Skip to content

Gonzalez speaks out about AZ immigration law

May 2, 2010, 8:41 AM EDT

gonzalez arguing.jpgWe’re better off leaving the politics of it alone, but the situation in Arizona involving new immigration crackdowns just took an odd turn.  According to Tom Krasovic of AOL Fanhouse, Padres first baseman Adrian Gonzalez has spoken out about the issue, and he’s none too pleased.  Here’s Krasovic:

[Gonzalez] told FanHouse that he will not attend next year’s All-Star Game in
Phoenix if the law is in effect, and that he’d like for major league
baseball to boycott spring training in Arizona. Gov. Jan Brewer signed
the bill into law on April 23.

Gonzalez, 27, was born and raised in the city he plays — San Diego — and is also of Mexican descent.  The new Arizona law contains wording and policies that may lead to discrimination against people just like him.  Major League Baseball, with its Latino-powered rosters, could potentially be a leader in getting some of the items on the bill changed or at least modified.  Just saying…

  1. Wilson - May 2, 2010 at 9:08 AM

    Gonzo – shut up and play ball and I hope MLB fans don’t vote for you next year so you don’t have to worry about being invited to the All-Star game. All MLB players who are not US citizens need a Visa to work in the States so what is your beef? Have the right documentation and it isn’t an issue.
    I am 38 and last night I was asked for ID when I ordered a bottle of wine at a restaurant. Profiling? In a way, yes, because I look young and they went on the basics of my appearance to ensure I was of LEGAL age to drink alcohol. Descrimination, NO, because they were following the law. Could I have made a scene instead of showing proof of age? I guess but what would that solve?
    I wish more states would adopt the immigration law so my tax money goes to programs to support those who are here legally or have taken the appropriate steps to become a US citizen.

  2. a poor analogy - May 2, 2010 at 9:21 AM

    Yes, but if you hadn’t had your ID you would’ve been served a Coke, not thrown in jail.
    The problem a lot of people have with this law is that it essentially says that, if you have brown skin, you have to constantly be able to prove that you’re a legal citizen. That same burden of proof doesn’t apply if you’re white.

  3. Obo - May 2, 2010 at 9:30 AM

    “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.”
    Sounds to me like they are trying to change the 4th amendment to have a burden of “reasonable suspicion” rather than “probable cause.” Maybe a law student/lawyer can tell us how the courts have defined those terms.

  4. Jim Abbott's Right-Hand Man - May 2, 2010 at 9:36 AM

    Concern for the use of tax dollars has to be the worst argument in favor of this.
    The raw number of people you’d be requiring the police to drop what they’re doing and go check out, you’re just burning through resources to accomplish that. And that’s just the time you’re having cops spend on it. Then there’s all the expenses that will come when you inevitably end up detaining illegal immigrants. And then even more money you’re burning when you detain people who aren’t illegal immigrants and face constant lawsuits.
    And all that’s assuming the police play along with the law and just harass the strictly Mexican-looking people like the lawmakers intended. If any of them get cute and decide it’s reasonable to question the legality of other groups whose presence there is the result of immigration (basically, any non-Native American), then it becomes a full-on money pit you’re just shoveling tax dollars into.

  5. Old Gator - May 2, 2010 at 9:37 AM

    Ah, the old neofascist drone we’re so used to hearing – you’re an American citizen in a free country, so how dare you speak out against a law that so blatantly violates your constitutional rights? I’m always slightly amused (though mostly sickened) by that response because it’s so fundamentally hypocritical, not to mention ignorant. You actually think there’s a genuine analogy to be drawn between being asked for your ID so you can buy a drink and being a citizen stopped because you look Mexican or foreign in any other way and hauled off to jail because you happen not to be carrying your “papirss,” as the storm troopers in those old movies liked to pronounce it? Did it not occur to you that there’s an, um, difference – admittedly a minor one to the FAUX news aficionados – between being refused a beer and being hauled off to jail? Are you really that clueless about what your Constitution says and why two hundred and forty years of legislative and common law and judicial revision brought us to the conclusions it draws?
    .
    What gets lost in this argument, as bigots fall all over themselves to drown out the constitutional issues and their own bigotry by whining as loudly as possible about having to pay the lowest taxes in the industrialized world is that the problem with this law is that it victimizes everyone. Let’s leave aside for the moment the matter that our laws are written to protect the rights of anybody who happens to be here when accused of breaking them, and that the distinction between “legal” or “illegal” residents isn’t made at that fundamental level. A Canadian arrested here, for example, is, you will recall, tried under US law, not Canadian law.
    So: a citizen who happens to be strolling along with nothing in his pockets enjoying a pleasant afternoon – that used to be a right of ours, remember? – gets stopped, interrogated, and taken to jail not because he looks Mexican, Oriental, Arab – this horrible law doesn’t criminalize that per se – but because he is “undocumented.” Now that is, of course, a rationalization: he got stopped in the first place precisely because he “looks” foreign. And that, not the right wing cartoon notion that those millions who object to this wretched law are coddling illegal immigration, is the real issue here.
    .
    Well, I guess it’s always nice when a healthy debate flushes the bigots out from under their trailers, isn’t it? Better to have them out in the light than hissing at us from the shadows. Good for Adrian Gonzalez. I hope that more professional athletes will get involved because, like it or not, it is their right to speak out, and because they understand that the maintenance and protection of that right depends on their vigilance and on their willingness to speak out on behalf of that right. Even if they’re nothing but a bunch of crummy baseball players.

  6. Russ - May 2, 2010 at 9:40 AM

    All of the stink about the AZ law is so crazy! The law didn’t authorize the police to stop everyone with dark skin and asked to see proof of citizenship. If in the course of interacting with people in an official capacity (pulling someone over for speeding or arresting someone for a domestic dispute) the police can ask for proof of citizenship. Since it was illegal to be in the country with a proper visa, why would anyone object to catching people that are breaking the law. Don’t we have the right to protect our borders?

  7. Russ - May 2, 2010 at 9:49 AM

    Old Gator – How is it bigoted to ask people to prove that they belong in our country? Do you think that it is okay for people to sneak across the border in violation of the laws of the country? And the police are not authorized to simply walk down the street and ask every Latino they see to produce their paperwork. Despite your long winded emails about constitutional rights, you really aren’t very educated on what the law says. I know that it might inconvenience a lot of people if they didn’t have all of the illegal immigrants around to cut their grass for cheap but they are violating violating the law and should be returned to their native country.

  8. Obo - May 2, 2010 at 9:53 AM

    I did a little more research. They have amended the bill to require the investigation of immigration status to be done only in the event of “lawful stop, detention, or arrest.” That was not in the original law and it definitely helps.
    I don’t think it’ll take very long for a case to appear to contest the constitutionality of this law. We’ll soon see what the courts have to say about it.

  9. Old Gator - May 2, 2010 at 10:04 AM

    Our right to protect our borders isn’t in question here and never was – that’s just a red herring. Of course we have that right. The point is that we must exercise that particular right according to the essential precepts of our broader Constitutionally protected rights to which all other collective rights are subject. The law has now been hastily modified to clarify that circumstances must justify interrogation and arrest to conform it to a range of statutes and precedents governing unreasonable search and seizure. And it was so modified precisely because of “the stink” about the law. That leather faced fright show of a governor and the storm trooper wannabes who blew off the constitutional issues raised by the Arizona law knew what they were doing, and most of them probably knew already that the law would not stand as originally passed, but they passed it anyway in a craven and opportunistic exercise in political pandering to their conservative constituencies. However, there’s still a big difference between asking on the scene for “proof of citizenship” and for “identification,” and therein lies much of the Constitutional problem. It’s not simple. There’s going to be a wave of legal actions challenging this law and the judicial system will sort through them, and one hopes that at the end of this process the law will ultimately be rewritten to be both effective and to conform to our fundamental rights.

  10. Joey B - May 2, 2010 at 10:08 AM

    “Then there’s all the expenses that will come when you inevitably end up detaining illegal immigrants.”
    I can see both sides of the argument, but either you pay the price for detaining the illegals, or you allow all the illegals in. The only way to get rid of the illegals is detainment and deportation.

  11. mudrooster - May 2, 2010 at 10:08 AM

    Wilson you idiot. It’s one thing to be asked for ID because you look like you might be under 21, it’s another completely to be asked for ID because you look like “you might be undocumented”. what do “undocumented” humans look like? (place racial profiling answer here)

  12. Andrew - May 2, 2010 at 10:08 AM

    As someone who lives in Canada this law is simply unimaginable to me. However we do not have the problem with illegal immigrants. I’ve never been to AZ, but at the same time I cannot believe it is such a big problem it’s come to this I support Gonzalez 100%. I would be nice if MLB moved the all star game there should still be time, they can just bump up the 2012 team. They probably can’t move spring training, but they almost certainly could move the much smaller AFL to California or some place else.

  13. Ob - May 2, 2010 at 10:09 AM

    Actually, a driver’s license counts as proof of legal presence:
    “A person is “presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States” if he or she presents any of the following four forms of identification: (a) a valid Arizona driver license; (b) a valid Arizona nonoperating identification license; (c) a valid tribal enrollment card or other tribal identification; or (d) any valid federal, state, or local government-issued identification, if the issuer requires proof of legal presence in the United States as a condition of issuance.”
    Don’t get me wrong, I am against this law. I just know it helps our side if we can make arguments based in fact.

  14. smsetnor - May 2, 2010 at 10:10 AM

    I know every time I see a latino looking guy, my blood starts to boil wondering if they’re here legally. It sickens me when I see someone who may have snuck in to this country. I mean, the taxes I’m paying! Sometimes I just get so angry I have to come back home and sit in a darkened house to just think about it. Their lack of paperwork is interfering with my rights to enjoy a walk around the park. I shouldn’t have to stress so much about people being legal or not.
    America was much better before all sorts of different ethnicities settled here and made us change the way we’ve been. Pushing us around and bringing their diseases and not even speaking our language. How dare they!?!?

  15. Joey B - May 2, 2010 at 10:18 AM

    “Ah, the old neofascist drone we’re so used to hearing – you’re an American citizen in a free country, so how dare you speak out against a law that so blatantly violates your constitutional rights?”
    Still trying to strike down the right of free speech? You used the words ‘Neofacist’, hypocritical, ignorant, clueless, bigotry (in several forms), and a lot of other insults.
    The first rule of debate (outside of NY), is that if you have to resorts to insults, then you’ve lost. The real hypocrite is you. You feign belief in the right of free speech, but if anyone disagrees with you, and does not adhere to the far-left orthodoxy, they must be shouted down. Which stalag should they be confined to? Which re-education camp?

  16. The Common Man - May 2, 2010 at 10:21 AM

    Russ, we’ve had long conversations over the last couple days about what the law says and doesn’t say, and I invite you to go read those. The recent changes to the law are certainly a good step. That said, I remain concerned about legal US citizens and residents being detained because they do not carry proof of citizenship (which, by the way, is not a driver’s license). And I also remain concered about an artificial rise in minor traffic stops against Latino drivers as cops “fish” for illegal immigrants. Finally, I remain troubled that this law does nothing to account for the increase in law enforcement spending that this law will inevitably require. Between the time and money that police will have to expend on this issue, I think it will actually make our communities less safe.
    As for Wilson (@#1), Gonzalez’s conscientious political speech is his right as an American citizen, as is it your right to spout the brainless twaddle you should have moved beyond in your 38 years. I’m sorry you begrudge others the right to speak their mind, and I’m sorry that you want to live in an echo chamber, where all you can hear is the ill-conceived, bitter ramblings of your small mindedness.

  17. Troy - May 2, 2010 at 10:24 AM

    MLB should show solidarty with the people who walked across the border without checking in. They could try opening a few gates at their parks to let people without tickets in. Some of their paying customers might not get their seats; they’ll sell more concessions though.

  18. The Common Man - May 2, 2010 at 10:27 AM

    Gator isn’t shouting anyone down, Joey. He’s criticizing their speech. In fact, Gator is very careful, I think, not to call Wilson (@#1) any names. How has Gator infringed on anyone’s right to keep talking? He hasn’t told anyone to shut up, like Wilson did. Expressing an opinion is not the same as shouting someone down.

  19. The Common Man - May 2, 2010 at 10:34 AM

    Just because someone can’t think of a way to argue Gator’s point, does not mean that Gator has shouted them down. It is not incumbant upon Gator to provide a point that’s easy to rebut. Jeez. Don’t complain about how hard it is to engage Gator’s argument, just engage it.
    (recaptcha: electron, whacky It sure is.)

  20. The Common Man - May 2, 2010 at 10:40 AM

    either you pay the price for detaining the illegals, or you allow all the illegals in. The only way to get rid of the illegals is detainment and deportation.
    Well, this is a huge problem with the bill as well. It does not pay to detain illegal immigrants. It simply orders them to be detained and transported. That’s money that the Arizona law enforcement could be spending elsewhere, like patrolling Arizona streets or investigating Arizona crimes. It’s an unfunded mandate that may actually make Arizona less safe.

  21. Obo - May 2, 2010 at 10:43 AM

    Here is the bill http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.pdf
    Line 34-43 on the second page says what forms of identification are acceptable. Arizona license is number 1.

  22. Joe - May 2, 2010 at 11:00 AM

    It’s amazing how people continually forget that we are all immigrants. There a many Latino-American citizens in the US, and it’s a discriminnatory law because it ends up affecting one group of people, who are citizens and have the rights that we all do, over another.
    Good for Gonzalez for speaking up. I’d like to see other MLB players do the same. This isn’t about politics, but about the promises of our constitution and the American dream.

  23. Obo - May 2, 2010 at 11:02 AM

    I really don’t want to be writing posts to defend the law, though. It is vague and leaves plenty of room to be abused. Keith Law pointed me towards an article about the baseball implications of this bill by Jeff Passan:
    http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=jp-arizonaimmigration042910
    I think this HBT crowd will find it interesting.

  24. Rob - May 2, 2010 at 11:26 AM

    Title 8, Section 1304 of the UNITED STATES CODE:
    “Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d) of this section. Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both.”
    It is already a federal crime for a non-citizen be without his immigration papers at any time. All the Arizona law does is give their police a means to enforce it. I don’t understand all the outcry about this. If Federal law was being enforced, this wouldn’t be an issue.

  25. Old Gator - May 2, 2010 at 11:31 AM

    How about the ones we used to keep Japanese American citizens in, and within the lifetimes of a lot of us here, I might add…I think there may be one or two left in Arizona that could be dusted off and filled with Mexicans. If, by the way, you think it’s such a far cry from the Arizona law as originally written to the Nisei concentration camps, you’re probably getting your perspective from Faux News. The Orwellianly named Patriot Act is still on the books and there’s nothing imaginary about the fundamental rights violations originally encoded into that monstrosity. Even the Bush/Reagan Supreme Court couldn’t justify many of its provisions – the essential one of which, unjustified detention, is encoded in the original version of the Arizona law. The segue from having protected rights to not having them has the character of contagion about it. There’s a damned good reason by itself to attack this law, and the mentality behind it, immediately and vigorously.
    .
    If you want to talk about lame rhetorical ploys, let’s talk about trying to reverse the actual substance of someone’s argument so obviously and cloaking your own opinion in a straw man cobbled together from the negative version of mine.
    .
    Now as far as who’s trying to silence whom, the most ridiculous of your gambits, you’ll also notice that unlike Wilson, who opens his/her commentary with a demand that Adrian Gonzalez “just shut up” and retreat into his foreordained social niche (according to Wilson, anyway), I made a specific point of noting that it was a positive thing to have a debate on this issue because it calls such wretched attitudes out into the light instead of letting them hide behind a scrim of legalistic sanctimony. Hardly what one could call an attempt to silence someone, is it?
    .
    If you can find a better word than “neofascist” to describe the belief, expressed by Wilson – and eloquently too, for a deflated beachball – that it’s OK to suspend our rights and accept a situation tantamount to a police state to achieve some imaginary level of border security, I’m willing to accept that term. Hell, I have no objection whatsoever to dropping the “neo.”
    .
    Moreover, I don’t recall any forensics textbook I ever used that disqualified a debator for calling an opponent out for what he is. If you want to make up rules as you go along be my guest but I have no interest in playing by them. “Bigot” and “neofascist” are unlikable words because they’re unlikable things, and in this case they’re firmly grounded in the comments made by Wilson, not in anything incidental or genetic about him or her.
    .

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Who are the favorites for Rookie of the Year?
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. J. Soler (3752)
  2. Y. Molina (3495)
  3. R. Castillo (3409)
  4. D. Wright (2340)
  5. D. Murphy (2245)
  1. B. Colon (2210)
  2. B. Posey (2196)
  3. S. Doolittle (2173)
  4. D. Ortiz (2133)
  5. T. Lincecum (2065)