These men were immediately questioned by the Glendale PD.
There are things that you just don’t talk about in polite company, and the most well-noted of those things are religion and politics. We do our best to avoid those around here (Old Firm and Lazio posts notwithstanding), but sometimes they interact with football in such a way that it forces our hand.
The state of Arizona has a new immigration law that has people in an uproar, with critics arguing that it sanctions racial profiling. There has been talk of Major League Baseball pulling the 2011 All-Star Game from the city of Phoenix due to the backlash, but now people are realizing that the law may impact on the US bid for the 2018/2022 World Cup.
The city of Glendale, Arizona is home to the University of Phoenix Stadium which was submitted as one of the possible host stadia for the US World Cup bid. Although only 12 of the 18 proposed sites will actually be used during the World Cup, there is concern that the immigration law presents Arizona (and by extension, the USSF) as unwelcoming. The fact that USSF spokesman Neil Buethe refuses to comment on the possible ramifications of the law has been taken by some as proof that Glendale should immediately be dropped from consideration.
The only problem with that logic is that similar laws have been proposed in 5 states (Colorado, Georgia, Maryland, Missouri and Texas) that are also part of the World Cup bid. If the immigration law is truly a mark against the US in the bidding process, it is certainly too late to do anything about it at this point, given that the 2018 and 2022 World Cups will be awarded on December 2nd. Jurgen Mainka, spokesman for the US World Cup Bid Committee, has also refused to comment on potential effects of the law, but it seems clear that everyone involved with the bid is nervous. After handing the bid to South Africa in a clear attempt to promote racial unity in football, is FIFA willing to risk handing the tournament to a country enacting laws which many view as a return to Jim Crow-era racism?
However, it’s possible that the USSF is not commenting on the law because they are comfortable with certain consequences, particularly in states such as Arizona. And what would those consequences be? Well, the clear target of the law is illegal immigrants from Mexico, and deporting those individuals would reduce the number of El Tri fans in the US. This is important given the fact that El Tri appear to be more popular in the US than our own USMNT.
Although USSF president Sunil Gulati can successfully argue that we haven’t yet lost a Mexican-American player to our southern rivals, it appears to be only a matter of time. His efforts are even undermined by MLS, whose marketing unit (Soccer United Marketing, Inc.) acts as the official agent for El Tri in the United States. Clearly, the deportation of illegal Mexican immigrants will result in more of a focus on the USMNT among the US population, which can only serve to provide motivation for success on the international stage.
It’s a real dilemma for the USSF, as there are benefits to both courses of action: keep quiet about the law and see El Tri supporters deported, or speak up about the law and improve their chances of landing the World Cup. Considering the track record of USSF officials, they are most likely to wind up doing nothing.
I’ll say this first, the law is a disgrace.
Moving on, do you really believe, NYK, that what you call “benefits” (people getting deported) outweigh the risks (losing out on the World Cup)? Would there really be some mass deportation of Mexican soccer fans that would increase the standing of the USMNT here in the states? There are plenty of legal Mexicans and Mexican-Americans who will still show up in droves to support El Tri far more fervently than the US fans. The poor support for our squad has nothing to do with the amount of supporters for Mexico, it wouldn’t increase our numbers, just decrease theirs.
Speaking purely from a soccer standpoint (but I would argure, in general) there are no actual benefits to be gotten from this law.
@Orr – no, I don’t believe that at all. That part of my post was satire, hence the “Jonathan Swift” tag.
Oh ok, gotcha. I was a bit flabbergasted by your (satirical) argument. I guess I’ll have to actually start paying attention to the tags!
Yes because actually enforcing the laws we have governing our sovereignty is a terrible thing. So terrible in fact that the Mexicans have no trouble doing it themselves-especially if you look like you might have come across their southern border.
The immigration law is definitely something I could see FIFA using to deny the US a WC.
this isn’t racism! i’m sorry, call me a dick if you want, but laws that fight ILLEGAL immigrants aren’t racist laws. yes, our country has had a tumultuous past when it comes to racism, but this isn’t racist, this is trying to protect our country from the millions of illegal immigrants that live in our country and don’t pay taxes, while millions upon millions of poor AMERICAN CITIZENS work s**tty jobs day in and day out for extremely poor pay just so that our government can support our growing population and try to provide a decent living for all of us. i have no problems with immigrants, in fact i love them, our country is built off of immigration. but the fact remains that we are all LEGAL immigrants or are descendants of legal immigrants. i hate when i see people advocating for rights for illegal immigrants. it’s a complete irony to fight for rights when you realize and accept that you have illegally entered this country, and you are and ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT. i’m all for equal rights and i believe that immigrants in our country deserve every single right that Americans get. but if you enter the country illegally, you aren’t a citizen! why should you advocate for rights in a country where you technically don’t exist. s**t, i wouldn’t care if every single Mexican citizen crossed the border and became an American, AS LONG AS THEY DO IT LEGALLY. the fact is is that most illegal immigrants bring drugs, weapons, and a criminal record with them when they illegally cross the border, and that only f**ks our country up more than it already is. i love immigration, it has built our nation into the great place that it is, but i don’t like illegal immigration, one bit, and no one else should either
I won’t make a decision until i hear Roberto Mancini’s thoughts on this!
@Army of Dad – there are ways of maintaining our sovereignty that aren’t patently racist. The immigration law is tantamount to racial profiling in that it allows police officers to stop an individual “on suspicion of being an illegal immigrant”. That language is so vague as to be blatantly unconstitutional – there are no overt symbols other than stereotypical brown skin that would allow someone to suspect that an individual is in the US illegally.
How many white people in Arizona do you think will be stopped under that law?
@Taylor – again, I’m not advocating that we turn a blind eye to illegal immigration. But how many LEGAL immigrants do you think are going to be harassed by the police under this law?
And this:
the fact is is that most illegal immigrants bring drugs, weapons, and a criminal record with them when they illegally cross the border
is a patently untrue generalization
Taylor: the law might not be racist in the way it’s written, but the concept that police will just randomly stop every Hispanic-looking guy certainly could be. Profiling?
@TPRU: Yeah, I was hoping I’d see a “Needs more Roberto Mancini” tag on this post.
@NYK: And as a Gaul, you know something about racist immigration laws, si?
the range of expressions in that picture is great, good find.
we’ve had some, interesting new contributors over the last couple weeks, eh?
I find it funny people continue to perpetuate these lies about illegal immigrants not paying taxes and bringing in drugs and guns. All pretty stupid arguments if you actually take five minutes and think.
By the way, all four of my grandparents entered this country “illegally.” One was escaping mass genocide while the other three were escaping a famine. Please, come deport me.
the fact is is that most illegal immigrants bring drugs, weapons, and a criminal record with them when they illegally cross the border,
Andy Gray thinks this chap knows what he’s talking about.
@EF – SI!?!?! ON PARLE FRANCAIS ICI!
Yes, France has certainly had its own sordid history with immigration difficulties, particularly as it relates to their former colonies. The only saving grace is that we haven’t elected Jean-Marie Le Pen as president yet.
The immigration law is definitely something I could see FIFA using to deny the US a WC.
Huh? Why would/should FIFA concern itself with how a country (actually, a state within a country) handles the administrative particulars of citizenship, etc.?
It’s not like there’s some absolute moral issue in play here. It’s not as if some group of people is being denied some fundamental human “right.” It’s ultimately just one country’s internal argument about how it handles/enforces citizenship issues.
FIFA taking a stand on this would amount to FIFA (and by proxy, the rest of the world) arbitrarily dictating how U.S. immigration policy should work. That would be nuts.
None of the above is a commentary on the actual law. (I’m not a big fan of it, frankly.) I just think a little perspective is in order. If this Arizona development really is something that would faze FIFA, then the world really has gone mad.
I would guess it all boils down to whether you think profiling is an inherent evil.
I also don’t think this law is going to be a determining factor or really even a factor in FIFA’s decision on a WC bid. Many other countries have these types of laws.
@Love The Smell
We know the following things about FIFA:
1. They’re corrupt
2. They ultimately do whatever serves them best
3. They recognize more microstates and nations than the UN
If anything, FIFA will use this as a justification to get faux-outraged while actually awarding the WC to whichever country they’re most buddy-buddy with. So in one light, yes, they’re taking a stand, while in reality it just makes it easier for them to give the tournament to the country they’re trying to make nice with. Like Russia.
@whiz: Yeah, heady times here at UF. It’ll be nice when the WC comes along and everyone’s nationalistic tendencies fade. . . oh.
Also, whiz, I’m thinking about your ethnic make-up based on your grandparents respective plights, and coming up with funny combos: Irish-Armenian? A Jewish Biafran?
On a lighter note: Despite my daily obsessive soccer reading, I apparently have managed to fall out of the loop. What is this “Roberto Mancini’s thoughts” meme I keep seeing everywhere? What’s the deal?
@LovetheSmell: Check out the comments on this fateful post that launched a thousand lulz.
I agree with what Taylor is saying… I dont necessarily agree with the “profiling” part… but something needs to be done to ensure LEGAL immigration takes place… and if this is what will kickstart other things being done to acheive this, then I’m all for it…
Its kind of like if you are a legal immigrant you wouldnt have a problem with showing you were a legal one. The ones that have to worry are the ones that arent. Imagine if they did this in California!!
Its also like the people who argue DUI checkpoints… they are unconstitutional, but if they announce them in the paper its not an illegal search. Maybe this is Arizona’s way of getting around tghe Constitution by saying.. hey.. we are going to check people… and if you are illegal you are going to get caught.
Maybe we can come up with a slogan similar to “over the limit, under arrest”… how about… “here illegally, deported legally”??
@NYK: Mais, j’ai pensé que vous pourriez utiliser “si” pour poser une question par la négative?
Apologies for my mangling.
@JT: Agreed. FIFA has it’s own agenda, and while not patently anti-American, large elements of the FIFA hierarchy would like nothing more than to make the US an example.
James T:
Well, if that’s the argument — “FIFA is known for doing stupid/corrupt stuff, so it’s apt to do this stupid/corrupt thing” — then I could buy it.
But that doesn’t seem to be the case. Rather, the implicit thinking (especially at the NYT link) seems to be: “Well, this certainly seems to qualify as something that SHOULD make FIFA think twice, so officials are rightly getting nervous.”
Anonsters: Ahh, so it’s a poster named Roberto Mancini. Wow, I was getting really confused there. I figured I’d missed some lulzy press conference by the real Mancini or something.
@Love The Smell
If anything, that line of thinking is coming from the journalist’s perspective without perhaps knowing how crooked FIFA is. Christ, they handed a WC to the Argentine junta in 1978, one that wrecked, killed, and vanished thousands of dissenters in a bloody regime! They don’t care about this stuff, though it’s easy for them to make it look like they give a f**k when the world is waiting for their comment.
If officials are getting nervous because they think FIFA should think twice, it’s only human nature. That said, if FIFA wants the USA to have a World Cup, they’ll give them a World Cup. The choices of South Africa and Brazil were noble in one respect but contentious in another due to the overwhelming poverty and difficult infrastructure required to pull it off. Yet, they did it anyway.
Immigration laws or no, they’ll still do whatever they’re going to do. I’d bet this just gives them a scapegoat should they really want to go another route.
wait a sec, passing a law is somehow more harmful to your image than bombing and invading countries…
its nice to know that some people have `morals`.
That too was sarcasm.
@BBH: Depends on whether the countries you bomb and invade were asking for it.
James T: And I’m simply saying that it’s not a valid scapegoat. More to the point, it doesn’t even have the APPEARANCE of a valid scapegoat, which ultimately is all that matters when you’re picking a scapegoat.
It’s like this. Let’s say the whole neighborhood has decided to stop socializing with the Smith family down the street.
– Valid scapegoat: The Smith family drives around town and finds black people to beat up.
– Not a valid scapegoat: The Smith family is having an internal argument about whether the kids’ allowance should be $4 or $5.
One of them holds up as a perfectly justifiable excuse for snubbing the Smiths. The other is just… a family argument that doesn’t affect anybody else.
@Love The Smell
Ah, I get what you’re saying now. Still, I reckon this will mean 3/5th of f**k-all to FIFA in the final analysis. In fact, I’d bet their choice is already made up and they’re just enjoying the politicking from here until December.
James T: On that point, you are probably 100% correct.
@LoveTheSmell: FIFA laughs at the idea that it needs a “valid scapegoat.” Sepp Blatter eats pretexts for breakfast.
[Note that a scapegoat is usually something that takes the blame merely for expediency rather than for justifiable reasons, so the locution "valid scapegoat" is wonky.]
I bet Qatar never has these problems.
@Ryan
Funny you mention them. Who runs the Qatari FA? Mohamed Bin-Hammam, better known as Sepp’s biggest challenger in the last elections. Just you watch Qatar get a World Cup to keep Bin-Hammam from toppling the fat Swiss idiot.
@JT I certainly wouldn’t be shocked to see them get it. Have you seen the video for their proposed stadiums? Some of them look pretty nice.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-z2jtUS9-Y
@Ryan
Definitely… lack of alcohol might be a problem though.
FIFA will still give the US a World Cup-they will need the money after 2010 and 2014 and nothing will fill the coffers like a US hosted World Cup.
FIFA is corrupt, but they love money above all else. A US World Cup will offer them more money than any other host country.
@NYK I do not see how this law is unconstitutional. “Terry stops” are already ok and this is just another version of that practice.
@Army of Dad
True about FIFA and money, though they reported something like 1.2bn in revenue this past year, with close to 800m of that coming straight from the World Cup and the sale of all marketing/TV/miscellaneous rights and contracts, despite it being in South Africa.
Point being, they’ve figured out how to make money off a World Cup regardless of where it’s held in the world, so that wouldn’t necessarily be a mitigating factor in picking the USA (as much as I’d like it to be true so I can attend games).
@ebf — three were Irish, one a French Jew. A LOT of self-loathing in my family
@Army of Dad: Terry stops are permitted based on reasonable suspicion of a person having committed a crime. The question is how do you have a “reasonable suspicion” that a person is here illegally? Is there anything outwardly visible that would cause a person to suspect Person A or Person B was not here legally? I doubt it unless they were stopped for another reason and you asked them whether they had proof of legal residency and they could not provide it.
The funny part would be if they cited the Arizona law and then awarded the WC to such bastions of human rights like Qatar, Russia, or China. It all comes down to money in the end…and the US almost guarantees a bonanza for FIFA.
What’s more, the law as initially passed provided that race or color could not be the sole reason that police asked for papers to confirm immigration status, meaning that the law actually authorized police to use race or color as one of the reasons for asking for papers to confirm immigration status. Which is despicable.
They’ve since amended it, though, to fix that part of it. I think they just deleted “sole,” meaning that the implicit authorization is now a prohibition.
Not that that redeems the law or anything. It’s still a repugnant clusterf**k.
The argument that illegals don’t pay taxes but get benifits are silly. The majority of immigrants are employed illegally by people who pretend they are legal, ie, they pay payroll taxes. If companies and factories didn’t pay payroll taxes thinks would look very fishy. They also pay a sales tax on everything, same as you. And as far as sport not meddling, anyone remember apartheid and what the sporting world did to SA? They were uniformly banned. The law is wrong because it encourages racial profiling. How do you tell if someone is illegal? They’re brown and speak Spanish? Last time I checked, niether of those things are illegal. Who knows how many Swedes are sneaking into the country but no one will be harassing them. So, just because thees a problem (illegal immigration) it does not mean that all tactics are right in dealing with them (like racial profiling). It’s not even an issue if you think about it.
@Arkie: Would you have a problem if the law permitted them to ask any person whether they have the proper immigration papers?
@TFA- As I understand it, the amended law allows officers to question a person’s immigration status if they already had cause to contact that person. I fail to see a significant difference between that and asking someone for proof of insurance after they are stopped for speeding.
@Army of Dad-
amended law breakdown:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/may/04/jan-brewer/arizona-immigration-law-rewrite-lays-rest-worries-/
Having lived in Arizona, the law is just bizarre. The ONLY good thing that might come out of this is the feds finally dealing with immigration. Both sides are stupid in this. The law is heinous, but it sure would be nice if the immigration lobby would admit that these migrants have broken the law instead of constantly claiming a right to be here just because they’re here.
As for FIFA, money talks. If FIFA denies the US the WC due to this, it’s bull****. But, hey, it’s FIFA, they’ll probably deny us just because we don’t love the game enough.
I don’t see a problem here. There’s every chance we use this law to deport Cristiano Ronaldo when he comes to Arizona for the World Cup. Everybody wins.
I can’t wait until the law is used to deport the president.
/Birther’d
@Ryan
After watching that video, I’m on the Qatari bandwagon. US 2018, Qatar 2022.
I would love to see fans from the Netherlands, England, Brazil, etc. get rowdy there. How many arrests if the WC goes to the Middle East? I’m saying it is in the low thousands.
[...] The politics of the US & Mexico. (Unprofessional Foul) [...]
[...] The politics of the US & Mexico. (Unprofessional Foul) [...]
[...] The politics of the US & Mexico. (Unprofessional Foul) [...]
[...] The politics of the US & Mexico. (Unprofessional Foul) [...]