National Fools: Has Lansing's Sanctuary City Debate Made Us a Laughingstock?

National Fools: Has Lansing's Sanctuary City Debate Made Us a Laughingstock?
This post was published on the now-closed HuffPost Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and posted freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email.

“Kangaroo Court.” The phrase points to a sham of a legal proceeding, but also calls up images of inept, incapable individuals stumbling through their duties.

Welcome to Lansing, Michigan.

On April 3, after months of work from a coalition of supporters, the Lansing City Council passed (via unanimous vote) a resolution declaring the capital to be a welcoming, safe sanctuary city for undocumented residents.

But, Mayor Virg Bernero had beat them to it by just one bare hour. Directly before their meeting, he released an executive order—a written policy developed in concert with councilperson (at large) Kathie Dunbar—that thoroughly described the city’s sanctuary policy. The executive order (#2017-01) was a resounding win for those demanding the sanctuary designation, in fact providing more protection than advocates had even asked for.

Cue the circus.

On April 12, only 10 days later, the city council will meet to rescind their on-the-mayor’s-coattails resolution, casting a pallor of incompetence over the governing body, with some council members showing themselves as amateurs without the ability to efficiently govern.

The reasons given? Not many. One story is that some on the council were confused (despite working on this for months and voting unanimously). In fact, councilperson Jody Washington (first ward) did give this radio interview that seemed to show an astounding lack of clarity on the topic. Perhaps a strong showing of MAGA hats and camouflage at an April 10 meeting will be the excuse. One statement pointed to sanctuary as a “trigger word” (ironic, considering we’re essentially talking about a safe space). One last excuse revolved around the distraction that the designation was creating. (So, apparently a solution to that is dragging Lansing into the national spotlight once again). Whatever the culprit (or scapegoat) pointed to, the truth is something far more complicated.

There are at least two more possible reasons the council is putting on such a bungling show for the nation. The first is money. Both the Lansing and Michigan Chambers of Commerce came out strongly opposed to the sanctuary designation after it had already passed. Perhaps a strong cash infusion from the Chamber into some people’s election coffers is enough of a push for them to make the mistake of bringing this floundering governmental body back into the national spotlight. It makes one wonder, who is up for re-election? Who is running for mayor? Who may benefit from such a cash infusion?

The second reason is pure spite. Some factions of the city council are throwing themselves on the pyre blindly. As councilperson Dunbar formed new coalitions with affected communities while renewing old ties with other organizations, other council members saw their hope of ousting her in November’s election go up in smoke. They seem willing to steamroll the city’s immigrants and the associated Latino and other communities who worked for the resolution in order to steamroll Dunbar. However, they may be flattening their chances of ever working with these communities and other true progressives in the city ever again. Some kinds of anger can blind one to potential long- term consequences.

Although this about-face and flip-flop would paint some in the city body as inadequate and hapless, that’s all it will do! In fact, getting rid of the council’s toothless resolution has absolutely no effect on the protections that Bernero, Dunbar and a vast coalition of cooperating groups brought to fruition.

Let me repeat that: Lansing will remain a sanctuary city no matter what!

It certainly seems like cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face, doesn’t it?

Popular in the Community

Close

What's Hot