MASON — A recently-adopted resolution “reaffirming” Ingham County as “a welcoming community to immigrants” is causing some discomfort, if not pushback, in more conservative Livingston County.
Ingham County Commissioners adopted the resolution last month, and consequently sent a copy to all of the state’s 82 other counties.
Livingston County in September approved a controversial policy requiring the Livingston County Sheriff’s Office to track all interactions with “illegal” immigrants “no matter the nature of the contact” – suspects, victims and witnesses included – to better assess the impact of illegal immigration.
At least one Livingston County commissioner perceived Ingham County’s letter as pointed criticism and the entire board unanimously rejected the letter at a Jan. 6 meeting, the Livingston Daily reported.
“We’ve not done this in the past, but I would be comfortable with saying we reject their resolution — but we’ll put it on file so people in our county can see what one of our neighbors has to say on this important issue,” Commissioner Wes Nakagiri said. “I think there’s value in that, showing how incorrect they are, how wrong they are.”
Ryan Sebolt, the chair of Ingham County’s Board of Commissioners, said the resolution didn’t mention Livingston County and it was sent to all of the state’s counties.
“It doesn’t say Livingston,” said Sebolt, D-Lansing. “If they believe they are intentionally discriminating against people and this is in response to that, that tells you something.”
Livingston’s new strategy has brought plenty of criticism from residents in the county and elsewhere.
Ingham County’s resolution reads, in part, “WHEREAS, residents of Ingham County live up to our highest American values of acceptance and equality, and treat newcomers with decency and respect, creating a vibrant community for all to live.
“WHEREAS, as a country it is not our custom to turn our backs on people who are in need, we denounce those who have played into fear tactics and attempted to close the door to immigrants who come here searching for a better life, Ingham County has been and will continue to be a safe and welcoming place for those who choose to resettle here.”
Sebolt said he sponsored a similar resolution in 2017, which he said was aimed specifically at then-President Donald Trump’s immigration measures primarily targeting Muslim countries.
The commissioners wanted to again send a message that Ingham County is welcoming as a new Trump administration comes into office, pledging mass deportations, Sebolt said.
When Michigan counties approve resolutions, they have the option of sharing those resolutions with other counties. The resolutions will appear on the other county’s agenda.
Other commissions have the option to accept or reject the correspondence, a move that has no practical effect but could send a political message.
The issue of immigration has once again drawn the ire of the Livingston County Board of Commissioners.
At the Livingston County meeting on Jan. 6, Commissioner Melvin Paunovich made a motion to accept Inhgam County’s correspondence and place it on file, the Livingstons Daily reported. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Doug Helzerman.
“There’s parts of this that we agree with — that immigrants that are here legally should be welcomed,” Helzerman said. “We think there should be a clear distinction between those that are criminal. But I have no problem receiving it and putting it on file with the stipulation that we do not endorse it.”
Commissioner Nick Fiani, however, wanted to refuse acceptance of the correspondence and dispose of it. His amendment request was seconded by Commissioner Frank Sample. Fiani later withdrew his amendment so the original motion could be voted down — but Paunovich withdrew before a vote was held.
“It seems to me that, within the last number of months, we’ve received documentation from other counties who have taken exception to some of our resolutions, and I think the terminology … was they rejected our position,” Commissioner Jerome Gross said. “I’m wondering if that’s something we can do this time regarding this particular resolution — just to say that we reject it.”
Nakagiri made the motion to reject, which Gross seconded.
“I agree with my colleague,” Gross said. “I believe that Livingston County, as well as other counties, are welcoming, but I think there’s a line in the sand … between legal people who come through the system that’s established, that millions of people have followed over the years.
“There’s a significant difference between those who break the law when they step over our border and come in and take advantage of all the good things this country has to offer, sometimes at the expense of other citizens, so I feel comfortable in rejecting this (correspondence).”
Contact Mike Ellis at mellis@lsj.com or 517-267-0415.
This article originally appeared on Lansing State Journal: Ingham County board’s pro-immigration stance proves controversial