In my last blog post, I discussed the
concept of sanctuary cities and the distinction between the sanctuary
status of Ann Arbor and the University of Michigan's campus. As I had
explained, despite the city of Ann Arbor's elected choice to maintain
Sanctuary status since 2003, the University of Michigan’s campus-
which is contained within Ann arbor's city limits- follows federal
and state guidelines when it comes to complying with ICE officers.
Recently, the University's CSG struck down a resolution, that would
have called for CSG to "urge President Schlissel and the
Regents to issue a public declaration in support of the Sanctuary
cities of Detroit and Ann Arbor.” I've argued that this vote, and the
resulting failure to comply to Ann Arbor's sanctuary status, is an
extremely significant manifestation of a failure in the democratic
processes in the city, resulting in a democratic injustice.
To fully grasp the importance of the
student-run CSG's vote, it's important to understand the legislative
structures of the two actors- the city of Ann Arbor and the
University of Michigan. The University's legislative body is
comprised of two parts- the Board of Regents and the Central Student
Government. The Board of Regents covers most of the legislative
responsibilities of the University, but the Central Student
Government still has the capacity to pass resolutions drawn up by
students, student representatives, and student groups. The student
representatives in CSG are each elected through a campus-wide general
election. The city's legislative branch consists of the elected
members of the city council who are voted for by Ann Arbor's citizens
(a more detailed and comprehensive explanation of the city's
electoral process can be found on Ann Arbor's city website). In this
way, the student representatives and the city councilors are acting
in the same capacity as representatives- but for different (if
sometimes overlapping) groups of constituencies.
 |
| The Michigan Union, where the CSG meets for general assembly every week in their chambers. |
The matter of representation plays an
essential role in the reason why the integrity of Ann Arbor's
sanctuary status is so important to the integrity of the democratic
processes of the city. In a Republic (like the American
representative democracy as it was extensively described in the Federalist papers)
representatives elected into office can be seen as intended to be an
expression of the voters' political voices. Representatives are the
instruments through which the people express their political rights and interests. How representation is interpreted
(particularly in this case) – as a political manifestation of a
people's control over a government and a
responsibility – frames Ann Arbor's sanctuary status as an integral
expression of the citizens' choice. While the city's voters did not
directly vote on the 2003 resolution that passed into law through the
city council, they did vote for the elected officials who sit on the
council and represent them, who voted to pass the resolution. For the citizens of Ann Arbor, the
enforcement of the sanctuary status is a critical extension of their
democratic right- to see their laws enacted and their political
voices respected.
When speaking about the importance of a
resolution that would call for the University's CSG to support an integration the city,
Kate Stenvig, BAMN's coordinator and a contributor to their
resolution, said “the University needs to work on a program for
immigrant and undocumented students.” She cited a protest from last year that resulted in several BAMN members being
arrested, some of them being undocumented students. Stenvig explained
that the manner in which the University pursued charges against the
students, knowing their status and the consequences, “was the last
straw- it really showed that the University is closing its doors to
these students.”
Whether these actions by the University
in 2014 are actually reflective of its general attitude towards
undocumented students or not (a judgment I won't make from this
example), they are in clear conflict with the municipal standards set
by An Arbor's sanctuary status. In taking these actions, the
University at the very least violated the integrity of the democratic
choices of the Ann Arbor's citizens. Meanwhile, following these events, in
turning down the resolution that BAMN introduced this fall, CSG seems
to have unknowingly perpetuated this violation.
The argument can be made that the
members of CSG, in voting down the resolution, were acting in their
own capacity as representatives. In voting down the resolution, the
student representatives in CSG were considering the interests of the
University's students rather than the city's residents and acting as
representatives of the students that voted them into office. By
claiming that the CSG (and by extension the University) were
defending the democratic interests of their own voters, an argument
can be made that if the citizens of Ann Arbor are facing an
injustice, it is justified by the fact that the CSG isn't meant to
take into consideration their interests.
However, to make this argument, its
necessary to rely on two assumptions: that the CSG accurately
represents the interests of University students and that the
interests of University students outweigh the interests of Ann
Arbor's citizens (at least on the University's campus). In my next blog post I will discuss and
evaluate these assumptions and explore possible solutions to the
problems presented.
