One supports the resettlement of Syrian refugees in the Queen City, while the second will begin the process of earning Burlington the designation of a sanctuary city. Both motions, which drew a large crowd of civilian supporters, passed easily.
Before the meeting, a group of more than 200 people held a vigil on the Burlington City Hall steps. Attendees cradled candles against the wind and carried signs supporting Syrian refugees.
“I see in this resolution the opportunity to send a message to members of our community to see that the city remains the place we enjoy today, that it is not impacted by these broader national decisions,” said Burlington Mayor Miro Weinberger.
After council debate and testimony of support from attendees, both resolutions passed by a wide margin. Republican Councilor Kurt Wright voted against both measures, while independent Councilor Dave Hartnett voted against beginning the sanctuary city process.
The resolution to accept the refugees is non-binding, said Kit O’Connor, who crafted the resolution in her role as the legislative coordinator for Vermont Amnesty International. “My bottom line is this,” she told those gathered at the vigil. “We can decide how we welcome people into our community.”
In the last 30-plus years, the city has accepted more than 7,000 immigrants from an array of countries, Weinberger said. Despite controversy, Rutland is forging ahead with its plan to accept more than 100 Syrian refugees, some of whom could arrive next month or early next year.
To date, the United States has accepted 14,463 Syrian refugees since the conflict began in 2011, according to O’Connor. The vetting process, which focuses on removing the “most vulnerable” individuals from the war-torn country, takes between 18 and 24 months, O’Connor told the council. “The United States has an incredibly intense vetting system,” she said.
The council discussed, and ultimately rejected an amendment from Wright to “support a review of, and a potential enhancement” of the vetting process.
The council also passed a resolution to “reaffirm Burlington as a welcoming and inclusive place for refugees.” The vote allows for the creation of an ad hoc committee to investigate the policies and consequences around becoming a sanctuary city. The committee will return to the council on January 9 with policy recommendations.
“It’s not a foregone conclusion” that passage of the resolution means that Burlington will become a sanctuary city, emphasized Progressive Council President Jane Knodell. But it does mark a step in the process.
Earlier this month, Weinberger declared his intent to make Burlington a sanctuary city. The measure would codify practices that prevent municipal workers, including law enforcement, from asking individuals about their immigration status.
It’s already standard operating procedure within Burlington, and some city councilors already voiced support for the measure. Winooski has also decided to pursue designation as a sanctuary city.
The announcements came shortly after president-elect Donald Trump said he planned to “cancel” federal funding meant for sanctuary cities within his first 100 days in office, according to NPR.
The moves are, in part, a response to the polarized national political scene. “The weight of these decisions has gotten heavier in the past few weeks,” Knodell said.
But it’s not just a knee-jerk reaction to Trump’s election, contended other council members. “As an all-white council, it’s important to recognize that these things are real for people in our community,” said Progressive Councilor Sara Giannoni.
“The Burlington Police Department adopted a bias-free policing directive almost fifteen years ago and determined that a person’s immigration status is not relevant to its primary public safety mission except with regard to persons charged with crimes,” reads the resolution adopted by the council.
“The resolution is a strong indication that Burlington will not turn away,” Weinberger said.
Related Stories
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
How can you trust a vetting system that just hours before in Ohio had proven that it’s not 100% fail poof. It only takes one Rotten apple to ruin the bunch. Church Street screams soft target so I won’t be shopping there anytime soon. I hope the city is ready to loose millions in tax revenue and federal dollars once it becomes a sanctuary city and its new residents scare all the shoppers away. There is no insurance for lose of income due to fear.
“I see in this resolution the opportunity to send a message to members of our community to see that the city remains the place we enjoy today, that it is not impacted by these broader national decisions,” said Burlington Mayor Miro Weinberger.
I certainly hope this is true. I grew up in Burlington, and will always call the city home.
However, I will remember these words, because to say that we “are not impacted by these broader national decisions”….is a bit…well….head in the sand. And there is nothing worse than a myopic politician.
marianne1, what exactly do you think can be done to keep Syrians in their homeland? Have you seen the news flooding our tvs and the Internet for the last five years? Have you seen the bombed out, wrecked cities, some destroyed by the Syrian government, some by ISIS? They have a war zone more devastating than anything since WW 2, and these are broken families coming to us. I am stunned by your comment.
Marianne1 I’m with you. If the Syrian people love their country so much they should be willing to fight for it. I know many have stayed to fight and the US needs to support those fighting for democracy but bringing them here does nothing to really help them win back their country.
I am disgusted by Burlington’s and other state city officials lack of interest or action to help local veterans who have sacrificed so much and are hurting. I think they ought to have first dibs on housing and other vital support systems. I do not support people being in the U.S. illegally. As a U.S. citizen I have every right to know who is living in my community and where.
If the government enforced its immigration laws so immigrants who came to this country were legal and paid into the system then allowing others in after vetting them well ( which I am not sure is the case here) would be more palatable to me. However we have let in so many illegal – yes illegal is the correct term, that do not at pay into the system and the rest of us do pay for I am not in favor of continuing to allow immigrants to flood into the country until we fix the current mess we are in
Marianne1,
Don’t worry. Morally superior Alsop is “stunned” by pretty much every comment she didn’t write herself.
marianne 1, if you have a suggestion that would keep the refugees in their homeland, please share it, rather than claiming I’m on a judgmental high horse. You have 300 words to outline a solution to keep them there.
And to the nameless one who thinks I am stunned by everything I read here that I didn’t write, you’re slipping in your insults. Surely you can do better.
I can not understand how Vermont refugee program can say that they vet all refugees deeply, when Homeland Security and the CIA have even admitted that they can’t even vet a lot of these illegals..There is criminals, killers being let in …Our state is giving illegals drivers licenses free, and tell our police force NOT to question illegals if they are here legally..What is wrong with this state??? We have homeless families and veterans..are they taken care of?? No..our veterans fought and are treated like crap…. but be a illegal refugee and you’re handed every thing FREE, they come first..Legal refugees are welcome BUT not illegals..I could say a lot more but I won’t..just shaking my head that Burlington and Winooski wants to become sanctuary cites..well the mayors want to..the liberals..
Refugees are legal immigrants vetted by the US Government, no issue there. But the pursuit of “sanctuary city” is absolute nonsense. Federal law, under an immigration statute signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996, mandates cooperation with the feds on immigration law. Even when local law enforcement might not be specifically looking for violations of federal law, when they recognize it, they need to inform the relevant federal agency.
Becoming a “sanctuary city” is no different than Governor George Wallace blocking integration after Brown vs. Board of Education. Under the same principle, should the Burlington Police Department now stand down on all federal crimes? No more enforcement of federal drug laws unless it’s a DEA agent who catches you? No more enforcement of federal gun laws unless an ATF agent is there to enforce the law? No more enforcement of mail or wire fraud unless the FBI is present? If a local policeman sees human trafficking or the killing of an endangered species, they should just turn a blind eye? These are all federal crimes, like immigration, so ignore them.
And states in the South are now OK to say, hey, we are a sanctuary city from Roe v. Wade or from marriage equality? This is what Jane Knodell and Weinberger are supporting. That they are not going to cooperate with or enforce federal laws they don’t like.
The sadly departed Democrat, African-American Congresswoman Barbara Jordan would never have supported sanctuary cities. Let’s hope Burlington’s actions do not lead to the death of anyone, such as the tragic murder of Kate Steinle by a multiple felon illegal alien harbored in sanctuary city San Francisco. Enough independents and former Democrats were so thoroughly turned off by this issue it has led to the election of Donald Trump. It is truly bizarre that illegal immigration is the hill the Democrats have chosen to die on.
We need to remember what our country is built on. I’m sure if the syrian government can insuree these people’s saftey after this is over, they would go back. Vermont is a very tolerable state, which I am very proud of. We are compassionate and that shouldn’t change because of a few perinoid people. My forefathers came from Ireland, I am lucky to have been born American.