The Dissenting Campus in a Sanctuary City

Last semester, student representatives in the University of Michigan's Central Student Government voted in assembly to strike down the “Resolution To Defend ImmigrantSanctuary Cities And To Make The University Of Michigan A SanctuaryCampus For Immigrants.” The magnitude of this vote, and the democratic implications of their decisions, will be the focus of my blog posts this semester. I will discuss how the resolution passed by Ann Arbor's City Council in 2003 is representative of the citizens' democratic choices, while the University's (and specifically CSG's) failure to uphold the city's sanctuary status and failure to align itself with the city's Resolution could represent a democratic failure.

To understand the magnitude and the implications behind this CSG vote, it's crucial to understand the resolution itself, as well as the concept of sanctuary cities and how this concept applies to the CSG vote in question.

The term sanctuary cities came from the movement of some cities in the United States that opted to "have policies or laws that limit the extent to which law enforcement and other government employees will go to assist the federal government on immigration matters." These cities (and sometimes states) break from federal and state precedents and choose to not allow municipal funds or resources to be used to pursue and enforce federal immigration laws.

The Center for Immigration Studies published a map of the existing Sanctuary Cities in the US

In 2003, Ann Arbor's city council voted on a resolution, which effectively put the city on the list of sanctuary cities. Because Ann Arbor has maintained sanctuary city status since 2003, it might seem redundant for the CSG at the University of Michigan to even be voting on a resolution to encourage the University campus to adopt sanctuary status. The University of Michigan is a public school that's both state and federally funded, so the campus policies don't always comply with city ordinances. Because of this, although Ann Arbor is a sanctuary city, the University of Michigan's campus (which takes up a large part of the city) is not. So, despite the vote of the city council in 2003, parts of Ann Arbor (specifically the parts that are a part of the University) don't comply with the sanctuary status that the resolution established.

This map shows how much of Ann Arbor the University of Michigan takes up

This year, a student organization on campus, BAMN (By Any Means Necessary), attempted to introduce a resolution, which would call for the University of Michigan's CSG to urge “President Schlissel and the Regents to declare the UM campus a sanctuary campus for Immigrants,” aligning itself with the city of Ann Arbor. This resolution failed to pass through CSG, and the University's policies continue to contradict Ann Arbor's resolution. 

This difference between the city's political stance on immigration and the University of Michigan CSG's vote points to an injustice faced by the people living in Ann Arbor. The people of Ann Arbor voted for the city council members to represent them in the city's legislature. In turn, the city council of Ann Arbor, who represent the people of Ann Arbor, voted for the city to hold sanctuary status. Although the democratic representatives that Ann Arbor's citizens voted into office passed a resolution that is expected to be upheld city-wide, a large part of the city does not abide by the standards set by this resolution, and refuses to pass legislation that would be representative of the city's policies.

In my next blog posts, I will further discuss how this difference between the policies of the University and the city of Ann Arbor represent a democratic failure. I will also discuss what the causes behind this democratic injustice could be (why the CSG struck down the policy), as well as consider a possible solution.