By: Another Illegal Immigrant?

Another Illegal Immigrant? — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 18:16:16 +0000

Besides checking to see where most of the players are from, the City should do a survey on how many of them are in the country illegally.

It is a known fact that the illegal aliens is the group of people who use soccer fields the most.

In Redwood City, every soccer field is over ran with illegal aliens. Our Parks & Rec Dept. spends millions of dollars a year to build and maitain soccer fields that are used almost exsclusivly by illegal aliens. The even installed artificial turf at the cost of over a millionb dollars so these illegals wouldn’t have to play on muddy fields. (and so they would not
have to use water credits watering the field)

I would make an ordinance or policy that stated that since there is such a controversy as to the use of the fields, all players would need a “soccer field pass”, which would be issued for for 5-10 bucks a year to cover the administrative costs, and to get such a card you would need to prove where you lived, and if you were in the country legally.

now all of you liberal no-border do-gooders can scream racist..or nazi… I dont care.. our country cannot handle the load of illegalls that are coming in and over-taxing our valuable recources… soccer fields included.

By: Michael Lindeburg

Michael Lindeburg — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 07:22:41 +0000

“Loving soccer in San Carlos, but not each other” is well-written and accurate, but I have two comments. First, it’s important to note that SAYSO seeks field space in San Carlos only for the number of San Carlos residents it has registered. If, for example, SAYSO has 50 San Carlos residents, and 50 SAYSO registrants use San Carlos fields, that would represent a residency percentage of 100%. Reporting that SAYSO’s residency is 20% implies that SAYSO wants to use San Carlos fields for 100% of its members, which is not true. SAYSO’s San Mateo residents practice and play in San Mateo, and SAYSO’s Belmont residents practice and play in Belmont, and so on.

All SAYSO’s lawsuit seeks is to allow San Carlos children to practice and play in their own city.

Second, it is not surprising that CYSA would not assist San Carlos United in addressing the subpoena, because San Carlos United is not affiliated with CYSA. San Carlos United is a private commercial organization, as is nonprofit SAYSO and every other soccer club on the peninsula – all 15 or so of them. When the City of San Carlos gives fields to San Carlos United but not to SAYSO, it is equivalent to the city giving favorable treatment to Safeway but not Foodville, or to Shell but not Union 76, or to Pizza Hut but not Round Table. Since San Carlos United appealed to CYSA, apparently, San Carlos United really believes that it is part of CYSA, an impression that the City of San Carlos is just now beginning to understand as being inaccurate, after referring to San Carlos United as “CYSA” for decades.

The City allows some San Carlos children to use the fields for soccer, but not others, and that’s about as blatant an ‘unequal protection under the law’ as it comes.

Comments on: Loving soccer in San Carlos, but not each other

By: Another Illegal Immigrant?

By: Michael Lindeburg