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. Obo - May 2, 2010 at 11:37 AM

    The question is if the means they’ve been given to enforce the law are going to result in violations of constitutional rights. You will certainly concede that there exist methods of enforcement that would violate rights, right?

  2. thepelosi - May 2, 2010 at 11:37 AM

    i think that they should all be let in and i’ll pay for them to stay . send me the bill for HC, welfare , the cost to our justice system , education. i just hope the they’ll appreciate all that i’ve done, work/study hard and not get into any trouble.

  3. Pistol - May 2, 2010 at 11:39 AM

    Just play baseball don’t get involved in politics.

  4. bikini_waxman - May 2, 2010 at 11:47 AM

    obama voted against the immigration bill in ’07 , i guess this makes him as big a racist as those folks on the right . oh no, we can’t criticize dear leader………..

  5. Bob Hanson - May 2, 2010 at 11:51 AM

    bull shit bro racist at best peace Bob

  6. Leroy - May 2, 2010 at 12:03 PM

    He’s the so-called Rev. Wright’s(wrong) boy . The only reason he divorced himself from Wright is his only votes would have come from the blacks , and God knows he needed whitey . Blacks like Obama and Oprah kiss whitey’s ass when they need something .

  7. Rob - May 2, 2010 at 12:03 PM

    Section 2(B) of SB 1070 reads as follows:
    “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).”
    So the law gives two protections: 1) police must have reasonable suspicion and 2) they still have to verify immigration status with the federal government. Reasonable suspicion is a defined term by the Arizona courts, not simply the hunch of a police officer. Here is how an Arizona appeals court defined reasonable suspicion in 2008:
    “Our assessment of reasonable suspicion is based on the totality of the circumstances, considering such objective factors as the suspect’s conduct and appearance, location, and surrounding circumstances, such as the time of day, and taking into account the officer’s relevant experience, training, and knowledge.” (Check this link for the full text of that case: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11160404790761294241&q=218+Ariz.+74&hl=en&as_sdt=40000002)
    I understand there being concerns about how the law will be enforced. As a young African-American male, I certainly understand that there can be room for abuse in a “reasonable suspicion” standard. That said, Arizona has about half a million immigrants (source: http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ois_ill_pe_2009.pdf), which is about 7% of its population. The state has faced a number of issues related to illegal immigrants, and the federal government has done little to address the state’s concerns.
    In the abstract, I think the Arizona law is a great idea, in that it will merely enforce already existing laws. In reality, I understand people’s concerns about its enforcement, and I think the law does need to be carefully and judiciously enforced. Ultimately, how concerned you are about this law comes down to your view of the police: if you think that police officers are, for the most part, fair and honest public servants, then you won’t have much problem with how the law will be enforced; if you are suspicious of police officers, you assume that the law is a pretense for discrimination and racial profiling.
    Because of this, I think the best solution is for the law to go through, but for all of us to be diligent in watching how the law is enforced in practice, and ensuring that it is NOT used as a pretense for unlawful discrimination.

  8. Gold Star for Robot Boy - May 2, 2010 at 12:08 PM

    Does that apply to other professions?
    “Just play baseball music don’t get involved in politics.”
    Got that, Ted Nugent?

  9. BritBurnsWasTheMan - May 2, 2010 at 12:09 PM

    On the contrary, AG doesn’t have to shut-up and play ball. He has a right to express his opinion, as do you. But with expression, comes responsibility…so here’s a few thoughts about your opinion:
    Your comparison with getting carded is RIDICULOUS. Just take five seconds and think about it…
    If you get carded, do you go to jail if you don’t have your ID? I’m 38, so I rarely think about getting carded anymore. My father came to the states in the 50′s, still has an accent, and wouldn’t dream of walking around with his “papers.” So if we go grab a beer in Phoneix, I might not have my ID, but I’m not going to jail when I get carded. My dad goes to jail if he forgets his papers, get it?
    Also, some idiot included a provision requiring cops to ask? Really? And the police department can be sued for not enforcing the law? So, the law implies that law-enforcement is a part of the problem? Really?
    AG has the right to stay away from the All-Star game. And he is right to criticize this idiotic law. And you need to inform yourself better and think about what you say before you open your mouth. Life will be less embarrassing for you…

  10. Decker - May 2, 2010 at 12:12 PM

    I’m glad Gonzalez spoke out against this un-American law and that the Players Association is also working to restore some sanity to AZ. Of course, the price of discussing the issue is dealing with morons like the first commenter above.

  11. Old Gator - May 2, 2010 at 12:15 PM

    I certainly wouldn’t want to wake up with Nancy Pelosi the morning after a bender, but your nonsensical representation of her political positions merely reiterates the idiotic right-wing cartoon about legions of people who just want to sponge. The fact that the vast majority of illegal immigrants come here to find work – hence, laws against hiring them – doesn’t seem to make much of a dent in your ignorance or your default to the easiest and dumbest cliche in the book.
    .
    Replying to comment from bikini_waxman: not to put too fine a point on it, but Obama catches hell from the left side of the Democratic party as well as from liberal constituencies outside the party proper on a daily basis. You want to see what happens to someone who “criticizes the leader”? I’d like to introduce you to Charlie Crist and Arlen Specter. If you insist on getting your information or opinions from Faux News, of course, you can’t really expect to have any idea about what’s really going on.
    .
    And by the way…do you have any idea of why Obama voted against that bill? I really hope you’re not stupid enough to think it’s because he doesn’t like people of color. I mean, he married one, did you notice?

  12. Obo - May 2, 2010 at 12:15 PM

    In the 3rd post of this thread I listed my concern over the ‘reasonable suspicion’ language.
    I don’t remember where I read it, it may have been Calcaterra on this site, but someone made a good point that a legislature making a vague law is not doing it’s job. Laws are supposed to be explicit and not depend on just enforcers. As evidence why we don’t want to rely on our police being just, read about the Stanford experiment:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_experiment

  13. BritBurnsWasTheMan - May 2, 2010 at 12:17 PM

    So you’ve read the law…good, that’s a start. Now, do you understand what you are reading?
    Do you know the difference between the standards for “reasonable suspicion” and “probable cause”?
    Again, if challenged, you have to prove yourself. That means you need to have your passport with you at all times. Innocent until proven guilty? Not in AZ…
    Like frivolous lawsuits? Well you’ll love this law, because if I have a “reasonable suspicion” that the officer I see writing a ticket ought to be asking the motorist for their “papers” and the officer does not, I can sue. Wonderful thinking, there…
    This law implies that law enforcement can’t or won’t do their job. That’s really disrespectful to people who serve and protect.

  14. Old Gator - May 2, 2010 at 12:24 PM

    Boy, “Leroy,” did you really crawl out from under your rock just to defecate your imbecility into this forum? Not that I think there’s any hope of educating you in particular, but for the sake of others who may be on the cusp of becoming Faux News zombies as you seem to be, Jesse Jackson has been critical of Obama on several occasions – most famously in September 2007, when Obama was campaigning for the Democratic presidential nomination, when Jackson blasted Obama for his silence about six Black kids arrested for murder in Jena, Louisiana, even going so far as to accuse him of “acting like a white man.”

  15. Matt - May 2, 2010 at 12:35 PM

    The problem with the AZ law, as I see it, is that it lowers the standard necessary for what amounts to a search and potentially a seizure for those that fit the description of being “reasonably suspicions of being an illegal immigrant.” Normally in order for the police to stop someone and search and/or seize a person they need to have probable cause that a crime is currently or has been committed. The only area that I am aware of where mere reasonable suspicion has been allowed is what is commonly referred to as a “Terry stop” where police, if they have reasonable suspicion that a person is armed and presents a danger to others can stop that person and frisk them for weapons (and only for weapons). However, what this law would allow for a situation where an citizen of the US is walking down the street and fits the description of someone who is illegal (speaking another language, having darker skin, whatever other potential criteria for thinking someone might be illegally here…) the police can stop and ask for identification to prove that this person is here legally. If that person fails to provide his ID then the police can detain him until the determination can be made. When police detain anyone (not just under this law, but at any time) they have the ability to search the person’s pockets, bag, etc. and then potentially find something like a small bag of marijuana or whatever and is now arrested for something that under normal circumstances would never have been made known to the police. So, under normal circumstances this US citizen can know that his pockets and personal effects are kept private from the government unless the police have probable cause to arrest him, but if in AZ the person looks Mexican and is speaking Spanish (or potentially if you prefer looks German and is speaking German so that the accusations of racism which cause arguments to become battles of being defensive instead of rational discussions of policy) this person now has less of a right to privacy in his person and can be arrested and charged with a crime for mere reasonable suspicion of committing the particular crime of being here illegally, instead of probable cause that he has committed any crime.
    So, while I personally believe that this law might be racist in enforcement because it seems highly likely that people will be profiled for being Latino in appearance, this isn’t necessarily the reason that it should scare everyone. The scariest part of this law is that the state of AZ has no lessened the standard of potential guilt required to arrest an individual to a point far below the standard normally considered to be the Constitutional standard for arrest.

  16. Obo - May 2, 2010 at 12:41 PM

    You’re missing a point about the law. Read the 8th post in this thread. Speaking Spanish is not enough. You have to be speeding and speaking Spanish. Or jay-walking and speaking Spanish. Or publicly intoxicated and speaking Spanish.

  17. Obo - May 2, 2010 at 12:44 PM

    You can also be detained if you are in the car with someone who is stopped for speeding and fails to produce proof of legal presence.

  18. rob - May 2, 2010 at 12:44 PM

    Brit, reasonable suspicion is a far lower standard than probable cause. There is a huge difference. I’ll let the Supreme Court explain it to you:
    “In Terry this Court recognized that “a police officer may in appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate manner approach a person for purposes of investigating possibly criminal behavior even though there is no probable cause to make an arrest.” The Fourth Amendment does not require a policeman who lacks the precise level of information necessary for probable cause to arrest to simply shrug his shoulders and allow a crime to occur or a criminal to escape. On the contrary, Terry recognizes that it may be the essence of good police work to adopt an intermediate response. A brief stop of a suspicious individual, in order to determine his identity or to maintain the status quo momentarily while obtaining more information, may be most reasonable in light of the facts known to the officer at the time.”
    (Full Text of that case, Adams v. Williams, is available here: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11467920173379906407&q=adams+v.+williams&hl=en&as_sdt=40000002)
    As to Obo, first: Thank you for making reasonable, informed arguments against the law that are based in fact and not inflamed rhetoric. I’m by no means a fervent supporter of SB 1070, but I certainly understand its rationale, and believe that, on balance, it has the potential to be an effective law to combat a real problem in Arizona.
    As to the reasonable suspicion requirements being vague, the courts have purposely left these standards vague. Here’s the Supreme Court in US v. Arvizu in 2002: “Our cases have recognized that the concept of reasonable suspicion is somewhat abstract. But we have deliberately avoided reducing it to `a neat set of legal rules.’”
    The main reason for leaving this standard abstract is that it would be too difficult to develop a meaningful set of rules and/or circumstances for which reasonable suspicion may be inferred. Such things are too dependent on context and circumstance to be captured in a firm set of rules.
    For better or worse, the idea of reasonable suspicion is entirely within the judgment of the police in a particular situation, with the courts in place as a backstop to ensure that the police haven’t overstepped their authority in these situations.

  19. Obo - May 2, 2010 at 12:55 PM

    I posted the 4th amendment in the 3rd post of this thread. It sounds to me like the form of search being called for in this legislation already requires the burden of probable cause be met. Am I misinterpreting the Bill of Rights?
    .
    Also, I am going to look more into being detained for being in the car with someone who can’t provide proof of his legal presence.

  20. Matt - May 2, 2010 at 12:59 PM

    I would also like to note to those who appear to have a similar viewpoint as I do on this law…labeling those who support this law as racist is counterproductive at best. The terms ‘racist’ and ‘racism’ are rightfully full of all manner of horrible accusations and ill will, and when that term gets placed on an individual that individual is understandably going to act defensively and will end up digging in his or her heels and cement their potentially wavering belief into a firm one, and then be far more aggressive to the opposing side. For practical purposes this isn’t significantly different from when certain members of the right would label all opposition to the war as unpatriotic and anti-American. We knew that doing so was unfair and usually caused us to dismiss that person and no longer attempt to engage in a rational discussion with that right wing moron. So, if your ultimate goal is to persuade others and have rational, meaningful discussions about a serious challenge to the constitutional rights of people within this country refrain from yelling ‘racist’ or other similar ideas, but instead try to have a civil discussion about how this law could be used, or hurts Americans as a whole because there is a much higher likelihood that it will have a positive effect, and those that really are racist, or have racist motivations behind their positions aren’t going to be changed anyway so inflammatory name calling isn’t going to do any good anyway. It’s just a short-hand, lazy way of having a political argument and has seriously harmful potential ramifications.

  21. Rob - May 2, 2010 at 1:14 PM

    Obo, you are correct that the 4th Amendment is implicated here. In Terry v. Ohio, a landmark Supreme Court case from 1968, the Court established a difference between a “stop and frisk” and an “arrest and search”. Prior to Terry, people were only protected by the 4th Amendment in “arrest and search” police encounters. The majority in Terry declared that “stop and frisk” situations were also covered by the 4th Amendment. However, because of the nature of police work, requiring probable cause and a warrant would render the police useless in many situations where they would otherwise be able to prevent a crime.
    So, the Court came up with the “reasonable suspicion” standard as a lower burden than probable cause for street stops. If a police officer, based on his experience and the totality of the circumstances, has a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, he may “stop” or detain a person (what a previous commenter referred to as a “Terry stop”) to get more information about the situation, including asking the person for identification. If that officer has reasonable suspicion that the detained person is carrying weapon, he may conduct a brief “frisk” or pat-down type search to ensure his safety and the safety of any others in the immediate vicinity. All a police officer in a stop and frisk situation may do is ask questions for further investigation and perform a brief frisk search to ensure his safety.
    After the stop and frisk, the officer can let the person go, or, if the officer has probable cause, may he move forward with an arrest and full search of the person and his immediate surroundings. Later cases have established that police may search a person’s car, or the room they are arrested in, if there is probable cause for an arrest.

  22. Rob - May 2, 2010 at 1:18 PM

    Let me add that reasonable suspicion does NOT include police hunches. If an officer has to defend his actions in front of a court, he must be able to articulate the list of factors that led to his decision, or a court will throw out any evidence stemming from his search.

  23. thepeolsi - May 2, 2010 at 1:28 PM

    you’re non sensical representaion of my wry comments just shows how desparate and out to lunch the dems are . my using thepelosi is a juxaposition and word play using her name.. i wouldn’t want to wake up nest to her or an oldgator.
    you talk about spector and christ , but what about lieberman …no comment ..?? no , i guess that your leader is our true head corpsman (korPsman ) and cheif. you shoud go to the national enquirer and read their new story on obatty . they were right about edwards .he dosn’t have enough guts to do whats right unless it’ll get him votes. why don’t you tell the class why he voted against the bill in ’07. keep making those excuses for him , he’ll be out in ’12.

  24. Obo - May 2, 2010 at 1:32 PM

    Thank you, Rob. That answered a lot of my questions.
    .
    A concern people are having is that this is going to result in racial profiling. When Governor Brewer signed it into law she said, “We must enforce the law evenly, and without regard to skin color, accent or social status.” My imagination is failing me to concoct a scenario where a police officer would have ‘reasonable suspicion’ that somebody is an illegal alien that is not based on racial profiling.

  25. Rob - May 2, 2010 at 1:46 PM

    Well, one factor that would certainly come into play that is not racially based is the location of a traffic stop. Let’s say someone is stopped for driving erratically down a stretch of road known as a corridor for smuggling illegal immigrants. Or someone on that same road can’t produce a driver’s license when stopped for speeding. Maybe its a van with 12 people huddled in the back. Or people are seen running through that area in the dark. All of these are situations where there could be a reasonable suspicion of someone being an illegal immigrant without reference to race or color.
    I think it is going to take more than an accent and looking Mexican for someone to be caught under this law in most circumstances. Of course, I’m not certain that this will be the case, and am equally fearful as you that this law could be abused into a pure racial profiling. My hope is that the police (the majority of whom I do believe are good and honest people, despite the bad apples we always hear about), Federal Government and the courts are diligent in making sure this law is properly enforced.

Leave Comment

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

Featured video

Managers get easier path to Cooperstown
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. H. Street (3985)
  2. C. Lee (2919)
  3. H. Ramirez (2851)
  4. T. Tulowitzki (2803)
  5. Y. Puig (2685)
  1. C. Headley (2678)
  2. B. Belt (2495)
  3. J. Soria (2400)
  4. T. Walker (2220)
  5. A. Rios (2144)