Skip to content

More Diamondbacks/immigration law protests planned

May 17, 2010, 4:14 PM EST

Arizona outline.jpgThe latest protest over the Arizona immigration law will take place at this week’s Marlins-Diamondbacks series:

Immigrant rights activists from throughout South Florida plan to
gather at Sun Life Stadium in North Miami-Dade to distribute fliers and
hold up protest signs during the baseball game between the Arizona
Diamondbacks and the Florida Marlins starting at 7:10 p.m.

María Rodríguez, executive director of Florida Immigrant
Coalition, one of the groups involved in planning the protest,
called on all immigration activists last week to join the
protest.

There are a lot of immigration activists in south Florida, so you can bet there will be hundreds of people at the Marlins-Diamondbacks game. 

It may be slightly disruptive, but if the Marlins are smart they’ll actually let them into the park, thereby tripling attendance for the actual game.

  1. Snuffy - May 17, 2010 at 4:31 PM

    What’s the big deal? I’m in the military and I get asked to show ID every time I drive thru the gate, enter the commissary or do most anything. What’s the big deal??? Could it be that you’re just a little bit guilty of illegal entry to this country?(a crime)systom Could it be that your worst fear is getting deported??

  2. Tom - May 17, 2010 at 4:31 PM

    Will the protesters buy tickets or just hope the stadium fence and move down into the best seats?

  3. Illiterate Native Born - May 17, 2010 at 4:32 PM

    Hop, not hope obviously.

  4. BCTF - May 17, 2010 at 4:40 PM

    There will be less than 20 people at the protest which is still more than will be at the game.

  5. Jack Marshall - May 17, 2010 at 5:11 PM

    Just to be clear: the Arizona statute is not an immigration law. It is an illegal immigration enforcement law.

  6. scatterbrian - May 17, 2010 at 6:46 PM

    Snuffy, one of my best friends is a naturalized Briton, has been living in the US since 1984 and has dual citizenship. When he has spoken with police over the years, he has rarely been asked if he is a US citizen. When he has been asked, he says “Yes I am” and that is the end of the discussion. If he was brown, it would be a different story, and that’s the big deal. This law would basically allow the police to racially profile people. If the government truly wanted to solve the illegal immigration issue, they would levy huge fines to business who hire undocumented workers.

  7. Judi - May 17, 2010 at 8:39 PM

    Seriously, is Arizona being inundated with British people illegally streaming over the border into that state? If they were you can bet your buddy’s accent would be cause for the police to get a bit of clarification on his immigration status. Seriously, trying to equate any other nationality with Mexicans is ridiculous, because no other nationality has the opportunity to just run across a strip of land into America. Well I guess Canadians do, but they choose not to because they like their country. I’m sorry Mexicans hate their country so much they’d do anything to leave it, but there are many, many other foreigners who would love to have an opportunity in America, just because Mexicans can get in here easier doesn’t mean we have to allow all of them to come in as they please. America should be the land of opportunity for everyone, not just our neighbors to the south.

  8. smsetnor - May 17, 2010 at 8:56 PM

    Sigh. The problem with the law is that it’s no doubt going to be ruled unconstitutional it’s infringing on the rights of citizens who might look ‘forgeign.’ (Whatever looking foreign means.) It’s not a law for US citizens to have to carry IDs/proof of citizenship and I doubt it will be any time soon. Thus, this is infringing upon our rights as citizens.

  9. smsetnor - May 17, 2010 at 8:57 PM

    So basically you’re saying it comes down to skin color? Is that what you’re saying?

  10. Old Gator - May 17, 2010 at 9:02 PM

    If you don’t understand what the “big deal” is, you probably don’t have much of an idea of what it is you’re defending in the first place.

  11. Old Gator - May 17, 2010 at 9:07 PM

    Not that this is any kind of karmic commentary on the political environment of the game or anything, but Edwin Jackson is pitching a no-hitter against the Feesh into the fifth inning so far. And it’s wet. And there’s lightning. And the Feesh are fumbling around in the field as usual.
    A bumpy as hell plane ride home, three hour delays, and I get in the car and turn on the radio and all this stuff is going on. Welcome home, it’s monsoon season in Macondo.

  12. Bustelo - May 18, 2010 at 3:53 AM

    It’s called the U.S. Constitution. Go read the Fifth Amendment and google Oath Keepers, to find out why its a big deal especially for you.
    I support the Tenth Amendment but Arizona just isn’t very bright as this law will be overturned by the courts in violation of the Fifth Amendment and it will not be effective anyways.
    Next on the slippery slope we will eliminate Miranda rights for all U.S. Citizens. Hey we have nothing to worry about we aren’t guilt so let’s submit to Tyranny and give up our liberties and sovereignty while were at it.
    If they actually wanted to eliminate illegal immigration they would legislate penalties in extreme fines against business that hire foreign nationals. They would also order National Guard to the borders and declare a state of emergency.

  13. Young Gopher - May 18, 2010 at 1:42 PM

    Yeah, and then they’ll head to the concession stands and grab some free beer and hot dogs. Or else they’ll just make the guy behind them that paid for a ticket to get in pay for it. But they will have their health insurance, so they’ve got that going for them, which is nice.
    Captcha: of burdened

Leave Comment

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

Featured video

Cubs shore up rotation with Jon Lester
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. M. Cabrera (4164)
  2. W. Myers (2933)
  3. M. Kemp (2609)
  4. W. Miley (2382)
  5. C. Headley (2320)
  1. J. Lester (2280)
  2. M. Morse (2226)
  3. M. Scherzer (1958)
  4. J. Upton (1910)
  5. C. Hamels (1887)