Tacoma City Council Meeting for May 25th, 2010
Two very different issues inspired high attendance at last night’s city council meeting.
(It ended at precisely 9:23 p.m., by the way – so who’s taking me to the movies?)
The Tacoma City Council passed tonight a polarizing resolution condemning the recent Arizona immigration bill, in addition to holding a public hearing on five amendments to the city’s comprehensive plan.
The Arizona issue was brought back this week after the council failed to get the five “aye” votes necessary to pass the bill last week. Tonight it passed with five “aye” votes, three “nays” from Councilmen Joe Lonergan, Spiro Manthou and Marty Campbell, and one abstention from Councilman David Boe.
A man in the audience stood up and turned his back to the council while Lonergan spoke. He sat back down until Campbell explained his no vote. Campbell asked the audience to consider what could have been accomplished had all of this energy been focused on Tacoma.
“This IS Tacoma,” the man shouted as he stood up and strode toward the exit.
The council and attendees heard a number of public comments while people waiting to speak thumbed through copies of the U.S. Constitution and scribbled notes for their own three minutes.
But first, the council held the public hearing on amendments to the city’s comprehensive plan.
The five amendments proposed would:
- Change the South Tacoma Way mixed-used center.
- Add an Urban Forestry element to the comprehensive plan that recognizes the importance of trees and other vegetation.
- Create a Mobility Master Plan, or MoMaP, identifying a connected pedestrian and bicycle system.
- Make clarifications and refinements to the plan and city code.
- Create policy supportive of expanded electric vehicle use.
Do you want to read it? “The amendments are on the last page of this agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING
Andrew Austin with the Transportation Choices Commission said the Mobility Master Plan is a great step forward for sustainability and toward making the streets safer for pedestrians and bicyclists.
Krystal Kyer of the Tacoma Audubon Society, spoke in favor of MoMaP and the urban forestry policy. She suggested including an invasive species policy to the plan.
Robert “The Traveller Hill” said something about vegetation and the future legalization of cannabis, coca and poppy plants. When directed to stay on topic, he told Mayor Strickland she was out of order for declaring him out of order. He suggested Segway Scooters in a variety of colors as another transportation option, and offered destroying the Tacoma Dome to replace it with residential zoning.
Christopher James spoke in favor of the amendments and encouraged the city to expedite the implementation schedule.
Timothy Smith said he is in support of rezoning and height guidelines in South Tacoma, but doesn’t want to lose the historic single-family dwellings.
Carla Gramlich, President of the Tacoma Wheelmen Bicycle Club said the city needs to look at funding or the plan will go nowhere.
Eighteen additional people spoke in support of the amendments, MoMaP and the urban forestry policy in particular.
Ruth Doyle spoke as a representative of the housing industry and said she is concerned that this could be used to oppose new development.
She added that she would support the urban forestry policy if it didn’t require economic development.
Now back to our regular agenda:
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Resolution 38035
Tacoma resident Beverly Ibsen voiced her support for what she termed “The Anti-Racial Profiling Bill.” She said its supporters are united in love, while it’s detractors are united in hate.
Gig Harbor resident Connie Brown described her upbringing in a small copper-mining town. She said where she comes from, “silence means agreement.”
Tom McCarthy, who spoke last week as well, told the council that what we do here does matter in Arizona because it impacts the nation’s climate of opinion.
Attorney Laura Herrmann said the Arizona is one of the most outrageous laws regarding civil rights that she has seen in the past decade. She asked the council to consider adding the language of boycott again.
Marilyn Kimmerling said she understands removing the boycott language, but asked the council to consider adding language pledging not to enter into any new financial arrangements with Arizona businesses.
Christian Lopez said he is worried about the children of Arizona with the potential to have their families torn apart.
Eighteen additional speakers spoke in favor of the resolution, several of whom reiterated statements they had made during last week’s meeting.
Tacoma-resident Bea Christophersen, said she will boycott Tacoma if this resolution is passed by shopping out of town, switching her cable service and hosting her next family reunion in Arizona.
John Peschen, a self-described “snowbird,” said he has seen the “situation” in Arizona deteriorate over the past 10 years and believes the Arizona bill was enacted out of desperation.
Steve Apling read out his own resolution to the council, asking that the council demand that the federal government do something to stop illegal immigration. He also asked that comments be weighed equally, whether they are delivered in person, by e-mail or over the phone.
Lakewood resident Dennis Haugen spoke against the resolution out of fears of sending the wrong message to the drug cartels and other criminals, but emphasized “I want it understood that I love Latinos.”
Glen “Thunder” Hurlburt told the council they have opened a “slimy can of worms” and sang some Steve Miller Band.
Two other speakers also spoke against the resolution.
Ordinance 27887
Robert “The Traveler” Hill described the ordinance as a “wasteful and boondoggle proposal,” that should go all the way back to the public utility board for consideration.
Tacoma resident Alton McDonald said he is concerned about the cost of the process.
In other business:
RESOLUTIONS
Purchase Resolution No. 38037 awarded a contract to Integra Telecom of Washington, Inc., in the amount of $194,319, plus sales tax, for a cumulative total of $608,605, budgeted from the Communications Systems Fund, to increase and extend the contract for local and long distance telecommunications services through June 12, 2011.
Resolution No. 38038 authorized the execution of a Letter of Agreement with the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, Local 17, which covers approximately 296 budgeted, full-time positions, and provides in part for wage increases to reflect the 70th percentile of the market, and a lump sum payment for employees receiving additional pay for specialized certifications which will be eliminated, retroactive to January 4, 2010.
FINAL READING OF ORDINANCES
Ordinance No. 27887 approves the Public Utility Board’s selection of the filtration alternative for treatment of the Green River water supply and committing to the inclusion of the costs of filtration in Tacoma Water’s budgets and rates.
FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES
Ordinance No. 27888 amending Chapter 1.12 of the Municipal Code, relating to the Compensation Plan, to implement rates of pay and compensation for employees represented by the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, Local 17, which covers approximately 296 budgeted, full-time positions. Set for final reading June 8, 2010
Ordinance No. 27889 providing for the issuance and sale of the City’s Electric System Revenue Bonds, Series 2010, in the aggregate principal amount not to exceed $240,000,000 to finance capital improvements and to allow for the option of refunding or defeasing a portion of the City’s Electric System Revenue and Refunding Bonds, 2001 Series A; and amending, supplementing and restating Ordinance No. 23514.
That’s it.
Filed under: City-Council, City-Council
45 comments
R RR Anderson May 26, 2010
so happy there was heckling of Marty Campbell last night. It was like a real democracy! Just sad Marty did not engage the heckler.. . Obama would have.
H Heidi May 26, 2010
Gotta say, even watching from home (with my leg elevated from knee surgery) I was compelled to walk out during Marty’s condescending lecture, too.
T Tacoma Joe May 26, 2010
Tacoma mystery: who was the faceless heckler? We need more than one camera view at these meetings; there should always be a wide shot of the council (so those of us at home can see what Weyland reported) and of the audience. Now we’ve gone and created a new city council all-star, “the Masked Heckler”.
T Tacoma Joe May 26, 2010
Campbell didn’t engage the audience because he looked like a surprised playground bully who finally realizes no one thinks he’s cool. It’s true, Marty, we don’t. Thanks to Mayor Marilyn who got in the “last word” of disdain for us.
I was told that a number of people turned their backs on slack-lip Joe as he read what his father wrote for him.
R RR Anderson May 26, 2010
I like that we have no votes. Made the whole thing dramatic. unanimous voting blocks are boring.
H Heidi May 26, 2010
Hmmm… I’d have preferred our council to be unanimous regarding civil liberties. Let them battle it out over budgets and parking lots (really, please no more dull unanimous votes on those issues), but it’s not asking too much for a council in 2010 to be united on anti-discrimination.
M Mofo from the Hood May 26, 2010
Did anyone get the name of the Mexican drug cartel that financed this meeting?
H Heidi May 26, 2010
You know, Boe got his wish for an extra week and the chance to include language regarding the detention center and to make the entire wording of the resolution more about what Tacoma stands for… so why didn’t you make that happen, Boe? Instead, after a full week, you just repeated pretty much what you said last week and rolled under the shell again. Too bad.
M Mofo from the Hood May 26, 2010
Can we all just relax now and concentrate on building more community gardens?
Vision 2020 people.
We’ve got to prepare for a wave of immigrants.
D DavidS May 26, 2010
Good to see some real live debate. Civil liberties should not be controversial. How to reform our broken immigration system is. Too bad our federal government seems unwilling to have this conversation.
In the meantime, an AZ legislator is considering putting forward new legislation challenging the 14th amendment by suggesting birth does not grant citizenship. Good thing they’ve got the Supreme Court (of 1857) on their side.
Back in the City Council meeting there were a number of references to polling on the anti-AZ resolution. Does anyone know of a poll about this revised (non-boycott) resolution?
T tom waits May 26, 2010
The amount of debate in this resolution clearly tells me that it was not a waste of time. Nothing this interesting has come before this council before. Talk about reaching out to your constituents!
The slippery slope argument is invalid and a spineless excuse for not considering tough issues. There is no proposed resolution condemning North Korea – if a councilperson decides to bring one forward, then Council can cross that bridge.
Many of those who testified in favor of the resolution expressed concern about the effect AZ’s laws on them and their families. Many of those opposed talked more abstractly about whether it was 1) relevant to Tacoma, and 2) appropriate to comment on another state’s legislation.
There was discussion about the weight that should be given to email and written comments versus those given in person. Sorry folks, I have to say that the people who come in person put forth considerably more effort than hitting “send.” Especially those who have kids and are getting off work, and those who don’t speak English well or at all.
I would have asked Council to consider those who aren’t speaking up because of language barriers or fear. White guys sitting in a La-Z-Boy with a Bud Light and laptop computer bitching about government don’t have a clue what cultural barriers mean and what the resulting personal anxiety is like.
It is interesting to note that phone calls, email and written comments were overwhelmingly opposed while those given in person were the opposite. Does it mean that those in favor care more about their position than those opposed?
Bringing this resolution forward showed true leadership from certain councilmembers. Whether or not it passed is less interesting than what we learned about our council over the past two weeks. Also, what we’ve learned about Tacoma’s residents.
The suggestion that the community’s time would have been better spent doing something like “mentoring kids” was odd, and perhaps this was not the intent, but it basically told me that Mr. Campbell felt all the heartfelt testimony and thought was a big old waste of time. As he continued down that line of thought, it progressed from insulting to inane and weird.
Mr. Lonergan articulated his point surprisingly well, I thought, even if he’s wrong. David Boe did not, and from someone who generally is very opinionated and thoughtful, this was a disappointment.
Mayor Strickland and Mr. Mello really brought their A game last night.
M Mofo from the Hood May 26, 2010
Live Entertainment Is Best!
F Florence May 26, 2010
“…Mr. Campbell felt all the heartfelt testimony and thought was a big old waste of time. As he continued down that line of thought, it progressed from insulting to inane and weird.” ~ Tom Waits.
My perception, too, Tom.
Erik B. and Mofo, do us all a favor and instead of boring us with your self-imagined wit, please get together with Marty and the three of you can enjoy the sound of your Neanderthal thoughts for as many hours as it gets you off. Seriously, I’m doing you a solid by clueing you in to how moronic you’re coming across.
R RR Anderson May 26, 2010
Mayor Strickland was fired up. I love seeing that. I am very happy she is Mayor.
J Jenyum May 26, 2010
Yes, Councilmember Campbell, we can mentor kids and feel disappointed in you at the same time. I agree, that was a weird comment, particularly given the heartfelt testimony last week by several proponents of the resolution who mentor local children from immigrant families.
Councilmember Boe also did not impress me last night. Explaining that you’re abstaining because you don’t think it’s important does not endear you to those who clearly think it is important enough to sit through two 4 hour meetings, in order to articulate why this impacts their community directly. Disagreeing with them is one thing, but respect the issue enough to vote no.
M Mofo from the Hood May 26, 2010
Florence @14, thanks for your entertaining comments.
W Weyland Duir May 27, 2010
I think I’m the lucky winner for the Grand Cinema passes.
I’m generally disappointed with our Council as a whole after last night’s performance. Mello and Campbell were engaged in sidebar conversations through the greater part of the Comp Plan public comment period. Walker was giving little background dramatic performances when she didn’t like things people said. Her remarks sounded more like a beauty pagent contestant than anything. Strickland didn’t even try and hide her biases. Fey looked like he was dozing. It’s a sad day indeed when I see Manthou as the most reasoned and professional-seeming Councilmember. The whole thing was more posturing and posing than it was a serious attempt to conduct City business. Worse yet, their demeanor has finally forced me to seriously consider running for a Council seat myself. That is desperate!
T Tacoma Joe May 27, 2010
Weyland, can we hope you’re in Campbell’s district? Or, here’s an at-large position which might not be much of a contest, either…
From TacomaMama’s twitter: “Boe: will be abstaining again, ‘if you take that as a no, it’s a no.’ (Well, man, not inspiring me to vote for you.)”
T Tacoma Joe May 27, 2010
In review of last night’s comments and council “sum ups”, again, nothing was more infuriating than Marty’s slimy pre-prepared speech.
He says “unfairness and injustice happen every day in Tacoma” yet he wouldn’t sign an anti-discrimination resolution because “if we sign one and not another isn’t that condoning the ones we don’t support?”. Well by that logic, your nay vote is condoning discrimination, idiot. You’ll never support anything then since it’s impossible to support everything… yet voting against it helps how?
According to him, 1885 wasn’t the first time discrimination came to Tacoma; he gives that honor to European explorers (as if that softens the Chinese expulsion?) – - and doesn’t see this only reinforces why we should take every opportunity to strengthen our resolve against discrimination.
Then he has the nerve to suggest this was all a waste of time and that we should instead “get out into our communities” – - he dared say that to a group of the most tireless, passionate, active community leaders in the city. What an amazingly ignorant insult. And really, who believes Marty ever spends any of his spare time doing anything more than watching videos?
The irony is that last week he talked about all the mean-spirited out-of-town haters who threatened his re-election if he didn’t vote no. So what does he do? Turns his back on the huge Latino population actually in his district and sides with the out-of-town haters. Sad that he’ll only see how wrong he was (for the wrong reason) when he’s up for re-election. Thank goodness he’ll only be a one-term councilman so we won’t have to see his smirking face any longer than we have to.
F Florence May 27, 2010
Mofo, I’ve read the Arizona Law. As FOX News instructs you to say, sure, a part of it refers to Federal Law, but not all of it does.
I know what they say it “intends”, but our Bill of Rights is for “all people” (not just citizens) and our Pledge of Allegiance says liberty and justice “for all”.
What this law may not intend, but what will happen, is that even citizens will be singled out based upon how they look. Law enforcement officers are to question anyone who doesn’t look like they’re here legally. How can you tell that by looking at someone? Between a group of white tourists and a group of dark-skinned tourists, who do you think the officers will question (because according to this law, they must question anyone “suspicious”-looking even if there’s no other evidence of any crime, or the officers will be charged with a crime! so you know this law will be over-enforced). That’s where the fear of discrimination comes in.
Yes, I wish our resolution left Arizona out and only focussed on saying we will never allow the possibility of such discrimination in our city, but it’s still a powerfully important statement worth supporting. Have YOU read our resolution?
Besides the Arizona Law, I’ve read a number of your posts on this and various other websites, and have been concerned that you and Erik B. have made some obviously sexists comments which no one calls you out on. Closet chauvinists are thrilled to have this unfair law to promote. Anyone promoting this law needs to examine their own ugly underlying issues.
M Mofo from the Hood May 27, 2010
(because according to this law, they [officers] must question anyone “suspicious”-looking even if there’s no other evidence of any crime, or the officers will be charged with a crime! so you know this law will be over-enforced).—-Florence @23
Florence, is that true? Please indicate the place in the Arizona law where that wording exists.
There is no wording in the Arizona law that specifies any one race or nationality.
If an immigrant from Sweden is driving a Volvo with a broken tail light, a police officer may stop the car. Then the officer may ask the driver for his driver’s license.
Either the immigrant Swede has official identification and is driving legally or he is not.
Whether the Swede is a U.S. citizen or an illegal immigrant, the police officer made a legitimate stop and the Swede must account for his actions.
Question: Given that typical everyday example, how does one make the Tacoma City Council style emotional leap to proclaim racial profiling?
A Altered Chords May 27, 2010
I am all for hard working people from Mexico coming to the U.S. to find a better life.
If it is not possible for them to do so then our immigration laws need to change on a national level.
I am very concerned about the raging war between the Mexican government and the Mexican drug cartels.
I do not want mexican drug cartels or Mexican gangs in America, in Washington, In Tacoma or in my neighborhood.
Whatever re-vamping we accomplish to the immigration laws needs to keep criminals out of the US, out of Washington, out of Tacoma and out of my neighborhood.
The list includes criminals of european, asian, african, central American and south american and canadian places of origin and heritage.
Writers like Florence perhaps are not aware of underlying sentiments that do not include racism.
By the way. I heard that an apple farm in Washington state dismissed a large group of illegal Mexican immigrants and hired a group of documented Jamaicans. If this sort of thing started happening in Arizona would it be OK to profile then?
T Tacoma Joe May 27, 2010
Mofo, you’ve supported Florence’s, point. The Arizona law isn’t about being reasonably suspicious AFTER an officer “pulls somebody over for something”. The Arizona law allows an officer to pull the person over for no other reason than appearance.
See? The car doesn’t have to have a taillight out for the officer to pull them over. So between a car with Swedish tourists and a car with dark-skinned tourists, who do you think the cop is more likely to question?
Do you see, now? That is racial profiling. That is discriminatory. That is unacceptable.
Altered Chords, you’re right that there are many things to be addressed here (unsecured borders, better migrant worker status, better paths to citizenship, the difficulty of welcoming sincere workers or those fleeing the cartel as opposed to bringing in criminal element). Whether Florence understands this or not doesn’t changed the fact that Arizona’s response also doesn’t fix any of these issues; instead its law only compounds the problem by allowing for possible discrimination.
No one is saying the situation is good, but this law only makes it worse.
Anyway, let’s not belabor it anymore… Mofo, you support the Arizona Law. We’ve got that.
R RR Anderson May 27, 2010
Worried about the Drug wars? Maybe we should stop selling the drug lords assault rifles [and] Maybe we should stop buying their drugs.
M Mofo from the Hood May 27, 2010
Many times in the past I’ve been asked to provide official identification in the form of a driver’s license, social security card, or passport.
Not once did I ever think to myself that I was a TARGET & VICTIM of racial profiling or any sort of civil rights discrimination.
Thanks Tacoma City Council and Florence and Tacoma Joe for pointing out the error in my thinking.
S Slim Jim May 27, 2010
Really, Mofo. You’ll be minding your own business sitting at a cafe or bus stop or in your car or even in your own home, and you’ve been approached by a cop who demands to see your ID. No explanation required. And you don’t ask why, and it never occurs to you to ask why. And if you don’t happen to have proof that you’re a US citizen on you (which a driver’s license does not do) you’re fine with being detained indefinitely?
God, that’s great. You should move to Arizona. But the rest of us don’t expect others should have to endure that.
R RR Anderson May 27, 2010
Mofo does not believe in evolution, Women’s suffrage or human-powered climate change. I don’t know how anyone can expect to sway him with argument. The only way to win is not to play.
M Mofo from the Hood May 27, 2010
Arizona SB1070
ARTICLE 8.
ENFORCEMENT OF IMMIGRATION LAWS
STATUTE11-1051. Cooperation and assistance in enforcement of immigration laws; indemnification
B. For any lawful stop,…in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state…
A person is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency any of the following:
1. A valid Arizona driver license.
2. A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license.
3. A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.
4. If the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance, any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification.
A Altered Chords May 27, 2010
@RR – maybe we should stop buying their drugs and selling assault rifles.
Agreed. If there were no customers for illegal drugs, there’d be no need for drug cartels.
If they were all legal like oil or tabacco is, then we could could have Phillip Morris package and sell crack for us and tell us how great it is at the same time and they wouldn’t need assault rifles to do their jobs.
For the record though, I do not buy drugs from or sell assault weapons to Mexico and I did not think you buy drugs from or sell assault rifles to Mexico. Apparently there is a side to you that I do not know very well.
A Altered Chords May 27, 2010
Mofo: Thank you for presenting the fact that slim jim seems to have gotten wrong.
M Mofo from the Hood May 27, 2010
Mr. Anderson @30: I’ve never said that all women should be denied the right to vote.
A Altered Chords May 27, 2010
It seems to me that those who wanted our council to pass this resolution feel compelled to announce loudly and often “I am not a racist”
Where does the guilt come from that cries out for absolution on a public level?
Am I just too new to Tacoma? Was racism running rampant here before my time?
T Tim Smith May 27, 2010
@Mofo
There is more to the law than just a “lawful stop”. There is also the important words which you … out:
“lawful stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement official” to determine a person’s immigration status if there is reasonable suspicion that the person is an illegal alien.
An officer of the law can “detain” someone on the street, while at the mall, at any public place. Failure to provide any of the documents you state (which they may have someplace else) mandates an arrest ( a crime of misdemeanor trespassing) and detention until the status is verified. If you know anything about immigration law, the arrest alone (no conviction) can be grounds for removal. This creates a new state crime of “trespassing by illegal aliens,” which is NOT a federal crime.
T Tacoma Joe May 27, 2010
Oh, my good God. RR was right, we should just give it up, but (thank you, Tim Smith) I’ll make another attempt.
Altered Chords, lord are you easily suggestible. The bit Mofo posted is ONE TINY bit he selected to support a weak point (similar to crazy Christians who select one or two misrepresneted mistranslated quotes from the Bible to support their homophobia) and by the way I was the one who countered his claim regarding a legitimate issue to pull someone over for, not Slim Jim.
Read the whole bill (which was not at the link Mofo posted). I’m posting this part in caps only because the bill is written that way:
…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.
…A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.
Meaning: since being in public without proper documents is considered an offense in Arizona, a cop’s suspicion that someone might not be a citizen and might not be carrying documents is reason enough (supported by this bill) for the cop to stop, question and detain the person(s) on that alone. You know this will only happen to dark-skinned people.
M Mofo from the Hood May 28, 2010
Tim Smith @36: Trespassing is an unlawful intrusion upon the land of another. Illegal immigrants by definition are trespassing. If an illegal immigrant is identified as such and then deported, then law enforcement officers are serving and protecting the civil rights of legal citizens.
Whether or not a law enforcement officer identifies an illegal immigrant, that immigrant is unlawfully trespassing. Why are you pointing out the distinction between a state law which supports a federal law?
Tacoma Joe @37: Again, why are you denigrating law enforcement officers and defending lawbreakers?
I inacomaintacoma May 28, 2010
ah cities, the bane of civilizations. add social stratification to the mix and your sitting on a fking moutain of mdma intoxicated bonobos fking a big bag of subsistence modes.
lets introduce an amendment to completely remove all factories, docks and useless supply stores from the port. dig up and remove all the cement and rock until glorious mud lay bare and then sprinkle the area with delicious baby oysters. i am assuming there will be a tide. No the oyster may taste funny for a few generations of tacomphiles, but we’ll just eat those suckers by choice!
back to you mofo from the hood
T Tim Smith May 28, 2010
@Mofo Because you and so many other keep parroting that how all this does is mirror federal law. It does not. Maybe read some federal immigration code. Go to the detention center and observe some removal hearings (keep your gun at home). Watch the process.
T Tacoma Joe May 28, 2010
Mofo, you keep missing the point. Cops won’t just be stopping immigrants… they will be stopping anyone they think looks like their idea of an immigrant. That means US citizens, legal tourists, legal workers, yes, perhaps some immigrants without documents.
If those legal people don’t have proof of documents on them at all time (how many US citizens do you know who carry an original birth certificate or passport on them at all times?) they will be arrested, detained and in the process of being deported until they can produce it.
Look, you support this law. Good for you. We get it. But stop insulting us by trying to say the law is something other than what it is.
M Mofo from the Hood May 28, 2010
Tacoma Joe, how do you feel about screening at airports?
Do the world a service and stop redefining lawbreakers as victims.
A Argh Argh Anderson May 28, 2010
really it’s like arguing with a toaster oven. What is the point? Don’t give him the satisfaction sitting there in front of the library computer.. it’s indecent. Think of the children!
A Argh Argh Anderson May 28, 2010
Imagine how much you could have accomplished if you devoted your arguments to Tacoma… OR better still to spend your time mentoring children!!!!!
T Tacoma Joe May 28, 2010
Thanks, “Argh Argh”. No matter how many times and ways we disprove his statements, he comes back with the same statement… or actually supports the other side’s point without knowing it.
For example, everyone must submit to airport screening but the Arizona law will only be applied at the whim of individual officers’ idea of what an immigrant looks like in their mind.
If only Marty had been able to mentor him as a child… or maybe this was one that Marty did mentor…
H Heidi May 28, 2010
Let’s end this with a bit of humor from TacomaMamma’s council meeting Twitter:
“Councilmember Mello: (many things said already. Mr. Mello I say this with love: my kids need to go to bed now.) – later post – …I read all of Hello Kitty’s Princess Party, and Councilmember Mello just said ‘the final point is…’ “
M Mofo from the Hood May 28, 2010
Tacoma Joe, at the point where you grasp the distinction between subjective and objective decision making, then you will begin to understand your blindspot.
A Altered Chords May 28, 2010
Tacoma Joe – I see your point about printing the reference material in it’s entirety. Especially a Christian homophobe. They should recite the bible in its entirety any time they reference its contents.
Please print the entire federal immigration law here so we can all get our arms around it.