MI cities, schools that don’t comply with immigration laws can’t get ‘pork,’ as lawmakers go around Whitmer

Michigan’s House of Representatives Passes Measure Targeting Sanctuary Cities

The Michigan House of Representatives recently passed a controversial measure along strict party lines, sparking debate over immigration enforcement and the allocation of state funds. The measure, known as House Resolution 19 (HR 19), was approved in a 56-50 vote, with Republican lawmakers unanimously supporting the proposal and Democrats opposing it. The resolution aims to withhold earmarked funding from municipalities and educational institutions that do not comply with federal immigration enforcement measures. By categorizing the measure as a rule change rather than legislation, Republican leaders ensured that it does not require the approval of Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer or the Democrat-controlled state Senate.

The Measure’s Text and Implications

The resolution explicitly states that any municipality or university that “actively maintains any rule, policy, ordinance, or resolution that would subvert immigration enforcement in any way” will be ineligible for legislatively-directed spending items. This includes funding for specific projects such as stadiums, water parks, or community centers. However, the measure allows affected entities to certify their compliance with federal immigration enforcement measures, potentially reversing their ineligibility. House Speaker Matt Hall, R-Kalamazoo, who sponsored the legislation, emphasized that while constitutional revenue sharing would continue, discretionary funding for projects like “splash pads” or “hip-hop academies” would be withheld from sanctuary jurisdictions.

Republican Leaders Defend the Measure

Republican lawmakers defended the measure as a necessary step to ensure compliance with federal law and protect public safety. House Floor Leader Bryan Posthumus, R-Grand Rapids, argued that local governments seeking taxpayer money must first demonstrate their commitment to following the law. “We are committed to ensuring the safety of our communities and protecting the due process rights of our citizens,” Posthumus said. Speaker Hall added that the resolution reflects the will of Michigan voters, who he claimed do not support sanctuary jurisdictions. He noted that leaders from both Republican- and Democratic-led municipalities have already begun sending letters to certify their compliance with the new rule.

Democratic Critics Slam the Measure as a Power Grab

Democratic lawmakers and Gov. Whitmer have strongly opposed the measure, characterizing it as a partisan power grab that disrupts the budget process and creates unnecessary fear among communities. Rep. Ranjeev Puri, the House Democratic leader, criticized Republicans for misusing the resolution process, which is typically reserved for routine business such as commemorating events or adopting rules. “HR 19 will insert chaos into the budget process, and we are already seeing communities across the state panic over being denied necessary funding,” Puri said. He called on Republicans to focus on addressing pressing issues like high prices, the impact of Trump-era tariffs, and supporting local economies instead of prioritizing divisive policies.

Gov. Whitmer’s Stance on Immigration and Funding

While Gov. Whitmer has not directly commented on HR 19, her past statements on immigration suggest a more moderate approach compared to other Democrats. In 2024, she told reporters that undocumented immigrants should not receive state assistance, signaling a possible point of agreement with Republicans on the issue. However, her administration is likely to oppose the measure’s implementation, given the broader Democratic criticism of its implications for local funding and governance.

Broader Implications and Potential Legal Challenges

The passage of HR 19 has sparked concerns about its constitutional validity and potential legal challenges. Critics argue that the measure could infringe on local governments’ autonomy and disproportionately affect vulnerable communities. Meanwhile, Republican leaders remain confident in the measure’s legality, asserting that it aligns with federal immigration laws and reflects the will of Michigan voters. As the resolution takes effect, its impact on municipal budgets, intergovernmental relations, and immigration policies in Michigan will be closely watched. The debate underscores the ongoing tension between state and federal authority, as well as the political polarization surrounding immigration enforcement in the United States.