been the unborn children of African-americans. Of course progressives in the sixties knew minorities would be more likely to obtain abortions but they do not care about minorities as much as they care about the “environment” or over population.

Alot has also been said about illegal immigrants being less likely to commit a crime than regular americans. This is technically true. It is also technically and literally true that inordinate to the total number of illegals a large share of violent crime in this country is perpetrated by illegals. Mostly stemming from the drug trade.

I am not a racist or bigot. If I was in charge I would open our borders to Latin America and say come one come all as long as your not a fellon and are willing to sign up for a SS card, to learn english and to try to become an American citizen. Having done this I would close the border once and for all to those who wouldn’t agree to do the three aforementioned things.

John
Guest
John
6 years 3 months ago

Posters throughout this thread have misrepresented the law. It doesn’t do anything other than allow Arizona to enforce federal immigration law. Officers can ask about immigration status only if contact has already been established for another reason.

People are lying about the bill because they are worried something might really be done about illegal immigration. These same people have promoted amnesty for years and opposed every effort to secure the border.

Anyway, voters in Arizona (and in the US generally) support the bill by a wide margin, per Gallup. A boycott will have no effect. The NAACP has boycotted South Carolina for years and it hasn’t made the slightest difference.

wynams
Guest
wynams
6 years 3 months ago

Thats what supporters of SB1070 keep saying and its wrong

If a law enforcement officer has a “reasonable suspicion” that a person is in the United States illegally and fails to provide proof of citizenship, that person can be arrested while their status is determined.

If you are Hispanic and have never, not for any moment of your life, NOT had proof of your US Citizenship on you then I guess you have a point.

The fear is that anyone brown will fulfill “reasonable suspicion” in portions of AZ. If that doesn’t upset you then I guess you have low regard for civil liberties.

S.B. 1070 goes even further, facilitating anonymous reporting of businesses that anyone suspects has undocumented employees.

If you cannot see the racism in SB1070, you might be a racist.

John
Guest
John
6 years 3 months ago

“Reasonable suspicion” is a legal standard and not some subjective viewpoint. Applying the standard in a discriminatory way is plainly illegal. That argument against the bill could ostensibly be made against almost any law… law enforcement officers have a great deal of power and the potential for abuse is always present. The same measures that prevent cops from misusing other laws also apply to the immigration bill.

I don’t see how anonymous reporting of businesses is even controversial. Anonymous reports of criminal activity are made all the time. Every day, many ‘911’ calls are made to report that a crime has been committed, or is being committed, without the caller identifying himself.

If you cannot see this, you might be an idiot.

roycesweeney
Member
roycesweeney
6 years 3 months ago

John-

You’re giving way too much credit to the police and courts if you think that “reasonable suspicion” is such a strong barrier against discrimination. I am a criminal defense attorney arguing appeals in Southern California and have everyday experience of cops retroactively justifying their “reasonable suspicion.” The test for reasonable suspicion is an objective one, so all a cop needs to do is include a few objective facts that they observed (before or after the encounter) and the search will be upheld.

You say “applying the standard in a discriminatory way is plainly illegal.” Unfortunately, this is not exactly true. If I, as an officer, gain reasonable suspicion based on bad factors (race, ethnicity, etc) as well as good factors (acting suspiciously, actions consistent with crimes), a court will uphold the complained of police action. Combine this with the fact that its an objective test, and, voila!, establishing reasonable suspicion is a piece of cake.

This law invites racial profiling, because enforcing the law basically requires it (despite the law saying that it does not). What do you think would give an officer reasonable suspicion of illegal status? I’m being serious, I have yet to hear anything besides race.

John
Guest
John
6 years 3 months ago

I am not claiming that the ‘reasonable suspicion’ standard prevents discrimination- it’s just that the immigration law is no different from many other laws which allow for the same possibility. That’s what courts and defense attorneys are for.

I don’t think race will really be a major issue. Inability to speak english will probably be a factor that people would object to using, but of course no one could be arrested for this unless they also lack identification and are lawfully stopped or contacted based on a non-immigration related offense.

While some concerns may legitimately be raised, the fact is that Arizona suffers massive expense and damage (crime, environmental, etc.) and the federal government is doing nothing. The citizens of Arizona have rights and interests that are infringed as a result. It’s so bad, in fact, that they stand much more to gain by reigning in illegal immigration than could possibly be offset by boycotts.

roycesweeney
Member
roycesweeney
6 years 3 months ago

But the law IS different than other criminal laws in this sense- I think the most effective proxy for illegal status is race/ethnicity.

Oh, and you’re wrong that the officer has to be investigating some other crime in order to inquire into legal status. (“no one could be arrested for this unless they also lack identification and are lawfully stopped or contacted based on a non-immigration related offense.”) “Legal contact” is a meaningless phrase.

Under this law and your analysis, all the officer needs to do is approach someone looking foreign and determine how well they speak English. If they don’t speak it well, the officers can ask for confirmation of legal status.

I can sympathize regarding the costs of illegal immigration. But I think that people need to understand what the bill means, and its likely effects. Then you can weigh the costs against whatever gains you suppose will result from the bill.

John
Guest
John
6 years 3 months ago

“Oh, and you’re wrong that the officer has to be investigating some other crime in order to inquire into legal status.”

No, I’m not wrong about that. Due to confusion they’ve already re-written it to make the law clear- officers must be investigating a non-immigration offense. Google it.

Michael
Guest
Michael
6 years 3 months ago

Nothing like weak, ill-informed, name calling arguments about immigration policy to make me want to read about baseball instead. Granted, most arguments about baseball on the interwebs quickly degenerate into weak, ill-informed, name calling arguments about baseball, BUT at least they’re about baseball.

So… it appears Mr. Remington has just wasted all of our time with a post on a topic of which he has no special insight, knowledge, or apptitude. What’s up with that? Does Fangraphs have an ignore function? Or do I have to do it manually?

T.J.
Guest
T.J.
6 years 3 months ago

Fascist.

wynams
Guest
wynams
6 years 3 months ago

Actions have consequences and whether you support/dislike SB1070 and/or the Arizona D’backs only your conscience can decide if boycotting/showing monetary support for either AZ or its baseball team is the right thing for you to do.

On a personal note, I think voting with your dollar speaks 10x louder than the votes casted on election day. Boxing, major cities ISDs, many planned conferences have already cancelled future events in AZ. If AZ was prepared to take the most hard line stance in the US on immigration, they had to expect some consequences.

nota bene
Guest
nota bene
6 years 3 months ago

I strongly support MLB awarding the ASG to another city. The 1993 Super Bowl precedent is a powerful one. Apparently Arizona’s government did not learn anything from the MLK Day fiasco.

I don’t think the Diamondbacks deserve to be directly, specifically targeted for a boycott, but I think they will be impacted by a wholly justified boycott of Arizona generally. AZ tourism is going to take a major hit. It’s unfortunate the DBacks are being put in this position by racists, but if they want to mitigate the impact the law will have on their bottom line, it would behoove them as an organization to come out swinging against it. Being a large employer, they have no small amount of political weight to throw around, even if they (understandably) would prefer to stay out of it entirely.

Joel
Guest
Joel
6 years 3 months ago

Why on earth would boycotting a private (after all) enterprise/ organization be a legitimate way of protesting public policy which said org. has NOTHING to do with?!
Might as well boycott the Arizona Medical Assoc., it’s as much their fault as the D’backs…

Highest
Guest
Highest
6 years 3 months ago

Um…frankly I could care less about a holiday or which street is named what. But for others it makes a difference. Boycotting an MLB team is one tactic to raise awareness I guess, but will it change perceptions or prevent discrimination? Listen the fact is that many people enter this country legally as did many of our predecessors. But employers and illegal immigrants should be punished not the fans of baseball. Why don’t more Canadians sneak across the border? Clearly employers in the US are exploiting the economic conditions in other countries. Why not punish them first to stop the bleeding and go from there. I cant blame people who want and seek out a better life. But some of them are exploiting the system as well. At least this year the all star game will be worth watching, if I wasn’t already thrilled with finding out who will gets home field advantage in the world series.

Brad
Guest
Brad
6 years 3 months ago

I don’t live in Arizona, so it is absolutely ridiculous for me (or you) to condemn them for passing a law they feel helps their state. 70% of Arizona’s citizens are for this law, so it doesn’t matter what I think. I did live in Texas for a while and anyone who does not live in a border state doesn’t understand how massive a problem this is. It would be like me boycotting New York for using energy on heat during the cold winter while I live in the Bahamas. My opinion would be callous misinformed and invalid. Just like most of yours.

LV51
Guest
LV51
6 years 3 months ago

I wonder how many of you would feel if:
– illegal immigrants were flooding YOUR CITY,
– sending your crimes rates up (including crimes in your neigborhood
– taking jobs from hard working tax paying citizens (landscapers, contractors, housecleaners, restaraunts, etc.)
– selling drugs to your kids
– flooding emergency rooms (of course they have no money – guess who pays?)
– driving dangerous vehicles (no insurance, no license, they run if involved in an accident)
– and all the side effects – all related to illegal immigrants
– Would your opinion change?
It’s changed my opinion.
I will not boycott the Diamondbacks or anything Arizona.

Brad
Guest
Brad
6 years 3 months ago

And it would be nearly impossible for people to boycott Arizona and cost them more money than illegal immigration does.

Abe
Guest
Abe
6 years 3 months ago

Not my words, but those of Byron York. Yes he’s a conservative but he’s a voice of sanity in this whole thing–

All the discussion above relates to people who are American citizens. In addition to the situations requiring a driver’s license, some people might not know that since the 1940s, federal law has required non-citizens who are in the United States permanently to carry on their person, at all times, the official documents proving that they are here legally — green card, work visa, etc. That has been the law for 70 years, and the new Arizona law does not change it.

Full article here:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/What-America-is-Michael-Gerson-living-in-92301779.html

Dan
Member
Dan
6 years 3 months ago

I thought sports in general were created by the State so that us normal folks didn’t have to think about politics and would focus more on the sports than what was going on in the political arena. Let’s get back to that.

Side note, for the bill if Arizonians think it’s good, against boycotting the D-Backs or having the All-Star game moved, don’t like the idea of having to show your papers to prove citizenship (eerily too close to Nazi Germany). A lot of conflicting stances, don’t know what’s best, so let’s talk baseball.

Dan
Guest
Dan
6 years 3 months ago

I would implore everyone to read the bill (it’s only 17 pages long), and before they do that, throw away any previous notions they have about what it does. Do so here:

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.pdf

On page 2, there is this quote (caps come from the bill, not my emphasis):
A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT SOLELY CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SUBSECTION EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR ARIZONA CONSTITUTION.

Further, the bill states that it is not possible to check immigration status unless
1) The person in question has already committed a crime
2) There is “reasonable suspicion”

The 2nd one looks like it allows for profiling, until you read the blanket statement above. It appears to me that the bill is simply a rehash of the federal stance on illegal immigration.

Regardless, boycotting the Diamondbacks doesn’t make sense to me. Personally, I would speak with my vote on the issue, and if you don’t have one in AZ, spread the word around and vote in your local area.

roycesweeney
Member
roycesweeney
6 years 3 months ago

1. So the officers are going to say, “I wasn’t solely considering race. I was also considering that he was picking strawberries.” That clause is meant to save it from constitutional challenge, but it is meaningless.

2. Where does it say that the person has already committed a crime? If you mean “lawful contact” I dealt with that above. “Lawful contact” is meaningless as well.

3. I challenge you and all others to come up with a hypothetical situation in which reasonable suspicion is not based on race, or other suspect classifications.

Dan
Guest
Dan
6 years 3 months ago

Challenging the bill itself because it is racist, however, is false. You are implying in the 1st point that the officers are lying or at least stretching the truth in their statement, and, either consciously or unconsciously using race. That’s fine, I can’t deny racism among the justice system based upon the court rulings, death penalty discrepancies, etc.

However, the bill itself isn’t racist because the officers who enforce it are. If that was the case, how could we ever pass a law? What law would not be racist, and therefore not boycott-able?

As for lawful contact, I haven’t found a good definition for it, and it appears to simply be open to interpretation. It’s vague, and quite frankly, I think the bill should have been reworded to specifically call for criminal action (e.g. the police officer may check for immigration status only if the person in question has violated the criminal code of Arizona). That wouldn’t add length to the bill and would remove vagueness without narrowing scope significantly.

I would think, however, that the bill’s power will be narrowed through the courts based on well established civil rights cases.

8 USC 1182
Guest
6 years 3 months ago

Royce,

How do Border Patrol agents EVERY DAY justify their ‘consensual encounters’ with illegals? Simple, it’s written in their I-213. I’m sorry, but if the majority of illegal aliens come from Mexico/Guat/Honduras, etc., these people look “Hispanic”.

Now, who are you going to question at a bus station when patrol agents are doing their ‘regular checks’? The hispanic or non-hispanic looking types? Call it sterotyping, because that’s what it is, but the fact remains is that when you engage in conversation with hispanic people in areas where there are known to be illegal aliens (bus stations, day-worker pickup spots, drop houses, the benches across the street from strawberry farm, etc.), guess what? You’re going to FIND ILLEGAL ALIENS there! Shocker!

I work for ICE, and this is how it’s done EVERY DAY. We detain and arrest people EVERY DAY on these prinicples you are calling ‘racist’. And hopefully, at the end of the day, deport them.

Rich
Guest
Rich
6 years 3 months ago

“1) The person in question has already committed a crime”

No, the law clearly does not state that. The law states “lawful Contact”, which is anything that is not “unlawful contact”. IE, a cop can walk up to you on the street, and initiate a conversation, and thats Lawful Contact.

All that clause does is say that a cop can’t bust into your house without a warrant and then ask for your papers.

Part-Time Pariah
Guest
Part-Time Pariah
6 years 3 months ago

Alex, your sabermetrical analysis continues to amaze me. Keep up the good job of destroying FanGraphs with this political bullshit.

Really guys??? REALLY???

David
Guest
6 years 3 months ago

Yes, because asking what Fangraphs’ (generally intelligent) readers think about a topic related to baseball is a sure-fire way to destroy a website. Screw discourse, screw different perspectives; I’ll take my wOBA for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, 24/7/365.

adohaj
Guest
adohaj
6 years 3 months ago

I don’t see what is wrong with the bill. Either way it makes no sense to boycott a baseball team because the state they are in makes a law you don’t like. It would be like saying “I’m never going to Wallmart again because I hate the Governor of Arkansas”

ralf
Guest
ralf
6 years 3 months ago

1. My wife and I are planning a road trip through the southwest. We were going to go through AZ. Because of this bill, we’re going to go around it. I’ve emailed a few AZ gov’t officials to let them know our stance. However, if I had tickets to a D-Backs-at-Brewers game I’d still go. Most of the money I’d spend would go to the Brewers and their employees or the concession workers/vendors, many of whom are independent contractors. They don’t deserve to suffer for the racism and political posturing of people 1000 miles away.
2. Working class Americans have more in common with illegal immigrants than they do with politicians or the owners of baseball franchises. Economic oppression happens on both sides of the border. One of the reasons that politicians in both big parties have ratcheted up the BS about illegal immigration since NAFTA is that they want to keep wages in Mexico down. If all those Mexicans who sneak into the US looking for better work get sent back, the ratio of labor supply to demand moves even farther in the big corporations’ favor. The other main reason, of course, is the ancient and very successful tactic of divide and conquer. If poor whites and poor blacks and poor latinos blame each other for their poverty, they stay distracted from the real causes for their very similar situations. And before you resort to name-calling, I’ll come right out and admit that I’m a Socialist. A star-and-stripes-waving, baseball-loving, deer-hunting Marxist radical.
OK, I’m done. When you’re done telling me to move to Russia, can we go back to arguing about the most efficient way to deploy relief pitchers or something?

catholiclutheran
Member
catholiclutheran
6 years 3 months ago

How can you honestly feel right about going to a Brewers’ game? Get real! One has to boycott the team bearing the very name of the Evil Witch who signed this into law!

The boycott’s would essentially be the same, logically. Neither have any validity.

Dan
Guest
Dan
6 years 3 months ago

You’re right. There’s only one solution to this problem. Abolish individual rights entirely, do away with any semblance of self and embrace the collectivist, “altruist” (quotes since most altruists aren’t involved in self-sacrifice whatsoever) culture we now are inhabited in. Abandon the individuals’ inherent right to his own liberty, life and property, despite the fact that they stem from his existence as an independent being and his ability to reason. That will fix everything.

Your Face
Member
6 years 3 months ago

Should you boycott your face?

Chris
Guest
Chris
6 years 3 months ago

I’m actually an immigration lawyer. Here is an article that I wrote a few years ago that touches on baseball and immigration. You may find it interesting:

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/7293888/CBAReport_July2006_CTM

Julie
Guest
Julie
6 years 3 months ago

Wow! This is backfiring on California.

I don’t think Arizona has to worry. From all the buzz on the internet tonight, there are MORE calls to BOYCOTT CALIFORNIA . There are people from all over the states that are confirming that California will be the target, I have seen everything from boycotting produce wines, travel and any food product made in California.
I have heard of restaurants taking California made wines off the menu!.

The Arizona boycott won’t last long. they have the other 49 states supporting them and their right to govern their OWN state.
It’s being called BUYcott Arizona.

Decker
Guest
Decker
6 years 3 months ago

It’s an un-American law. A boycott is a respectable way to try and show the AZ legislature and Gov. Brewer what a mistake they’ve made.

Joe
Guest
Joe
6 years 24 days ago

I’ll definitely being boycotting. Why pay major league prices to watch an AAA team on the field!.

wpDiscuz