I was able to score four tickets for Tuesday’s night’s All-Star Game at Angels Stadium, and got there about 3:30 PM. As my son and I wandered around the front of the stadium, there were two small protests going on. A series of religious signs were scattered in a haphazard manner and then there was a small protest over having the 2011 All-Star Game in Arizona.
I estimate about 50-70 protestors calling on a repeal of Arizona’s new immigration law and calling for comprehensive immigration reform. The protesters shouted, “this is what Democracy looks like.” From the sheer numbers, Democracy was poorly attended and poorly articulated.Â
Frankly, the best way for these pro-immigration reform protesters to make themselves heard would be to support the federal government’s lawsuit against Arizona. Fans at tonight’s game paid more attention to the T-shirt stands and the BBQ booths than they did the protestors. And while some players may protest the 2011 game, I can’t see Major League Baseball moving it or having trouble filling an all-star roster with players who want to play in the game.
Inside the stadium, the crowd was very polite when it came to a moment of silence to honor the passing of Yankees owner George Steinbrenner. Going to Angels games against the Red Sox or the Yankees over the past few years was almost like a West Coast home game for these teams. But when the players and coaches of the Yankees and Red Sox were introduced, the fans where I was booed loudly.Â
And, to prove Gustavo wrong, Vladimir Guerrero was cheered wildly when he was introduced and when he stepped to the plate.Â
We also spied former Sheriff candidate Craig Hunter on patrol.
All and all, a terrific event Anaheim. Nicely done.
“Comprehensive Immigration Reform” is an euphemism for amnesty.
Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th Edition, defines amnesty: “…the act of a sovereign power officially forgiving certain classes of persons who are subject to trial but not yet been convicted . …”
The 1986 Act has requirements for the undocumented aliens, but it was still an Amnesty.
So therefore when politicians say: “Oh – I’m not for amnesty, – I’m for Comprehensive Immigration Reform, – the undocumented aliens should be required to “_____” and “______” and “_____”; the politician is lying, and is in fact calling for an amnesty.
When politicians who seem to be on the other side of the illegal immigration issue call for “Border Security First” they are also lying, (or ignorant of what they voted for).
The U.S.A. lost control of its borders when Congress passed the NAFTA, North American Free Trade Agreement. Free trade means the free flow of labor across borders. Stopping Illegal Immigration starts with withdrawing from NAFTA.
Arizona should be supported.
http://www.BuyCottArizona.com
Sorry – a fuller quote is:
Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th Edition, defines amnesty: “…the act of a sovereign power officially forgiving certain classes of persons who are subject to trial but not yet been convicted . …”
Excellent article Dan and one I can get behind. There is a time for political debate and a time for a family outings and never the twain shall meet. Having been through the same with my boys, I know your son had a day he will remember for a long time. In these times, one cannot have too many such days. Best wishes for more like this one in the future.
Robert — comprehensive immigration reform is about changing the rules to make it easier for immigrants to come here and work here and be a part of the system of paying taxes and following the rues of society. Our current immigration laws and policies need an overhaul.
You ignore our history of evolving immigration law over the course of our history; its time to change the rules again to adjust with the times.
Don’t know a single conservative who doesn’t support a full engine overhaul of the Model T – Immigration Machine. The question is whose mechanic do we use to fix it. The Republicans, with exceptions, want to replace the broken parts, fine tune the engine and return it to high performance. Democrats, with a few exceptions, want to paint the machine, change the upholstery, put on new tires and while looking better, ignore the ability of the engine to function. Catering to the leftist side of the Immigration movement, the object is not to force feed these people into coming into the country the right way, but rather to register them as Democratic voters. Is there little wonder that the volatile environment exists in Congress and across the country?
Now let’s talk a little about the history you accuse Robert Lauten of ignoring. What does history tell us about America dealing with the “Illegal Alien” problem. It’s been handled successfully multiple times in the past. In fact, three of our most well-known presidents initiated successful illegal alien deportation programs.
First, President Herbert Hoover, during the great depression, ordered the deportation of all illegal aliens in order to make jobs available to American citizens that desperately needed work. ?
Next, the greatly respected President Harry Truman deported over two million illegal aliens after World War II to create jobs for returning veterans. Were they allowed in because of a workforce shortage during WWII? I suppose that could be a reason they were here.
Finally and most recently, beginning in 1954, the very popular and practical President Dwight Eisenhower successfully deported millions of illegal alien Mexican nationals in a program called “Operation Wetbackâ€, which lasted two years. Again, this was reportedly done to make more jobs available for World War II and Korean War veterans.
The 24 dollar question is, if it was done in the past, why could it not be done again?
What if comprehensive Immigration Reform was done in phases.
First, seal up the border water tight. Bring home the troops from Iraq, Europe and “Yes” even Afghanistan and put them to work securing our country, instead of someplace where they don’t even like us. Declare a national emergency based on an invasion of the country, allowing the military to legally operate on American soil. Set up Border Regions, under military commanders with the Border Patrol working under their direction. Use Special Operations people to infiltrate Mexico and eliminate the cartels or others who commit violence against Americans. Frankly, I would be very surprised if the Department of Defense did not have contingency plans already developed for such an operation.
Second, direct ICE to investigate, arrest and incarcerate any employer knowingly hiring illegal aliens. This would severely reduce available work for illegals and many would leave on their own. An offer of immunity and free transportation home to Mexico, Central America or wherever, could be extended to all those here illegally. Lastly, American local law enforcement would be directed to question and detain any person they came in contact with who presented reasonable suspicion of being here illegally. These persons would be turned over to local Border Patrol people. As was done in past history, the illegals would be put on trains and transported not to the border, but to the interior of Mexico for release.
Once the above is achieved, Congress could move forward with Phase Two of demolition of the existing Immigration process and reinventing it in a manner most Americans could support. Considering the dysfunctional state of Congress from both the Republican and Democrat sides, we know that barring a full scale Depression, none of the above will ever happen. So in the end we end up with same old song, different verse and off key at that.
this is beyond wack. the move the game movement presented 100,000 + signatures to bud selig before the protest. that’s a number you would rather omit. more establishment snobbery telling citizens to let the federal gov’t to handle business. well, who’s going to tell obama to halt those ice raids, like the one that hit fullerton not to long ago? sb1070 and arizona ain’t the only beef.
I wonder if all those people signing the petition realized that California has a law on the books which is almost identical to the one passed by Arizona. Some people will sign anything without reading it? By the way, I haven’t heard any screams of anguish about California Cops violating any rights regarding this law. Sorry folks, you have got to do a better job of whining than exhibited so far.
100,000 signatures represents a little more than twice the paid attendance for the game. It’s not enough to sway major league baseball. You’d need a million signatures, 5 million, or more. Then people in Arizona will likely go their own petition to keep the game there.
Gabriel, you’ve misinterpreted what I said. If you are opposed to the Arizona law, there are more effective ways to make your voice heard than turning over a petition of 100,000 signatures and marching about 50 to 75 (and I am being generous here) protesters outside a game.
Why not start boycotting all the companies who sponosor major league baseball, Fox TV, and any team with Spring training facilities in AZ. For a protest to be effective, it needs to hit someone’s pocketbook. 100,000 signatures pales in comparison to the paid attendance, eocnomic impact of the game in Anaheim, and the huge TV audience for the broadcast.
Better still, the LA Times featured a photograph of Santa Ana Councilman Sal Tinajero – in a customized Angels jersey – with his son at the All-Star fanfest in Monday’s paper. The paper obviously didn’t know that Tinajero was a Santa Ana city council member; he wasn’t identified as such in the caption. But there he was at the All-Star Fan Fest in Anaheim with his son. As an elected leader for the city with the largest Latino population, perhaps you ought to contact Councilman Tinajero and ask if HE signed the petition calling for the game to be moved from Arizona.
You forget, I’m on your side of this debate. Idon’t like the Arizona law. But I also believe law enforcement doesn’t go after employers who hired undocumented workers with fines that make it economically unfeasable screw these workers over with poor pay and bad working conditions. When employers start calling for immigration reform to get the labor they want, I think Congress is more likely to actually do something about it.
Just as with the Orange County DREAM Team, this blog fails miserably in understanding the totality of the movement at work ( a glaring symptom of a divorce from it in deference to establishment politics )
The Move the Game strategy is just one target of an overall effort. Had you read the quotes in newspaper reports, this is what organizers were saying. Returning to the Superbowl precedence, this is a strategy aimed at the pocketbook. If Arizona loses the All Star Game it will lose all the revenue that goes with it.
Black NFL players didn’t want the Superbowl in Arizona back in the day and a growing number of Latino MLB players are starting to say the same about the 2011 All Star game. Continual organizing ensures momentum and is better than chillin’ and sayin’ “Obama’s got this”
Yes, the lawyers will prevail in the end as SB1070 will be overturned, but in the meantime it would be a mistake to not take the opportunity to agitate the body politic.
And yet the Super Bowl, a World Series, and a couple of NCAA championship games have been played in Arizona since the MLK holiday became a reality.
Gabriel, just about everyone on this blog supports comprehensive immigration reform. And many of us support the Dream Act.
Thaty
“And yet the Super Bowl, a World Series, and a couple of NCAA championship games have been played in Arizona since the MLK holiday became a reality.”
keyword: since. if arizona decides to civilize itself, i have no objections to major sporting/cultural events taking place there.
also, comprehensive immigration reform is a nice catch all phrase. i’m sure it means different things to different people, here and elsewhere
Would this blog have argued against the moving of the Superbowl from Arizona in light of the movement to have Martin Luther King Jr day observed in the state under the title “Football Trumps Politics???”
There have been de facto NCAA title games in Arizona before with the Fiesta Bowl; the World Series happened in 2001 because the DiamondBacks won the National League. The reason the Super Bowl hadn’t gone to Phoenix had more to do with having an adequate stadium issue than anything else.
Comprehensive immigration reform means lets make it easier for people who want to come here to work do so legally; this isn’t just for Mexicans. It also includes technology workers from India, Bosnians escaping political persecution, and others, depending on their situation. It means criminal penalities for employers who seek to exploit undocumented workers. It means having these immigrants paying taxes and social security. And it means a faster path towards citizenship.
Perhaps you ought to explain what you mean by comprehsive immigration reform and spell out what our policy should be towards undocumented immigrants.
“The reason the Super Bowl hadn’t gone to Phoenix had more to do with having an adequate stadium issue than anything else.”
So now you want to diminish African-American activism surrounding Martin Luther King Jr Day out of Arizona history too!
Let’s see, you went to a corporate bonanza posing as an all-star game and belittled protesters who went out to voice their opinions…I know what democracy looks like.
Not to sidetrack this discussion, but a major part of what I would consider to be meaningful CIR would involve nixing NAFTA…and I do remember what President from what party helped impose that upon the peoples of North America.
Gabriel – I’m not belittling African American activism in AZ at all; I’m simply stating the truth.
It was an all-star game. As for belittling protesters, calling the protest poorly attended and poorly run is calling it exactly as I saw it. There were more people in line waiting for BBQ than were protesting the all-star game. It’s the truth. Deal with it.
If you want to see meaningful protests, look to what went on in NYC protesting the Iraq War late in Bush 43’s term. Shoot, even the Tea Partiers had more astroturf protesters at the Truman dinner.
As for which president placed NAFTA upon us, it was initially proposed by George Herbert Walker Bush. The Clinton administration pushed it through. NAFTA was in response to the European Union which created a large market that the rest of the world had to compete with in a global economy. I’m not so sure what NAFTA has to do with the All-Star game or MLK Day, but make a point and stick to it.
What is it you want us to do or say here? The protest was wonderful and organized very well. It wasn’t. Will 100,000 signatures and 50 to 75 people outside the stadium stop MLB from having the 2011 game in AZ. It won’t. Will the federal lawsuit against SB1070 prevail. I sure hope so. UNtil then, start tracking every business that advertises with MLB andis associated with the All-Star Game 2011 and boycott them.
You’re as hopeless as your first statement! And if you want to compare immigration protests to anti-war/tea party gatherings…ummm, March 25th, 2006, Los Angeles!
Again, this action is part of a whole and you can’t judge and isolate it away from that. This movement is in its infancy, too. It will grow especially as the date of implementation draws nearer.
Anyway, I’m sure you know I mentioned NAFTA since you posed a bigger question about CIR. Don’t pretend it came out of ‘left field’ shall we say. That GHW Bush proposed it and Clinton implemented it is no news flash to me. In fact, it illustrates the commonality of the two-parties in terms of pro-corporate/anti-labor globalization and neo-liberalism.
And yes, I can actually tie it to the All-Star game if I wanted to. Many DREAMERS and future DREAMERS immigrated after NAFTA. There was a major influx of ALL immigrants from Mexico after NAFTA. The neo-liberal policy was a major impetus because of its detrimental effects in Mexico.
Any talk of CIR without mention of NAFTA is essentially meaningless and without a core understanding of root causes. ‘
Now, I’ve had more than enough here to develop a core understanding of what “The Liberal OC” is all about…
“Again, this action is part of a whole and you can’t judge and isolate it away from that.”
Actually, yes I can. cannot eliminate portions of a debate by declaring something out of bounds just because it weakens your argument.
“March 25th, 2006, Los Angeles!” Great example; why wasn’t the SB1070 protest at the All-Star Game that big?
“There was a major influx of ALL immigrants from Mexico after NAFTA” How do you explain all those given amnesty in 1986 under Reagan? An influx of undocumented workers from Mexico has been an ongoing issue for quite sometime.
3 million vs. 12 million. NAFTA was a major component of neo-liberal structural reforms starting in the Mexican economy in 1982. In 1986 we saw the genesis. In 2010, its mass acceleration since 1994. That why.
Do you really think its a valid question to compare or ask for over a million people to demonstrate in Anaheim during the All Star game?
Your arguments are becoming sillier by the post – a symptom of a lack of command concerning mature analysis of social movements vis a vis immigration…
Do you think its a valid protest when only 50-75 show up. Your arguments are meandering all over the place.