Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

“Sanctuary Campuses” for illegal aliens is the next big thing

“Sanctuary Campuses” for illegal aliens is the next big thing

The meltdown over Trump continues apace.

https://youtu.be/PrvITcRXW58

America’s next generation of community organizers has launched a new campaign to turn college campuses into safe spaces for illegal immigrants not unlike the model of sanctuary cities.

CNN reports:

‘Sanctuary campus’ protests target Trump immigration policies

College campuses have become new battlegrounds over immigration as student protests pick up around the US in the wake of last week’s presidential election.

At universities across the country, students were walking out Wednesday.

Their aim: Pressuring officials to make their school a “sanctuary campus” that limits cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

The protests came a week after the election of Donald Trump, who’s said that deporting millions of undocumented immigrants will be a top priority once he takes office.

What’s a sanctuary campus?

That depends who you ask. Petitions have been circulating at a number of schools over the past few days. Some ask universities to declare their support for undocumented students publicly. Others ask for more specific measures, such as guarantees that the school won’t release information on students’ immigration status and that university police forces won’t team up with the feds in deportation raids.

“Different campuses are doing different things,” said Vera Parra, an organizer with Cosecha Movement. “Actions are not necessarily directed at school administration, but about supporting undocumented students on campuses and their fears about what can happen to them and their families under a Donald Trump administration.”

Here are a few examples via Twitter:

Tufts students are on board. WCVB News reports:

Students rally to make Tufts University a sanctuary campus

Dozens of students are calling on administrators at Tufts University to make their school a sanctuary campus a week after Donald Trump won the election.

Students rallied on campus Wednesday pushing their campus to become a safe haven for undocumented students, where they can feel at home and attend classes without fear.

The stakes couldn’t be higher for one of those students, who came to the United States 12 years ago.

“Being an undocumented immigrant, I fear deportation, but I will not accept that,” Diego Espinoza Rodriguez said. “I’ve lived here my entire life. I don’t know Mexico. I am from the United States. If my own country rejects me, it’s not right.”

Same thing at Stanford. The San Francisco Gate reports:

Hundreds walk out of Stanford classes, demand ‘sanctuary campus’

More than 500 Stanford University students, faculty and staff members walked out of classrooms and ducked out of jobs Tuesday in a protest of the policies of Donald Trump, the latest in a wave of Bay Area and national demonstrations against the president-elect.

Some of the Stanford dissidents, though, came with a concrete demand for the university’s administrators: investigating the possibility of the Peninsula campus serving as a sanctuary against the sort of millions of deportations Trump has said he’ll seek as president.

Hundreds of people — students, faculty, staff and other supporters — had as of Tuesday evening signed an open letter addressed to President Marc Tessier-Lavigne and Provost John Etchemendy urging the two leaders to “immediately develop a protocol for making itself a sanctuary campus.”

Oberlin College, of course. Cleveland.com reports:

Oberlin College asked to become ‘sanctuary campus’ to protect immigrants

Officials at Oberlin College and other schools across the country are being asked by faculty, staff and students to create “sanctuary campuses” and limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

More than two dozen petitions calling on university administrations to take steps to make their institutions “sanctuary campuses” have been circulated since Donald Trump was elected president, Inside Higher Ed reported.

The petitions want colleges to refuse to release information on the immigration status of students and others in the community and reject deportation or raids.

And Rutgers University. NJ.com reports:

Rutgers: We will protect undocumented immigrants on campus

Hours after students and faculty members circulated a petition to make Rutgers a “sanctuary campus,” President Robert Barchi said the school will protect the privacy of undocumented immigrants attending the university.

Barchi released a statement Tuesday after many students raised concerns about their privacy and safety following the election of Donald Trump. The university president also said he expects those associated with Rutgers to protect the privacy and confidentiality of students and that information will not be provided unless it’s required by law or a court order.

“Rutgers police do not inquire into nor record the immigration status of students or other persons unless a serious crime has been committed,” Barchi said. “Rutgers University does not use E-verify for any purposes other than to comply with longstanding federal law regarding employment eligibility. Immigration status is not a factor in student housing decisions.”

Here’s a video report on Rutgers from NJTV:

Featured image via YouTube.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

If you’ve ever wondered how France’s Reign of Terror happened, observe the anti-Trump protests.

    NavyMustang in reply to MattMusson. | November 17, 2016 at 1:31 pm

    The hysteria reminds me a lot also of Mao’s Cultural Revolution.

    Arminius in reply to MattMusson. | November 17, 2016 at 7:53 pm

    I might worry about some modern day Robespierre plotting a reign of terror if I wasn’t already well-informed he’s curled up in the fetal position at the cry-in at the university Center for Diversity and Inclusion where the professors can provide him with Kleenex, hot chocolate, coloring books, Play-Doh, and therapy animals.

    If the reign of terror descends upon me, I’ll just chalk the word “Trump” on the sidewalk and Robespierre and his pitchfork and torch-bearing crowd will run screaming back to their diversity center.

legacyrepublican | November 17, 2016 at 8:56 am

How many of them advocated justice for a ten year old beautiful little girl who was killed in Tyler, TX, a few day before the election by an illegal alien?

Which one of them stood up for her, her dreams, her right to go to a safe college of her choice, and just her God given right to live life here in America to a ripe old age?

Small potatoes.

“Dozens” of petitions. “Hundreds” of students and faculty. In schools with enrollments in the tens of thousands.

Mere noise.

casualobserver | November 17, 2016 at 9:04 am

Makes me wonder how many students are simply trying to improve their grades. Just like the mobs rioting in cities are transported and funded, there is little reason to doubt a portion of those students protesting are motivated by academics on campus. Getting excused from class is a badge of honor. At least they are so far peaceful and not destructive.

Yes, because nobody should ever have to comply with any law they don’t personally agree with, right snowflakes?

    Milhouse in reply to Observer. | November 17, 2016 at 8:45 pm

    Which law requires universities to report on the immigration status of their students? (Bear in mind that if such a law existed, which it doesn’t, it could only be enforced against private universities, not state or city ones.)

      A law could easily be enforced against one of the City or State Universities:

      Make it a required field for national origin and citizenship/immigration status on the FAFSA or separately make it a required field on all subsidized student loan forms. No legal status = no governmental subsidized funding of your education. If there are any private lenders left, they’re not going to stick their neck out for a student who has a significant possibility of being deported.

      Separately, require all Colleges / Universities to provide affirmative data on each student’s citizenship / immigration status as a prerequisite to the City / State college’s receipt of any Federal funds.

      Cut off the flow of money, the schools will come around really quick.

        Separately, require all Colleges / Universities to provide affirmative data on each student’s citizenship / immigration status as a prerequisite to the City / State college’s receipt of any Federal funds.

        I don’t think that would be fly. I think it would be very likely to be struck down as a tenth amendment violation.

        If someone is getting federal funds doesn’t the government have a right to know their legal status?
        All Trump wants to do now is get the convicted felons out of the country. I find it incredible that the idiot mayors want to protect thugs, drug dealers and gang members.
        I realize the mainstream media hides these facts and make the low information reader think there is going to be a house to house search for people here illegally. I hate the term undocumented. It’s as though they just forgot their ID, not that they have committed a criminal act.

          Milhouse in reply to Jackie. | November 20, 2016 at 1:06 am

          The university’s legal status? It’s fine, thank you very much.

          The issue isn’t what the fedgov has the right to do or know, it’s that it can’t compel states (which includes state and city colleges) to do its job. The states don’t work for the feds. If the feds want to know something let them use their own resources to find out. A college doesn’t have to tell them, and they can’t force it by cutting off funding it would otherwise have got.

I’m not sure how it is in other parts of the country, but I know in Texas that most of the illegal aliens lack even a primary education. They’re not prepared for US public high schools, as sorry as they may be (the schools), much less college.

    Massinsanity in reply to Paul. | November 17, 2016 at 10:43 am

    I find the sanctuary campus idea reasonable if it applies to current students. In the spectrum on nutty demonstrations on campi across the country this one seems not so nutty.

    Things are always far more complicated than they seem. In this case there are likely thousands of illegal students at colleges and universities across the country. These are young adults who were likely brought here years ago as children. They have gone to public (and in some cases private or charter) schools and now find themselves in the position of being “illegal” but they feel like citizens. I don’t think we should be deporting these people and I doubt that Trump does either. These students are here as a result of decades of lax border enforcement… its not their doing.

    We need to start with border security and perhaps employment restrictions then address the issue of illegals who commit other crimes while here and get them deported. After that some sort of common sense legislation will be needed to handle “illegals” who have been here for years.

In days past, those of us who attended college attended classes to learn and get a degree. We saved being stupid for the parties on the weekends.

Yes, we could reserve one dorm for drug cartel fugitives, another for the rapists, another for the murderers, and so on. The student protesters have clearly thoughtthis through.

Meanwhile, in Iowa….

Iowa state Bobby Kaufmann, R-Wilton, will introduce a new legislative bill:

“Kaufmann plans to introduce a piece of legislation he’s calling the ‘suck it up, buttercup bill’ when the Legislature resumes in January.

It would target state universities that use taxpayer dollars to fund election-related sit-ins and grief counseling above and beyond what is normally available to students. Those that do would be subject to a budget cut for double the amount they spend on such activities, Kaufmann said. It also would establish new criminal penalties for protesters who shut down highways. Example, those who briefly closed Interstate Highway 80 in Iowa City during a protest against President-elect Donald Trump last week.”

http://rightwingnews.com/top-news/yes-lawmaker-introduces-build-bridge-get-bill-college-crybabies/

Hey, everybody! Who remembers the Solomon Amendment? The one that gave the SecDef the right to withhold defense funds from campuses that refused to permit military recruiters on campus? The one whose constitutionality was challenged by a coalition of Ivy League law schools? The one that the Supremes ruled 9–zip in favor of the government?

And guess what happened next? I won’t spoil the surprise except to say that these “oh-so-principled” fakes wilted like a d ad flower and Harvard now has a ROTC.

Any bets on what happens to these phonies when a Solomon-like analogue is enacted that applies to immigration?

General Douglas Mac Arthur said that appeasement only leads to bloodier warfare. Imagine how much more violent, insane, and widespread the left’s reaction would be if they had four (or eight, or twelve…) more years before normal Americans pushed back.

I think the thing to do in the coming days is to listen to lefties’ arguments, agree that the grievance they describe needs to be addressed, then ask them what the standard of behavior should be. After that’s been determined, point out the violations on the left, making sure you have a mop handy when their tiny heads explode.

“Sanctuary Campuses” for illegal aliens is the next big thing.

GREAT IDEA! Then they will all be in one place to be deported.
Send in the buses and round them up.

The nutbars out there can “demand” anything that they want. However, that does not mean that they will get it.

Whether any sanctuary cities, universities or even daycare center exist this time next year depends entirely upon the actions of the federal government. It is against the law to aid or abet an illegal alien. And, in the case of states and their government subdivisions and educational institutions, the penalties can be both criminal and fiscal.

Criminal charges can be brought against anyone who knowingly violates federal law, in this area. The courts have already ruled that immigration policy and enforcement is strictly a federal power and that the states may not become involved in that area at all. So, a state, county, city or any institution of one of their political subdivisions may refuse to follow federal law with regard to illegal aliens. Now, criminal charges are unlikely. But, fiscal penalties are not.

Most cities receive federal funding, for a variety of things. This can be turned off, by the federal government if the city violated federal law. In the case of educational institutions, the same thing can be done with regard to federal grants, to the institutions, and by eliminating federal grants, scholarships and student loans non-citizens.

It is unlikely that very many colleges and universities will become “sanctuary” campuses and, if the federal government applies the pressure which it can apply legally, no public and few private campuses will exist for long.

This is just another temper tantrum of the deranged liberal population.

    Milhouse in reply to Mac45. | November 17, 2016 at 8:50 pm

    It is against the law to aid or abet an illegal alien.

    Really? What law is that? And in what way is not inquiring into someone’s status, or keeping that status private, “aiding” or “abeting”? Remember that states and their subsidiaries, including state and city universities, do not have to enforce federal law, or lift a finger to help the feds enforce it. That’s the tenth amendment.

      This one:

      Section 8 USC 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii)

      It’s actually specific: “knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation;”

        the penalty is:

        Section 8 USC 1324(a)(1)(B)(ii):

        (ii) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), (iv), or (v)(II), be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both;

          1) It doesn’t impose a positive obligation to inform anyone.

          2) If it did, then it could not apply to states or their subsidiaries, including state and city colleges.

          Milhouse, first you denied there was a law covering this. When proven wrong, you now claim disqualifiers. So I don’t think you are shooting straight here.

          Do you have some bias in favor of breaking immigration law?

          1) It doesn’t impose a positive obligation to inform anyone.

          Technically true, but any positive act performed for the express purpose of concealing, harboring or shielding from detection the illegal alien then does impose a positive obligation. Those are pretty broad terms; my guess is that in the next 12 months we’re going to see them tested as to what they actually mean. Knowledge of the illegal alien’s presence is one thing. Any active attempt at shielding from detection would be another (as in any refusal to apply otherwise generally applicable “reporting” requirements).

          2) If it did, then it could not apply to states or their subsidiaries, including state and city colleges.

          Again, technically true, as “sovereign entities.” But it would not necessarily protect individuals who are carrying out those policies for the purposes of generally applicable reporting requirements (thereafter acting outside the scope of their authority as “State” agents). Change the law to require citizenship reporting, find an administrator who is publicly refusing to report citizenship status, and charge him with “shielding from detection” for each and every illegal alien student for whom s/he fails to report status.

          The remainder will get the idea and fall into line VERY quickly.

          Besides – all this is predicated on the idea that the 10th Amendment to the Constitution is still actually enforceable. The SCOTUS has been telling us for decades now that “nah. It doesn’t really mean what it plainly says.”

          This might be the perfect fight to stick it to the Progressive justices on to force them to make a mutually-exclusive choice: State’s rights or Illegal Alien protection.

          If the administrator is working for the state entity, applying its policy, then he’s protected by the 10th amendment. Which the courts have been enforcing. Again, see Sibelius and Printz.

      “not inquiring” perhaps would incur plausible deniability, but “keeping private” would not.

      If you knowingly “keep private” the identity and whereabouts of a bank robber, I’m thinking aiding and abetting would be an appropriate charge…or perhaps obstruction of justice.

      Violating immigration law may not rise to the level of robbing banks, but it’s still a crime just the same.

      I’m not a lawyer, I’m just using common sense, which basically means I could easily be wrong, since lawyers often split any number of hairs to avoid any semblance of common sense.

        Milhouse in reply to Sailorcurt. | November 20, 2016 at 1:11 am

        Keeping private is not an act. It’s just not telling, and they have no obligation to tell, and the 10th says Congress can’t impose such an obligation on them.

So how long before States smarten up and decide not to fund public universities for this nonsense?

    Milhouse in reply to Mr. Izz. | November 20, 2016 at 1:13 am

    If the state disapproves, it can simply order the college (or city) to comply with the feds. The college’s (or city’s) 10th amendment rights derive from the state. It has no such right against the state.

Cut funding for universities engaged in this absurdity and cut the flow of money back to Mexico. Money talks and bullshit walks.

The Left never leaves a fellow criminal, oops I mean comrade behind.

This morning I declined to sign the petition to make my school a sanctuary campus.

    Arminius in reply to M.K.. | November 17, 2016 at 8:02 pm

    You may (or not; I don’t know your situation) want to let people on campus know that federal law actually does, no sh*t, apply on college campii too.

    And federal, state, and local law enforcement are full of people who will happily show you that a college campus is not a holy site where someone can claim sanctuary like some medieval European cathedral.

      Milhouse in reply to Arminius. | November 17, 2016 at 8:52 pm

      Yes, federal law applies on campus, just as it applies in churches. But neither state universities nor churches can be compelled to enforce it, or to help the feds enforce it. That applied to the fugitive slave laws, it applied to prohibition, and it applies to immigration laws. The feds are free to come and enforce their laws.

fine: they get no federal funds of any sort, and no federal grants or loans for students.

see how long they survive without that revenue

    Milhouse in reply to redc1c4. | November 17, 2016 at 8:53 pm

    Can’t do it, at least to state and city universities. Tenth amendment.

      The Feds can attach just about any string they want to the provision of federal funds to any university. That was the holding regarding the Solomon Amendments and military recruitment on Campus.

      10TH amendment doesn’t apply to guarantee these campuses funding. It just means that the Federal Government can’t force the campus police to do the actual rounding up of the illegal aliens themselves.

        No, they cannot. The Solomon amendment only applied to defense funding, which is directly related to military’s interest in recruitment. If a college isn’t going to allow recruitment, then what benefit does the military get from funding anything there?

        See South Dakota v Dole, and NFIB v Sibelius

          See below. Although I think that the Federal Government has an interest in subsidizing only those students that do not have a probability of being deported, thus benefiting other nations at the expense of the citizens of the United States.

          I don’t see how the Tenth Amendment has anything to do with the issue.

          Fedgov provides funding to the school, whether via direct funding or guaranteed student loans, fedgov has the ability to enact caveats or restrictions on the provision of that funding. If the school doesn’t live up to the caveats, the funding is cut off.

          How is the tenth amendment implicated?

          Not arguing, genuinely interested in an explanation. Perhaps I have a gross misunderstanding of how it all works.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | November 20, 2016 at 1:20 am

          The tenth amendment is implicated when the feds place conditions on already-existing funding that are either (1) not related to what the funding is for; or (2) so punitive as to force (as opposed to persuade) the state to comply with its wishes. It can attach whatever conditions it likes to new funding, which the state can clearly do without, since it’s been doing so till now. It can cut existing funding by a small enough amount that the state is still left with a choice. But it can’t cut so much that the state has no choice, and it can’t touch funding that has nothing to do with the issue.

ugottabekiddinme | November 17, 2016 at 3:37 pm

Conservatives always point out how with federal money always comes federal strings. OK, then.

I’ll see your sanctuary campus, and I’ll raise you a couple new rules, effective immediately:

No such “sanctuary” college or university will any longer be qualified or permitted to receive money from any federal student loans, and all federal research contracts to such institutions will also be suspended while undergoing review to see whether the grant should be abrogated.

Hit ’em in the pocketbook.

This reminds me at least a bit of Eisenhower’s response to Southern defiance to Brown vs Board of Ed.

Eisenhower may have been lukewarm toward the nascent civil rights revolution, but he wasn’t about to tolerate defiance of federal law. Thus, the National Guard were called to Little Rock, AK. Just as federal marshalls later protected James Meredith’s right to attend the U. of Miss.

Using the power of the purse is certainly more gentle than calling in the National Guard, but, the federal government surely has the right to enforce federal law. Even on college campuses.

Presumably there would be outrage if federal marshals were to serve subpoenas or arrest students or faculty on campus, but, can anyone seriously doubt that the federal government has the right to do so?

(Meanwhile, Ben Shapiro was prevented from speaking on the UW-Madison campus, with the apparent complicity of that school’s administration:

http://watchdog.org/282056/trump-uw-madison-ben-shapiro/
)

    Ragspierre in reply to Albigensian. | November 17, 2016 at 4:47 pm

    Sorry, but I have to correct you.

    Eisenhower moved in the 101st Airborne. He considered civil rights a national security interest, and was VERY strong on the matter.

    Kennedy, by contrast, moved in UNARMED Federal Marshals, who were promptly shot up.

    Look it up.

    Milhouse in reply to Albigensian. | November 17, 2016 at 8:57 pm

    Nobody is suggesting that the federal government may not enforce its laws on university campuses, or in cities for that matter. That’s not what “sancturary” cities or campuses are about. A “sanctuary city” is one that does not help the feds enforce their laws, by informing them of people’s immigration status, or by arresting people for them. The tenth amendment protects their right to refuse this. They can’t interfere with the feds, but they don’t have to help. And the same is true for state or city universities.

      And the Federal Government is free to deny them funding if the Congress gets off it’s lazy butt and passes an amendment to the language enabling FAFSA or the funding of these campuses that says something like “all student immigration status must be disclosed prior to any educational institution being granted federal funds.”

        No, it is not free to deny them funding, except under strict limits. The funding must be related to the behavior the feds want to encourage, and it must not be coercive. Why do you think 0bama was not allowed to cut Medicare funding to states that refused to go along with the 0bamacare changes?

          Why do you think 0bama was not allowed to cut Medicare funding to states that refused to go along with the 0bamacare changes?

          There’s a key word here: Changes.

          The immigration enforcement ~law~ (if not policy) has been fairly static for 30 years now.

          The reason that Obama was blocked in the PPACA medicare cuts implementation was that the benefit was a ~static~ benefit that the State’s had structured their financing around under the promise by the federal government that it would ~always~ be there.

          If I remember correctly (I don’t have it in front of me right now) SCOTUS was very explicitly clear in that decision that the States could not force the feds to provide them MORE funding unless the States actually complied with the change requirements.

          The funding (or lack thereof) would be reasonably related to the behavior the feds want to encourage (the reporting of illegal aliens on United States soil) and would not be coercive to the college / university if it is a law of general applicability (such as a general citizenship status reporting requirement).

          Think of it like the recent changes requiring “gainful employment” data from for-profit colleges.

          P.S.- as an aside, I think the Medicare decision was wrong by SCOTUS. The Congress should be free to attach any strings that it wants to any funding coming back to the States. Just like the States should be free to tell Congress to take their money and shove it up their ….

          In the same idea set, I think that IF a STATE told the Federal Government that it no longer wanted its citizens to participate in Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid that the citizens of that state should be freed from FICA withholding.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | November 18, 2016 at 1:44 pm

          If I remember correctly (I don’t have it in front of me right now) SCOTUS was very explicitly clear in that decision that the States could not force the feds to provide them MORE funding unless the States actually complied with the change requirements.

          That’s right. Congress can offer new money on condition that a state comply with its wishes. It can even cut old money by a small amount to persuade a state to do as it wants, but the key word there is “persuade”, not “compel”. If the cut is so significant that the state is left with no real choice but to do as it’s told, then it violates the 10th amendment.

          The funding (or lack thereof) […] would not be coercive to the college / university if it is a law of general applicability (such as a general citizenship status reporting requirement).

          Not true. It’s coercive if it leaves the college with no real choice.

          Think of it like the recent changes requiring “gainful employment” data from for-profit colleges.

          There’s no 10th amendment issue there, because they’re not subsidiaries of a state, so Congress can commandeer them.

          Arminius in reply to Milhouse. | November 19, 2016 at 10:21 am

          Medicaid funding, Milhouse, not Medicare.

          http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/06/court-holds-that-states-have-choice-whether-to-join-medicaid-expansion/

          A natural mistake for you to make, I suppose, given how sloppy your thinking is on this subject. I don’t even know where to begin, other than pointing out you don’t know the difference between Medicare and Medicaid. It probably doesn’t occur to you as to why not even the out-of-control Obama administration entertained the the thought they could deny intransigent states Medicare funding.

Parents (the people who write the checks to these colleges), time to step up. If your spoiled brat of a snowflake is involved, it’s time for a talk. Maybe it’s time to remove your kid from college all together. The military is always looking for more recruits. WAKE UP!

    Arminius in reply to MAJack. | November 19, 2016 at 10:31 am

    Good luck with that. Lena Dunham, a sexual predator by her own admission and despite the fact almost nobody watches her show has become a lefty celebrity, went to Oberlin College.

    Ground zero for this kind of s**t.

    Her dad paints angry vaginas for a living. Technically angry vulvae. And he makes a good living.

    The parents for the most part live in the same terrarium as the professors, administrators, and their own spawn.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend