5
OPINION
Thursday, May 18, 2017
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
B
iologist
Edward
Wilson
once remarked that biology
seemingly holds us “on a
leash,” and though we can design
and develop our lives, we live
within the constraints of human
biology. The beauty of a leash,
however, is that we are tethered,
not immoveable. For example, we
still have implicit bias, but through
introspection and exposure to
different backgrounds, we can
change our perspective and stretch
our biological and moral “leash.”
In my inquiry and approach to the
purpose and legality of sanctuary
cities, I find this analogy useful to
answer the following questions:
How much are sanctuary cities,
counties and states acting on a
“legal leash” with immigration law?
When do ethics supersede the law?
I struggle with sanctuary cities
frequently. I don’t doubt the many
instances in which sanctuary
cities act as safe havens for people
fleeing persecution and bringing
otherwise valuable workers to the
United States work force, nor do
I doubt we are a “nation of laws,”
and those who undermine the law
must be held accountable. The real
debate with sanctuary cities is
how long the legal leash should be
between the federal government
and local government.
Though we are familiar with
places such as New York City,
Chicago and San Francisco as
sanctuary cities defying the federal
government, the original debate
was one between church and
state. The initial movement began
with a refugee crisis in the 1980s.
During this time, Reverend John
Fife of South Presbyterian Church
in Tucson, Ariz. took in a few
parishioners from El Salvador in
1980 who were fleeing the war and
persecution from the government.
Though he questioned the legality
of his initial actions, he believed
that he had a moral duty as a
Christian to help those in only
applying for asylum, not helping
them cross the border. He began
noticing the increasing conflict in
Central America; because of the
complicit nature of the United
States as well as its support for the
Central American dictatorships
(the large majority of the guerrilla
groups were socialistic; therefore
the
Reagan
Administration
feared a communist state in
Central America and supported
dictatorships as an alternative).
Reverend
John
Fife
began
recruiting other churches from
across the American Southwest in
making a coalition to help shelter
and support the thousands of
Central Americans crossing the
border. His legal defense became
one of morality and his belief in the
church’s tradition for sanctuary.
However, after receiving national
media attention for his coalition’s
work, the federal government
began to question whether his
movement was stretching the
“leash” too much.
During the movement, and
today, section 8 U.S. Code §1373 (a)
is quoted as a counterargument to
the sanctuary city movement. The
code is as follows:
“A Federal, State, or local
government
entity
or
official
may not prohibit, or in any way
restrict, any government entity
or official from sending to, or
receiving from, the Immigration
and
Naturalization
Service
information
regarding
the
citizenship
or
immigration
status, lawful or unlawful, of any
individual.”
In
fact,
Donald
Trump’s
executive
order
“Enhancing
Public Safety in the Interior of the
United States” used this clause
as the basis to try and remove
federal funding from sanctuary
places. Though Judge William
Orrick of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of
California ruled Trump’s move
unconstitutional, the movement,
in my view, has shifted from a
religious rights to a states’ rights
debate. In confirmation of this
change, Orrick states the executive
order might be an infringement
upon states’ rights, writing, “The
executive order attempts to use
coercive methods to circumvent
the Tenth Amendment’s direct
prohibition against conscription.”
Even after the ruling, the debate
is continually “kicked down the
road,” without many solutions on
“how” we can fix the issue.
One partial solution is allowing
immigration law to be amended
by the states, not the federal
government. The incentives differ
greatly from state to state for refugee
and asylum policy. If one were to
compare the economic and social
difference
between
Minnesota
and Arizona with regards to
immigrants, it doesn’t make sense
for these two states to have nearly
identical immigration policies. I
do not disregard the need for the
federal government to develop
immigration policy that ensures
equal protection for immigrants,
but a “hands off approach” to states
and their policies makes more
economic and social sense.
The “why” in the sanctuary cities
debacle truly racks my conscience.
When reading 8 U.S. Code §1373
(a), it is not difficult to see that
these cities and counties are, in fact,
undermining the law, without much
reparation. However, as a person
who started a refugee organization
on campus named Refugees to
College, I cannot in good conscience
deny these individuals a place to
grow as people. I think we should
ask whether immigration law, to
some degree, requires a suspension
of natural ethics. How much can
we extend our biological and moral
leash? Before an answer can come,
two developments, in my opinion,
must take place in the United States
with regards to refugee and asylum
law. Firstly, the “leash” must gain
a true meaning. At the moment, no
side truly understands each other’s
definition, if there is even one. The
federal government, along with
the cities such as San Francisco
and New York, must define what
“sanctuary” means.
I have often heard that sanctuary
cities undermine those who went
through the immigration process
legally. However, many of these
families, have been in the United
States, undocumented immigrants,
for decades (66 percent, in fact).
It is unwise and ignorant to think
that uprooting established families
is a beneficial action for our global
society. We have not only a moral
obligation, but also an opportunity
to extend our biological leash. It
is in not only our best interest as a
country, but also as moral beings.
In 2014, an academic paper called
‘The neural basis of the interaction
between theory of mind and moral
judgment’ was published. In it,
humans are described as having
an evolutionarily developed system
for ethics. The legal leash, in this
case, does not take into account
these behaviors. Our biological
leash is often constrained by legal
procedure; therefore, a discussion
of the two must come to the
forefront of national discussion so
that states, counties and cities can
work with the federal government
in
developing
comprehensive
immigration
reform,
especially
with regard to sanctuary cities.
—David Kamper can be reached
at dgkamper@umich.edu.
Sanctuary cities and the legal leash
Dallas’s supreme taco
W
hen cornerback Jeremy
Clark
was
selected
in
the
sixth
round
of the 2017 National Football
League (NFL) Draft by the Seattle
Seahawks,
Michigan
Football
set a school record with eleven
players being drafted. Ranging
from Peppers at Pick 25 to Clark at
Pick 197, the numerous selections
not only indicate the talent that
Michigan had last year, but also
that the impact of the 2016-2017
Michigan Football, which will be
felt in the NFL for years to come.
Some of these players will be
granted the opportunity to make
their teams to compete for playing
time— immediately. Some will
excel more than others. Tight end
Jake Butt could compete instantly
for a starting role in Denver; Ryan
Glasgow could be a great defensive
tackle
for
Cincinnati;
Jabrill
Peppers will be playing all over the
field for the Cleveland Browns.
While all of Michigan players
are in positions to succeed, when
looking back on this draft class,
Taco Charlton will stand out
from the rest. Taco Charlton’s
combination of size, versatility and
pass rushing skills will allow him
to develop into both the star of the
Dallas Cowboy’s defense, as well as
the star from Michigan’s 2017 draft
class.
When Taco Charlton went to
the Dallas Cowboys at Pick 28, it
seemed immediately like a perfect
fit. Charlton was selected by a
franchise that already had a good
defense, but one that struggled
at defensive end, where Charlton
is
projected
to
play.
Sports
Illustrated’s Chris Burke agrees,
giving the pick an “A-” grade
and saying that it “fills a need for
Dallas, and at good value.” By being
selected in the first round-which
means the Cowboys view him as
a potential cornerstone of their
defense-as well as being selected
by a team with a weakness at his
position, Charlton will be given an
opportunity to start from day one,
a rare feet for a rookie.
What makes Charlton attractive
to NFL general managers and
coaches alike is his unique ability
to both defend the run, and rush
the passer from the defensive
end position. In today’s NFL,
there are numerous “specialists”
at defensive end; players who
can play only on running downs,
and players who only come in to
rush the quarterback in passing
situations. But these specialists
rarely can do both. Having a player
like Charlton who fills both roles
at once is a tremendous luxury for
any NFL team to have. As a run
stopper, Charlton possesses both
ideal size (6’6”/275 lbs) as well as
great technique. In this regard,
Charlton has not only potential,
but college statistics to back up his
play. Last season at Michigan, he
recorded 43 total tackles, including
13 tackles for loss. Given his body
as well as his commitment to
improving his technique, Charlton
should replicate this success at the
next level.
Despite Charlton’s ability as
a run-stopper, he was drafted
primarily for his ability as an
“edge rusher,” one of the most
important positions in the pass-
happy state of the NFL. As a pass
rusher, again Charlton’s 6’6” frame
sets him apart, as will his wide
wingspan. NFL scouts rave about
Charlton’s “freaky athletic traits.”
These traits, combined with expert
pass-rushing techniques, will give
Charlton the edge over the NFL’s
lumbering offensive lineman. In
college, Charlton led Michigan
with a team-high 9.5 sacks this
past season.
Despite
his
prospects,
the
biggest issue scouts had with
Charlton was that he appeared
to still be growing into his
body. While these complaints
are accurate, it was critical for
Charlton’s draft stock that he
played his best football at the end
of this past season. Charlton began
the season as a solid contributor
to a dominant defense; he ended
it as one of the defense’s biggest
contributors. In the last regular
season game against Ohio State,
Charlton recorded 9 total tackles
and 2.5 sacks. One month later,
Charlton added 5 more tackles
and another sack in Michigan’s
bowl game against Florida State.
Charlton made the biggest impact
in Michigan’s two biggest games
of the season, against the two best
teams Michigan played, in the last
two games of the season. The arc
of his season illustrates not only
his improvement while he grows
into his enormous body, but also
his willingness to work hard to
improve his game and compete on
the highest level.
—Charles Widmaier can be
reached at cwidmaie@umich.edu.
CHARLES WIDMAIER| COLUMN
DAVID KAMPER| COLUMN
Read more at MichiganDaily.com