House Resolution 19

MIRC strongly opposes House Resolution 19. We encourage you to voice your opposition to Michigan legislators.

1. Attend the hearing or give testimony

House Committee on Government Operations
Date: Tuesday, February 11, 2025
Time: 10:30 AM
Location: Room 307, Anderson House Office Building, 124 N Capitol Ave, Lansing, MI 48933
Contact: Keith Feldpausch, Committee Clerk, 517-373-1260, kfeldpausch@house.mi.gov

2. Contact your elected officials.

Find your Michigan State Representative
Find your Michigan State Senator

Summary of the Resolution:

The proposed resolution would amend rules in place for how the Michigan House of Representative considers appropriations. State funding directed to a municipality would not receive a vote unless the municipality has submitted its “rules, policies, and ordinances related to federal immigration law and immigration enforcement measures” to the Michigan House. The chief executive of the municipality would also be required to certify that the locality will comply with federal immigration law. But if any municipality actually sought to subvert federal law, its actions would likely not be permitted to continue anyway–this resolution does not actually accomplish anything aside from stoking fear and chaos, potentially stopping funds from reaching those who need them most.

The resolution sponsor has indicated that the House majority is willing to force a government shutdown over budget negotiations if jurisdictions’ rules, policies, or ordinances are deemed to be in violation of the rule. A shutdown would prevent all Michiganders from accessing critical government resources so that a few state lawmakers can make an end-run around local government.

Analysis of the Resolution

The proposed rule amendment represents a complete misunderstanding of discussions within localities around supporting immigrant communities. Such policies seek to uphold the laws and constitution of the United States while limiting toxic stress for immigrant children and families. Police have repeatedly shared that policies such as those targeted by this amendment encourage all law-abiding residents to come forward and report crimes–keeping their communities safe. Victim support groups have also regularly supported such policies because they allow survivors of sexual abuse and violent crimes to seek help with less fear of immigration consequences–making the whole community safer. In short, these policies are designed to uphold the rule of law allowing communities to thrive.

The resolution is overly broad, “including but not limited to” the submission of any rules, policies, and ordinances related to U.S. Immigration Customs and Enforcement (ICE), and it is vague - it does not specify how these policies will be evaluated. The overly broad language could be read to target localities simply focused on upholding privacy laws and constitutional protections for their residents. 

The proposed amended rule specifically refers to policies related to ICE detainer requests. Many local jurisdictions do not honor detainer requests because federal courts have ruled that, without probable cause, such as a judicial warrant, holding individuals beyond their release date violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. This would punish jurisdictions for upholding the Constitution.

The proposed rule goes beyond the scope of state and local government. Courts have repeatedly affirmed that immigration enforcement is the purview of the federal government. Our local governments have the right to focus on safety in our communities, educating our children, and providing the infrastructure we need to grow businesses and recreation without being forced into federal immigration enforcement. While communities may not be able to prevent cruel enforcement practices, they may uphold the constitution and laws that protect against unlawful search and seizure.

The rule would interfere with the legislature’s duty to appropriate funds for municipalities and unfairly discriminate against communities with large immigrant populations. Even though the state constitution charges the legislature with upholding its prohibition against discrimination on the basis of national origin, this rule would make discrimination implicit to the legislature’s appropriations process.

The proposed rule could slow down or prevent funds from getting to counties, which do not benefit from constitutional revenue sharing, because of decisions that officials at the county level may not have even taken part in. This absurd result would interfere with funding for county sheriffs, parks, judicial resources, and roads, just to name a few.

It is critical that lawmakers consider how this would affect communities. Some of those most impacted by fear of immigration raids are children. Research has well documented the toxic stress that has life-long effects for children in these communities. We have had many clients share that children are unable to sleep and experiencing nightmares about immigration raids. It is understandable that Michigan municipalities would want to ensure that residents are able to grow and thrive within their jurisdictions, without fear of unconstitutional or illegal enforcement actions.

The Resolution would have a negative impact on Michigan communities.

• Costs taxpayers. Forcing Michigan municipalities to engage in costly federal immigration enforcement duties – that Americans already pay taxes for the federal government to handle – needlessly pulls much-needed resources from local law enforcement.
• Violations and liability. By encouraging municipalities to honor ICE detainer requests and signaling that local law enforcement should cooperate more closely with federal immigration enforcement, the legislature may push municipalities toward serious violations of state and federal law.
  • Local law enforcement agencies may risk costly lawsuits for constitutional violations. When deciding whether to contact immigration enforcement officers, local law enforcement who are untrained in the complexities of immigration law may impermissibly rely on race, religion or national origin. Racial profiling by law enforcement is unconstitutional because targeting minorities on account of race or (perceived) national origin deprives these individuals of equal protection under the laws within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Law enforcement agencies can best reduce their risk of liability by avoiding involvement in immigration matters and leaving enforcement of federal immigration law to federal immigration officials.
  • Compliance with immigration detainers is voluntary, not mandatory. The federal government cannot force local jurisdictions to honor detainers, an interpretation repeatedly upheld by the courts. Some state courts have also ruled that the laws of their state do not provide legal authority for law enforcement agencies to hold people on an immigration detainer. In fact, jurisdictions that do honor detainers can be found liable for unlawfully holding an individual on a detainer without a judicial warrant in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and may be required to compensate individuals for damages.
  • The law is clear that cities and states have every right to focus on serving their own residents, instead of working for ICE.
• Immigration enforcement is a federal duty. Local law enforcement lack the proper training to enforce immigration law – that’s why immigration enforcement is best left to federal authorities.
  • Federal immigration law is among the most complex bodies of law in the United States. The training required for local law enforcement officers to understand it fully would be extremely costly and take significant time away from the work of keeping their communities safe.
  • There are numerous bases for individuals to be lawfully present in the United States, which state and local officers may not understand or which they may disregard due to lack of training or bias. Not only does the bill expose our towns to the risk of civil rights lawsuits, it prohibits our local leaders from taking steps to provide clear guidance to local law enforcement.
• Undermines public safety. If lawmakers succeed in compelling municipalities to abandon lawful policies, trust between immigrant communities and local law enforcement will be destroyed, making us all less safe.
  • Immigrant witnesses and victims, whether or not they themselves are lawfully present, are less likely to report crimes and provide helpful intelligence for fear that they or their family members will be questioned, detained, or deported.
  • Police Chief Magazine has aptly pointed out that “One of the most intimidating tools abusers and traffickers of undocumented immigrants use is the threat of deportation. Abusers and other criminals use it to maintain control over their victims and to prevent them from reporting crimes to the police.”
• Disempowers voters & local communities. Michigan municipalities should not be punished for upholding the rights of immigrants and following the law.
  • Article 7, §34 of the Michigan Constitution gives local units of government broad authority to make decisions about what is best for them and their residents–including their residents who are immigrants. The Michigan Supreme Court has interpreted this provision of the Michigan Constitution to ensure that local units of government are broadly empowered to create – free of outside intervention – governance plans that address the unique needs of their communities.
  • The proposed rule would disempower voters across the state, and the local officials who voters elected to make decisions about their communities. It would undercut the ability of local governments to engage in self-governance, determine how to best allocate resources, and execute the will of the voters who elected them.
• Brands Michigan as unwelcoming. This would be the first state policy targeting municipalities that lawfully support immigrant rights. It seeks to divide rather than unite our neighbors and communities. At a time when Michigan wants to attract and welcome more residents, this would mark our state with extreme, anti-immigrant bias.

Background:

• Here are the facts about so-called “sanctuary” policies.
• There is no legal definition of “sanctuary” and there are a wide variety of policies that municipalities may put in place to lawfully protect the rights of immigrant residents. This resolution does not provide a clear definition of what constitutes a “sanctuary” policy and would penalize many law-abiding Michigan communities.
• These policies simply allow local law enforcement to prioritize local resources for local law enforcement. Communities with such policies choose to put safety first.
• Importantly, “sanctuary” policies do not stop ICE from conducting immigration enforcement — local police routinely share fingerprint data with federal agencies. However, local jurisdictions are not required to detain individuals for ICE without a judicial warrant, maintaining constitutional protections for all residents.
• Under the last Trump administration, “sanctuary” jurisdictions were found to be fully in compliance with federal law. Courts ruled that 8 U.S.C. § 1373 does not:
  • mandate that jurisdictions comply with immigration detainers
  • prohibit policies or laws that restrict compliance with detainers
  • require state or local law enforcement to collect information on immigration or citizenship status
  • nor does it prevent jurisdictions from limiting the collection of such information.
• Recent memos from lawyers with the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Immigration Project also dispel the baseless claims of the current Trump administration regarding “sanctuary” jurisdictions. 
• Immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility. The Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits the federal government from forcing local agencies to act as immigration officers. The State of Michigan should maintain this separation of duties to keep our communities safe, so our municipalities can focus on the important duties of protecting and serving their residents.
• Research shows that communities with “sanctuary” policies are safer, more healthy, and prosperous. One study found that crime is lower and economies are stronger in counties with "sanctuary" policies compared to counties that did not have those policies. Another study found that children of immigrants in communities with “sanctuary” policies had better health outcomes.
• Our communities are safer when local law enforcement agencies focus on community policing, and our immigrant neighbors can continue to go to work, school, and seek health care. This is what makes Michigan communities thrive.

We urge you to let your Michigan lawmakers know that House Resolution 19 is costly, wrong-headed, and would harm Michigan communities.