MLive doesn’t cite the groups behind the local Sanctuary campaigns and creates a paywall for their poll on whether Grand Rapids should be a Sanctuary City

On Friday, MLive posted a story with the headline, Tell us: Should Grand Rapids become a sanctuary city?

The article wasn’t just asking a simple question about whether or not Grand Rapids should be a Sanctuary City or not. In fact, the article talked about the campaign to get Grand Rapids to be a Sanctuary City, the campaign to get Kent County to be a Sanctuary County, and the recent Michigan House Resolution that would threaten state funds being withheld from cities that took a Sanctuary position. There is also mention that the Trump Administration would also be targeting Sanctuary cities by withholding federal funding.

The MLive article also uses quotes from Grand Rapids Mayor David LaGrand, where he says that GR becoming a Sanctuary City would give immigrants a “false hope.” Interestingly enough, the groups that have been behind these campaigns, Movimiento Cosecha GR and GR Rapid Response to ICE, are not cited in the story, despite the fact that they are the two groups that have engage the City, the County and the Grand Rapids Public Schools with adopting Sanctuary policies. 

The MLive article also omits some of the details of what a Sanctuary status would mean, especially regarding the role of the GRPD. Here is part of what is in the Action Alert that Movimiento Cosecha GR and GR Rapid Response to ICE has sent out. 

“In declaring itself a Sanctuary City, Grand Rapids would implement and execute the following:

– policies restricting the ability of state and local police to make arrests for federal immigration violations, or to detain individuals on civil immigration warrants;

– policies restricting the police or other city workers from asking about immigration status;

– policies prohibiting “287(g)” agreements through which ICE deputizes local law enforcement officers to enforce federal immigration law;

– policies that prevent local governments from entering into a contract with the federal government to hold immigrants in detention;

– policies preventing immigration detention centers in Grand Rapids.”

Lastly, in response to Mayor LaGrand’s claim of giving immigrants a sense of false hope, Movimiento Cosecha GR, which is an immigrant-led organization, has said repeatedly, “that to have Grand Rapids City officials declare themselves a Sanctuary, which would adopt the above list of policies, it also sends a clear message to immigrants in this City that they are valued, the City officials stand with them. This means a great deal to those affected by the mass deportation Executive order, knowing that City officials are publicly condemning the threat of mass deportation. This is what Solidarity looks like.” 

A dishonest poll

The polling question that is asked by MLive is this – Should Grand Rapids become a sanctuary city? Why or why not?

Here are my responses to this polling question, especially within the context of this article.

First, the information in the article is biased in favor of government officials and completely omits the voices of the affected community, plus it omits the voices of the organizations that began these campaigns.

Second, there is unsubstantiated claims made in the article, especially regarding the claim that Kent County, “received hundreds of letters of support and opposition to the idea.” There is no verification to this claim, because unlike the City of Grand Rapids, Kent County does not include the letters of the name of people who are for or against Sanctuary status in their Agenda packets, which I recently wrote about.

Third, the MLive article, which includes the poll, is a subscriber only article, so only those who have paid the monthly or annual subscription can participate in the poll. This means that there is greater chance of people with higher incomes to participate in the poll that working class people, like immigrants who are struggling to make a living. 

If MLive really wanted to get a sense of what people think, then they might consider the old fashion journalistic choice to go out into the community and ask people what they think about cities and counties adopting Sanctuary policies. Instead, MLive created a paywall, which essentially eliminates feedback from a large percentage of the local population, specifically those most affected by the threat of mass deportation.