Jump to content

2011 All-Star Game in Arizona in jeopardy?


orioles119

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 31
  • Created
  • Last Reply
My understanding is that police are required to question people if they have a "reasonable suspicion" that they are here illegally. That is taking Terry v. Ohio to extremes not intended by the Supreme Court. So, if that is the case it is a clear violation against the unreasonable search and seizure clause of the 4th Amendment.

Here is the exact wording of the law:

For any lawful contact stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town of the 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, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation.

So the person in question has to already have been lawfully detained for some other reason, and all they have to produce is a valid drivers license to show they're here legally. If that is somehow "unconstitutional" then the word has no meaning.

Again, the law is wildly popular and makes sense within the context of securing the border. MLB knows it has more to lose than gain by supporting any boycotts against Arizona, so they won't touch it with a ten foot pole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the exact wording of the law:

For any lawful contact stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town of the 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, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation.

So the person in question has to already have been lawfully detained for some other reason, and all they have to produce is a valid drivers license to show they're here legally. If that is somehow "unconstitutional" then the word has no meaning.

Again, the law is wildly popular and makes sense within the context of securing the border. MLB knows it has more to lose than gain by supporting any boycotts against Arizona, so they won't touch it with a ten foot pole.

Jack Cafferty's (CNN) take on the law:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys, seriously. No politics. How is this hard to understand?

Exactly... I was posting this just about the sheer ridiculousness that the MLB All-Star game would be pulled from Arizona over a law passed in that state.

If you want my opinion on the law itself, go to another forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly... I was posting this just about the sheer ridiculousness that the MLB All-Star game would be pulled from Arizona over a law passed in that state.

If you want my opinion on the law itself, go to another forum.

And that is an apolitical opinion. I disagree with it because I think Major League Baseball should be able to protect its brand if they feel that their players are being threatened (whether they are or not is a matter for debate). As was posted earlier there is a precedent for this and it is not unheard of for private enterprises to avoid doing business in states because they don't like their politics, just as consumers can choose not to purchase from businesses if they dislike their politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys, seriously. No politics. How is this hard to understand?

The opening post has a link to a page that has a video of people giving their opinion of the law. You had NO problem with the opening post.

The article you linked to has opinions on the law.

:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The opening post has a link to a page that has a video of people giving their opinion of the law. You had NO problem with the opening post.

The article you linked to has opinions on the law.

:rolleyes:

Really, two articles on baseball's reaction compared to Jack Cafferty, you don't see the distinction?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really, two articles on baseball's reaction compared to Jack Cafferty, you don't see the distinction?

Yes I see that Jack Cafferty is not a representative of the MLB players union. I get that.

I have no problem with the opening post and the article/video that it links to but it is political and so is the article that you linked to (to a lesser extent).

My comment was just to point out that you didn't seem to recognize the politics in the article/video linked to in the opening post and in the article that you linked to.

Are you saying that linking to a political article or video is allowed as long as those giving their opinion on a political issue are somehow associated with MLB? But otherwise not allowed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I see that Jack Cafferty is not a representative of the MLB players union. I get that.

I have no problem with the opening post and the article/video that it links to but it is political and so is the article that you linked to (to a lesser extent).

My comment was just to point out that you didn't seem to recognize the politics in the article/video linked to in the opening post and in the article that you linked to.

Are you saying that linking to a political article or video is allowed as long as those giving their opinion on a political issue are somehow associated with MLB? But otherwise not allowed?

Again... the reason for posting this is to discuss why the MLB should or should NOT be pulled from Phoenix because of the bill. I had no political intentions otherwise for posting this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again... the reason for posting this is to discuss why the MLB should or should NOT be pulled from Phoenix because of the bill. I had no political intentions otherwise for posting this.

I believe that you had fine intentions. The problem is that there is no way to actually discuss this particular matter without discussing the political aspects of the law in question, including its implications for civil liberties, equal protection, and other things that loom large in the Constitution. Plus, while some police like it, other police hate the idea, so it's not as simple as a law-and-order thing. So, bottom line: regardless of one's opinion about it, it's as much of a political issue as a legal one, because those two aspects of it are not at all discrete.

Now, it's not a political issue in the sense of This Prez Candidate vs. That Prez Candidate. Nor is it a political issue in the sense of This Party vs. That Party, simply because lots of people from both parties have the same concerns about gov't intruding on civil liberties. The politics of it do not break down neatly along any clearly established lines, so it may (or may not) be like other controversial things that have been discussed in the Other Forum. For example, we have had reasonable discussions about things like the death penalty and global warming and other stuff, all of which had political implications but were not necessarily partisan political issues. Tony and the mods let those happen as long as people were discussing things in a reasonable fashion and nobody went nuts and got ugly about it. Dunno if that can happen with this one but, if it can, the Hangout Club forum would be the place to do it, not on the baseball side of things...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • Posts

    • Everyone excited about hot starts this spring.  Meanwhile, not a peep about Jorge who’s crushing the ball right now.   Looks like he’s in mid April form.   Jorge, if only this could last longer than a few weeks or a month or two.   When Jorge doesn’t commit too early he’s a dangerous (I didn’t say good) hitter.   He must drive the hitting coaches crazy.
    • Basallo stands a good chance to get some at bats too.
    • Roch: Kyle Stowers broke camp with the Orioles last spring. He’s trying to bust up every mock Opening Day roster that doesn’t include him. Stowers hit his second left-on-left home run today, this time against Bailey Falter, and it was an absolute missile - launched to right-center field at a sound that hurt eardrums. In his next at-bat, Stowers singled into center field against left-hander Ryan Borucki. It’s becoming a trend going back to live batting practice. Stowers held at 2-for-2 after his free pass in the sixth. The media again wanted to grill him about his success versus southpaws. "I'm surprised you don't wanna talk about the walk against the righty," he quipped. "I honestly haven't been seeing as many righties so far for whatever reason. As you guys know, I've been having a little more success against the lefties thus far, and so I was really happy to have that at-bat against the righty. Like I said, I feel confident against both lefties and righties, but it was nice to have a successful, positive result against the righty." Stowers has done a nice job staying on the ball against left-handers and erasing the advantage. "Left-on-left, I think most guys would tell you you're kind of forced to stay on it a little bit longer and it kind of cleans up a lot of lefties mechanically because of what you have to do to have success. ... Just not giving up on that front side." The outfield competition got a whole lot more interesting with Stowers' return to it after going 2-for-30 with the Orioles last year and injuring his right shoulder and fracturing his nose on a hit-by-pitch at Triple-A. He said his spring so far is "OK, I think it could be better." "I love what I'm doing in my work, I love what I'm doing off the field," he said. "I feel like I'm working really hard. Obviously, we all want the results to be better, but I'm really happy with the process I've been putting in and just have to stick to it."
    • I wonder if Lorenzen has some sort of injury that’s preventing him to sign?  Snell and Montgomery both want $30 million a year. Clevinger and Bauer have DV/SA issues. After looking into it, it looks like the only reason Clevinger pitched last year was because he signed his FA deal before the allegations came out.
    • What team in the AL East has 6-8 top starters ready to go? 
    • https://www.masnsports.com/blog/kjerstad-on-cowser
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...