Skip to content

MLBPA issues statement about the Arizona immigration law and All-Star Game boycotts

Jul 8, 2011, 2:00 PM EDT

Arizona Flag

We touched on Sheriff Joe a few minutes ago. In other All-Star Game/illegal immigration news, there was a lot of talk last year about potential player boycotts and the like as a result of Arizona’s tough immigration law, S.B. 1070. That has largely subsided, partially because parts of the bill are currently in legal limbo, but also because, let’s face it, most modern baseball players aren’t really willing to create a giant poopstorm over a political issue.

Personally I would respect the living hell out of a ballplayer who took a principled stand like that, but I can’t say that I blame them for not doing it. We as a society don’t reward celebrities and athletes when they stray from their areas of core competency, and if Adrian Gonzalez or someone did loudly boycott the All-Star Game, they’d quickly find themselves in a dreadful fight that no healthy and sane person would want to be the focus of.

Acknowledging that, Mike Weiner of the player’s union released a statement today which will in all likelihood be the last word on the matter. As is usually the case with Weiner, it’s reasonable and temperate:

“On April 30, 2010, the MLBPA expressed publicly its opposition to SB 1070, and that position remains unchanged.  We stated then that, if SB 1070 as written went into effect, we would consider additional measures to protect the interests of our members.  SB 1070 is not in effect and key portions of the law have been judged unlawful by the federal courts.  Under all the circumstances, we have not asked players to refrain from participating in any All-Star activities.

“The All-Star Game is an opportunity to celebrate the best that Major League Baseball has to offer.  Without question, the best players are here.  Each All-Star squad, as with each of the 30 Major League teams, is populated by the best players from baseball-playing countries around the globe.

“But the All Star Game is a chance to celebrate even more than that.  It is a chance to celebrate Major League Baseball’s unprejudiced commitment to excellence – a commitment, undiminished for decades, to judge solely on the basis of individual ability and achievement.  It is a chance to celebrate how much the game has been enriched by the contributions of players of different races, ethnicities and nationalities.  It’s a chance to celebrate — to marvel, actually — at the example set every time a Major League team takes the field: that of a true team, composed of players of widely different backgrounds, working together towards a common goal.

“Our nation continues to wrestle with serious issues regarding immigration, prejudice and the protection of individual liberties.  Those matters will not be resolved at Chase Field, nor on any baseball diamond; instead they will be addressed in Congress and in statehouses and in courts by those charged to find the right balance among the competing and sincerely held positions brought to the debate.  Meanwhile, at the All Star Game, Major League Baseball makes good on its promise to field the best in the world in the only way it can — by allowing the world to play.  That truly is an occasion to celebrate and, perhaps, from which we all can learn.”

114 Comments (Feed for Comments)
  1. largebill - Jul 8, 2011 at 2:12 PM

    Why would Adrian Gonzalez or any other athlete who followed the law and entered our country legally boycott an event over a law intended to ensure others follow the same laws?

    • royalsfaninfargo - Jul 8, 2011 at 2:16 PM

      Nothing pro or against in this comment, just wanted to point out that Adrain Gonzalez was born in San Diego, CA.

    • Craig Calcaterra - Jul 8, 2011 at 2:25 PM

      Which is the point.

      Regardless of the intent of the law, largebill, it’s construction all but ensures the targeting of people — even native citizens like Adrian Gonzalez — for police stops based on their race.

      • trevorb06 - Jul 8, 2011 at 2:44 PM

        I do want to correct you a little bit Craig. This bill doesn’t allow the police to stop you because you’re hispanic. You still have to be engaging in some sort of suspicious activity such as speeding/reckless driving (which also leads to suspicions of DUI), buying large quantities of cough medication (which also leads to suspicions of manufacturing meth), buying a bunch of UV lamps (suspicion also of growing marijuana), etc. Please do not try to make this sound as if any police officer can walk up to a non-white and say, ‘prove to me you’re an American or here legally.’ We don’t need that garbage anymore.

        This isn’t to say there are not dirty cops out there who might take it too far. Those same dirty cops take it too far with any laws though, not just an immigration law. When I was younger and still in HS I had one of those dirty cops frisk me and try to search my car because I was hanging out at the disc golf course (suspicion of possessing marijuana) even though I wasn’t do anything illegal. Just know there are more good, professional police officers out there though than there are bad ones.

        I also must say I am against the AZ immigration law as well, but I’m not going to misrepresent it with fear and craziness. I’ll tell you why it’s bad with facts instead.

      • marshmallowsnake - Jul 8, 2011 at 2:51 PM

        My friend got stopped on New Years Eve in Tempe a few years back…for DUI. He had not been drinking…he is Mexican/Columbian…and though that was why the cop pulled him over.

        My point…this stuff has been happening long before SB1070 – and will continue…Heck, it even happens in places without SB1070’s, I am sure.

      • trevorb06 - Jul 8, 2011 at 3:15 PM


        Just like me getting patted down and almost getting my car searched at a disc golf course. My only crime was that my hair was too long, my shorts were pants that were just ripped off at the bottom and I wasn’t wearing shoes… I’m sure the Led Zep shirt had something to do with it, too.

      • The Common Man - Jul 8, 2011 at 3:34 PM


        You’re almost right. According to the letter of the law, police can only ask about your immigration status if they have reasonable suspicion that you are an illegal immigrant (sorry for the ALLCAPS, I’m cutting and pasting this from the actual bill),


        But the central question, which no one has been able to answer that I’ve seen, is what constitutes reasonable suspicion that someone is not an American citizen? Is it their appearance? Their language skills? Their accent? None of these seem to be reasonable suspicion in and of themselves. And so we fall back to the 14th amendment’s equal protection clause, which protects American citizens from being targeted specifically because of their race and ethnicity, and presumably their language skills as well. I would really like for someone to be able to identify for me what “reasonable suspicion” would be in a way that is not unconstitutional.

      • Bill - Jul 8, 2011 at 3:38 PM

        trevorb06- I don’t doubt that that was what was intended by the bill, but that’s not at all what it says. As written, it can absolutely be interpreted to allow the police to stop you because you’re hispanic. And unfortunately, it’s what the bill says, not what they meant it to say, that actually becomes law.

      • marshmallowsnake - Jul 8, 2011 at 3:39 PM

        Trevor – If you had a Pink Floyd shirt on…he would have called for back up. 😀

        Sorry that happened to you. I really do not care for the police down here. I grew up in Massachusetts and thought that was bad!

      • Utley's Hair - Jul 8, 2011 at 4:13 PM

        But if it was a Phish or Jimmy Buffett shirt….

      • trevorb06 - Jul 8, 2011 at 4:13 PM

        Common Man-
        WOW! Thank you for sharing that with me. That makes me dislike the bill even more. At least up here in Minnesota when they’re going to do a raid on a factory/business for illegal immigrants they tell the factory/business a few days in advance. Ironically though on that same day a massive health epidemic breaks out and about 10% or so of the work force is sick.

        It’s a good thing I dislike PinkFloyd huh? Had I worn a skin tight red body suit I’d have been tazed. :-)

      • marshmallowsnake - Jul 8, 2011 at 4:55 PM

        BLASPHEMY!!!!! No one dislikes Pink Floyd!!!! LOL! (yes, I am a huge Fyoyd Fan)

      • marshmallowsnake - Jul 8, 2011 at 4:56 PM

        ^^^ why we need an edit button… *Floyd

    • FC - Jul 8, 2011 at 3:04 PM

      And… BOOM goes the dynamite!

  2. saints97 - Jul 8, 2011 at 2:18 PM

    This is some controversy. Next thing you know, a racist state will pass a law that would require me to show ID when pulled over by the policies. Oh, the humanity!

    • saints97 - Jul 8, 2011 at 2:19 PM

      policies = police

    • Utley's Hair - Jul 8, 2011 at 3:12 PM

      You do know that driving is a privilege and not a right, correct?

    • Tim's Neighbor - Jul 8, 2011 at 4:09 PM

      And please note that there is no law that requires anyone to carry ID with them unless they are driving. Any law requiring citizens to carry IDs would should be met by Tea Partiers and the neo-Libertarians as the government being too intrusive, right?

  3. joshfrancis50 - Jul 8, 2011 at 2:21 PM

    “Without question, the best players are here.”


  4. spindervish - Jul 8, 2011 at 2:38 PM

    Not that it’s anything to get all up in arms about, but didn’t Adrian Gonzalez say last year that he wouldn’t play in this game if chosen? I thought he was pretty clear about that. Seems kind of weak to back out now or pretend that never happened. I wonder if anyone’s asked him about this recently?

    • marshmallowsnake - Jul 8, 2011 at 2:52 PM

      He probably forgot, or is happy with the parts of the law that were stuck down.

      • marshmallowsnake - Jul 8, 2011 at 3:40 PM

        Obvious sarcasm people…

    • 24missed - Jul 8, 2011 at 8:44 PM

      Spindervish ~ not in arms here, either. I remember that same thing about Mr. G and checked it out. He was going to boycott the game, if the law passed, but the law hasn’t passed. It’ll be interesting to see what happens next year.

  5. alexpoterack - Jul 8, 2011 at 2:55 PM

    I definitely have problems with the law, but I do wish people would acknowledge that the situation Craig points out, a citizen being targeted for a police stop because of their race, is EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED BY THE LAW. Granted, that doesn’t mean the law can’t be abused; like I said, I have problems with it, and that’s chief among them. But I feel like there’s a difference between being opposed to what the law itself calls for, and being opposed to ways it could be abused.

    I grew up in Arizona, and based on my experiences there, the notion that this law will lead to police officers pulling over every Hispanic citizen they see just doesn’t ring true to me. There seems to have arisen a caricature of Arizonans as a bunch of good ole boys looking to round up and kick out every with brown skin and dark hair, and I’m sorry, but that’s just really not accurate. I can’t claim the law would never be abused, but I do strongly believe that abuses would be the exception, not the rule.

    Also, in a semi-related note, I grew up in the same suburb Joe Arpaio lives in, and had a few interactions with him. Yes, he is a pompous blowhard. I’ll defend Arizona and Arizonans plenty, but I won’t defend him.

    • Tim's Neighbor - Jul 8, 2011 at 4:10 PM

      It’s a shame this guy sullies the name of Arizonans.

  6. Marty - Jul 8, 2011 at 3:02 PM

    If the player truly understands the law and not the hyperbole, then yes take a stand. But take the backlash like a man. Because every poll I see shows the majority disagreeing with Craig Calcaterra’s views on SB1070 and illegal immigration in general.

    Also, I suspect the agents of every Latino player in the league have instructed their clients to stay far away from this manufactured controversy.

    • jamaicanjasta - Jul 8, 2011 at 3:06 PM

      Not to comment one way or another on illegal immigration but polls != the constitutionality of a given law.

      • Marty - Jul 8, 2011 at 10:15 PM

        Good point, jamaica.

        But remember that illegal immigration is also illegal, despite the the polls. Many are willing to overlook laws from every direction.

    • jpeetey - Jul 8, 2011 at 3:22 PM

      To piggyback on Jasta’s comment, popular opinion has been on the wrong side of civil rights issues in this country every single time before we got it right.

      • jimbo1949 - Jul 8, 2011 at 3:50 PM


  7. The Baseball Idiot - Jul 8, 2011 at 3:08 PM

    If there wasn’t a huge immigration problem in the country, this would be more valid. If Mexican warlords weren’t killing people all along the border, this wouldn’t be as much of an issue.

    The state (country) has a duty to protect the citizens of that state (country) even if it means a few people are temporarily inconvienenced. Try living in a country where there are police/army checkpoints at every junction.

    If someone is here legally, they have nothing to fear. Is their personal convienence really more important than the safety of everyone?

    Sometimes the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few?

    “Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.” — Winston

    • trevorb06 - Jul 8, 2011 at 3:20 PM

      Thank you!

      I’m against the law,but this is exactly true! If you’re here legally then there is nothing to worry about. Yeah, you might have some extra questions asked to you but you know if your heart you’re not the bad guy.

    • jpeetey - Jul 8, 2011 at 3:26 PM

      “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – Ben Franklin

      Sorry, bud, but freedom from unwanted, unnecessary police intrusion is much more than “personal convenience” and infinitely more valuable than any supposed increase in safety.

      • The Baseball Idiot - Jul 8, 2011 at 3:28 PM

        No one is giving up liberty. They’re giving up time. Big difference.

        As I said, anyone here legally has nothng to fear.

        Nice try, but you didn’t quite get there.

      • Utley's Hair - Jul 8, 2011 at 3:35 PM

        If only there was some reference to search and seizure in the Constitution…damn those Founding Fathers!!!

      • The Baseball Idiot - Jul 8, 2011 at 3:36 PM

        There’s no reference to free health care in the Constitution. You’re agains that?

      • jpeetey - Jul 8, 2011 at 3:37 PM

        Baseball Idiot: I’ll restate what I said and perhaps you’ll read it this time: freedom from unwanted, unnecessary police intrusion. That’s absolutely liberty. People who are here legally and are of Hispanic descent are at danger of being stopped for a frivolous reason and then being accused of and detained and/or investigated for being illegal immigrants. I don’t want to to live in your police state and neither did the folks who founded this country.

      • jamaicanjasta - Jul 8, 2011 at 3:39 PM

        Actually Baseball, isn’t that part of the definition of liberty? The Leviathan by Hobbes would be a good book to read if you’re curious (I liked it) I remember specifically this line:

        “A free man is he that in those things which by his strength and wit he is able to do is not hindered to do what he hath the will to do”

        Even if you personally deem an action as “No big deal” it IS a big deal to the minorities who often come up at the short end of the stick with these affronts to person convenience and time which add to a sense of frustration over time.

      • The Common Man - Jul 8, 2011 at 3:41 PM

        Americans would be giving up their liberty if they are detained while officers sort out their immigration status.

      • marshmallowsnake - Jul 8, 2011 at 3:43 PM

        What is the saying, produce a catastrophe, so that the masses give up their freedoms with smiles, under the illusion of safety?

    • The Common Man - Jul 8, 2011 at 3:40 PM

      “Convenience” should not be the issue here. However, the civil rights of American citizens should be. And as I laid out above, I’m fairly certain that the law, as it was written, violates those rights.

      • jpeetey - Jul 8, 2011 at 3:53 PM

        And you’ve nailed it. I’m not comfortable entrusting law enforcement to determine a reasonable suspicion regarding someone’s immigration status. As you stated, in what non-discriminatory manner can this be done? As it stands, it invites law enforcement to make frivolous stops and engage in racial profiling after any stop.

  8. The Baseball Idiot - Jul 8, 2011 at 3:33 PM

    Just so I can understand, in an area where people are dying everyday because of the drug trade, we’re against stopping people to check and see if they’re American citizens?

    But we’re okay with the TSA strip-searching our children to fly from Newark to Pittsburgh?

    • Utley's Hair - Jul 8, 2011 at 3:36 PM

      “But we’re okay with the TSA strip-searching our children to fly from Newark to Pittsburgh?”

      Um…no, we’re not.

      • The Baseball Idiot - Jul 8, 2011 at 3:44 PM

        Ball players fly every few days and are subject to the idiocies of the TSA. That is more invasive and more of a violation of liberty than anything going on in Arizona.

        I guess I’ve missed those posts where you’ve complained about that.

      • Utley's Hair - Jul 8, 2011 at 4:09 PM

        Well, I guess I’ve missed those posts where that topic has come up, so I would guess that I haven’t complained about it.

        By the way, you do also know that the ballplayers of whom you speak are not children, right?

        Now, back to Baseball Idiot’s regularly scheduled totally unrelated tangent….

      • Tim's Neighbor - Jul 8, 2011 at 4:14 PM

        Flying is a privilege, not a right. Being questioned on your citizen status is something different.

      • The Baseball Idiot - Jul 8, 2011 at 4:16 PM

        So ball players have civil liberties, but children don’t? I guess all of thsoe child protection laws are unconstitutional also. I mean, they aren’t specifically mentioned.

        I believe if you re-read the Constitutuion (assuming you have – mine’s haning on the wall) you’ll see that it guarantees “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’.

        I can’t find the part where it guarantees ‘civil’ liberties. Is it possilbe you’re reading into the Constitituion what you want it to say? And not what it actually says?

        Because when it comes to the actual rights of citizens, the Constitution is one of the most ambiguous documents ever written? Could that have been on purpose so that specific situations can be handled as needed, and not set in stone to limit us in what we can do in protecting those ‘liberties’?

      • Utley's Hair - Jul 8, 2011 at 4:30 PM

        Wow…baiting me by using things I have not, in fact, said. The “children” comment was in reference to your quote “But we’re okay with the TSA strip-searching our children to fly from Newark to Pittsburgh?” Of course, you went straight to comparing kids to ballplayers flying every few days.

        Where have I said whether I agree or disagree with TSA practices, aside from the comment on this post where you referred to kids being strip searched?

      • The Baseball Idiot - Jul 8, 2011 at 4:45 PM

        Utley’s Hair :

        If you read my above comment, which you obviously didn’t, you’ll see that I asked a question.

        How is that baiting you?

        You were talking about a violation of civil liberties. So was I?

        Your point is more valid than mine? Please discuss?

      • Utley's Hair - Jul 8, 2011 at 5:36 PM

        Yes, I did read your comment—as well as the Constitution, several times—and saw that you had numerous question marks in there, not all of which were attached to actual questions.

        And yes, saying something that is not true or accurate solely to get a response is, I believe, the very definition of baiting.

    • spindervish - Jul 8, 2011 at 3:38 PM

      That’s two straw men for you in the span of less than 30 min. Well done.

    • jpeetey - Jul 8, 2011 at 3:41 PM

      Believe it or not, it’s possible to walk and chew gum at the same time. I’m absolutely against the TSA’s airport security policies.

      • Utley's Hair - Jul 8, 2011 at 3:55 PM

        “…it’s possible to walk and chew gum at the same time…”

        It is? What about walking to work and carrying your lunch? And—dare I ask?—what about walking to work and carrying your lunch, while at the same time, chewing gum?!? 😛

      • jpeetey - Jul 8, 2011 at 4:00 PM

        It’s what I’ve been told. I don’t recommend going for the walk/lunch/gum trifecta unless you’ve had a full nights sleep and aren’t taking any cold medicine.

      • Utley's Hair - Jul 8, 2011 at 4:10 PM

        What if I slept at a Holiday Inn Express the night before?

      • jpeetey - Jul 8, 2011 at 4:22 PM

        Then not only are you safe, you might even consider juggling your lunch items, frolicking and balancing your briefcase/satchel/lunch-pail on your head.

    • jamaicanjasta - Jul 8, 2011 at 3:45 PM

      You’re obfuscating the issue here Baseball. This has nothing to do with the TSA and honestly I think you’d find many people don’t like those practices either. But the drug trade has many more factors than you’re mentioning.

      Frankly U.S. demand for drugs and cheap goods (ie large companies hiring illegal workers for substantially less than the market rate) has a larger impact on illegal immigration than a perceived lax federal enforcement of said border.

      • The Baseball Idiot - Jul 8, 2011 at 3:54 PM

        Civil liberties? One is a violation, but the other isn’t? Please clarify, using there examples or less of poly-bable. Diagrams are helpful.

      • jamaicanjasta - Jul 8, 2011 at 4:22 PM

        I didn’t mention anything about civil liberties, Baseball. Or whether either the TSA or Arizona’s law violate them. I think you meant this reply for someone else 😛.

  9. steve959 - Jul 8, 2011 at 3:43 PM

    Trevor and the Idiot are making the same excuse that conservatives made when Bush’s illegal domestic spying program made front page news saying, “If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to worry about.”

    Its a BS response to the continuing erosion of our civil liberties, and goes way too far in giving expanded power to our ruling class. Constitution be damned. But hey, at least you guys feel safer right?

    • spindervish - Jul 8, 2011 at 3:49 PM


      And bonus points for the slightly Marxist bent at the end there.

    • The Baseball Idiot - Jul 8, 2011 at 3:50 PM

      Have you ever read the Patriot Act? I have. I had to know it every day while I was working counter-terrorism in foreign countries where civil liberties didn’t exist.

      You guys can keep pissing and moaning about some law in Arizona. But you really don’t have a clue what you’re complaining about.

      Losing time to provide some documents (which I’ve had to do myself as an American in other countries) is not a violation of civil liberites. It’s an inconveinence and a waste of time.

      But that’s all it is.

      • The Common Man - Jul 8, 2011 at 3:53 PM

        So we should stop trying to have a more free and fair society because we are already more free and fair than societies that are neither free nor fair? Great, let’s all just slip down to the lowest common denominator and call it even.

      • steve959 - Jul 8, 2011 at 3:55 PM

        Well this is America, and not some 3rd world foreign country. They may not have civil liberties, but we do

      • The Baseball Idiot - Jul 8, 2011 at 4:00 PM

        TCM, sometimes you don’t know how good your life is until someone tells you how bad their is.

        You’re trying to interpret my comments without making an effort to understand the point I’m making.

        You know I respect your opinion. Are you showing me the same respect, or spouting a party line?

      • spindervish - Jul 8, 2011 at 4:03 PM

        This is an idiotic excuse for a counterargument that amounts to little more than “well, it could be worse.” Give it a rest.

        Voicing concern over the continuing erosion of American civil liberties in the name of “national security” does not automatically make one oblivious to the plight of the less fortunate around the world or the enviable position American citizens are still in relative to those in places where genuine freedom is an afterthought.

      • jpeetey - Jul 8, 2011 at 4:06 PM

        TBI: That other countries don’t enjoy the same freedoms we do is no justification to erode them. I’ve read the Patriot Act and I wish those in Congress had done the same before voting for it (Russ Feingold, how I miss thee). How invasive and how frequent does police intervention into one’s life have to be for it to rise above mere “inconvenience” to you? I’d always err on the side of permitting the minimum amount of intervention as is absolutely necessary and I believe that is consistent with the principles upon which this country was founded.

        To your comment below: It’s tough to call for respect when you make a blanket statement that anyone that disagrees with you doesn’t know what they’re talking about.

      • jamaicanjasta - Jul 8, 2011 at 4:07 PM

        Baseball, there’s a line between respecting an opposing opinion and realizing that the context in which said opinion is being made is fallacious at best. Comparison between X and Y and stating “If they can do it so can we” is one I’d consider along those lines.

      • The Baseball Idiot - Jul 8, 2011 at 4:07 PM


        refusing to understand the point I’m making doesn’t make my point any less valid.

        But please keep trying. I’m enjoying this.

      • spindervish - Jul 8, 2011 at 4:13 PM

        True. Your “point,” such as it is, is plenty invalid on its own, irrespective of the degree to which I comprehend it.

      • The Common Man - Jul 8, 2011 at 4:14 PM

        I sure am showing you respect, BI. I’m engaging with your ideas, which I find flawed. I’m talking about the rights of American citizens to be treated exactly the same by law enforcement officials (who, Arapaio aside, I greatly respect), regardless of what we look like. And I don’t believe it’s worth letting this unconstitutional law slide because of what it can mean for future laws.

      • The Baseball Idiot - Jul 8, 2011 at 4:19 PM

        Okay, just checking.

      • Tim's Neighbor - Jul 8, 2011 at 4:26 PM

        I understand your point and still disagree. We hold ourselves to a higher standard of personal freedoms than other countries and I like that. I don’t care to waste one extra second of my time for us to attack illegal immigration in a manner that violates civil rights.

      • The Baseball Idiot - Jul 8, 2011 at 4:38 PM

        Tim’s Neighbor:

        Got you. Civil liberties are more important for Americans than for citizens of other countries, becasue, you know, we’re American.

        No xenophobia involved in that.

        USA!!!! USA!!!! USA!!!!!

        Screw those other countries, our civlil liberties are more important than thiers.

        Even though many of them live in countries where they don’t actually have civil liberities and we’re in a country where our lack of civil liberties can be discussed in a publc forum without repercussion.

        I’ll bet American Dad is your favorite television show.

      • jamaicanjasta - Jul 8, 2011 at 4:44 PM

        Baseball, it’s not xenophobic to want civil liberties to be maintained in the United States. It’s also not xenophobic to want to hold your country to standards that you wouldn’t expect from the rest of the world. I mean, I don’t even know why you decided to take it that far.

      • The Baseball Idiot - Jul 8, 2011 at 4:48 PM


        It’s xenophobic (I’ll bet you guys didn’t think I was smart enough to use that word correctly) to assume the rights of Americans are more important than the rights of citizens of other countries.

        Once again, it’s what I said, not what anyone wants to pretend I said.

      • The Common Man - Jul 8, 2011 at 4:52 PM

        Rereading his comments, TBI, I do not believe that Tim’s Neighbor ever indicated that he felt Americans’ rights were more important than those of other countries. I challenge you to point to where he says, or even implies, that.

      • jamaicanjasta - Jul 8, 2011 at 4:57 PM

        Baseball, I don’t see anyone who is saying that their rights are any more important than those who live outside of this country. Recognizing how precious the rights that we have are is not also an admission that those without them are somehow less than us. I don’t know know why there has to be some straw man for you to counterpoint but in respecting someone’s position (something you asked for) you can’t make these unfounded accusations and expect positive feedback.

      • jpeetey - Jul 8, 2011 at 5:04 PM

        TBI: You asked for respect and yet you’re the only one here using invective. You’ve warped what Tim’s said and labelled him a xenophobe. (You’ve also demonstrated an inability to use that word correctly insofar as you’ve contorted his statements in your attempt to apply it) Quit trolling.

      • The Baseball Idiot - Jul 8, 2011 at 5:14 PM


        ‘We hold ourselves to a higher standard of personal freedoms than other countries’

        That’s his statement. Did I miss something?

      • The Common Man - Jul 8, 2011 at 5:17 PM

        Yes, you did. He’s glad that his country holds (or tries to hold) itself to a higher standard than others, and that he does not want to jeopardize that with a bad law. That does not preclude the possibility that he wishes other countries would hold themselves to high standards as well, and that those countries could and should recognize the rights of their citizens. You stepped beyond what he said, and even beyond what was implied to superimpose your own reading of what he said. A reading that seems to exist only in your own head.

      • The Common Man - Jul 8, 2011 at 5:21 PM

        If you’re going to accuse him of being xenophobic in this case, I think you’re going to have to take us through your logic. Because, frankly, I don’t think any of us see it.

    • The Baseball Idiot - Jul 8, 2011 at 4:54 PM

      You can disagree with my opinon all you want, but I object to be compared to conservatives.

      I believe that is a violation of my civil liberties.

      • The Common Man - Jul 8, 2011 at 5:08 PM

        Still waiting for your response above, TBI. Where does Tim’s Neighbor say or imply that he thinks Americans’ rights are more important than those of the citizens of other countries?

        If you can’t find it, I’m sure Tim’s Neighbor will be happy to accept your apology.

      • The Baseball Idiot - Jul 8, 2011 at 5:16 PM

        See above.

        The reply button doesn’t always let us answer where we want to.

      • The Common Man - Jul 8, 2011 at 5:19 PM

        I saw and responded above.

  10. churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jul 8, 2011 at 4:27 PM

    As I said, anyone here legally has nothng to fear.

    The ghost of Amadou Diallo says hello.

    Also, I’m about as white as can possibly be. If I were pulled over in Arizona, would they ask me for my papers? Would my best friend who was born in Hong Kong be asked for his? Or my uncle’s former partner [RIP] who was black? If the answer to all of those is no, but if you were of Latino decent it’d be yes, then the law is discriminatory.

  11. mamow74 - Jul 8, 2011 at 5:05 PM

    I’m sorry but Craig seems to be the only one who really seems to understand the troubling issues here, honestly no offense to anyone here and I hope I’m not aggressively hated on for sharing my ideas.

    The thing that’s so bothersome about this law is that it is just incredibly vague, and I would argue needlessly so. Essentially, the police have the right to stop anyone based on a “reasonable suspicion” that they are in the country illegally (and not necessarily of committing a crime per se, the law makes it a crime itself to not have one’s papers on one’s person I believe, tell me if I’m wrong). There has never really been a bright line rule on what exactly a “reasonable suspicion” is, and frequently you’ll find that idea taken advantage of by lawmakers because it gives a great amount of discretion to the police to define the idea themselves. And what Craig seems to be trying to say is that he doesn’t necessarily trust the police to make a determination like that that’s not based on race. Now the police can and will think of any number of reasonable justifiable reasons for stopping someone that will fall under the umbrella of reasonable suspicion, but can we really be sure that it won’t be based on race even if its not stated? Do we really trust the police that much? I’m not sure what Craig’s legal background is field-wise, but I think anyone who’s worked in the law on the defense side is EXTREMELY apprehensive of inherently trusting the police despite the obvious nobility of their jobs, simply because you realize that at the end of the day these are just people, and people want to be good at their jobs and succeed and advance, and the way a police officer does that is by making arrests. And who isn’t above taking the occasional shortcut to bolster one’s performance? We don’t want to think like that because we appreciate how the police risk their lives on a daily basis, but it just can’t be ignored. Without a strict definition of what amounts to “reasonable suspicion” as far as this law goes, the idea is just too nebulous to get a grasp of it.

    And please please please please don’t talk to me about the idea that “if you aren’t doing anything wrong you have nothing to hide”. Seriously, anyone who believes that, please fuck yourself. Being stopped by the police and questioned when you know that you’ve done nothing wrong and you know their basis for stopping you is because they find people of your race suspicious is just the worst feeling in the world, particularly as people pass by you and look at you as if you’re already guilty. This has happened to me countless times at the airport, where I regularly get the “random special search” that generally only applies to me and other brown people. Nobody should have to be made to feel different because of their race. And no losing time is not a violation of your civil liberties, but losing time based on your race when a person who is of a more favored race wouldn’t is 1000% a violation of one’s civil liberties. This is America, NONE of us are supposed to be here, and remember that when you get too territorial.

    • The Common Man - Jul 8, 2011 at 5:09 PM


    • jpeetey - Jul 8, 2011 at 5:14 PM

      Actually, if you read the comments, there are several folks here who would agree with much that you’ve posted (I’m not inclined to tell anyone to go fuck themselves). Your point about the danger of the “reasonable suspicion” aspect is astute and has been articulated at least twice so far :)

  12. The Baseball Idiot - Jul 8, 2011 at 5:08 PM

    One more time, just so I’m clear. The same group of people who rail daily against Joe West and Angel Hernandez as bad examples of umpires also think that every cop in Arizona is going to automaically harass every Hispanic in Arizona at every chance?

    Even though over 50% of the cops in Arizona are Hispanic?

    Who’s discrimintating against whom?

    Notice my geogramatically correct use of the word ‘whom’. Sometimes I surprise myself.

    • The Common Man - Jul 8, 2011 at 5:12 PM

      Again awaiting your response above, TBI. You can’t accuse someone of xenophobia and move on as if nothing happened.

      And I have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about here. You’re creating straw men again. Not sure how Joe West and Angel Hernandez have to do with SB1070 or on how it is enforced. And no one has said that all cops are going to harass every Hispanic in AZ. Then again, isn’t trampling the rights of one essentially trampling the rights of all?

      • The Baseball Idiot - Jul 8, 2011 at 5:21 PM

        So the rights of one are more important than the rights of all?

        If so, how come the founding fathers signed the Constitution when the slaves weren’t given the same rights as white men? Or women weren’t? Or immigrants?

        If the rights of one are more important than the rights of all, then the entire Constitution is invalid, and no one (my side/your side/any side) gets to use that point, and both of our points are meaningless.

      • jamaicanjasta - Jul 8, 2011 at 5:26 PM

        You’re purposefully conflating separate issues again Baseball. And using that example actually hurts your point as all of those mentioned were shortcomings of the original document. That’s why there have been amendments made to it, because it was not a perfect document and it was written by imperfect people.

      • The Common Man - Jul 8, 2011 at 5:26 PM

        In our society, TBI, the rights of one are supposed to be the same as the rights of all. Everyone has the same, inalienable rights. Those are the truths we hold to be self-evident, that all men (and in 2011 we interpret that to mean all people) are created equal. And if one person’s rights come under attack, and the wrongs done to that person is not redressed, then that wrong has been done to all of us, in that our own rights have been damaged.

        Now, the Founders had some effed up ideas about who got those rights, but our interpretation of the document has changed to become more free and fair. And that’s a good thing.

      • The Baseball Idiot - Jul 8, 2011 at 5:27 PM

        “We the people”


        “We the indivdual”

      • The Common Man - Jul 8, 2011 at 5:30 PM

        And then there’s a big long list of rights for the individual tacked on to the end of that document. Have you not actually read the Bill of Rights, which enumerates many of the individual rights held collectively by each citizen of our country?

      • The Baseball Idiot - Jul 8, 2011 at 5:31 PM


        So what you’re saying is that my linking different arguements to the civil liberties issue is wrong?

        Becasue each situation is handled individually and separately and you can’t put a blanket defintion on any one particular situation? Is that what you’re saying?

        Becasue if it isn’t what your saying, then everything I’ve said is completely valid.

        But if each situation is handled under one flag, and not broken down into specifics, then I’m entirely right.

        Please clarify your intent.

        Civil liberties are handled on an individual basis, or they are all encompassing?

      • jamaicanjasta - Jul 8, 2011 at 5:32 PM

        You’re missing the intent behind those words Baseball and again I think you’re being purposefully obtuse. If you feel that it was right to institutionalize discrimination against women and minorities because “it served the majority” I don’t know what to say.

      • The Baseball Idiot - Jul 8, 2011 at 5:43 PM


        I didn’t say that. The signers of the Constitution did.

        And both sides use the Constiutuion to ‘prove’ thier point.

        Only one can be right.

        If it’s the rights of the many, than the law in Arizona is just.

        If it’s the rights of the indivdual, then the Constitution is invalid because it denied the rights of individuals for the rights of the many.

        How much more simple can I make it?

      • jamaicanjasta - Jul 8, 2011 at 5:44 PM

        What I’m saying is rhetorically, you like to throw out straw men and red herrings instead of discussing the issue at hand. You attempt to link threads that have no similar bearing and dismiss thoughts to the contrary. What I don’t like personally about your style of discussion is that you attempt to oversimplify complex issues and take umbrage when you’re confronted on this.

        You ignore the position of a minority party (in this context I mean it as in percentage not race) because it happens elsewhere in the world and ”it’s no big deal”. It is to them. You can’t claim this law effects everyone equally, which is all that one can ask for, to be treated equally under the law.

      • jamaicanjasta - Jul 8, 2011 at 5:53 PM

        Baseball, the Constitution HAS been deemed ‘wrong’ as you put it on several occasions. I believe 27 times off the top of my head, the number of amendments made to it. The first 11 made within only 6 years of it’s inception. The beauty of the document is not its infallibility, but its MALLEABILITY.

        Also, the law in Arizona is being challenged Constitutionally anyway. So your, again, oversimplified A or B scenario regarding Arizona’s law and the Constitution doesn’t quite pan out. Personally, I think it violates the Supremacy Clause, the first Section of the 14th Amendment specifically the Equal Protection Clause, which was written with the intention of being applied to states and state laws.

      • The Baseball Idiot - Jul 8, 2011 at 6:02 PM

        Change doesn’t mean wrong. It just means change.

        So you’re saying baseball was wrong before the desginated hitter, astroturf, domed stadiums, no double headers, and small ball instead of homeruns?

      • The Baseball Idiot - Jul 8, 2011 at 6:05 PM

        George Bush, Sr overuled the state courts in Los Angeles in the Rodney King case for political purposes, and had no Constitutional right to do so.

        Challenging a state law for political purposes doesn’t make the law wrong or right. It just makes a political issue for people running for federal office while ignoring the rights of the people in that particular state.

        C’mon, your’re a smart guyj. Why are we debating this when your arguments have no valid reasoning beyond emotion.

      • jamaicanjasta - Jul 8, 2011 at 6:09 PM

        Again, these are not equivalent. The right of an African American to vote is not the same as the DH in a game >.>. I frankly find the comparison a bit base. The right of a woman to vote is not equivalent to the rules of a game either.

        In this case, the change was made not based on a a preference, but because it WAS WRONG. It was wrong for the Founding Father’s to institutionalize slavery. It was wrong to perpetuate the terrible practice that gender or race determined what impact you could make in your own country.

        I mean, I don’t even see how you could compare those atrocities to the DH, you’re either intentionally callous or running out of arguments to make.

      • jamaicanjasta - Jul 8, 2011 at 6:14 PM

        You’re again bringing in irrelevant information in reference to determining whether or not this law is constitutional. George H.W has nothing to do with this law, and whether IT SPECIFICALLY violated the parts of the Constitution I listed earlier. I don’t care about the politics one way or another but I DO care about a law being instituted that is unconstitutional. Read the specific lines I mentioned about why the law as currently crafted would seem to be mutually exclusive with the Constitution at those parts.

      • The Baseball Idiot - Jul 8, 2011 at 6:20 PM


        Again, as stated earlier, refusing to understand my point, or intentionally misinterpreting it, does not make my point any less valid.

        Unless every situation lives in a vacuum and you can’t reference any other situation, then I might agree with you.

        But that’s not the way the world works. EVERYTHING applies to EVERYTHING else.

        Which means all those law firms don’t have to burn their law libraries and deal with whole ‘precedence’ issue.

        Try answering my comment just one time, without telling me my point isn’t releveant.

        Deal with the issue at hand, not the statement you want to make.

      • jamaicanjasta - Jul 8, 2011 at 6:33 PM

        I’ve already addressed your comment. You have a strange interpretation of the Constitution and you’re trying to combine unrelated factors to reach a conclusion that you’re already established mentally. I also already stated that I reject the notion of your either A or B is true because it misses many other factors out there.

        I work in the science field, and one of the first things we’re taught is to go into a given experiment with no expectation for the result. Even if we know what the likely result would be, as it could (even subconsciously) affect said results.

        My problem with your thought process is that while you claim things are interrelated you simultaneously claim that only A or B can be true. This is a common rhetoric mistake; it’s called the logical fallacy of converse accident. Quick generalization is another way to put it. You can’t claim on one side of your mouth that things can only be black and white and on the other complain that not enough factors are being considered.

      • derklempner - Jul 8, 2011 at 7:37 PM

        TBI, I can’t quite make sense of most of your arguments, mainly because you seem to jump around between many different examples, usually comparing apples to oranges. But this?

        “But that’s not the way the world works. EVERYTHING applies to EVERYTHING else.”

        That’s about the silliest thing I’ve ever heard.

        Everything does NOT apply to everything else. Period. You wouldn’t cook a steak based on the method you use to tie your shoes. You wouldn’t purchase a car based on the GNP of Lichtenstein. And you SURELY shouldn’t compare the “rightness” or “wrongness” of civil rights and how they’ve changed over time based on the rules of baseball changing over time.

        If you’re going to make arguments that you’d like other people to discuss, then maybe you should start by not mixing metaphors that hold only infintesimally small commonalities.

    • The Baseball Idiot - Jul 8, 2011 at 5:34 PM


      You’ve fallen into the common trap here. You’ve commented on something I’ve said without actually reading what I wrote.

      As stated, the Constitution is hanging on my wall. I’ve also made several factual comments on the Constitution.

      I think questioning my knowledge of the Constitution is doing me a great disservice that I don’t deserve.

      If you doubt my interpretation of the dcoument, say so. But please don’t question my knowledge of it.

      • The Baseball Idiot - Jul 8, 2011 at 5:37 PM

        I might not be a lawyer, but it doesn’t mean I’m stupid.

        I gave up any idea of law school when I was told Constitutional Law was a dead end.

      • The Common Man - Jul 8, 2011 at 6:45 PM

        C’mon TBI, you know that what I said was only quasi-serious, based on the fact that you seem to be willing to ignore individual rights laid out in the Bill of Rights and the various amendments to the Constitution because…well, I’m not sure why you ignore them.

        You say, “So the rights of one are more important than the rights of all?”
        I say, “In our society…the rights of one are supposed to be the same as the rights of all. Everyone has the same, inalienable rights. Those are the truths we hold to be self-evident, that all men (and in 2011 we interpret that to mean all people) are created equal. And if one person’s rights come under attack, and the wrongs done to that person is not redressed, then that wrong has been done to all of us, in that our own rights have been damaged.”

        Rather than try and get around the actual issue I have brought up by acting like I insulted your intelligence, how about you use that intelligence to cogently respond to my point.

  13. spudchukar - Jul 8, 2011 at 6:42 PM

    TBI, the Baseball part of your moniker is superflulous.

Leave Comment

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

Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. D. Wright (2457)
  2. D. Span (2305)
  3. G. Stanton (2226)
  4. Y. Puig (2187)
  5. J. Fernandez (2147)
  1. G. Springer (1965)
  2. B. Crawford (1897)
  3. M. Sano (1776)
  4. M. Teixeira (1769)
  5. J. Hamilton (1696)