Comments on: Tony La Russa in favor of Arizona immigration law

By: Saints97

Saints97 — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 14:10:42 +0000

Mr. Harkins, I think this blog would be better if you did not vomit your political ignorance onto it. I don’t care about your politics, and, let’s face it, that’s why you wrote this blog. You wanted to throw YOUR politics in our face.
Read the law. Join a political blog. Then blog away. But you are clearly completely ignorant to this particular piece of legislation, and you are clearly out of your element here.

By: Anon

Anon — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 11:54:36 +0000

“They are just now required to investigate people they come into lawful contact with that they have reason to believe are illegal aliens.”
“Lawful conduct” is just about anything. It’s perfectly lawful for a police officer to approach anyone anywhere and start talking to them. That’s lawful contact. Then, if the cop has “reasonable suspicion” to believe the person is undocumented, s/he can ask for papers and arrest anyone who doesn’t have them (which should be most people, given that this is a free country and all).

By: CYGNUS X-1

CYGNUS X-1 — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 11:01:28 +0000

never thought I would agree with anything larussa said but have to in this case.did the tree hugging liberal who wrote this take time to read the law?nowhere in it does it give the police the right to walk up to somebody and ask to see thier papers.it’s quite simple realy,if you get pulled over for a traffic violation and it comes up you are here ILLEGALY then you have a problem. what is wrong with wanting to send people who are here ILLEGALY back to thier country?where is the outrage over mexican immagration policies which are some of the harshest in the world?why do you liberals want to letting ILLEGALS reap all the benafits of this country while not doing thier part in paying for them?the point of the law is not racisit it’s to keep people who come here ILLEGALY out and to stop them from living off taxpayer dollars. the people of arizona have spoken and for a change thier legislators listened.

By: jwb

jwb — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 10:50:40 +0000

There are several key points missing from the discussion here.
1. “Contact” by law officers does not include all contact. Complainants and witnesses are exempt. This was not in the original bill but was in the revised bill which was passed a week later.
2. “Reasonable suspicion” will translate to “non-white”. This will lead to racial profiling court cases, which will lead to all persons needing to provide proof of legal residence in the case of a traffic stop, etc.
3. A state ID issued by a state which does not require proof of legal residence is not considered proof of legal residence. Illinois (my state) does not. California does not (it is a part of gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman’s platform to do so). If you had to provide proof of legal residence (U.S. birth certificate, U.S. passport, or foreign passport and valid visa), to obtain a state ID, please reply. I’m interested.

By: dl3mk3

dl3mk3 — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 09:33:02 +0000

replying takes a while, thought it hadn’t gone through-apologize for basically double post.

By: dl3mk3

dl3mk3 — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 09:03:33 +0000

This article is still very very misleading. Officers cannot just go up to random people on the street, they must first have another reason for coming in contact with them, and the term “reasonable suspicion” which is in the law is an established standard witch plenty of legal definition that prevents abuse and protects both the officer and the individual from abuse/misuse. This is no different than the reqest of proof of insurance during a traffic stop-the stop must be for another reason-and then you have a time period to show that you had insurance. Where is the uproar over proof of insurance laws-there isnt any because its a legit thing to have in place-just as this is. There is no more oppurtunity for law enforcement officers to abuse this immigration law than any other law.

By: dl3mk3

dl3mk3 — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 08:57:19 +0000

The wording is still very very misleading in this article. Its not that they “are required to stop anyone” its that they can request proof of citizenship if they have “reasonable suspicion” -an established standard with plenty of legal background which protects both the officer and the individual from abuse by the law. This is no different than an officer requesting a form of insurance during a traffic stop-they can only do that if there is reason to be stopping in the first place, and then you get time period to show it if you dont have it.

By: Jonny5

Jonny5 — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 08:49:30 +0000

This is how I expect LaRussa to think. I don’t expect him to talk about it publicly, but it’s what I expect. His job is essentially to fix problems and manage situations. His mindset is to fix problems, such as Arizona faces to it’s tax and municipality structure with so many non tax paying residents that aren’t even residents of this country. After it’s all said and done all they are just going to be sent home, for free mind you. They have a home, they have a country. It’s not like they’re being put into prison or sent to a deserted island. They are being sent to their home country. It’s a serious problem all along the southern border and this isn’t going to be the last state to do this. When the others see it working, they too will adopt their own similar laws.

By: Chris Fiorentino

Chris Fiorentino — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 08:35:59 +0000

I have never understood why LEGAL Mexican immigrants, who worked hard to come into this country LEGALLY, would back the scumbag ILLEGAL immigrants who sneak into the country and take the easy way out. If I worked my ass off for years and fought hard to become a LEGAL citizen of the United State of America, I would do EVERYTHING in my power to fight the freeloaders who spit on all the hard work that I did. Guys like Adrian Gonzalez have never even READ the law I guarantee it.

By: Boo Hoo Florio picked on your team - GET OVER IT

Boo Hoo Florio picked on your team - GET OVER IT — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 05:23:07 +0000

After people have taken the time to sit down and read all whopping ten pages of the law, the supporting numbers have only gone up.
Knee-jerk reactions are still knee-jerk reactions with a key word in that phrase. “Oh no! The sky is falling!”

By: Sayers40

Sayers40 — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 05:10:40 +0000

2 comments:
1) These are baseball players and baseball managers. I shouldn’t know and I don’t care what Adrian Gonzalez or Tony LaRussa think about any law that has no real affect on them.
2) Did I miss something? Are there illegal aliens playing for the Cardinals? Is Albert Pujols illegal? Please tell. The fact that he is ‘brown skinned” doesn’t make him suddenly relevant in this discussion. The law in Arizona will affect illegal aliens. That is, people who are here ILLEGALLY!!!!!! If you are here illegally, you should worry. If not, the fact that your name is “Pujols” or “Gonzalez” is beside the point.
Jeez people. The law isn’t that big a deal. I wish people would calm down.

By: Old Gator

Old Gator — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 03:01:03 +0000

I think you got your numbers out of a bingo roller. One of the first things you can do to correct your delusion is to check the percentage of the population here that’s Latino.Then again, how can you establish your neoconman bonafieds unless you completely misrepresent your statistics and/or mangle your syntax a little?
.
We always knew LaRussa was an asshole. I am kinda surprised, though, to find out that he’s an idiot as well.

By: JBerardi

JBerardi — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 02:20:20 +0000

Reality has a liberal bias.

By: 32

32 — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 01:14:35 +0000

So does 95% of the country support what Arizona has done re illegal immigrants.

By: Schlom

Schlom — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 00:44:11 +0000

Well, how can you establish your liberal bonafides unless you complete misrepresent what the law actually says?

By: gedge

gedge — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 00:28:02 +0000

Actually, this article is incorrect as to what it requires cops to do…they can’t just stop random people on the street because they believe they are illegal. They are just now required to investigate people they come into lawful contact with that they have reason to believe are illegal aliens. This would mean things like traffic stops or if they have reason to detain you due to the belief a crime has occurred, not because they think someone looks brown or such. So the basic rule for illegals should be to drive safely with a registered and properly equipped car (no broken tail lights!) and dont be around people who commit crimes and they likely will not have to worry.
And before I get flamed, I’m not a supporter of the law. I think something should be done, but this isn’t it.

By: Buccofan

Buccofan — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 00:19:49 +0000

For a guy who’s reportedly so smart and who acts like he knows things no one else knows, LaRussa says some awfully stupid things. Why would he comment on this, and better yet, why would someone ask him about it?