Immigrants break into rental house and camp out and police do nothing.

[Perchoutofwater]

Perch . . . ahve you READ the new law? cause I have.

 

Illegal immigrants can get fines between 1000 and 5000 bucks a day. people that "impede the flow of traffic" to pick up immigrants can get fines as well.

 

Businesses get PROBATION for knowingly or unknowlingly employing illegal immigrants, and a suspension of licenses specific to the job site that had an illegal working until the business fires the illegal immigrant and files an affidavit that they were fired. Oooooh!! Way to be tough on the CAUSE of why the illegal immigrants are here! Way to be tough Arizona!! there are also lengthy sections protecting businesses against "entrapment" and listing the rights available to businesses that hire illegals. Gotta protect those businesses! So basically all you have to do is say "I am sorry, I have fired those illegals and wont do it again" and you get a free pass. However, if you meet a 2 page list AND the sheriff decides to pursue the action, you can also get a fine after an official complaint form is files, it is investigated by the attorney general, and all extenuating circumstances are considered, including "good faith" by the business and "the degree of harm from the violation".

 

Some good parts are requiring all employers to verify legal status by using the federal everify program and keep records for at least 3 years if they want economic grants or business from the state and federal gubmnet businesses in Arizona. This excepts taxes, and specifically referrs to grants or subsidies.

 

They also threw in some crap in this bill saying that the state of Arizona can impound any vehicle if your license is suspended or revoked and you are driving (not sure how this applies to immigration). So basically you can now be pulled over even if you are obeying every traffic law so cops can "verify" your immigration status, and seize your vehicle if your license is suspended. I could be wronmg, but doesnt this blur the definition of "search and seizure"??

 

All these fines on desitute illegal immigrants funds the "gang and Immigration Intellegence fund" which . . . cracks down on illegal immigrants. Self-fulfilling prophecy. Its funding is dependent on continually finding and fining illegals.

 

If illegals are caught, they are turned over to ICE, after paying their fines of course . . . Isnt this done NOW? So states dont turn illegals over to federal agents when they are caught or in the commission of a crime??

 

This could have been much, much better if it attacked the cause of why they are here in a more systematic way. I do not like forfeiting more civil liberties to the police than have already been done, and I am surprised that West Virginia hasnt weighed in here yet. It is a step in the right direction, but poorly done. If I was New Mexico/Texas/California, I would take this as a template on how to draft a law that will actually address the cause of them coming here (JOBS) in a more concrete fashion.

 

Perch . . . you dont think that empowering the cops to stop anyone, anytime, and require them to show "immigration papers" isnt the antithesis of America? You REALLY dont have a problem with empowering the cops with limitless power to investigate anyone?

 

You know we wouldn't even be having this discussion if the federal government did what it was supposed to do. BTW, I'm still all for fining the crap out of any business that knowingly hires illegals, or that does not attempt to determine the status of their employees. I do not have a problem with the cops seizing vehicles if the driver does not have a license. I do not have a problem with fining or seizing assets of illegals, as making the land as inhospitable to illegals as possible will have the same effect as not having jobs.

[bpwallace49]

You know we wouldn't even be having this discussion if the federal government did what it was supposed to do. BTW, I'm still all for fining the crap out of any business that knowingly hires illegals, or that does not attempt to determine the status of their employees. I do not have a problem with the cops seizing vehicles if the driver does not have a license. I do not have a problem with fining or seizing assets of illegals, as making the land as inhospitable to illegals as possible will have the same effect as not having jobs.

 

Perch the problem with the car seizure rule is that you can be pulled over for absolutely no reason. Just on "suspicion" of being an illegal immigrant, which is very open ended and almost destined for abuse. It also insulates cops from any litigation for their selective traffic stops. Perch I live outside of Chicago, where we hear of police beatings and officers acting outside the alw ALL THE TIME. Forgive me if that doesnt raise a warm feeling of trust in officers when they are granted carte blanche for traffic stops.

 

I just wish this did more to fine the crap out of businesses rather than protect them. It does however, fine the crap out of lettuce-picking migrant workers who dont make what THEIR fine is in two months. Arizona took what could have been a great idea, and pissed it away.

 

The unintended consequence of this is (maybe) increased traffic in illegal immigrants in California, New Mexico and texas if they dont follow suit with their own laws ASAP.

 

I am all for ending the war in Iraq, redeploying our troops on the border and using stimulus funds to build a big ass wall from cali to texas. I am also willing to put up with having to pay 7 bucks for a head of lettuce if it means less strain on free social services and reduced taxes.

[driveby]

Ignorance is bliss is your defense driveby? I am really not surprised.

 

Perch the threshold to get a drivers license /state ID is a great idea, and SHOULD have been included. Eliminates profiling in most cases.

I wish you showed as much concern about details when the health care law was passed.

 

I'm going to let perch take over here because he seems to have the ability and willingness to answer the same questions you keep asking over and over.

 

But I'm going to give you this to sum up: The Federal Government isn't doing what it's supposed to do so Arizona is trying, and I applaud them for that.

[bpwallace49]

I wish you showed as much concern about details when the health care law was passed.

 

I'm going to let perch take over here because he seems to have the ability and willingness to answer the same questions you keep asking over and over.

 

But I'm going to give you this to sum up: The Federal Government isn't doing what it's supposed to do so Arizona is trying, and I applaud them for that.

 

You may want to redread the health care stuff then. I repeatedly posted I was not happy with the current bill. It was good that someone had the balls to bring it up, but JUST LIKE THIS BILL was poorly executed and signed into law. That tends to happen when politicans get in pissing contests versus actually doing work.

 

You really should read some of these bills . . before they are edited for Fox.

[driveby]

You really should read some of these bills . . before they are edited for Fox.

Usual gratuitous swipe aside, the people who wrote and voted for these bills don't know what's in them or what the consequenses are going to be in the real world, so why try to pick nits at this point?

 

And without plowing through pages and pages of mumbo jumbo, I've read enough to know that the Arizona Immigration bill on balance is a good thing, and the health care bill isn't.

[SEC=UGA]

Perch the problem with the car seizure rule is that you can be pulled over for absolutely no reason. Just on "suspicion" of being an illegal immigrant, which is very open ended and almost destined for abuse. It also insulates cops from any litigation for their selective traffic stops. Perch I live outside of Chicago, where we hear of police beatings and officers acting outside the alw ALL THE TIME. Forgive me if that doesnt raise a warm feeling of trust in officers when they are granted carte blanche for traffic stops.

 

I just wish this did more to fine the crap out of businesses rather than protect them. It does however, fine the crap out of lettuce-picking migrant workers who dont make what THEIR fine is in two months. Arizona took what could have been a great idea, and pissed it away.

 

The unintended consequence of this is (maybe) increased traffic in illegal immigrants in California, New Mexico and texas if they dont follow suit with their own laws ASAP.

 

I am all for ending the war in Iraq, redeploying our troops on the border and using stimulus funds to build a big ass wall from cali to texas. I am also willing to put up with having to pay 7 bucks for a head of lettuce if it means less strain on free social services and reduced taxes.

 

 

This law is all about instilling fear to get illegals out of Arizona. Bottom line, if illegals know they are much more likely to run into resistance in AZ, they will be less likely to even go there. In an article yesterday on CBS news they interviewed 5 illegals, of them 4 said that they will basically be moving out of AZ, the risk is too great for them to get picked up while out working and be separated from their family here in the US. The one that didn't have immediate plans to move said he is going to wait and see how this law is enforced before making up his mind on where to go. The law has been around for 4 days now and it seems illegals are already contemplating leaving AZ, problem solved.

 

Secondly, who cares if we offend the senses of the illegal immigrants and happen to "hassel" a few citizens in the process. We have become waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyy too concerned with making people uncomfortable while upholding laws and to keep this country safe. And the argument about profiling is the DUMBEST argument I've ever heard. If anyone believes that profiling doesn't already go on, please pull your head out of your ass. Whit guy in BMW in crack town, will get pulled by the cops. Black guy walking down the street at 2AM in white neighborhood, will get pulled by cops. Mexican day laborer on the corner of the Square in Marietta, GA, will get pulled by cops (we have a law against picking up day labor here in Marietta.)

 

THE LONE REASON WHY DEMOCRATS ARE CONCERNED WITH THIS LAW AND OVERTURNING IT IS TO KEEP THE HISPANIC/LATINO BLOC STRONGLY BEHIND THEM. So they target a law passed by a Republican Governor. THis is about politics and the midterm elections coming up, PERIOD.

[SayItAintSoJoe]

And the argument about profiling is the DUMBEST argument I've ever heard. If anyone believes that profiling doesn't already go on, please pull your head out of your ass. Whit guy in BMW in crack town, will get pulled by the cops. Black guy walking down the street at 2AM in white neighborhood, will get pulled by cops. Mexican day laborer on the corner of the Square in Marietta, GA, will get pulled by cops (we have a law against picking up day labor here in Marietta.)

 

I agree. Anyone that believes that racial profiling doesn't already exist, needs to pull their head out of their ass. You give 3 excellent examples. I can't see how anyone could argue against the fact the racial profiling is alive and well, with or without the AZ law.

[bpwallace49]

Is anyone arguing that profiling doesnt already exist?

[SayItAintSoJoe]

Is anyone arguing that profiling doesnt already exist?

 

 

I don't know. That's what I took from the previous post by SEC=UGA but I'm too lazy to go through all the pages on this thread to find out where. I assume it's in here somewhere.

[SEC=UGA]

I don't know. That's what I took from the previous post by SEC=UGA but I'm too lazy to go through all the pages on this thread to find out where. I assume it's in here somewhere.

 

Many of the people arguing against this bill stipulate that it is a bad bill because it will lead to racila profiling and for that reason alone it should never have been passed. Well, no diaper dirt, if you're looking for illegal Mexicans (I'm going to use that instead of Chicano/Latino/Hispanic because I like being political incorrect and to ascribe the "Mexican" label to all North, Central and South Americans... Unless they speak Portugese then I will label them by their country of citizenship/origin) then you look for someone who looks, well, Mexican... So of course you are going to profile by appearance.

 

Here is what they should look for:

http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m36/pettit-13/mexican.jpg

http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview...316_mexican.jpg

 

ETA:

And trucks like the orange one

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v731/soc...exicanTruck.jpg

Edited April 27, 2010 by SEC=UGA

[driveby]

Arizona's new immigration law shows what happens when a state on the front lines of a failed immigration policy reaches the bursting point. What you get is a blunt instrument that produces lawsuits, more political polarization (if that's possible) and the risk of hostility between the local police and the public.

 

The law makes it a state crime to be in the U.S. without proper documents. It allows the police to stop anyone on "reasonable suspicion" that they may be in the country unlawfully and arrest them on the spot if they can't produce identity papers. The police aren't required to have a search warrant or even to suspect some illegal action has occurred before questioning a person. Traditionally the federal government has enforced immigration laws, so this is an extraordinary state criminalization of a heretofore federal authority.

 

Not every undocumented U.S. resident is Latino, but most are. Given that about one-third of Arizona residents are Latino, opponents of the measure fear it will raise charges of "racial profiling." The ever-helpful Al Sharpton has already announced that he's headed to Phoenix. More legal challenges are expected before the law takes effect later this summer.

 

The loud voices denouncing "Arizona" should understand that the results of the nation's failed immigration policies have come down on this state. Hundreds of local immigration measures have been enacted nationwide with the goal of restricting access to everything from housing to jobs to drivers' licenses. As these efforts squeezed the border in the 1990s via three-tier fencing, remote-control cameras and motion-detection devices in Texas and California, Arizona became the major, often violent, entry corridor.

 

Arizona's police chiefs association opposed the new law. Local enforcement agencies don't want responsibility for enforcing national immigration laws because they say it makes them less effective at their day jobs. When people in immigrant communities see the local police as deportation agents, they become less likely to report crimes and help in investigations. Conditions worsen.

 

Restrictionists insist, with some justification, that these laws are shrinking the illegal population. The larger reality is that border crossings track the economy. The recent downturn has meant fewer illegal entries and more immigrants going home. Before the law, Arizona's illegal population had fallen 18% in the past year.

 

Congressional Democrats have no intention of enacting serious immigration reform before November. President Obama is surely playing politics with the situation in Arizona for gain in the fall. He'd like to pick a fight and define Republicans as anti-Hispanic going into the election, without having to propose anything substantive.

 

We'd support a national immigration reform that was realistic about the fact that most of these are economic migrants who will find a way to come here in any case if this is where the jobs are. The most effective way to reduce illegal entries and defuse these tensions is to expand legal channels, including guest worker programs. This would reduce illegal immigration and free up security resources to threats from drug gangs and the like.

 

But so long as Republicans, Democrats and Mr. Obama mainly view immigration as an electoral weapon, the nation can expect more desperate laws like Arizona's.

WSJ

[SayItAintSoJoe]

Many of the people arguing against this bill stipulate that it is a bad bill because it will lead to racila profiling and for that reason alone it should never have been passed. Well, no diaper dirt, if you're looking for illegal Mexicans (I'm going to use that instead of Chicano/Latino/Hispanic because I like being political incorrect and to ascribe the "Mexican" label to all North, Central and South Americans... Unless they speak Portugese then I will label them by their country of citizenship/origin) then you look for someone who looks, well, Mexican... So of course you are going to profile by appearance.

 

Here is what they should look for:

http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m36/pettit-13/mexican.jpg

http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview...316_mexican.jpg

 

ETA:

And trucks like the orange one

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v731/soc...exicanTruck.jpg

 

 

 

[Perchoutofwater]

If anyone believes that profiling doesn't already go on, please pull your head out of your ass. Whit guy in BMW in crack town, will get pulled by the cops. Black guy walking down the street at 2AM in white neighborhood, will get pulled by cops. Mexican day laborer on the corner of the Square in Marietta, GA, will get pulled by cops (we have a law against picking up day labor here in Marietta.)

 

The black kid that has lived with us for the last 3 years has never been pulled over in our neighborhood. To my knowledge the only ticket he has ever gotten was when he was in a wreck, which he caused.

 

Many of the people arguing against this bill stipulate that it is a bad bill because it will lead to racila profiling and for that reason alone it should never have been passed. Well, no diaper dirt, if you're looking for illegal Mexicans (I'm going to use that instead of Chicano/Latino/Hispanic because I like being political incorrect and to ascribe the "Mexican" label to all North, Central and South Americans... Unless they speak Portugese then I will label them by their country of citizenship/origin) then you look for someone who looks, well, Mexican... So of course you are going to profile by appearance.

 

Dude that is a good way to get your ass whipped. You call a Honduran a Mexican and it's on son. I have a Honduran working for me, that I've seen tear people down for calling him a Mexican. Of course it may have something to do with the fact that on his way here, he got hit over the head in Mexico City and woke up in the Mexican army for the next two years.

[SEC=UGA]

Dude that is a good way to get your ass whipped. You call a Honduran a Mexican and it's on son. I have a Honduran working for me, that I've seen tear people down for calling him a Mexican. Of course it may have something to do with the fact that on his way here, he got hit over the head in Mexico City and woke up in the Mexican army for the next two years.

 

SEE!!!! Even Mexicans can't tell who is really Mexican.

 

I have one crew, 3 Mexicans, a Honduran, 2 Guatamalans and a white guy... Yes, they are very different people, but damn, they look a lot alike (even the white guy looks Mexican, too much sun on those roofs I guess)

 

But you are correct they are all very proud of their heritage, I was being a bit tongue in cheek on that one.

 

ETA:

That Honduran better pack him a box of burritos if he's gonna try and whip my ass. Or at least bring his finishing trowel to the fight.

Edited April 27, 2010 by SEC=UGA

[bpwallace49]

Does everyone here carry their birth certificate with them?

 

I like Perch's idea of requiring proof of citizenry to get a state-issued ID.

 

It is all about economic and the Jobs. Attack the "why" of why they come here, and them they wont come here anymore.

[Perchoutofwater]

Does everyone here carry their birth certificate with them?

 

No, but I can get my hands on one within an hour which is more than I can say about certain politicians that will remain nameless

[Perchoutofwater]

It is all about economic and the Jobs. Attack the "why" of why they come here, and them they wont come here anymore.

 

If you make it inhospitable enough, they won't come here even if there are jobs for them. Look at what the federal government is doing to some doctors. Heck I've even contemplated selling out or just liquidating, jacking around for a year or two as a teacher or cop until the economy picks up, and then open a smaller construction company that would be viewed by the government as a "small business" because the government is more hospitable to "small businesses."

[SEC=UGA]

If you make it inhospitable enough, they won't come here even if there are jobs for them. Look at what the federal government is doing to some doctors. Heck I've even contemplated selling out or just liquidating, jacking around for a year or two as a teacher or cop until the economy picks up, and then open a smaller construction company that would be viewed by the government as a "small business" because the government is more hospitable to "small businesses."

 

I do agree that jobs are a big part of the equation, but you need something more substantial than just fining business owners. You need to amend the constiution in regard to birthright citizenship, which is an equally large draw.

 

And, I'm not sure how friendly the govt. is to small businesses as compared to big businesses... Most government contracts require pretty significant amounts of bonding by the company with which they are doing business. For instance, my company can only bond up to 2.5 mil which would exclude me from being able to go after large govt. contracts, that and DavisBacon is a bitch so I really probably wouldn't pursue them in the first place (of course I could be wrong on this as I've only done one govt. job, an airplane hangar in SC.) If you look at the road work contracts given out here in GA, only the larger of the contracting companies have a shot at getting these projects (C.W. Mathews and Archer Western are the two major players.)

[Perchoutofwater]

I do agree that jobs are a big part of the equation, but you need something more substantial than just fining business owners. You need to amend the constiution in regard to birthright citizenship, which is an equally large draw.

 

And, I'm not sure how friendly the govt. is to small businesses as compared to big businesses... Most government contracts require pretty significant amounts of bonding by the company with which they are doing business. For instance, my company can only bond up to 2.5 mil which would exclude me from being able to go after large govt. contracts, that and DavisBacon is a bitch so I really probably wouldn't pursue them in the first place (of course I could be wrong on this as I've only done one govt. job, an airplane hangar in SC.) If you look at the road work contracts given out here in GA, only the larger of the contracting companies have a shot at getting these projects (C.W. Mathews and Archer Western are the two major players.)

 

Your bonding capacity has a lot more to do with the amount of assets you hold than it does with the number of people you employ. Davis-Bacon really isn't a big of a deal anymore now that they have fixed it, and it isn't ones size fits all. The big thing on the smaller business is the tax breaks, as well as the regulatory requirements such as insurance with Obamacare, OSHA documentation requirements, environmental documentation requirements ect...

Edited April 27, 2010 by Perchoutofwater

[SEC=UGA]

Your bonding capacity has a lot more to do with the amount of assets you hold than it does with the number of people you employ. Davis-Bacon really isn't a big of a deal anymore now that they have fixed it, and it isn't ones size fits all. The big thing on the smaller business is the tax breaks, as well as the regulatory requirements such as insurance with Obamacare, OSHA requirements, etc....

 

Correct, but, you don't typically think of a small business having the assets to cover the bonding requirement. FOr us we have downsized the "size" of the business by "forcing" some of our crews, the bulk of our employees, to be sub-contractors that can keep us under the 50 employee range (this was the case during a strong economy, wouldn't be much of an issue now)

 

The Obamacare might be an interesting thing to watch. From preliminary looks at it, it may actually be cheaper for me to pay the fines for not covering my employees than it would be for me to provide them with insurance... Especially, since I'm picking up 100% of the cost of healthcare for each of my employees (I'm still not a fan of the HC legislation, though)

 

I'll have to check on the DavisBacon thingy again, have a 92,000 SF project on an Army base that landed on my desk today, my sales guy is begging me to pursue.

[Perchoutofwater]

Nice article giving some perspective for the northern liberal elites.

 

Oh yeah and Grunge is a Bubba.

[SEC=UGA]

AZ law appears to be working...

 

Phoenix, Arizona (CNN) -- Hector Manrique takes a look around his taqueria and sighs. It's 3:30 in the afternoon, and usually around this time at least five or six tables are occupied by day laborers fresh off work, or schoolchildren and families in search of a torta or taco after school.

 

But today, Taqueria Guadalajara's plastic lawn chairs and tables are empty, and so is the tip jar on the counter. Street traffic in this predominantly Hispanic neighborhood of Phoenix, Arizona, is also lighter than usual, says Manrique, who opened the casual Mexican eatery in 2003.

 

Not even a week has passed since Gov. Jan Brewer signed into law tough measures targeting illegal immigrants, but Manrique and others who own businesses that cater primarily to Phoenix's large Hispanic community say they are already feeling the effects.

 

"I think they're afraid of being out on the streets knowing they're going to get pulled over by the sheriff," says Manrique, a U.S.-born Mexican who has lived in Phoenix since the 1990s. "A lot of people told me they're afraid to go out even though the law's not fully passed."

 

The governor's signing of the bill has ignited a firestorm of debate in Arizona, with activists on both sides of the issue clamoring to keep the issue alive. If the new law withstands the numerous legal challenges being threatened, it could take effect as soon as August.

 

Supporters say the law will temper the negative effects of immigration, such as crime and the misuse of taxpayer dollars to fund health care and education needs of illegal immigrants.

 

Opponents fear that the "reasonable suspicion" standard applied to enforcing the bill will create a climate that fosters fear and condones racial profiling, drawing comparisons to fascism and apartheid.

 

Manrique says customers started to become scarce a few weeks ago, when news surfaced that the bill was likely to pass. Then came Friday, the day Brewer signed the legislation.

 

"The streets just went empty. Usually on Friday, Saturday and Sunday, we're packed. But this weekend was empty like I'd never seen it before," Manrique said.

 

Immigrant soldier: 'Freedoms we enjoy are for everyone'

 

Across town, Jose Rivas' bodega offers customers a money wiring teller, a butcher counter and a wide variety of Mexican brands of cookies, beverages and household goods. He said his business also is taking a hit, and that the effects could be long-term.

 

"Ours is a culture that consumes a lot -- food, drinks, clothes, you name it," said Rivas, periodically stopping to greet or wave at a customer. "If no one's out shopping, how can I afford to employ my workers? They're all here legally. What happens to them?"

 

Ernesto Tercero, a first-generation Arizonan whose family is from Mexico, owns a meat distribution company that supplies dozens of stores in Phoenix. He says SB 1070 is a slap in the face to the Hispanic community.

 

"These people came here because they were told that there were jobs. They were brought here under promises of work, the American dream, and for many years we kept the dream alive," he said.

 

GOP lawmakers work to halt immigration agenda

 

Tercero, a tall, outspoken man whose gregarious manner underscores his deep connection to the community, noted that Hispanics both legal and illegal are considering leaving Arizona to avoid confrontations with law enforcement.

 

"They got people who've been here 20 years, they got kids, people who came when their kids were 3, 4 years old. Now they're 20 years old. They can't go back to Mexico. They've never even been to Mexico."

 

Growing up in Phoenix, Tercero recalls a time when Spanish was discouraged from being spoken in schools and Hispanics were limited in the jobs they could pursue and the places they could live.

 

Since then, self-made businessmen like Tercero, Rivas and Manrique have become models of success in Phoenix's small business community, said Todd Landfried, a spokesman for Arizona Employers for Immigration Reform.

 

"This law punishes local business owners who make a living catering to a certain market," Landfried said. "They've done everything expected of them. So why are they the ones getting punished?"

[driveby]

"This law punishes local business owners who make a living catering to an illegal market," Landfried said. "They've done everything expected of them. So why are they the ones getting punished?"

 

fixed

[Perchoutofwater]

My state representative is about to introduce legislation in Texas similar to that in Arizona.

[i_am_the_swammi]

Looks like Flagstaff won't enforce its own statelaw....Tuscon is next while it mulls its legal options. Even the Mayor of Phoenix is trying to figure out a way to sue the state.

 

Nice job, Republican Governor Brewer....so much for serving the people you represent.

 

Council readies to fight SB1070

StoryDiscussionJOE FERGUSON Sun Staff Reporter | Posted: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 5:30 am | (0) Comments

 

The Flagstaff City Council came out Tuesday against the state's controversial new illegal immigration law, unwilling to enforce a law that one councilmember called "horrible" and "racist."

 

They echoed sentiments held by a crowd of about 100 who turned out for the meeting at City Hall.

 

"I am here to speak on the behalf on the kids, los ninos," said Ada Luz Mendoza -- she knows of small children who spend nights worrying that their parents are going to be taken away at any time under the new law.

 

But the council, with Scott Overton absent, did not decide specifically how to oppose the immigration law, known as SB1070, during their Tuesday night meeting. The city attorney said she was unwilling to lay out legal options for the city council publicly without doing some research.

 

The council is expected to review its legal options against the measure next Tuesday.

 

The new measure would make it a crime under state law to be in the country illegally, and would require local police, when "practical" to question people about their immigration status if there is reason to suspect they are here unlawfully.

 

"I think we need to flat out sue the state of Arizona," said Councilmember Coral Evans. "I want to let them know we are coming."

 

Evans said her teenage, biracial daughter asked her Tuesday morning whether she looked more like her father or her mother, worried that she might need to carry a passport if she looked like her Hispanic father under the new law.

 

The council informally discussed options ranging from a resolution opposed to the new law to pursuing a lawsuit seeking its repeal or possibly joining with other cities for a temporary injunction.

 

Councilmember Rick Swanson made it clear the city had a duty to its residents who might be targeted under the new law. He said they could not simply issue a piece of paper.

 

"I am not in favor of a resolution," he said. "Here on the city council we can do more than that."

 

He said the new law is tarnishing the state's reputation.

 

"]We are going to be the laughing stock of the nation and it is not funny -- it is horrible and racist," said Swanson'

 

An attempt to mount a legal challenge to the new Arizona immigration law by Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon was scrapped on Tuesday afternoon. Gordon said during a public meeting he didn't have enough city council support to pursue a lawsuit.

 

The Tucson City Council also discussed opposing the new state immigration law but made no decision Tuesday after getting legal advice in executive session.

 

Prior to the council discussion, a woman said her husband -- an illegal immigrant -- panicked in the middle of the night after getting a flat tire. He worried that the police would arrest him as he simply tried to change the tire.

 

Although a naturalized citizen, she came close to tears as she wondered what would happen to her two young children if the police pulled them both over. She thought she would be arrested as well for helping an illegal immigrant.

 

George Villas spoke passionately against the new law, saying he felt that many who stayed in Arizona would be forced into hiding like Holocaust victim Anne Frank.

 

Referring to a young boy who spoke earlier, Villas said the city would need to take a stand against the law so "we won't have a diary of Juan Carlos."