Tempe fails to pass resolution opposing US-Mexico border wall
The Tempe City Council failed to pass a resolution that would have opposed a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border on Thursday. The measure failed on a 3-4 vote.
FILE - This Oct. 26, 2017 file photo shows prototypes of border walls in San Diego. The Trump administration has proposed spending $18 billion over 10 years to significantly extend the border wall with Mexico. The plan provides one of the most detailed blueprints of how the president hopes to carry out a signature campaign pledge. (AP Photo/Elliott Spagat, File)
(AP Photo/Elliott Spagat, File)
PHOENIX — The Tempe City Council failed to pass a resolution that would have opposed a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border on Thursday.
The resolution failed on a 3-4 vote. Before the vote was held, several Arizona residents spoke in front of the council and stated their positions on the wall.
If the resolution was passed, it would have allowed the council to send letters to President Donald Trump and U.S. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to voice its opposition.
The vote came just one day after Flagstaff passed a resolution to oppose the border wall and to not do business with companies that design, finance and construct it. Last year, a similar measure was passed in Tucson.
Before the vote, Councilmember Lauren Kuby told KTAR News 92.3 FM that she opposed the wall because it would negatively impact the environment, divide tribal lands and hurt animal species.
“We have pushed dozens of endangered species closer to extinction and destroyed thousands of acres of public lands throughout the border region,” Kuby said.
“To invest $70 billion in a divisive wall and all the militarization that would come with it poses real threats to our residents in Tempe,” she added.
Kuby said the wall would cut the Tohono O’odham Nation in half. The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona has also adopted its own resolution opposing a border wall on tribal lands without the consent of the affected tribes.
KTAR News’ Ali Vetnar contributed to this report.






Comments
0 Comments