Veto message on sr 23

To the Senate of USD Student Government Association: I am returning to you without my approval SR 23 “A Resolution to Recommend Actions to Administration Regarding Student Concerns” which would recommend that USD institute nominal changes to address student concerns While this bill has been changed to make remove any mentions of President Trump and sanctuary campus, it does not change the fact that this resolution will always be a sanctuary campus resolution a fact noted by a student in the audience and reaffirmed by the Volante article “SGA passes sanctuary campus resolution.” No matter what the title or verbiage, your recommendations to USD administration will not be seen as addressing student concerns, but are and will be twisted to mean that USD wants to be called a sanctuary campus.

The primary reason I will not sign this resolution is because I will not to risk our state and federal funding for nominal changes to the University. I am unwilling to risk any portion of our state funding, which accounts for 45% of all funding to this university and force USD to raise tuition to cover any cuts in state funding, nor am I a willing to risk the federal aid that comes to USD in the form of student loans, Pell grants, or research and programing grants such as the C.A.R.E or TRIO grants. By passing this resolution, you have put the USD administration in the position where USD must, for all intents and purposes, risk our funding unnecessary recommendations which can and will be twisted to mean “sanctuary campus.”

Furthermore, I disagree with each of the resolution’s recommendations because they are, for the most part, unnecessary. For the first recommendation, this assumes that undocumented students do not know what to do in the case of deportation or detainment. When in reality, they have been living with this fear for most of their lives and have probably become familiar with their rights and the resources available to them. Furthermore, there are resources, such as SGA legal aid, which are already advertised, confidential, and available to all students which can direct them to resources off campus if they do not already know what they are.

The second recommendation assumes that ICE and CBP agents will inquire to any university employee about the immigrant status regardless of if they have access to the information or not, and that official will not know where to send them. While I can see where articulating a policy may be smart move, the question is: will it actually change the behavior of USD employees? Most likely not. If a university employee doesn’t know who has this information, they will ask and they will direct ICE or CBP to where they can get the information. Both of these recommendations assume

that ICE and CBP will perform a raid on USD’s campus which they have never done at USD or any other college campus nor is there any indication that they will.

On the third recommendation, this assumes University police have an interest in working with ICE and CBP. While UPD refused to comment, their actions speak loader than words. UPD and VPD are not currently working with ICE agents and if there was an interest in these departments in assisting ICE and CBP, it would most likely have shown itself. All this recommendation does is draw attention to USD and Vermillion, which benefits no one.

The final recommendation shows a misunderstanding of the situation that a student may be going through in the event of a detainment or deportation. In the case of detainment or deportation, we don’t know if this student will have the ability or resources to take online courses. We also assume that their immediate concern upon detainment and deportation will be their classes when in fact it will most likely be their detainment or deportation. Also, anyone anywhere can take online classes as long as they have access to a computer and can pay tuition currently which makes this recommendation, like the others, unnecessary.

I encourage all of you to please reconsider your position on this resolution. All of these recommendations are unnecessary and only serve as a potential flashpoint for political backlash from the state and federal government.

As president, I was elected by the student body to serve and represent all of their interests and I will not risk their student aid and potentially higher tuition because of political backlash for unnecessary recommendations.

For these reasons, I must veto this bill.

Nathaniel Steinlicht USD Student Government Association President March 2, 2017