November 6, 2019

"Tucson voters overwhelmingly opted against the 'sanctuary city' initiative, which would have limited the circumstances in which police officers could ask about immigration status."

The Arizona Star Daily reports.
Partial results for Proposition 205, also known as The Tucson Families Free and Together Initiative, showed 58,820 voters, or 71.4%, voted “no” on the proposal compared to just 23,562, or 29%, who voted “yes.”...

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.

51 comments:

BarrySanders20 said...

Lots of racist LatiNO voters in that 71.4%. Uncle Tomases, the whole lot of 'em!

Bay Area Guy said...

Sanity prevails in the Grand Canyon state! I'm gonna move there.

Francisco D said...

Here in Oro Valley (a few miles north of Tucson city limits) we did not get to vote on that measure, although it would have affected us greatly. We appreciate the people of Tucson coming to their senses.

My wife was obsessed with two measures for school funding. Both passed to her relief. The union activists told her she would take a payout if it lost. Yeah sure.

Rick said...

More evidence a Rep who just said "we're going to enforce the laws" would have an overwhelming advantage over the open borders Dems.

Michael K said...

Tucson is a pretty leftist city. The U and the faculty have lots of "Black Lives Matter" signs around. No blacks, of course.

I suspect the left is just a lot louder. Not as numerous.

hawkeyedjb said...

As someone wise once said, everyone is conservative about what they know best. Tucson may be full of lefties, but at some point perhaps you get tired of being an unpaid host.

Churchy LaFemme: said...

In other "how could this fail?" initiative news, it looks like the Wash state "let's box people by race!" initiative has also failed.

Mike Sylwester said...

Just as Trump did in his 2016 campaign, he again in 2020 will invite onto his stages the relatives of people who have been murdered by illegal aliens who were protected and released by sanctuary cities.

Trump will give these grieving relatives the opportunity to speak from his stages to his audiences about those murders.

The sanctuary cities will help Trump to be re-elected in 2020.

CJinPA said...

Reporter Mamta Popat breaks several rules of journalism here.

Propostion 205 aimed to protect city residents, including those…

Typo aside, the writer use the loaded, pro-205 word “protect” when it could have been easily avoided.

The writer not only does not quote opponents of the proposition, he/she doesn’t even paraphrase the argument against it, despite the debate having raged for months. The writer implies that the only forces lined up against it were money and lawsuits, no principled opposition.

I’m not going to crack, “Check Mamta’s papers.” That would be a cheap gag.

n.n said...

Emigration reform to mitigate the progress of immigration reform and collateral damage at both ends of the bridge and throughout. Immigration that does not exceed the rate of assimilation and integration before planned parenthood. Also, a good neighbor policy that promotes the general Welfare.

Temujin said...

It's as if a 'debate' was held in a vacuum. There was no contentious debate. This was a slam-dunk landslide of people saying loud and clear- NO. 71% to 29% is not even a close conversation. It's a 'you go sit in the corner and shut up' conversation.

I guarantee you, the people behind the 'let's make this a Sanc City movement will be back with a repackaged attempt. However, given the last few days just across the border, they may have to wait a few months.

n.n said...

the Wash state "let's box people by race!" initiative has also failed

Diversity (and exclusion) breeds adversity. While people have intrinsic color biases, it requires a first-order forcing to progress prejudice, including, but not limited to: normalization of color blocs, affirmative discrimination, and political congruence. That said, people are waking up to the direct and lateral implications of woke politics and other social justice initiatives.

Birkel said...

That big a percentage was contentious?
Bull shit.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

The Tucson Families Free and Together Initiative

Or - the lets give people who brake in - the welcome matt.

NorthOfTheOneOhOne said...

Yep. And on top of that they elected a Hispanic mayor! Local NPR (read Pravda) news here in Phoenix is shitting themselves over that this morning.

Yancey Ward said...

Ironically, this sounds like a silent majority sort of vote.

Yancey Ward said...

"I guarantee you, the people behind the 'let's make this a Sanc City movement will be back with a repackaged attempt. However, given the last few days just across the border, they may have to wait a few months."

Given the vote margin, they won't come back with another any time soon. What they will do is go to court, or the city government itself will just enact the policy over the voter's disapproval. You know I am right.

NorthOfTheOneOhOne said...

Michael K said...

Tucson is a pretty leftist city. The U and the faculty have lots of "Black Lives Matter" signs around. No blacks, of course.

The Same Hughes is a nice little neighborhood, isn't it? The inhabitants on the other hand....

n.n said...

on top of that they elected a Hispanic mayor!

All together, we can conclude that they are community-oriented, and not diversitist and exclusive.

The Drill SGT said...

Yancey Ward said...
Ironically, this sounds like a silent majority sort of vote.


It's a college town. The Dem Latina Mayor and all the Dem Council opposed the measure. I suspect to protect the city from Fed and state funding cuts.

Rick said...

What they will do is go to court, or the city government itself will just enact the policy over the voter's disapproval. You know I am right.

Completely true. Consider how universities grant race preferences in violation of the equal protection clause and the Civil Rights Acts. Even worse note the courts affirmed their illegal acts.

Rae said...

You can vote for conservatism (in this case, following the law) but you can't get it. The city gov will find a way to implement it. It'll be interesting when a majority of conservatives figure that it out.








And Epstein didn't kill himself.

Sebastian said...

"months of contentious debate"=endless prog whining to thwart the will of the majority

Michael K said...

The Same Hughes is a nice little neighborhood, isn't it? The inhabitants on the other hand....

It was hilarious when the lefty Mayor got carjacked in front of his house a year ago.

We are north of the river, crime seems to stop at the river. Not in the city, thank god.

TJM said...

I guess the citizens there don't appreciate the undocumented Dem voters after all. LOL

Francisco D said...

The main industry here appears to be home construction. Hispanics are the overwhelming majority of dry wallers, tilers, roofers, gardeners, landscapers, and painters. Most work under an Hispanic crew chief. The chief is typically the only member of the crew who speaks English.

These guys work hard under often grueling heat. I suspect that most live in Mexico and come here for the work. Whether they stay illegally or not, I don't know. I never see White kids doing such work.

Make of it what you will.

mockturtle said...

BarrySanders20 observes: Lots of racist LatiNO voters in that 71.4%. Uncle Tomases, the whole lot of 'em!

I'm always amazed at how rational my Hispanic neighbors are compared to those the Gringo Left believes in.

Ken B said...

I don’t object to changing laws. I do object to saying “these laws will be ignored”.

hombre said...

The City Council opposed the measure over concerns about lost revenue. I doubt that accounted for the 71% slam dunk. If people in more conservative contiguous areas had been able to vote, the loss would have been far worse.

Ken B said...

Birkel
Contentious refers to the amount of screaming. I bet it was plenty contentious! What it wasn’t was *close*.

Martin said...

Interesting they elected their first a Latina Mayor while rejecting the sanctuary city line by 3:1.

I would wonder how the SJWs will reconcile that, but they will just ignore it.

Michael K said...

If people in more conservative contiguous areas had been able to vote, the loss would have been far worse.

Probably., Tucson area has a big Air Force base and lots of retirees. The deep blue is around the U.

NorthOfTheOneOhOne said...

Michael K said...

It was hilarious when the lefty Mayor got carjacked in front of his house a year ago.

Hadn't heard that, but all I can say is; typical Tucson!

We are north of the river, crime seems to stop at the river. Not in the city, thank god.

My wife wanted to do that hipster urban crap when we first moved there, after six months living in town we took off and moved up around Tortolita. It was a night and day difference.

Tucson is a great place to visit, but I don't regret moving to Phoenix one bit.

Smerdyakov said...

I've always wondered why the Gringo Left thinks Hispanics should favor illegal immigration. I am a naturalized citizen. I value my citizenship. I know how hard it is to obtain that citizenship. Why would I want hordes of people barging in here just because they speak the same language as I do?

NorthOfTheOneOhOne said...

Michael K said...

Probably., Tucson area has a big Air Force base and lots of retirees. The deep blue is around the U.

That's what makes this very significant. A lot of those retirees only winter in Tucson and may not vote there. I suspect most of the students and Air Force personnel don't either. That means there must've been a good bit of support from the Hispanic population.

FullMoon said...

If it were California, a whacko judge would find a way to overturn it.

Steven said...

Contentious refers to the amount of screaming. I bet it was plenty contentious! What it wasn’t was *close*.

You can only get enough screaming for a "contentious debate" on a more-than-two-to-one matter if the institutional media artificially amplifies one side far beyond its merits.

gilbar said...

Michael K said...
If people in more conservative contiguous areas had been able to vote, the loss would have been far worse.
Probably., Tucson area has a big Air Force base and lots of retirees. The deep blue is around the U.


Careful!
next thing you know, you'll be letting South Tucson people vote, and Then where will you be?

Anonymous said...

Francisco D: These guys work hard under often grueling heat. I suspect that most live in Mexico and come here for the work. Whether they stay illegally or not, I don't know. I never see White kids doing such work.

I'm surprised at you, Francisco. You have to be pretty incurious to accept the "jobs Americans won't do" CoC line at face value, and you never struck me as an incurious guy. Maybe 20 years ago, but in 2019?

chickelit said...

This is how you get less Trump: people being rational about immigration at the local level.

TosaGuy said...

Votes like this keep Tucson-native Sen Krysten Sinema in the semi-moderate category.

TJM said...

Is Inga on life support?

Gahrie said...

I never see White kids doing such work.

The whole point of illegal immigration is that illegal immigrants will work for far less money than Americans will. Not only do they take jobs, they drive down wages for everyone else.

Gahrie said...

Why would I want hordes of people barging in here just because they speak the same language as I do?

tribalism.

Francisco D said...

You have to be pretty incurious to accept the "jobs Americans won't do" CoC line at face value, and you never struck me as an incurious guy.

Incurious? You must be kidding.

My curiosity is both experiential and intellectual. I don't see White American kids doing those jobs here, in Chicago where I grew up or in Iowa where I lived for several years. I do not understand why.

Do you?

Gospace said...

71.4%, voted “no” in Tucson.

And it was about 70% of the voters in Kansas City who voted to reject the name change of The Paseo to Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.

Voters in Washington State once again voted to treat people equally, as required by the U.S. Constitution. Seems that liberal judges will uphold treating some people more favorably than others unless it's very very clearly prohibited by law. And even then, they'll try to work around it.

And Virginia voters elected a Democrat sex predator with 60% of the vote https://wjla.com/news/local/virginia-lawmaker-jailed-for-teen-sex-scandal-wins-senate-seat
and voted Democrats complete control of state government since California has shown such success doing the same.

I'd say overall voters sent no real nationwide coherent message Tuesday.

hawkeyedjb said...

Angledyne: Immigrant Hispanics generally work cheaper than white kids. Illegal Hispanic immigrants definitely work cheaper. If there were no immigrants, would white guys take the jobs? Yup, some of them. A lot of jobs simply wouldn't exist. Think landscaping - without immigrants, I doubt you would see whites taking the jobs. You would sell more lawnmowers to homeowners, just like in the old days.

Rusty said...

Francisco D
The company I work for is 97% Hispanic. We put threadlocker on fasteners. out of 100 employees about half are involved in hand work for minimum wage. The company started to use E-verify to avoid lawsuits. White people started to show up.

Michael K said...

I don't see White American kids doing those jobs here, in Chicago where I grew up or in Iowa where I lived for several years. I do not understand why.

Go to an In N Out burger place. White teens don;t have part time jobs anymore because of illegals. Watch "Down and Out in Beverly Hills." Remember Japanese gardeners ?

TheOne Who Is Not Obeyed said...

For the longest time, I would joke that Mexicans had a cartel with exclusive access to busboy and dishwasher jobs in the Chicago area. Simple observation showed that regardless of type of restaurant, the busboys and dishwashers were Hispanic.

Imagine my surprise when it turned out to be mostly true -- Hispanic (not necessarily Mexican) gangs had a racket going that did their best to force restaurants to hire gang-owned, probably illegal, probably trafficked, people for those entry-level jobs. I noticed it more because I frequented small (usually ethnic) restaurants; those were least likely to be able to stand up to the shakedown. It was in the 2000s that one would start to see women doing the bussing. Apparently the Hispanic gangs got a little more woke and decided to allow the womenfolk to also work as indentured servants in the Chicago restaurant market.

Never saw Hispanic workers at Harold's, though.

Skippy Tisdale said...

"58,820 voters, or 71.4%, voted “no” on the proposal compared to just 23,562, or 29%, who voted “yes.”

There appears to be an extra 0.4%. Odd that.