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 1:55 PM

    I can’t see how any of those scenarios you described where the perpetrators are black or white will result in detention under this law. I said it earlier in the thread, I think this is going to hit the courts very soon and I am interested to see how it plays out. I am not too up in arms because I think the case they find to bring to court is going to be a no-brainer.

  2. Moses Green - May 2, 2010 at 1:57 PM

    Die, Crackers. Same fucking crackers didn’t want to celebrate MLK day. Fuck all you cracker motherfuckers.
    Funny how all 4 states that start with the letter “A” are just chock fuckin full of crackers. Racist. White. Trash.
    Way back in 1991 my main man Chuck D. preached on the subject. Look it up, young uns. Learn your history. Study the devil and his ways.

  3. The JTrain - May 2, 2010 at 2:12 PM

    Wow! I happen to agree largely with this bill, but your attempted defense of it actually hurts my viewpoint a lot. Try using some educated language and discussion concerning this bill rather than bringing in unrelated people and events. Your lack of correct spelling and grammar also lends itself to dismissing you as “uneducated.”
    Kudos to those of you discussing this law in a civilized, balanced manner. I’ve seen good points made on both sides.

  4. BritBurnsWasTheMan - May 2, 2010 at 2:15 PM

    So, what you are saying is that the law is contingent on trusting law enforcement: “the idea of reasonable suspicion is entirely within the judgment of the police in a particular situation”
    So why does the law also demand that law enforcement inquires about one’s status and permit lawsuits if law enforcement doesn’t.
    So part of the law is dependent upon the judgement of law enforcement while the other part of the law is skeptical of the same judgement.
    This law is incoherent and unenforceable. It also presumes guilt, instead of innocence, which is un-American.

  5. BritBurnsWasTheMan - May 2, 2010 at 2:30 PM

    Your example of the van driving erratically constitutes probable cause to stop the vehicle and federal law already permits local law enforcement to inquire about immigration status. So, what does the AZ law add to these powers.
    But the law lowers the standard (reasonable suspicion)and REQUIRES them to ask. And if they don’t inquire, a private citizen may SUE.
    Therefore, the law demonstrates a deep mistrust in law-enforcement. The outrageous implication is that law enforcement is a part of the problem, because the parts of the law that are not redundant to existing law are aimed at changing the behavior of law enforcement officers.
    That is what this law explicitly does.
    Along with undermining the personal liberties of ALL Americans who MUST be challenged when law enforcement is “reasonably suspicious” of one’s status.
    Can you manage to refute ANY of the claims that I’m making, or will you continue to evade the facts and continue to support this incoherent, ineffective law?

  6. jwb - May 2, 2010 at 2:34 PM

    “How is it bigoted to ask people to prove that they belong in our country?”
    It most certainly is not. It is only bigoted if only people who look a certain way are asked (Equal protection clause, 14th Amendment). If every U.S. citizen is required to carry proof of citizenship or face arrest, it is not bigoted at all. Do you carry a U.S. passport or birth certificate when you drive to the grocery store?
    “And the police are not authorized to simply walk down the street and ask every Latino they see to produce their paperwork.”
    That was in the original law. That part was amended out on Friday.
    “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;”
    This is interesting to me for two reasons:
    1) One could have been a legal alien on the day the license was issued, but one’s work or student visa may have long since expired.
    2) It sounds like a driver’s license from another state isn’t valid for this purpose. So a Californian really needs to be carrying a passport to visit, say, Lake Havasu or Chase Field. That sounds like an Article 4 issue.
    No chance this makes it through judicial review.
    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.”
    This is true. Is a person not carrying these papers presumed to be a U.S. citizen or an illegal alien? Why?
    The upshot of this is that U.S. citizens will have to carry proof of citizenship on their persons at all times, as well. Adrian Gonzalez, a U.S. citizen who looks Mexican, is not happy about this.

  7. Leroy - May 2, 2010 at 3:00 PM

    If you hadn’t figured it out I’m not white . I don’t appreciate blacks that kiss the white establishments butt. I don’t want to get into a discussion about blacks and whites . I feel race tolerance is ok , but I don’t agree with race mixing . It’s my opinion and I respect other peoples opinions . You sound like a left wing liberal lunatic , but that’s your opinion and right .

  8. Old Gator - May 2, 2010 at 3:08 PM

    Oh sorry, I didn’t realize that you were being clever. I must just be biased about people who can’t spell, construct an English sentence with proper syntax or punctuate correctly. But I think my original response to your comments – without, I might add, needing to parrot your comments verbatim, and for good reason – were a pretty accurate reading of “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…” Note that I left your spelling and so forth intact so as not to lose the flavor of your ignorance. Squirm all you want, but you were trafficking in a pretty tired old right-wing cliche and I called you out on it. Probably more effort than you were worth.
    As far as Joe Lieberman, he left the party and ran as an independent, which was his right, but after losing a primary election. Then, he continued to hang around the periphery of the party and still caucuses with it. Arlen Specter – spell it right, at least – was ostracized by the Republican Party for his disagreements with the War Criminal’s administration over domestic policy even before 9/11. He was, if you will, the Charles Goodell of his generation. Charlie Crist has been abandoned by his party for shooting down some of their truly destructive, punitively spirited educational “initiatives” (a funny word for a set of bills that would have destroyed the initiative of teachers in this state but good), and for pissing off the insurance industry in Florida, for whom so many members of our state legislature routinely disgrace themselves as bagmen, with his efforts to bring some sanity to our windstorm insurance rates. It’s rare to find a non-pandering Republican with a social conscience these days, and the party clearly wants to make it rarer still.
    Neither is really comparable to Joe Lieberman, who continues to caucus with the Democrats. Lieberman, in case you haven’t noticed, still scores pretty high as a liberal lawmaker on domestic policy. He lost much of his original constituency because of his support of Bush’s war of lies and corruption against Iraq, then won with the support of moderate Republicans and independents for whom the Republican candidate had one too many rightward spinning propellers in his beanie. Lieberman’s got little reason to caucus as a Republican, except when he perceives that Israel’s continued intransigence about occupied Arab land might be challenged, but it’d be fun to see if the Republican Party lets Crist caucus with them if he wins as an independent in Florida over that knuckle dragging demagogue Rubio. Frankly, I hope he does win – I’m not at all a fan of Kendrick Meek either.

  9. Old Gator - May 2, 2010 at 3:13 PM

    You’ve got no idea about the three-sixty you just pulled, do you? You’re going to have to decide if you’re opposed to Blacks who “kiss the white establishments butt” – like Jesse Jackson – as opposed to Blacks who resolutely refuse to do so, like, uh, Michael Steele, Thomas Sowell or Clarence Thomas. And I’m glad you feel that racial tolerance is “OK,” but try not to be too enthusiastic about it.

  10. thepelosi - May 2, 2010 at 3:31 PM

    old goat , it took you a whole paragragh on my spelling . thanks , but I have a life so spell checking is not a priority . as i usually find that week minds have week arguments and need to find the smallest excuse to make themselves feel important . the leiberman excuse is priceless . you should save the words you type , since you say nothing. you still haven’t explained why your obatty didn’t voter for imm. reform .. no , you don’t have an answer for that. maybe you should get your fax straight . no? you’re just like your fool in the white house . all hot air !!!

  11. ptm - May 2, 2010 at 3:57 PM

    anyone have a link to somewhere that I can read this law?

  12. smsetnor - May 2, 2010 at 4:13 PM

    It’s not just the spelling. It’s also the poor punctuation and sentence structure. It’s hard to understand what you’re trying to say when you don’t write it any where close to the way it’s supposed to be written.

  13. Old Gator - May 2, 2010 at 4:49 PM

    “but I have a life so spell checking is not a priority…”
    I seriously doubt if you mean to be anywhere near as funny as you are. Here, let me put it in terms you might be able to understand: i seriesly dowt that you meen to be innywear as funnie as you r
    innywey, i think weve reeched the point were its a mattir of deminishng retirns to keep un triying to ixplain innything to u . maibey we shud trie ebonics nekst tyme

  14. Ron - May 2, 2010 at 4:52 PM

    It’s kind of prejudiced to assume that white people can’t be immigrants also. Ever heard of Euorpe? South Africa? Australia? New Zealand?
    Many of those people don’t speak English as a first language, and have a noticeable accent, or a different accent from most people in Arizona.
    The law is for illigal immigrants, not people with brown skin.

  15. Old Gator - May 2, 2010 at 5:10 PM

    Damn, laughing so hard that I’m talking to myself. Didn’t mean to hit that “submit” button quite yet because I also have a few remarks to address to the literate:
    Without reiterating in detail all of Obama’s votes on immigration reform, going back to 2005, thepelosi’s assertion that Obama “voted against” (agenst?) immigration reform” is patently innacurate (to be polite in the extreme). You can find a detailed listing and analysis of his record on immigration here:
    This is a nonpartisan watchdog site and it is both supportive and critical of Obama, and it looks to me like an objective and detailed study of his record. What emerges is a complex and carefully considered, very thoughtful series of votes over a five-year period meant to protect the rights of legal immigrants, stiffen penalties against employers who hire illegal immigrants, force illegal immigrants to pursue legal channels, protect the jobs of American workers while at the same time leaving legitimate businesses free to make economically driven hiring decisions, strengthen state and federal law enforcement in affected states, limit the deployment of a potentially environmentally ruinous impervious border fence and replace it with advanced technology and increased human resource enforcement. There’s other stuff but the point is that Obama has paid close attention to this issue throughout his career as an elected official and has taken a fair and balanced approach to it. It’s certainly nothing whatsoever like the “anti-immigration-reform” position than the manner in which our somewhat less than coherent pal thepelosi misrepresented it.

  16. thepelosi - May 2, 2010 at 5:33 PM

    he’s paid close attention , but you still don’t know why he voted against it … more subterfuge from old gator…what a jokster you are. come back when you have an answer …. or should i say obatty what are you doing on this blog today . you should be “afixin” the problems that you had a hand in creating. do you understand ? “Corpsman” ..??

  17. thepelosi - May 2, 2010 at 5:55 PM

    obatty schmitty, schmitty!!! schmitty!!! obatty is schmitty. corpsman. pay for the schmitty. schmitty is obatty corpsman. “Corpsman?” corpsman.

  18. smsetnor - May 2, 2010 at 6:00 PM

    What’s a jokster?

  19. Old Gator - May 2, 2010 at 6:14 PM

    Try clicking on the link, why don’t you. The gist of what I said above – sorry if all the two syllable words were too much for you – was your claim that Obama “voted against” immigration reform was simply a Faux-news style misrepresentation of what he did and didn’t do. I was going to call it an “oversimplification” on your part but that would have been redundant, in addition to which it wouldn’t have expressed the depths of intellectual dishonesty, stupidity and mere bewilderment your assertions evince.
    Here now, I’ll try one more time to make this as simple as possible, even for you: Obama voted for parts of the various bills, codicils and amendments involved in the immigration legislation, and against other parts – guided largely by his sense of what would work and what would do more harm than good. If you can’t wrap the vestigial knob atop your brain stem around that, try going back to elementary school and starting the entire process over. I put the link up so that the literate correspondents on this forum could check it out. Granted, I didn’t mean to include you, and based on your vacuuous response to having a resource at your disposal and not bothering to read it, I think I was dead to rights about that.
    That’s a damned sight more responsible and intelligent a way to go about making laws than to vote in mindless lockstep with the most extreme recidivists in your increasingly fascistic party, I would think.

  20. YouthofToday - May 2, 2010 at 6:25 PM

    How can people be in favor of less government yet favor this bill? This law is something even Joseph Stalin or Hitler would have been proud of.
    Good for Adrian. He’ll always get this white Americans vote for the All-Star game for here on out.

  21. Old Gator - May 2, 2010 at 6:38 PM

    They can be in favor of this bill because they’re a bunch of hypocrites, for one thing; because they’re inured to parroting sound bites without bothering to think through the implications of those sound bites, for another, but mostly because “limited government” simply means to the neoconman something like “I got mine, to hell with you, and any form of collective responsibility you want me to take for the good of society at large you can go cram up your ass.” It’s fine to have overreaching government if that’ll keep the little brown people in their place, conduct fraudulent wars of mass criminal slaughter as long as they’re profitable, and maintain careful controls on them (i.e., not us) while belching all sorts of platitudes about defending something they call “freedom.” When a neocon says “limited government” he’s usually burping up a double-negative ideological smokescreen that means it’s OK for big companies to exploit their workers while fattening on the wealth those workers produce, to poison the air and water and not be held responsible for it; to pass foodstuffs through cheap, slipshod regulatory controls even if the rate of contamination of those foodstuffs has gotten worse while those controls are vitiated, and so forth. This isn’t rocket science. Those people are just full of shit, is all.

  22. Del Simpson - May 2, 2010 at 8:18 PM

    I sure won’t vote for him ever again.

  23. Joey B - May 2, 2010 at 10:23 PM

    Response to Pelosi-
    ” 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: 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.
    Again, it sounds like you just insulted two people that disagreed with you.

  24. obo - May 3, 2010 at 12:30 AM

    All your arguments have been addressed in previoud posts. We actually had a good conversation about it on this blog earlier in the day. Please read the whole thing and reply to thing you think have not been resolved.
    That is, everyone except the idiots. We don’t spell correctly because we use spell check. We dont hate legislation because we hate Pelosi. We don’t hate legislation because we hate Obama. We genuinely want what is best for the American people. We believe in the American Dream. We want a solution to illegal immigration while sacrificing as few rights of the citizenry as possible. These are positions on which both sides agree.
    When you try to make a new argument, please reference the counterpoint, it was probably made further up the field. It does no good to rehash points that have already been made. (I understand that requesting people read the 70+ threads above will kill this discussion but I am fine with that).

  25. Larry - May 3, 2010 at 2:19 AM

    The All Star game is peanuts. MLB awarded Mexico the World Baseball Classic, giving it cash and prestige, and plays other games there. Mexico has much more draconian measures for all non-Mexicans who enter its territory including beating and raping them. MLB ignores this, ignores that Amnesty Int. has cited Mexico’s brutal beatings and rapes of immigrants (recent report online). I was shocked this post completely left out the Rape Trees Mexican smugglers install in Arizona, covering the trees with panties of young girls they rape. It’s all online but media keep it quiet. You left out that Arizona residents have been left to live in terror for years-where is the sympathy for them? You state the law is discriminatory. Are you aware it’s no different than existing federal law-which was not being enforced? Why not suggest MLB use its influence by keeping all its programs out of Mexico until Mexicans stop killing and kidnapping and robbing people and police in Arizona?

Leave Comment

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

Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. G. Stanton (2760)
  2. C. Correa (2613)
  3. Y. Puig (2609)
  4. G. Springer (2567)
  5. B. Crawford (2488)
  1. H. Ramirez (2482)
  2. H. Pence (2392)
  3. M. Teixeira (2311)
  4. J. Hamilton (2278)
  5. J. Baez (2261)