Activists call for 2011 MLB All-Star game to be moved

[charger77]

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned the chaos amnesty would bring. If amnesty were to happen, over night there would be roughly an additional 20 million or so people on the public dime. Currently only 53% of the people in this country pay federal income taxes. Can that same 53% support an additional 20 million people or would taxes be paid by more people or would they just raise for that 53%?

On top of that how much would the unemployment rate increase (which would put more people on the public dime)? If amnesty were to happen employers would have pretty much two options: #1 Bring all of his/her employees up to the minimum wage and keep all employees or #2 Only keep the employees he/she can afford to keep after their pay has been raised.

These would be just some of the unintended (or perhaps intended) consequences of amnesty.

[Lights Out]

If they do end up moving the All-Star Game out of Arizona (which would be horrible - it's not fair that the state has to lose the economic boost that an All-Star Game would bring because a group that polls show are in the minority disagree with a state law) then I think either the Marlins or Rays should host the game, as they - like the Diamondbacks - have never hosted one.

[1990hornet]

This is a weak debunked argument.

[DG_YouKnowWhatThatMeans]

I know you are but what am I?

[GMac]

This is a weak debunked argument.

Sigh I did all that research and no rebuttal...

[rams80]

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned the chaos amnesty would bring. If amnesty were to happen, over night there would be roughly an additional 20 million or so people on the public dime. Currently only 53% of the people in this country pay federal income taxes. Can that same 53% support an additional 20 million people or would taxes be paid by more people or would they just raise for that 53%?

On top of that how much would the unemployment rate increase (which would put more people on the public dime)? If amnesty were to happen employers would have pretty much two options: #1 Bring all of his/her employees up to the minimum wage and keep all employees or #2 Only keep the employees he/she can afford to keep after their pay has been raised.

These would be just some of the unintended (or perhaps intended) consequences of amnesty.

Ummm....Dash Dan, wasn't the issue with illegal immigration the fact that they were alreay drawing upon public services as free riders? Wouldn't amnesty and a guest worker program get the immigrants documented and more importantly paying taxes? And yes, more Americans should be paying federal income taxes. Or cut the tax breaks, especially for dependents. If you want to cut down on the free riders, stop incentivizing people to have kids. Or at least, to have kids in such numbers that go beyond the replacement rate for the population.

And as a general aside...if, perhaps, the government was allowed to act in such places as the medical industry and lower prices, which in turn would bring down cost of living overall even with taxes, perhaps the minimum wage could actually go down. Granted no politician would ever be willing to go as far as that last step, but if COL drops enough, cutting minimum wage could be justified.

[charger77]

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned the chaos amnesty would bring. If amnesty were to happen, over night there would be roughly an additional 20 million or so people on the public dime. Currently only 53% of the people in this country pay federal income taxes. Can that same 53% support an additional 20 million people or would taxes be paid by more people or would they just raise for that 53%?

On top of that how much would the unemployment rate increase (which would put more people on the public dime)? If amnesty were to happen employers would have pretty much two options: #1 Bring all of his/her employees up to the minimum wage and keep all employees or #2 Only keep the employees he/she can afford to keep after their pay has been raised.

These would be just some of the unintended (or perhaps intended) consequences of amnesty.

Ummm....Dash Dan, wasn't the issue with illegal immigration the fact that they were alreay drawing upon public services as free riders? Wouldn't amnesty and a guest worker program get the immigrants documented and more importantly paying taxes? And yes, more Americans should be paying federal income taxes. Or cut the tax breaks, especially for dependents. If you want to cut down on the free riders, stop incentivizing people to have kids. Or at least, to have kids in such numbers that go beyond the replacement rate for the population.

And as a general aside...if, perhaps, the government was allowed to act in such places as the medical industry and lower prices, which in turn would bring down cost of living overall even with taxes, perhaps the minimum wage could actually go down. Granted no politician would ever be willing to go as far as that last step, but if COL drops enough, cutting minimum wage could be justified.

You honestly believe that these 20 million +/- illegials would become part of the 53% of the population that pays federal income taxes if amnesty were to happen.

[NJTank]

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned the chaos amnesty would bring. If amnesty were to happen, over night there would be roughly an additional 20 million or so people on the public dime. Currently only 53% of the people in this country pay federal income taxes. Can that same 53% support an additional 20 million people or would taxes be paid by more people or would they just raise for that 53%?

On top of that how much would the unemployment rate increase (which would put more people on the public dime)? If amnesty were to happen employers would have pretty much two options: #1 Bring all of his/her employees up to the minimum wage and keep all employees or #2 Only keep the employees he/she can afford to keep after their pay has been raised.

These would be just some of the unintended (or perhaps intended) consequences of amnesty.

This has already happened, its called the economy of California.

[rams80]

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned the chaos amnesty would bring. If amnesty were to happen, over night there would be roughly an additional 20 million or so people on the public dime. Currently only 53% of the people in this country pay federal income taxes. Can that same 53% support an additional 20 million people or would taxes be paid by more people or would they just raise for that 53%?

On top of that how much would the unemployment rate increase (which would put more people on the public dime)? If amnesty were to happen employers would have pretty much two options: #1 Bring all of his/her employees up to the minimum wage and keep all employees or #2 Only keep the employees he/she can afford to keep after their pay has been raised.

These would be just some of the unintended (or perhaps intended) consequences of amnesty.

Ummm....Dash Dan, wasn't the issue with illegal immigration the fact that they were alreay drawing upon public services as free riders? Wouldn't amnesty and a guest worker program get the immigrants documented and more importantly paying taxes? And yes, more Americans should be paying federal income taxes. Or cut the tax breaks, especially for dependents. If you want to cut down on the free riders, stop incentivizing people to have kids. Or at least, to have kids in such numbers that go beyond the replacement rate for the population.

And as a general aside...if, perhaps, the government was allowed to act in such places as the medical industry and lower prices, which in turn would bring down cost of living overall even with taxes, perhaps the minimum wage could actually go down. Granted no politician would ever be willing to go as far as that last step, but if COL drops enough, cutting minimum wage could be justified.

You honestly believe that these 20 million +/- illegials would become part of the 53% of the population that pays federal income taxes if amnesty were to happen.

If they are documented and working, why wouldn't they. Unless you're speaking in terms of people who "net" do not pay income taxes. At which point I say the tax breaks need to go away.

[ESTONES6]

Ya know... This whole immigration law pisses me off. It is NOT unconstitutional. It is completely within the state and federal constitutions and laws.

Oh, ok, well if YOU say so I guess it's settled.

The MLB should KEEP the game in Arizona. There should be no reason to boycott it. If you are here legally, then you have nothing to hide.

Yes because no one who actually is here legally will get hassled over this oh wait it's already happened to people.

Major League Baseball is going to ignore this for as long as possible and hope it goes away by itself before the game actually happens. They probably won't listen to anyone unless and until players who would be selected for the game get serious about a boycott.

Well... the bill reads that officer's can only ask for naturalization or citizenship papers if, and only if, they are pulling over/questioning someone for an action that is already against the law. So they can't just go up to someone and say hey, let me see your papers. Its not like Nazi Germany.

They are just making sure the people who are reaping the benefits of America are here legally. What is so wrong with that? In order to secure the borders, we have to give up SOME of freedoms, even if it is something small.

Like I said, if you have nothing to hide, you should have nothing against this bill or providing your citizenship papers. It may seem a bit callous or harsh, but they are breaking the laws of the United States of America. That is the bottom line.

[charger77]

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned the chaos amnesty would bring. If amnesty were to happen, over night there would be roughly an additional 20 million or so people on the public dime. Currently only 53% of the people in this country pay federal income taxes. Can that same 53% support an additional 20 million people or would taxes be paid by more people or would they just raise for that 53%?

On top of that how much would the unemployment rate increase (which would put more people on the public dime)? If amnesty were to happen employers would have pretty much two options: #1 Bring all of his/her employees up to the minimum wage and keep all employees or #2 Only keep the employees he/she can afford to keep after their pay has been raised.

These would be just some of the unintended (or perhaps intended) consequences of amnesty.

Ummm....Dash Dan, wasn't the issue with illegal immigration the fact that they were alreay drawing upon public services as free riders? Wouldn't amnesty and a guest worker program get the immigrants documented and more importantly paying taxes? And yes, more Americans should be paying federal income taxes. Or cut the tax breaks, especially for dependents. If you want to cut down on the free riders, stop incentivizing people to have kids. Or at least, to have kids in such numbers that go beyond the replacement rate for the population.

And as a general aside...if, perhaps, the government was allowed to act in such places as the medical industry and lower prices, which in turn would bring down cost of living overall even with taxes, perhaps the minimum wage could actually go down. Granted no politician would ever be willing to go as far as that last step, but if COL drops enough, cutting minimum wage could be justified.

You honestly believe that these 20 million +/- illegials would become part of the 53% of the population that pays federal income taxes if amnesty were to happen.

If they are documented and working, why wouldn't they. Unless you're speaking in terms of people who "net" do not pay income taxes. At which point I say the tax breaks need to go away.

I think it is safe to assume that whoever becomes legal would wind up in the 47% that either gets a full refund or a refund and a little extra for their troubbles.

[charger77]

Ya know... This whole immigration law pisses me off. It is NOT unconstitutional. It is completely within the state and federal constitutions and laws.

Oh, ok, well if YOU say so I guess it's settled.

The MLB should KEEP the game in Arizona. There should be no reason to boycott it. If you are here legally, then you have nothing to hide.

Yes because no one who actually is here legally will get hassled over this oh wait it's already happened to people.

Major League Baseball is going to ignore this for as long as possible and hope it goes away by itself before the game actually happens. They probably won't listen to anyone unless and until players who would be selected for the game get serious about a boycott.

Well... the bill reads that officer's can only ask for naturalization or citizenship papers if, and only if, they are pulling over/questioning someone for an action that is already against the law. So they can't just go up to someone and say hey, let me see your papers. Its not like Nazi Germany.

They are just making sure the people who are reaping the benefits of America are here legally. What is so wrong with that? In order to secure the borders, we have to give up SOME of freedoms, even if it is something small.

Like I said, if you have nothing to hide, you should have nothing against this bill or providing your citizenship papers. It may seem a bit callous or harsh, but they are breaking the laws of the United States of America. That is the bottom line.

And that person can't produce valid ID.

[1990hornet]

This is a weak debunked argument.

I know you are but what am I?

The words of a person backed into a corner.

[rams80]

Well... the bill reads that officer's can only ask for naturalization or citizenship papers if, and only if, they are pulling over/questioning someone for an action that is already against the law. So they can't just go up to someone and say hey, let me see your papers. Its not like Nazi Germany.

Except, they can pull you over if they say you are breaking the law doing something else. Even if you weren't. Busted taillight, minor speeding, swerving a little...all of them can be grounds for a policeman to pull you over, and some of them can even be completely fabricated with no way to counter the allegations. And once you're stopped, "Papers, please". You seem to labor under this delusion that such things don't happen already, even when presented with documented evidence of that being the case.

They are just making sure the people who are reaping the benefits of America are here legally. What is so wrong with that? In order to secure the borders, we have to give up SOME of freedoms, even if it is something small.

To review: Socialized medicine = communo-fascist tyranny that threatens our very American way of existence and is the greatest assault on the Constitution since the John Adams administration. Arizona's law that enables law enforcement officials and government agents to effectively keep tabs on the citizenry and can very easily be manipulated to target citizens of certain ancestry whilst under a tissue thin cover of "must be committing another crime, in said official's estimation" = Acceptable compromise to "secure the borders". Assuming there are historians or a world a century down the road, the contradictions of early 21st America are going to be utterly fascinating for future historians. We might break the French Revolution's record for books, papers, and articles written.

Like I said, if you have nothing to hide, you should have nothing against this bill or providing your citizenship papers. It may seem a bit callous or harsh, but they are breaking the laws of the United States of America. That is the bottom line.

Except, the Constitution as repeatedly interpreted recognizes a fundamental right to privacy for Americans. That includes not setting into place the tools that allow our governments to keep easy and documented track of our movements. Also, the almost certain unequal targeting of this legislation in real life is also contrary to various parts of the Constitution. Now, I'm not a tea partier or a devotee of Chairman Rush, but for those who are, is the Constitution not the Supreme Law of the Land?

[rams80]

Ya know... This whole immigration law pisses me off. It is NOT unconstitutional. It is completely within the state and federal constitutions and laws.

Oh, ok, well if YOU say so I guess it's settled.

The MLB should KEEP the game in Arizona. There should be no reason to boycott it. If you are here legally, then you have nothing to hide.

Yes because no one who actually is here legally will get hassled over this oh wait it's already happened to people.

Major League Baseball is going to ignore this for as long as possible and hope it goes away by itself before the game actually happens. They probably won't listen to anyone unless and until players who would be selected for the game get serious about a boycott.

Well... the bill reads that officer's can only ask for naturalization or citizenship papers if, and only if, they are pulling over/questioning someone for an action that is already against the law. So they can't just go up to someone and say hey, let me see your papers. Its not like Nazi Germany.

They are just making sure the people who are reaping the benefits of America are here legally. What is so wrong with that? In order to secure the borders, we have to give up SOME of freedoms, even if it is something small.

Like I said, if you have nothing to hide, you should have nothing against this bill or providing your citizenship papers. It may seem a bit callous or harsh, but they are breaking the laws of the United States of America. That is the bottom line.

And that person can't produce valid ID.

In the opinion of the cop, right?

[rams80]

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned the chaos amnesty would bring. If amnesty were to happen, over night there would be roughly an additional 20 million or so people on the public dime. Currently only 53% of the people in this country pay federal income taxes. Can that same 53% support an additional 20 million people or would taxes be paid by more people or would they just raise for that 53%?

On top of that how much would the unemployment rate increase (which would put more people on the public dime)? If amnesty were to happen employers would have pretty much two options: #1 Bring all of his/her employees up to the minimum wage and keep all employees or #2 Only keep the employees he/she can afford to keep after their pay has been raised.

These would be just some of the unintended (or perhaps intended) consequences of amnesty.

Ummm....Dash Dan, wasn't the issue with illegal immigration the fact that they were alreay drawing upon public services as free riders? Wouldn't amnesty and a guest worker program get the immigrants documented and more importantly paying taxes? And yes, more Americans should be paying federal income taxes. Or cut the tax breaks, especially for dependents. If you want to cut down on the free riders, stop incentivizing people to have kids. Or at least, to have kids in such numbers that go beyond the replacement rate for the population.

And as a general aside...if, perhaps, the government was allowed to act in such places as the medical industry and lower prices, which in turn would bring down cost of living overall even with taxes, perhaps the minimum wage could actually go down. Granted no politician would ever be willing to go as far as that last step, but if COL drops enough, cutting minimum wage could be justified.

You honestly believe that these 20 million +/- illegials would become part of the 53% of the population that pays federal income taxes if amnesty were to happen.

If they are documented and working, why wouldn't they. Unless you're speaking in terms of people who "net" do not pay income taxes. At which point I say the tax breaks need to go away.

I think it is safe to assume that whoever becomes legal would wind up in the 47% that either gets a full refund or a refund and a little extra for their troubbles.

Aren't Bush's tax breaks going? (thank God). At some point, what I'm saying about getting rid of tax breaks is going to hit home.

[DG_YouKnowWhatThatMeans]

To review: Socialized medicine = communo-fascist tyranny that threatens our very American way of existence and is the greatest assault on the Constitution since the John Adams administration. Arizona's law that enables law enforcement officials and government agents to effectively keep tabs on the citizenry and can very easily be manipulated to target citizens of certain ancestry whilst under a tissue thin cover of "must be committing another crime, in said official's estimation" = Acceptable compromise to "secure the borders". Assuming there are historians or a world a century down the road, the contradictions of early 21st America are going to be utterly fascinating for future historians. We might break the French Revolution's record for books, papers, and articles written.

Right. The only guiding ideology that I can seem to glisten from the tea party is "Eff everyone else as long as I got mine." For all of our sake, I want to believe that there's something else there, but I just can't find it.

The Republican Party during the Bush years was completely destructive to our country, but at least it stood for something -- big dick military action plus tax breaks for millionaires made possible by exploiting the fears of rural America. The tea party of 2010 is, what exactly? Hurting minorities and poor people because we can? Who even benefits?

[charger77]

Ya know... This whole immigration law pisses me off. It is NOT unconstitutional. It is completely within the state and federal constitutions and laws.

Oh, ok, well if YOU say so I guess it's settled.

The MLB should KEEP the game in Arizona. There should be no reason to boycott it. If you are here legally, then you have nothing to hide.

Yes because no one who actually is here legally will get hassled over this oh wait it's already happened to people.

Major League Baseball is going to ignore this for as long as possible and hope it goes away by itself before the game actually happens. They probably won't listen to anyone unless and until players who would be selected for the game get serious about a boycott.

Well... the bill reads that officer's can only ask for naturalization or citizenship papers if, and only if, they are pulling over/questioning someone for an action that is already against the law. So they can't just go up to someone and say hey, let me see your papers. Its not like Nazi Germany.

They are just making sure the people who are reaping the benefits of America are here legally. What is so wrong with that? In order to secure the borders, we have to give up SOME of freedoms, even if it is something small.

Like I said, if you have nothing to hide, you should have nothing against this bill or providing your citizenship papers. It may seem a bit callous or harsh, but they are breaking the laws of the United States of America. That is the bottom line.

And that person can't produce valid ID.

In the opinion of the cop, right?

No, not at all. The bill actually states what is an acceptable form of ID.

[charger77]

To review: Socialized medicine = communo-fascist tyranny that threatens our very American way of existence and is the greatest assault on the Constitution since the John Adams administration. Arizona's law that enables law enforcement officials and government agents to effectively keep tabs on the citizenry and can very easily be manipulated to target citizens of certain ancestry whilst under a tissue thin cover of "must be committing another crime, in said official's estimation" = Acceptable compromise to "secure the borders". Assuming there are historians or a world a century down the road, the contradictions of early 21st America are going to be utterly fascinating for future historians. We might break the French Revolution's record for books, papers, and articles written.

Right. The only guiding ideology that I can seem to glisten from the tea party is "Eff everyone else as long as I got mine." For all of our sake, I want to believe that there's something else there, but I just can't find it.

The Republican Party during the Bush years was completely destructive to our country, but at least it stood for something -- big dick military action plus tax breaks for millionaires made possible by exploiting the fears of rural America. The tea party of 2010 is, what exactly? Hurting minorities and poor people because we can? Who even benefits?

#1 The Tea Party doest not like like the Federal Govt. taking on responsibilities that the Constitution does not call for. If each state wanted a health care bill Tea Partiers would be ok with it. Its not a case of "Screw you I got mine" its a case of the Federal Government is overstepping its bounds.

#2 The Tax cuts are for the people that... pay taxes, its kind of hard to cut Federal Income taxes for people at the end of the year either get a refund or a refund plus some extra cash.

#3 Many economists feel that if the cuts are to expire that we will see another economic slide.

[ESTONES6]

Well... the bill reads that officer's can only ask for naturalization or citizenship papers if, and only if, they are pulling over/questioning someone for an action that is already against the law. So they can't just go up to someone and say hey, let me see your papers. Its not like Nazi Germany.

Except, they can pull you over if they say you are breaking the law doing something else. Even if you weren't. Busted taillight, minor speeding, swerving a little...all of them can be grounds for a policeman to pull you over, and some of them can even be completely fabricated with no way to counter the allegations. And once you're stopped, "Papers, please". You seem to labor under this delusion that such things don't happen already, even when presented with documented evidence of that being the case.

They are just making sure the people who are reaping the benefits of America are here legally. What is so wrong with that? In order to secure the borders, we have to give up SOME of freedoms, even if it is something small.

To review: Socialized medicine = communo-fascist tyranny that threatens our very American way of existence and is the greatest assault on the Constitution since the John Adams administration. Arizona's law that enables law enforcement officials and government agents to effectively keep tabs on the citizenry and can very easily be manipulated to target citizens of certain ancestry whilst under a tissue thin cover of "must be committing another crime, in said official's estimation" = Acceptable compromise to "secure the borders". Assuming there are historians or a world a century down the road, the contradictions of early 21st America are going to be utterly fascinating for future historians. We might break the French Revolution's record for books, papers, and articles written.

Like I said, if you have nothing to hide, you should have nothing against this bill or providing your citizenship papers. It may seem a bit callous or harsh, but they are breaking the laws of the United States of America. That is the bottom line.

Except, the Constitution as repeatedly interpreted recognizes a fundamental right to privacy for Americans. That includes not setting into place the tools that allow our governments to keep easy and documented track of our movements. Also, the almost certain unequal targeting of this legislation in real life is also contrary to various parts of the Constitution. Now, I'm not a tea partier or a devotee of Chairman Rush, but for those who are, is the Constitution not the Supreme Law of the Land?

1.) Busted tail light. Against the state law. Minor speeding. 1 mile per hour over the posted speed limit is against the law. Swerving. Gives cause for an officer to pull someone over to ensure safety of pedestrians and others on the road. Completely, 100% within state law.

The bill also reads and subjects all officer to strict consequences for harassment. But I guess you are right, if an officer sees a busted tail light on a car going 37 in a 35, they are going to speed up, make sure the person looks Mexican, and if they do, proceed to slow down, turn on their lights and sirens and pull that person over, just to check their papers. Who REALLY is living in the delusion?

2.) Just to play devil's advocate... I know I am going to catch heat for this, but... you do know PURE communism is a perfect society right?

Anyway, since America has such a long history of genocide, requiring all LEGAL citizens to carry 5 grams of plastic in their wallet surely is tyranny and blasphemy at its highest level! I mean, come on, America still beats itself up for making Japanese Americans during WWII live in separate societies. Not to mention, America prides its self on showing equal respect to all races, especially after the Civil right movements of the 60s. America is so scared to step on toes, that we refuses to make the tough decisions that NEED to be made.

3.) Now. As for your privacy. A card, piece of paper saying someone is here legally by the state department CLEARLY is infringing on our privacy. That is the dumbest thing I have ever read. If you are going to use this straw man, you might as well start rioting for speed cameras, driver's license, birth certificate, social security, mailing addresses, license plates, the credit system, hell, you must even be opposed to giving children names. Names are a way to document who, where, and what someone is doing!

Carrying a card saying I am an American citizen does not put cameras in our house, GPS in our cars, tracking what we buy, when we buy it, what we do on the weekends, how long it takes us to wash our ass, eat our supper, brush our teeth.

Talk about a delusion.