Boycott the Arizona Diamondbacks?

That seems to be the growing sentiment by a number of folks upset about the passing of SB1070 - the new Arizona immigration law. The tie between the Diamondbacks and the law is that the owners of the Diamondbacks - the Kendrick's - are big contributors to the Arizona Republican party and the Republicans in power in Arizona are behind this new law.

This is of course relevant to the Cubs who play the Diamondbacks for the next 4 games in Wrigley and plenty of folks around the country are upset and some of them will be protesting today outside Wrigley and I assume throughout the weekend. The Cubs for their part are attempting to stay neutral by not allowing some scoreboard messages that protesters tried to buy. I can only hope that policy has always been enforced. Of course, it's a bit of slippery slope for the Ricketts who are counting on the same Arizona politicians behind this law to deliver them a new deal on their spring training complex, and I'm sure aren't interested in ruffling anymore feathers.

The law is absurd and most likely unconstitutional and I only hope the good people of Arizona vote out the people in power behind it. But the rhetoric from some of the opponents using terminology like apartheid and leading to WWII prison camps is from the same extremist fountain of bullshit that gave us President Obama is a facist and the socialism of health care reform. Different sides of the coin, but both guilty of trying to stoke the flames and frenzy up the crowd, rather than intelligent debate on the real issues.

The Cubs and sports in general are an escape to me from everyday life. And when the two worlds collide like this it's really no fun for me. And damnit, baseball is suppose to be fun as is running this blog. So I support the protesters and the boycotts, but hit them where it hurts. If you're against this bill, boycott actual Diamondback games in Arizona or boycott spring training, that's the type of stuff that worked when Arizona wouldn't honor the Martin Luther King holiday. In the meantime, let's snap this losing streak.

 


*Johnson, *Drew, Upton, Reynolds, *LaRoche, Young, Gillespie, Snyder, Kennedy

vs.

Theriot, *Fukudome, Lee, Ramirez, Byrd, Soriano, *Fontenot, Soto, *Lilly

Return to Homepage

Comments

Outside of the liberal Tucson area many people seem to not care. It'll be hard to change state policy without the courts.

Well, Phoenix (and similar cities/towns, especially summer tourism areas) business interests seem be concerned. They've already lost a number of high profile conventions...and some of those (like the lawyer one) aren't even due to happen until the fall.

Polls show that around 70% of likely voters in AZ support the law.

Elections are part of the problem. The feds and/or the courts are the only recourse.

elections and political posturing is why stuff like this exists. SC and GA have had similar things, only not as broad in scope with the language of the law.

GA doesn't even enforce theirs because, well, it's a great way to blow a case against someone by violating their federal-given civil rights.

it helps make people think their conservative government is "doing something" though.

From what I have read of the law, it is very likely to be held constitutional. Most of the information about it in the media is just flat wrong.

The police can NOT just stop a person because he looks like a latino, and ask for identification. They can only ask if they have already stopped him in connection with another crime, and then only if they have reason to suspect, beyond his nationality, that he is an illegal alien.

The Georgia law is very poorly constructed, and that is why it is little used. But the Georgia legislature is already looking at passing a duplicate of the Arizona law. So is Nebraska, New Mexico, Texas, Kentucky, and several other states.

"Most of the information about it in the media is just flat wrong."

scary statement you got there...

most of the info i've read, including the bill, puts warrentless immigration enforcement in the hands of a state. that's where the problem lies. it makes a state/city police officer take up the role of investigating immigration enforcement, a federal job.

if someone without papers gets caught/suspected/asked they can be detained until someone can prove they're legal...which is another major problem with the bill.

they should have started AND stopped with the labor-hiring measures put into the bill. they also probably shouldn't have had someone from outside the state (missouri) who's connected to a conservative think-tank write the bill for them.

The vast majority of federal crimes are investigated arrests made by local police officers. If you rob a bank, you are almost certain to be arrested (if you are at all) by a local policeman. At that point they decide whether to prosecute under federal laws or under local laws. Bank roberies are federal crimes AND state crimes, as are most drug crimes and just about everything else you can think of.

Illegal US residence is one of the few crimes where the state or local authorities have not passed laws in addition to the federal laws. Thus, when they arrest someone for being an illegal alien, they have no state law to prosecute (they can still arrest under federal law) and thus turn the person over to federal authorities. But those states that HAVE local laws, as Arizona does now, can prosecute under that law regardless of the federal authorities.

In Arizona, they are now treating illegal alien status in the same way they treat drug laws or other duel sovereignty laws.

"Illegal US residence is one of the few crimes where the state or local authorities have not passed laws in addition to the federal laws."

because they don't have the power to do so.

they also can't run up into a factory because they see a pipe discharging a flow of dead bunnies into a waterway and make arrests. (please make this mental image everyone, it's funny.)

they also can't ask you to show your tax returns and take you away for tax evasion if you don't produce proof you paid them.

The Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution) has been interpreted to come in effect only when the federal government has acted in an area. In Edgar v. Mite Corporation, 457 U.S. 624 (1982), the Supreme Court ruled that "A state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid federal statute." In effect, this means that a state law will be found to violate the supremacy clause when either of two conditions exists:
[1] Compliance with both federal and state law is impossible, or
[2]"...state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress..."

the majority of what I've read says that the law dances right on the line of constitutionality...

it's certainly no slam dunk either way

does ICE still exist? i could have sworn it does. =p

You are right on the last one, because the federal law on income taxes specifically precludes the states from enforcing them.

However, they CAN and DO enforce both federal and local laws on pollution.

They can only ask if they have already stopped him in connection with another crime,

speaking of being flat out wrong...

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/state...

I already talked about this in the previous thread and its explained in the politifact article. Officers can build "reasonable suspicion" from a great many factors. They do it in drug enforcement, they do it with all kinds of crimes, they can do it with illegal immigrants as well and it will stand up in a court of law.

Cops constantly train, go to school, and learn about building a case from initial contact, into reasonable suspicion, into probable cause for an arrest. And all of that needs to be clearly detailed in their reports.

Like a cop working in Chicago, in the middle of a black neighborhood. Is he stopping every black person for drugs? No, they patrol the area looking for suspicious activity, like frequenting known drug houses, observing selling on the street etc.

The Arizona Law now makes it illegal "for a person to enter a motor vehicle that is stopped on a street, roadway or highway in order to be hired by an occupant of the motor vehicle and to be transported to work at a different location if the motor vehicle blocks or impedes the normal movement of traffic." It also is now "unlawful for a person who is unlawfully present in the United States and who is an unauthorized alien to knowingly apply for work [or] solicit work in a public place."

Bam, suddenly the officer now has probably cause to target these known pick-up points, pull over the driver and check immigration status. It's the same concept when going after drugs.

Most people think cops are this mindless group of people who will be jumping out of their cars at the sight of a Mexican and demand papers. They are a bit smarter and well trained than you might believe.

Cops are sued all the time, it comes with the territory, so they need to be able to clearly detail all the facts of the case or else their ass is fried. Hell cops will use body language in their reports that hold up in a court of law, because body language gives away what your true intentions are. If you appear nervous and sweating on an initial stop and the officer asks may i look in your trunk and the person suddenly drops his arms to the side and balls them into a fist, you know your probably about to get attacked, and an officer who mis-reads that situation is likely a dead officer. An officer who picks up on that, would back away and draw his weapon and tell the person to get down on the ground. No words have been exchanged, but reasonable suspicion has gone into full probable cause to detain someone. And all of that must be fully articulated in the officers report and it can and will be upheld in a court of law.

Its kinda like spidey-sense with cops, each piece of the puzzle they uncover their suspicion meter goes up. It goes up to a point when there is no doubt that any reasonable person in the same situation would come up with the same thing.

Gueterrez is wrong. A police officer can not stop a person MERELY because he suspects that that person is an illegal alien. He has NOT read the bill, of if he did, he is lying about it.

If a police officer stops a person for OTHER reasons, he can ask him to prove his identity ONLY if he has reasons to suspect that he is an illegal alien.

For instance, if he stops a car for speeding, he will ask for papers, (license and registration) just as every officer will. He is NOT to ask for proof of identification unless there is ADDITIONAL reason to suspect residence status.

Arizona lawmakers OK several changes to immigration law

"Changes to the bill language will actually remove the word "solely" from the sentence, "The attorney general or county attorney shall not investigate complaints that are based solely on race, color or national origin."

Another change replaces the phrase "lawful contact" with "lawful stop, detention or arrest" to apparently clarify that officers don't need to question a victim or witness about their legal status."

[ ]

"[Gov.] Brewer's spokesman said that makes it clear that police cannnot question people just on the suspicion they're illegal immigrants.

Brewer likely will sign the follow-on bill, said the spokesman, Paul Senseman.

Pearce said that change doesn't require a formal arrest before questioning but helps make it clear that racial profiling is not allowed."

http://www.abc15.com/content/news/phoenixmetr...

If the new law does not allow law enforcement personnel to ask an individual for his papers solely based on his race, color, or national origin, and police can only question a victim or witness about their legal status as part of a lawful stop, detention, or arrest, why was this law necessary? Law enforcement personnel were allowed to investigate an individual's legal status as part of a lawful stop, detention, or arrest previously.

A police officer can not stop a person MERELY because he suspects that that person is an illegal alien. He has NOT read the bill, of if he did, he is lying about it.

yes they can...

For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of 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, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation.

apparently "lawful contact" has now been switched to "lawful stop, detention or arrest", but a cop can stop me for jaywalking.

well since they elected the Republicans, I would imagine so...

conveniently, the 30% against the law happens to the % of Latinos in Arizona.

but, as I mentioned earlier in the week, the poll question to get that 70% isn't very well-worded as most poll questions are...

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/04/stop-d...

when asked if worried about violating civil rights, 58% were indeed worried, although once again the question was poorly worded.

just for fun, the Pima County Sheriff says he's going to ignore the law because there's no way to enforce it w/o racial profiling.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/28/pima...

Just curious how many of you are from Arizona?

I live in Los Angeles, nearly the same immigration problems, to answer your question.

Ok, so what's your solution to the problems you, I and those that happen to live in border states have?

the problem is the law isn't a solution. it just sounds/looks like one on the surface.

in order for it to be more effective than what is already in place a law enforcement official has to violate someone's civil rights.

if someone commits a crime they find out if you're illegal or not...that's nothing that needed new legislation.

out east the big "control" method is finding a way to deny illegals a path to having legal vehicle ownership...which leads to undocumented and uninsured drivers who leave the rest of us on the road no recourse if they should happen to hit us. no car repair, no medical bills, nothing...they might face some local charges if it was a bad accident, but for the most part they get sent back "home" to south of the border while the person who got hit tries to figure out how to pay for damages from the uninsured driver.

but some people think this will keep immigrants away for some reason.

it sounds good...in practice it can be pretty damn costly.

as I mentioned the other day, I'm not sure that I know the solution. My first reaction would be to make it easier to obtain legal status so they're taxed appropriately, since they're certainly not going away (although immigration numbers are down recently with people being unable to get jobs). Someone more educated on the subject can tell me why that's a bad idea.

What I do feel is that a law that encourages racial profiling and can only be enforced with racial profiling is unjust and will likely lead to the violation of the civil liberties of citizens.

I see the point or points you both make but the problem is that nobody is stepping up to take action (our governement officials in Washington are not doing anything about this, they are too busy thiking about reelection)... Gov. Brewer did step up and, well, it may not be perfect BUT it does have everybody thinking about it.

Rob G. you live in an area where you see what goes on but how about you Crunch, do you?

We had rancher murdered a couple of weeks ago while he was out checking his fences and tanks.

Both of our states (CA & AZ) are going or are broke but we just continue to provide for people that don't pay taxes.

OK, I'm done... Back to baseball

amusingly, as I just posted below in Comment #45, the fed government seems to have woken up now. If that was the plan the entire team, kudos to you Arizona.

i live in NC and come from a hometown that's 20-25% hispanic. My neighbors were from the Honduras and western Mexico along with a mix of native white folk.

"not perfect" isn't doing anything. it's only positive action is federal action being rushed.

the law is useless as hell and the economic storm brewing so far doesn't look like a great one.

avoiding immigration checkpoints and staying out of legal trouble is what most illegals are trying to do. they spent a lot of time and trouble (and money for some) trying to get here and they don't want to piss away a chance at the 5-10x more money they can make here.

there's no law you can put on the book to keep drug runners (like the probable murderer of that rancher you mentioned) from doing their jobs. tens of thousands+ dollars in profits obtainable to "joe everyman" speaks louder than a law that will bug people for citizenship.

Actually the law is good and is already working and hasn't even been implemented.

Unfortunatley our government (Dem & Reps) (most of those in Washington) are incapable of fixing this. As I mentioned before they are to busy thinking about the next election and taking care of the businesses that got them there.

They don't care about us, and the so called reform is a way to get 10-15 million new votes.

fwiw, it did seem to wake up the federal government...

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/29/democr...

Psst, MLK day was just created to generate votes among a certain section of the population, who aren't very populous in AZ. When they made that extra holiday they generally took away Lincoln (Emancipation Proclamation anyone?) or Washington's birthday. Are you all worked up because they don't celebrate Pulaski day in California?

President's Day is still on my calender.

That said, I think MLK had a much much much much much much much broader impact on ARZ than Lincoln and Washington given the fact it wasn't a state until the 1910s.

Lincoln's Birthday and Washington's birthday used to be two seperate holidays. In some places they still are, but generally they were condesnced into President's Day around the time MLK Day was introduced.

so you're upset by consolidation?

what?

we still celebrate President's Day as a federal holiday as is MLK day. If they pass Pulaski day as a federal holiday, I would hope all states would honor that as well.

Is the post office open on MLK day in Arizona? It seems like you're very much in the favor of what "the people" want, unless it's not what you want, then you're against it.

I'm in favor of what I believe is right.

The fine people of Arizona can have their law if it passes constitutional muster, and I can choose not to support the state of Arizona if I want.

It's hard for me to believe that the AZ law will pass constitutional muster. However, I thought (and still think) that DUI road blocks are unconstitutional. Of course, the Supreme Court didn't bother to ask my opinion when they made that decision.

they already have immigration checkpoints in AZ.

well, they're drug checkpoints, but it's a lot easier to make the population believe these things that clog highways are for catching illegal immigrants if they call them Immigration Checkpoints.

there's an entire lawyer industry that deals with these immigration checkpoints...they mostly help US citizens out with their drug charges...which is what they mostly find rather than illegal immigrants.

They are not just drug check points. When you drive through a check point 9 times out 10 your are stopped and they ask you where you are going (so they can hear your english) and they take a good look at all the poeple riding in your car,truck,rv etc.

So is that profiling?

There are check points all over the state borders in the southwest and a lot of the agents are hispanic.

didn't say it was profiling...i just said there are already immigration checkpoints much like the DWI checkpoints.

the "funny" part is their big business is busting drug users rather than finding illegals. there's scores of lawyers who specialize in cleaning up people's drug arrests there.

Sorry, not arguing with you I was just trying to make a point.

Those check points are there to catch illegals.. The point I was trying to make is this: the people that are upset about this bill and racial profiling don't have an argument. You see because the US border patrol can do what I described above (look in vehicles to check out the people inside and if they want to stop them based on the way they look, they can.. so that can be viewed as profiling).

So if the US Border patrol can do it why no the police?

check out the link:
http://ptleader.com/main.asp?SectionID=4&SubS...

"Legally speaking, neither the Washington State Patrol nor a county sheriff's office or police department can do random traffic checkpoints, unlike the Border Patrol, which is an arm of the federal government."

Is it 1989? That's cool becaus I think the Cubs will win the division. But if it isn't, this is incorrect. The supreme court ruled in 1990 that police could do road blocks, and they haven't changed their view.

I don't think crunch was making that assertion. He was just quoting from the article. However, I think you are correct TRN. The supreme court ruled (incorrectly) that law enforcement can set up random traffic checkpoints.

The article also said "the Border Patrol's 'primary mission is to prevent the entry of terrorists and terrorist weapons into the United States." Is setting up traffic checkpoints and rounding up migrant farm workers and other illegal aliens from Mexico really the best way to accomplish this mission?

Looks like the Cubs are boycotting their at bats again.

signed Kelly Johnson...

Lilly's 85 mph fastball + wind blowing out + Arizona's hot offense = today's current score.

"What kind of baseball do you play?"

My answer- "One that does not involve offense".

Does the Rudy J. philosophy of hitting declare home runs as evil?

The other team has 6 runs so far, all scoring on HRs. We have one run, scored on a single (woo!) by our diminutive shortstop.

At least we're not leaving men on base today, which is nice.

Who's this guy pitching for the Cubs today?

Can't wait for Lilly to come back in June.

It will be just like making a trade, right?!

Guyer to DL, Matt Spencer moved up from Hi-A, don't know what Daytona is doing with the open roster spot.

Caridad starts throwing Sat in Arizona

Wonder if his velocity is still hovering at 92.

jeff gray exists.

almost forgot about him...it's been a week or so.

d.willis got a win today...

"Willis (1-1) struck out six—his highest total since 2007 when he was with the Florida Marlins"

yow...

I hate seeing politics discussed on baseball blogs, but seeing that score...It will be interesting to see if businesses in AZ start feeling the pinch when their illegal employees are shipped back south.Probably not- there's always more coming trying to get into the country apparently.

Why Ted, why?

at 7-1...

~sigh~

holy cubbery batman...bases loaded.

9-1...this is pathetic.

13-1...awesome.

2 GD hits? That's all we got? Have to make sure there is an error on the line. I am going to have a beer for one of the worst defenses in all of baseball tonight. Tip the cap.

D. Lee needs a day off.

...or to be reminded he's in a contract year. Perhaps a quick chat with Jermaine Dye would help.

that's our bleachers alright.

Now if the borders were patroled better....

...if the beer vendors got cut off in the 2nd inning, maybe.

even old timer holdouts have a hard time explaining what's become of bleacher culture these days.

people are thrown out way more...more fights...more "heckling"...less people with scorecards...less people actually watching the game.

Lou has become the new Vinnie Del Negro -- another lifeless loss to a bad team.

Should be a fun meeting with the press today.

Way to go Fukudome... all we need is two more of those!

"Hendry: Don't expect Starlin Castro any time soon"

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/cubs/...

including free idiot comments at the bottom of the article. evidently we need to rush castro and trade everyone over the age of 25.

Does Chad Tracy have dues to pay? How about a base hit.

Overall I'd say the Ricketts shouldn't be ass kissing Arizona legislators. He's got Naples as a bargaining chip, but honestly he should just make a statement and say, "I'm done with you 18th century thugs and we're moving to Naples."

I live in Texas and the "problem" is pretty acute in places like El Paso, and any time I drive up into Austin from the Gulf Coast I have to go through the checkpoints, which remind me of something you'd see in a war zone. But the dogs sniffing around my car tell me those are at least as much for drugs as illegals.

There are ways to solve this problem without going all fascist. One, legalize fucking marijuana for god's sake. Everybody and their grandma smokes it or has, wtf? Take the cartels out of the equation and tax the fat shit out of it. God knows we need the money.

Second, set up a sensible guest worker program that allows Mexicans to come in and work legally for specific periods of time.

I'm sure there are other ideas.

And sorry, I feel bad for the rancher that got killed but honestly he could have been killed by a non-immigrant just as easily. We live in a pretty violent continent, both sides of the border. Actually, humans are pretty violent within all borders. Look at the Chinese school killings of late. Blaming immigrants is just silly.

I really don't enjoy watching this team at all. Just as an aside.

If you haven't lived in Arizona, or lived in a border town like I have for over 20 years you don't have the foggiest idea what has gone on in that state.

The problem has gotten worse not better in that time. My home town of Douglas had 50 BP officers, now it has over 500. Because the Federal Government pushed most of the illegal alien traffic into Arizona over a decade ago.

That rancher killed, from my home town. To many of the residents of Arizona, many of whom are legal mexicans, resent the presence of illegals who get all the benefits without playing by the rules. Is it fair to people who follow the law to have illegals jump ahead of them for services? In that state it should be a requirement to prove citizenship before your kid goes to school, before you get welfare, foodstamps, any kind of government assistance.

Finally nearly every single nation on this earth has some form of strict immigration law that is readily enforced, except the United States. If Mexico thinks its racist, then lets just adopt their immigration policy.

-edit-

decided upon reflection that i didn't want to get into this...my bad.

"Is it fair to people who follow the law to have illegals jump ahead of them for services?"

How does that work, exactly? The wetbacks are cutting in front of everyone in line at the county welfare bureau?

"Finally nearly every single nation on this earth has some form of strict immigration law that is readily enforced, except the United States."

Immigration is what has made this country so uniquely kick-ass.

"That rancher killed, from my home town."

could have been killed by anybody. If he had been killed by a duck hunter I bet you wouldn't be yelping about restricting guns. People are murdered every day in this country. Do we just single out each group each day this happens? That association is just ridiculous.

Overall, no matter what anyone thinks about immigration, the law is un-American. Just the clause alone that allows yahoos to sue their municipalities for not enforcing the law is worrisome enough, without the racial profiling aspect of this law. Maybe you are comfortable with the fact that an American citizen can be pulled out of a store simply because they have brown skin, but that's not the country I grew up in.

I liked what Ozzie Guillen had to say about this: "I guarantee you whoever comes to this country and they don't have their papers, they're straight and narrow. They're scared to be deported."

If your town wants to do something about immigration, do something positive like reaching out to your neighbors in Agua Prieta and figure out something civil.

Immigration is what has made this country so uniquely kick-ass.

MikeC -- why do you think the rancher was killed by an illegal alien? As I understand it, no one has been caught or charged in the murder.

why does he think a drug smuggler (which is probably who killed the rancher) is going to be effected by an immigration law when they're carrying thousands of dollars of potential profit?

they're not going to suddenly change their mind about bringing drugs in because they might get stopped by a policeman over immigration.

the incentive to travel 20-100 miles through the desert to make 2-5x more than they can make in mexico with "real" work is enough to make a lot of people cross over...give them a thousands-dollars+ incentive with smuggling and you can't make enough laws.

I completely agree with you, crunch. My only point was that some people are using the murder of the rancher as justification for the new law, but the fact is that no one has been charged in the murder of the rancher, so how can we be so sure it was an illegal alien?

The rancher who was murdered actually spent his time helping illegals with getting drinking water. He radioed in that he had an illegal at one of his drinking holes and was going to assist him, that was the last time anyone heard from.

Border Patrol investigated and followed tracks from the scene of the crime back to Mexico.

If that leaves any doubt to if it was an illegal or not, they have the Ranchers own words.

Stop thinking about protecting illegals rights and start thinking of defending American citizens rights. Especially people who live along the border.

This is a statement from Krentz, the Rancher who was killed, on the impact if illegals to his property.....

"We’re being over-run, and it’s costing us lots and lots of money," Krentz said.

"We figured it up over the last five years and it’s cost us over $8 million," Krentz said. "Cattle don’t like people walking through, so they move. So, cattle weight loss, destruction of fences, breaking our pipelines, they break them in two and (the pipes) run for two or three days before we find it."

He didn't like them on his land, but he still helped them and for that he was murdered.

Those who support illegal aliens will talk about "human rights", but where were the "human rights" when it came to Rob Krentz? Where was the government to protect our border and prevent this from happening, though they've been told time and time again? They didn't protect his property rights, nor his civil rights.

20+ years....my city, and the rest of the border communities plight has been ignored. It's sad it took a death of a man for the state to finally get serious about the issue.

Stop thinking about protecting illegals rights and start thinking of defending American citizens rights. Especially people who live along the border.

what is upsetting is that it will trample on American citizen rights, they just happen to have brown skin.

@Rob - You are absolutely correct. Some may be willing to violate the constitution in the name of stopping illegal immigration, but the violation can/will eventually come back to bite everyone, legal and illegal. I think the saying is, a country that is willing to give up some of it's freedom in the name of security will eventually forfeit both.

@MikeC & Rory -- I have no doubt that illegal immigration is a serious problem in Arizona and other border states. But I have two problems with what you've said here.

First, we still don't know who killed Robert Krentz. Was it an illegal? Very possibly. In fact, it could have been a drug smuggler coming in from Mexico. If so, the new AZ law will have no effect on him coming in again. But the fact remains, we still don't know who the murderer is.

I have my doubts about the "followed footprints back into Mexico" scenario. If illegals were running all over Kretz' property as you reported, there should be no surprise that there are footprints there. I'll bet there were footprints from Kretz' house to where his body was found too, but I doubt that his family is under suspicion. (BTW, I don't doubt that this is being reported in AZ. I just have trouble believing it or putting too much importance on it.)

Second, as Rory pointed out, those of us who don't live on the border can't fully understand the impact illegals have on their community. I'll bet that's true. But that's not justification for a law that is overreaching and in the opinion of many (including me) unconstitutional. We can't solve the immigration problem by giving up our own freedoms.

Sweet Lou - illegal immigrants are deportable under Immigration and Nationality Act Section 237 (a)(1)(B), that's the law. If you want to enforce it and are concerned that the rights of citizens would be violated (e.g. racial profiling) than I propose that we ask for everyone's documentation. Lets take this concern away simply by not discriminating against anyone by the color of their skin instead make it mandatory under federal law to get a drivers license in all states by showing proof of US residency, you want a mortgage prove you are a legal resident, you want to go to public school the same, credit card, social services, job...get the point. If you are concerned that the AZ law is overreaching than lets address this via a federal mandate and then you wont have an issue.

I haven't given your proposal a lot if thought, but at first glance, it seems to make sense. If the law applies to everyone and doesn't violate their consitutional rights, I think it could work.

My concern with the law is that U.S. citizens must give up some of their rights in order to find and deport illegals. I understand that the issue is an emotional one, especially for those people living on the front lines of the immigration fight. However, the worst thing we can do is have an emotional response to the issue that ends up causing more problems than it solves.

Oh yeah...Go Cubs!

US Citizens have been giving up their rights ever since the Bill of Rights was enacted.

Let me quote to you part of it, and you tell me if this is what we have in good ol' US of A.

"the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

There's no way to reasonably argue that Arizona's law comes as close to contradicting the bill of rights as clearly as thousands of gun laws do across the country.

But road blocks, random or non-random if you prefer public requests for documentation, etc, are all fine by me. They can do them where I live, I don't care if someone calls me a Kraut and asks me for my drivers license every day of the week. If it makes citizens of the country safer and wealthier I'm all for it. Just like gun laws make the citizens safer.

Talk to a Latino citizen who is having trouble finding work, and ask him if they would rather have a job and get periodically requested for ID or have no job, and ask him what he thinks about it.

Mike - I was raised near you in a small town south of Tuscon (but closer to the border) where I would say most of the people that I grew up with were legal and their roots were from Mexico, if you are from Douglas you are basically on the front line. So I can certainly appreciate your informed comments versus those who simply view this as a matter of civil rights because they read that on some politico web site. I occasionally go back to my hometown and I can honestly say the immigration problem in Arizona, especially in southern AZ, is an issue that most people who have never lived here just don't fully comprehend. Unfortunately, the federal government over the last 20 years is really to blame, this is NOT a red versus blue issue as some people are trying to make it. It's really too bad the State of AZ has had to address it and while I personally don't have a problem with the law since I can provide proof of residency/citizenship I don't really think the State can make a dent to the problem. Since I think the Federal Government should aggressively protect our borders and at the same time determine an equitable solution to those who are already here illegally, which does not mean everyone can stay. If you want to paint me as a racist or as a Republican that's fine but if you lived here you would know better. For those that think Southern California has the same issue I would love to give them a tour of my home town and some of the other border towns.

X
  • Sign in with Twitter