David Michael Miller
A resolution condemning President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown should be a slam dunk. Council president Mike Verveer says Mayor Paul Soglin and council members are united in opposition against Trump’s move to temporarily restrict immigration from seven predominantly Muslim countries, bar all Syrian refugees indefinitely and crack down on so-called “sanctuary cities.”
But this symbolic gesture of defiance against Trump might be derailed over Ald. Shiva Bidar-Sielaff’s insistence that the resolution designate the Common Council office a “safe space, where all residents may enter and will be safe and protected.”
“The resolution is completely non-controversial for us at city hall, save for the provision designating the city council office as a safe space,” says Verveer, who is a co-sponsor of the resolution. “For many of us, it's a concern because it brings with it many unknowns and sets up expectations for some in the community that we won’t be able to fulfill.”
Bidar-Sielaff has so far refused to compromise on the “safe space” provision. She concedes that the city has limited means to shield residents from federal authorities. However, she says Trump is calling for a “huge increase” in enforcement of immigration laws and a “safe space” is needed to protect city residents.
“The more we can do to push the limit on what barriers we can put in the way of that kind of sweeping enforcement, the better,” says Bidar-Sielaff, who was born in Iran, immigrated to Spain as a child and then moved to the United States as a young adult. “If a situation were to happen where someone needed to take refuge — literally — we can create one more layer of protection. Yes, the immigration officer can still barge in and arrest someone. But we can at least say that, ‘We have designated this a safe space. Can you wait a little bit until we call an attorney?’”
Ald. Rebecca Kemble supports the overall resolution but will vote “no” if the safe space language remains. She calls it “dangerously misleading” to the very people the resolution vows to support.
“[Some] may interpret this to mean they can receive sanctuary and services at our office,” says Kemble. “We don’t even have a bathroom, let alone staff who are trained to provide services to people in crisis over potential deportation proceedings.”
On Feb. 1, Soglin threatened to veto the resolution if the safe space provision wasn’t removed. The mayor says he supports nearly all the language of the resolution because it is aligned with “existing city policy and procedures.” However, the mayor fears that if the safe space provision isn't removed, the symbolic act will prompt a backlash from Republican lawmakers at the Capitol.
“We have the best possible protections [for immigrants] that’s aligned with other cities,” Soglin said at a press conference. “This takes us off on a dangerous course…. It’s a needless, adventurous, reckless act to prod [GOP lawmakers]. I just don't understand why this is necessary. If you are engaged in a battle, pick your fights strategically. Maximize your ability to win. Maximize your ability to gain public support. Stay unified.”
Even if the city were to designate a safe space, Soglin says the Common Council office on the fourth floor of the City County Building is impractical. Two people work full-time in the office.
Last year, Republicans in the state Assembly passed a bill that outlawed so-called sanctuary cities. The Senate declined to take up the bill, which would have imposed up to a $5,000 fine a day on local governments that prohibit “an employee...from inquiring about the immigration status of an individual who has been lawfully detained or arrested, or from otherwise cooperating with or assisting the federal government, or other units of government, with immigration enforcement.”
A day after Soglin’s warning that the safe space provision could provoke retribution from state lawmakers, Rep. Janel Brandtjen (R-Menomonee Falls) began circulating legislation similar to the sanctuary cities bill defeated at the Capitol in 2016. She says it's odd that people are even talking about defying federal laws.
“The purpose of the bill just asks to uphold federal law,” says Brandjten. “And if you don’t uphold federal law, there’s an option for any resident to take a municipality to court for not upholding the law. So that could be the Wisconsin attorney general or just your average Joe taxpayer.”
Brandtjen is optimistic that the legislation will receive a vote. She says she planned on introducing the “common sense bill” again this session regardless of any action taken by Madison officials.
“The timeline is what it is,” says Brandjten. “Whether legal or illegal, don’t you want to make sure the bad guys aren’t on the streets?”
When asked about the bill by email, Soglin says, "We are focused on opposing it. Strenuously."
Bidar-Sielaff is not concerned about reaction from the Legislature. “I think the spotlight from the state has been shining on us for a number of years now. I don’t think standing up and being bold is something we shouldn’t do, because we are fearful of the state. You have to push and challenge for change to happen.”
There is support for the resolution as it stands now. Thirteen of 20 council members, including Bidar-Sielaff, are co-sponsoring the resolution, including Denise DeMarb, Larry Palm, Tim Gruber, Mark Clear, Maurice Cheeks, Marsha Rummel, Sara Eskrich, Matthew Phair, Steve King, Amanda Hall, Sheri Carter and Verveer. It takes 14 votes to override a mayoral veto.
But Ald. Samba Baldeh — who immigrated to the United States in 2000 from a rural village in Gambia — is unconvinced. He plans on voting against Bidar-Sielaff’s resolution if the safe space language isn’t changed. He, too, is confused about the logistics of designating just one office at the City County Building a “sanctuary area.” He also would like the city to avoid entering into “unnecessary fights.” He’s calling on the council to divorce itself from politicking.
“I’m more interested in the people I know who are afraid,” says Baldeh. “People who fear their families will be separated. People who are afraid their kids — who are on the approval list now — will never actually be able to join their families here. People afraid that their loved ones who travel out of the country on green cards will never be able to come back.”
Update: After this article was posted, city attorney Michael May sent a memo to council members calling the “safe space” language in Bidar-Sielaff’s resolution “extremely vague.”
“Because the resolution does not indicate what the city intends to do in this regard, it is so vague as to be almost meaningless. As such, I interpret it as simply aspirational language,” writes May.
The memo also gives May’s analysis of a substitute amendment to the resolution which tweaks the “safe space” language. Instead of the Common Council office being designated “a safe space, where all residents may enter and will be safe and protected,” the substitute amendment reads: “Common Council office is designated as a safe place where all residents may readily obtain phone interpreter services and immigrant rights information.”
May writes that this substitute version of the resolution “is much better in that it actually defines some services the City would provide” but still recommends striking the provision entirely.
May writes: “If it is to be included, the second version, where the services that are to accompany the declaration are described, is much preferable, and likely will avoid any confusion.”
The second version of the resolution also has more cosponsors than the original, with Alds. Ledell Zellers and Barbara Harrington-McKinney bringing the total council members in favor to 15.
