NO – Voters in Liberal Tucson Reject ‘Sanctuary City’ Status

Voters in the liberal city of Tucson, Arizona, overwhelmingly rejected barring law enforcement from cooperating with the federal government to enforce immigration laws.

On Tuesday, 71.4 percent of voters said NO on Proposition 205, the so-called Tucson Families Free and Together Initiative. reported that the initiative was a reaction to the state’s SB 1070, which requires law enforcement to verify the immigration status of anyone suspected to be in the country illegally. If the initiative had passed, illegal aliens would not be detained for federal immigration officials. An excerpt (emphasis added):

In a statement, People’s Defense Initiative, the group behind the proposal, said despite the results, “thousands of Tucsonans made clear their desire for new policies that protect the most vulnerable in our community.”

“We are incredibly proud of the hard work and inspiring commitment of our team and the hundreds of Tucsonans who made this campaign their very own,” the statement said. “Through this effort, we were able to uplift an important city-wide conversation that changed Tucson for the better.”

The vote ends months of contentious debate over whether Tucson, which is located just 65 miles north of the U.S.-Mexico border, would buck a state law that prevents sanctuary cities and become Arizona’s only city to formally limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

Photo credit: By Jonathan McIntoshOwn work, CC BY 2.5, Link

Check Also

18-Year-Old Man Exposed Himself to Freshman Girls in Locker Room — Biden Administration Agrees to Open Civil Rights Investigation

An 18-year-old man in the Sun Prairie Area School District in Wisconsin exposed himself to …


  1. Are the bleeding hearts smartening up or are they just worried about their property values?

    • For the most part it is self centered. Tucson is a Progressive New Left utopia. They have no problem imposing failed public policy on other communities but not their own. What is good for me is not good for thee.