The Associated Students of the University of Arizona Senate met on April 23 to consider overriding President Adriana Grijalva’s veto of the Secure Act Resolution.
The Secure Act Resolution, which was passed in the ASUA Senate on March 26, was proposed by Sen. Arjun Phull of the College of Science. The resolution is a call on the UA President Suresh Garimella and his administration to make a public statement on the Department of Homeland Security’s reversal of their sensitive locations policy.
DHS’s sensitive locations policy had previously protected college campuses from immigration enforcement activities, but was revoked on Jan. 21. ASUA’s call to the UA administration through the Secure Act Resolution would demand a confirmation on the extent to which enforcement operations will be permitted on campus.
The resolution would also suggest to the university to implement a rapid response information system to inform students of confirmed immigration enforcement near or on campus.
After the resolution passed in the senate, it was vetoed by ASUA President Grijalva. The senate now has a chance to override this veto with a two-thirds vote.
Sen. Phull began the meeting with a brief recap of the resolution and his rebuttal to President Grijalva’s veto. He recognized that Grijalva’s main concern with the resolution was not in its context, but rather that she believed it was introduced without sufficiently consulting key stakeholders, such as the University of Arizona Police Department. She also expressed concerns that Phull did not have enough contact with student opinions or his fellow senators on the matter.
Phull began his rebuttal with his claim that he did consult students from immigrant and undocumented backgrounds who are at risk with new federal policy changes. He asserted that this resolution was brought by the students, for the students.
He further clarified that conversations with these students were kept informal and private because of safety and security concerns of their legal status in the country. He explained that students had fears of being targeted from their association with the resolution. Nonetheless, he maintained that their voices and opinions shaped the perspective for which the resolution was written.
In terms of the logistical aspects of the resolution’s implementation, Phull argued that it isn’t ASUA’s job to figure out. Rather, he explained it is their job to speak on behalf of student voices. He claimed that it is President Garimella’s concern to decide how he wants to address feasibility and implementation issues.
Phull then addressed Grijalva’s concerns with a rapid notification system of immigration enforcement. Grijalva pointed out some issues with implementing immigration into UAlert notifications, but Phull clarified that his resolution merely suggests an appropriate mandatory response system to notify students of any activity.
“It is the university’s prerogative to do any of this. We’re quite simply, through the bill that we passed, calling them to do something. That is our suggestion, whether they do that or not or what they do with it, we cannot mandate,” Phull said.
Phull explained that the resolution was formed to address gaps in communication from students and the administration on the matter of immigration. It was not to dictate how the administration handles federal policy, as he stated.
“Our role is not to preserve the comfort of the administration, our role is to speak up for our students,” Phull said. He detailed that if ASUA were to act solely in the interest of administration, they would never be able to make meaningful change.
Phull closed out his rebuttal and reminded his fellow senators that this was a resolution that had overwhelmingly passed. He claimed that the resolution was “rooted in compassion, urgency, and research,” he said. Phull then moved for the Senate to override President Grijalva’s veto.
Grijalva then took the floor for the meeting. She recognized that this resolution has had a long timeline in ASUA. She also acknowledged that the school year is winding down, and if the senate were to override her veto, a lot of the resolution’s requests would simply not be met.
She agreed with Phull that the student government’s job is to advocate on behalf of the student body, but she expressed concerns that the resolution does not efficiently align with student needs. She also disagreed that there was sufficient collaboration with at-large and other fellow senators.
Grijalva clarified that her decision to veto the resolution is not to please the administration. In fact, she mentioned that she has told senators that she is willing to take them to any meetings with the administration.
She explained that her decision was rooted in the fact that students were not adequately consulted in the writing process of the resolution. Additionally, she pointed out that UAPD and other campus departments would have loved to be a part of the outline of the resolution to come up with feasible solutions.
Grijalva also expressed concerns that the alert system may cause unwarranted fear for international and immigrant students. She brought up the possibility of rumors circulating on immigration enforcement due to the alert system. She also explained that in previous conversations with President Garimella, he expressed that there would be no communication outlined at the moment regarding federal policy.
“To me, this isn’t an effective resolution, and it could’ve been with that collaboration piece,” Grijalva said, closing out her argument.
Some fellow senators of Phull also had some varying inputs on the situation.
Sen. Damanitza Romo acknowledged the amount of hard work and consideration Phull had put into the resolution. She also criticized part of Grijalva’s argument, particularly her assertion that students had not been properly referenced in the resolution.
“Students are scared right now and they’re not going to openly cosign on a resolution because they don’t know if they’re safe on campus,” Romo said.
Romo detailed that the administration has failed to say anything at all on immigration policy changes, and students deserve communication. She also referenced that the resolution had already passed in the senate by a large majority. She explained that it was taken very seriously and went through a lot of panels of communication.
Overall, Romo argued that Grijalva shouldn’t have focused on the specific issues of the resolution. “If we sit here and highlight everyone’s flaws, it wouldn’t be a good environment,” she said.
Sen. Benjamin Jackson had a different perspective. He affirmed Grijalva’s concerns of the risks associated with passing this resolution. He expressed his thought that the language of the resolution comes off as too combative and hostile.
Jackson also referenced that the resolution would only cast negative attention to the UA on a federal level. He urged his fellow senators to consider a cost-benefit analysis when deciding on whether or not to override Grijalva’s veto. He argued that there aren’t enough benefits to outweigh the potential risks.
“There’s no point in passing a bill that has absolutely zero feasibility,” Jackson said.
He also referenced concerns about how the resolution would negatively impact ASUA’s relationship with the administration in a time where they need to stand together.
Sen. Pamela Salcido then addressed Jackson’s argument in opposition. “It is supposed to be a hostile statement because it is a hostile environment that the administration is creating,” she said.
Salcido explained that it is not her job to be friends with the administration or to work with the provost.
Sen. Joshua Jaiyeola then added his thoughts on the matter. He shared that this is a situation that is personal to his thoughts and experience.
“There are a lot of people who want to publicly talk about this but can’t due to their status and fears. They hide in the shadows. But they desperately want someone to talk about it for them,” Jaiyeola said.
Jaiyeola then echoed earlier sentiments that it isn’t ASUA’s job to figure out the logistics of how to protect students from immigration enforcement. At the end of the day, the administration will do what they want and this resolution is only urging for some form of communication.
He emphasized that no student deserves to live in fear. He explained that it’s no longer a political or bureaucratic issue when lives are at stake.
“To say that no students went into this, knowing that there are people involved that have actual, coherent fears, is actually really disheartening,” Jaiyeola said.
Sen. Phull then closed out the discussion by clarifying that there are some parts of the resolution that ASUA can directly implement without oversight from the administration. For instance, the resolution also calls for ASUA to distribute ‘Know Your Rights’ cards to students, in addition to publicizing information on immigration resources.
Grijalva mentioned that President Garimella has seen the resolution along with the rest of the UA administration. She also discussed ASUA’s decision to not take part in Garimella’s installment on March 25. She explained that this was an effective move because the majority of ASUA stood together on this decision. That said, she also detailed that it came with some consequences to their relationship with the administration, so decisions like this resolution need to be carefully considered.
Sen. Phull then motioned for the voting on overriding the veto to be tabled for the next meeting. There were certain confusions on whether or not the senate would meet quorum for this meeting, and Phull also wanted to give senators a chance to sit on their decision.
The senate agreed to table the matter of voting until their next weekly meeting on April 30.
