Tucson Rejects Sanctuary Status as Places Across U.S. Vote on Their Futures

I don't see the problem? Why do you have to declare yourself a label just because you do something? Am I supposed to label myself an official nice human because I'm generally nice? This country is obsessed with labeling everything.

The opening statement in article states that Arizona is a red state. It was that way for many years but the characterization is no longer true. The majority of Arizona’s U.S. House representatives are now Democrats, one of our U.S. senators is a Democrat, and Joe Arpaio is politically dead. There is a good chance both of our senators will be Democrats in 2020.

When Mexican drug cartels engage in horrifically evil acts that suggest pretty clearly that ISIS-like evil is lurking just across the border, it is not surprising that Americans near the border—including Latinos and white liberals, would vote to protect themselves.

Some notes on each iniative: The people of Tucson are lucky where they live, in NYC the City Council would have voted on that and never left it to the voters. Luckily NYC is far away from any southern border. Of course the measure was soundly defeated, there is a big difference from helping people after they cross then there is in giving them the green light to enter. In the first there is a measure of gratitude but in the latter that is replaced by a feeling of entitlement, which leads eventually to anger and a backlash. Jersey City did the right thing, Capitalism run amok is a dangerous thing. Some times the rich have to be protected from themselves. NYC , wow, now all our problems are solved. This we had to vote on, but things like dangerous red-light cameras, that we never see on a ballot....wonder why. SAN Fran bans e-cigs, now the black market has another thing to sell, i guess one day they will figure out that prohibition never works. Just another thing you can now be arrested for. Colorado gets sports betting. New York City.....someday i guess. I suppose the bookies of NYC have a powerful lobby. They actually had to vote about adopting retired K-9s or destroying them. in Texas. I would like to meet the people who voted against it. There should have been a hammer in the voting booth and if you voted no you got whacked...they would deserve it.

There is a bug in the phone version of the Times. When reading an article and you tap the left arrow at top right, it returns you to the very top of the article list so after each article you have to scroll all the way down the list to return to where you were.

I don't understand. Tucson is a blue city, a humanitarian city, where yard signs proclaim "Humanitarian aid is not a crime" and a local church sign says "Jesus was a refugee." What happened, Tucson?

In an election that has the effect of a referendum, the Town of Coeymans, just south of progressive Albany,NY, elected a slate of Republicans who will overturn the recently enacted Clean Air Act. The Act was in response to a gigantic international cement company’s assertion that they have the right to burn tires in their mammoth kiln. This kiln is within spitting distance of the central school campus in a community that has suffered high, easily measurable air contamination for generations. The phony issue of jobs, jobs, jobs has resulted in the unholy alliance of an industrialist who coincidentally won a state contract to collect used tires, the cement company, and the newly elected Republicans. Among the new council members is, get this, a lawyer who left his job as the industrialist’s counsel to run for the part time, barely compensated job of town council member. You can’t make this stuff up. The losers? All who breathe.

Good for Tucson! Sounds like the far left non-profits that interfered were shut down; too often they are not these days. It is not racist or xenophobic to embrace border security or limit immigration. It is not racist to fight illegal immigration and uphold asylum requirements - and those don't include domestic abuse or gang activity in one's country as a reason to claim asylum. On the issue of illegal immigration and the fight for sanctuary cities - if the Dems continue to fight for non-citizens over citizens, to open the borders to anyone that wants to come, they lose my vote across the board.

Its really hard to imagine a measure like that even getting on the ballot. Why would any city, red or blue want to be known by that moniker.

All constituents are already adequately protected as to their constitutional rights. Proposing and enacting special legislation for the so called concern for a special groups unique rights only results in weaponizing that groups power and purposely intimidating the rights of the general public. Current law is more than adequate to protect the rights of all citizens without generating Jussie Smollett hoax attacks which diminishes the rights of all concerned.

This article doesn’t mention that the Tucson Police Department has several standing orders that effectively prevented SB 1070 from taking effect in Tucson. TPD officers can’t ask about immigration status and both mayoral candidates endorsed the expansion of standing orders that would essentially make Tucson a sanctuary city without losing funding. Tucson has a long history of welcoming migrants and that isn’t likely to change soon. Tucson has also been at war with Arizona since it turned blue, and voting in a sanctuary city measure would have been a disaster for Tucson. Prop 205 was a mess, and Regina Romero—honestly one of the most promising Democrats in the state—was right to oppose it. We would have lost millions in federal funding at a critical time in Tucson’s history, where retirees from California are straining our infrastructure, resources and water supply far more than immigrants.

"...Critics had argued that it could lead to a loss of state or federal funding, block local authorities’ access to federal databases, prevent the police from working with federal law enforcement, or prompt legal challenges that would limit officers’ agency...." So, in effect, Arizona's citizens decided to knuckle under to the Federal Government. Such cowardice is the opposite of the courage that one would expect from a free populace.

Here is something rare today in politics. Common sense. This shows that when zealots on both sides of the aisle use a middle ground area of agreement, in this case providing sanctuary to immigrants, and they go too far it becomes a partisan issue and it fails. This could be true of gun control measures, immigration rights, and abortion rights. Why can’t we just agree on a middle ground? Does everybody have to have it completely their own way?

I live in Tucson and voted for the proposition. What I witnessed was a deluge of dark money funded mailers flooding my mailbox for weeks, each spreading lies (e.g. that local police would not be allowed to work with federal law enforcement agencies, etc.). This deluge of dark money funded fake fear-inducing mailers had a profound affect upon the success/failure of the proposition. Here in AZ, dark money funded mailers were also responsible for the extreme 180 on the solar power movement. Again, a deluge of dark money mailers convinced the majority of voters to vote against solar system incentives and the overall advantages of having solar-all to keep the fossil fueled utilities profiting. Damned republicans are destroying our country, wake up!

The goal of the Tucson initiative was "protecting all people’s constitutional and civil rights through reducing arrests". But that's applicable only when the 'people' are citizens and actually have those rights. That's not true of illegal migrants. And to frame the enforcement of existing laws as "racism" is also a stretch. The US has welcomed more legitimate immigrants (of all races) than any other country. We have a system (for legal immigrants) which prohibits discrimination based on race, religion or ethnicity.