I am against the sanctuary campus movement. My opinion is not bigoted; I believe that Princeton should be a safe haven for all students to receive an education regardless of their immigration status. However, I also believe that making Princeton a “sanctuary campus” would do more harm than good and would not actually protect undocumented immigrants. Instead, I urge students to challenge Trump’s policies by becoming engaged with the government rather than by creating a title that nominally declares Princeton to be above the law.
I oppose the sanctuary campus movement because it is nothing more than a publicity stunt. Columbia University Provost John Coatsworth made his school a sanctuary campus when he wrote in an email that, “the University will neither allow immigration officials on our campuses without a warrant, nor share information on the immigration status of students with those officials unless required by subpoena or court order.”
His statement highlights the problem of a sanctuary campus: it protects undocumented students until the executive branch receives a warrant or subpoena that forces a university to comply. While neither are easy to obtain, little will prevent Trump from doggedly pursuing them once he wields the full power of the presidency.
As President Eisgruber explained in his email to students, “every person and every official, no matter what office he or she may hold, is subject to the law.” Harvard University’s President Drew Faust concurred by stating that, “Sanctuary campus status has no legal significance or even clear definition. It offers no actual protection to our students.” In other words, a sanctuary campus does nothing more than delay the inevitable deportation of undocumented students should Trump keep his campaign promises.
In response, sanctuary campus proponents have argued that the law should be defied when it is morally wrong. Although their intentions are noble, they ignore the fact that we live in a democratic republic. When one branch gains too much power or acts against the will of the people, there is another branch to check it. I believe that there are still ways that we can defy Trump’s proposed plans without acting against the law. In order to do so, we must look to Congress and government officials with ties to the University.
Congress has the power to check Trump. He may repeal DACA, but a number of Republicans in Congress are opposed to this. Currently, Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) have introduced the Bridge Act. If passed, it would effectively extend the DACA protections of undocumented students regardless of Trump’s actions. A 2/3 vote in both houses would overrule a veto.
Additionally, Trump has threatened to withdraw sanctuary cities’ federal funding. This act could conceivably be expanded to deny sanctuary campuses federal grants. Again, Congress — which controls the federal budget — has the ability to check Trump by denying his requests to cut funding to those institutions.
After the recent election, the University has two alumni in the Senate and eight in the House of Representatives, three of whom are in the Republican majority. Students should be expressing their concerns about the repeal of DACA to these alumni as well as their own state’s officials in Congress. The President is elected by the Electoral College, but Congress is elected by the people. A group of angry phone calls from constituents is more likely to sway the opinion of a local representative than the Chief Executive of the United States.
Such action has precedence. Chris Christie — as a student at the University of Delaware in 1981 — worked with the student government to create a phone bank for people to call their elected officials and ask them to oppose President Reagan’s proposed cuts to the student loan program. USG could create a similar campaign against the repeal of DACA. Doing this would be much easier to organize with cell phones than it was with landlines in the 1980s.
Students could also try to influence the opinions of key individuals in Trump’s administration who have University connections. Three University affiliates have been identified within the Trump transition team. Additionally, Betsy DeVos P07 was nominated to be the Secretary of Education. I see great potential in using our school’s influence to lobby these individuals to oppose Trump’s repeal of DACA. They could moderate his agenda.
Class of 1771 Princeton graduate James Madison wrote in Federalist Paper No. 51, “If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary” in respect to the system of checks and balances in the Constitution. Senator Ted Cruz ’92 based the title of his senior thesis — “Clipping the Wings of Angels” — on this quote. In it, he discussed the role of citizens in containing the power of the government.
We can all agree that President-elect Trump is not an angel, and it is our duty as citizens to contain his power. This is made possible by our government’s system of checks and balances.
The sanctuary campus movement is a passive way of protesting the President-elect’s immigration policies. I believe that students can clip Trump’s wings — and help undocumented students — only if they roll up their sleeves, call their Congresspersons, and become civically engaged in our representative republic.
Liam O'Connor is a freshman from Wyoming, DE. He can be reached at lpo@princeton.edu.
Read More
Princeton must move towards a world-changing curriculum
Luqmaan Bamba“If we in the Orange Bubble are supposed to be taught how to be changemakers, our education should not just stop at learning about change but also extend to the tangible application of it.”
“If we in the Orange Bubble are supposed to be taught how to be changemakers, our education should not just stop at learning about change but also extend to the tangible application of it.”
Statement of solidarity with Columbia University students from Princeton faculty and staff
Guest ContributorsIn an open letter, Princeton University faculty and staff express solidarity with Columbia University and Barnard College student protestors by boycotting the universities until their demands are met.
In an open letter, Princeton University faculty and staff express solidarity with Columbia University and Barnard College student protestors by boycotting the universities until their demands are met.
Princetonians want political change. Why don’t more of us take action?
Frances Brogan“Understanding that this is how activism works — collectively — can empower people to go to protests and meetings because it undermines the stereotype that being an “activist” is an undesirable individual identity and the misconception that only people with that “identity” label can contribute.”
“Understanding that this is how activism works — collectively — can empower people to go to protests and meetings because it undermines the stereotype that being an “activist” is an undesirable individual identity and the misconception that only people with that “identity” label can contribute.”
