Michigan House Republicans Target Sanctuary Cities with New Resolution

In a move that has sparked debate across Michigan, House Republicans have passed a new rule targeting sanctuary city policies. The term “sanctuary city” lacks an official legal definition but generally refers to municipalities that limit cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

These policies often aim to foster trust between local law enforcement and immigrant communities, encouraging cooperation in criminal investigations regardless of immigration status. They also help protect local agencies from potential liabilities tied to federal immigration law enforcement.

Spearheading this initiative, Michigan House Speaker Matt Hall (R-Richland Twp) introduced House Resolution 19. In a press briefing last month, Hall emphasized the rule’s goal to ensure state funds are not allocated to cities that do not cooperate with federal immigration authorities.

“A sanctuary jurisdiction is a jurisdiction that does not comply with ICE, it does not help enforce federal immigration law, it interferes in some way, or it doesn’t cooperate with ICE,” Hall stated.

While the resolution’s impact on the current budget remains uncertain, it could potentially affect future funding for cities like East Lansing, Detroit, Grand Rapids, and Wayne County, where local police have policies limiting ICE cooperation.

Hall believes such policies could prevent cities from receiving discretionary state funds. “I would say any jurisdiction that has a policy that they will not hold illegal aliens for a reasonable time for ICE to come pick them up under a detainer, and they require a court to do that is a sanctuary jurisdiction and will not receive pork projects from us,” Hall elaborated.

On the other side, Kalamazoo Township Supervisor David Combs has criticized the resolution as state overreach. “I think it’s actually an overstep of the state government to attempt to broker power over municipalities on behalf of the federal government,” Combs argued. “That’s not the role of the state government.”

Courtesy

/

Kalamazoo Township

Combs had proposed an ordinance to limit township resources for immigration enforcement, which is currently on hold for community input and legal advice.

Most state funding to local governments and universities won’t be affected by HR 19. As Matthew Schneider, a former U.S. Attorney, explained, state revenue sharing is constitutionally mandated. The resolution mainly targets discretionary funds, which are allocated annually by lawmakers.

For instance, the Michigan Legislature recently allocated $1 million to Kalamazoo Township for infrastructure improvements and $5 million to Recycle Ann Arbor for recycling expansion. Under the new rule, such one-time funding might be at risk for jurisdictions not cooperating with ICE.

Courtesy

/

Matthew Schneider

“There could be situations where, if they can’t get money appropriated from the Legislature,” Schneider said, “They just won’t have those funds to spend and they’ll have to look elsewhere.”

Democrats have expressed concerns that HR 19 might delay this year’s budget approval, due by October 1. House Representative Jason Morgan (D-Ann Arbor) emphasized the importance of impartial distribution of state funds. “The best form of governing with the budget is to decide what our priorities are and fund program areas,” he noted.

Morgan also defended sanctuary policies for keeping the focus on public safety and highlighted alternative state funding pathways, such as recovery funds for extreme weather events allocated through the Michigan State Police.

“The courts have consistently held that federal immigration enforcement is handled by the federal government and no community is allowed to interfere with the federal government’s activities and, in my opinion, none of them are,” Morgan explained.

As the state budgeting process advances, discussions on how HR 19 will affect sanctuary cities are anticipated. Kalamazoo Township Supervisor David Combs remains adamant about maintaining current policies, though he acknowledges the need for further discussions with the township board.

Similar deliberations are expected in other local governments and universities throughout Michigan.