¾«¶«´«Ã½

History

The sanctuary movement in the United States finds its origins in the 1980s when the Reverend John Fife announced that his church, the Southside Presbyterian Church in Tucson, Arizona, would protect refugees fleeing civil wars in El Salvador and Guatemala in defiance of the Reagan Administration’s tough stance on political asylum for those who felt persecuted by government forces in those countries.[2]

In response to President Obama’s efforts to target undocumented immigrants with criminal records, cities established policies that limited the cooperation of local police and jail personnel with federal efforts.[3] Federal immigration enforcement relies heavily on the voluntary aid of state and local law enforcement officials, but, for many cities and counties, the social and fiscal tolls immigration enforcement takes on their communities and its competition with other budget priorities made cooperation less desirable.[4]

Local communities may also determine that cooperation with immigration enforcement may complicate local order, making immigrants afraid to cooperate with the police in addressing violent crime, limiting immigrants’ reporting of domestic and other violence, and increasing anxiety among children and families.[5]

Policies

To formalize their levels of cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, several cities developed specific policies addressing this issue (examples from and are provided).

These “sanctuary” policies separate police and other employees from the activities of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and declare the city’s intent not to expend local resources on immigration enforcement – they may also direct local police not to contact ICE or Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in the course of basic patrols and criminal law enforcement operations and and adopt expansive policies on forms of identification that are accepted by city agencies.[6]

The Immigrant Legal Resource Center lists six policies for cities that might advance services to immigrants, four of which may be of use to libraries and are provided below[7]:

Even with such policies, it is important to note that state and local jurisdictions are not immune from action from the federal government – immigration officials can still conduct raids, set up check points, and carry out other tactics aimed at detaining immigrants.[8] Sanctuary policies cannot limit ICE and CBP activities within a jurisdiction or space; they can only limit the use of a jurisdiction’s resources in cooperation with those activities.

As with other policies, relationships with authorities matter. Even for those cities that establish policies, local ordinances likely do not govern county level agencies or officials and sanctuary city laws can be undermined by state or county policy and practice.[9] Individual institutions seeking to establish policies will likely need to consider their relationship to other authorizing bodies and how that might limit or require certain policies and procedures.

Sanctuary in Other Spaces

Colleges and Universities

Especially in the period following the election of Donald Trump, students on college and university campuses have pushed for sanctuary policies to protect immigrant students.

that enforcement actions, including arrests, interviews, searches, and surveillance, should not occur at sensitive locations such as hospitals, churches, and schools. [10] Even with such guidelines in place – and with other privacy protections in place for college and university students, faculty, and staff – several colleges and universities have invested in more official policies outlining their cooperation with immigration officials.

The University of California, while avoiding the term sanctuary campus, published detailed principles of support for undocumented students, including assurances that campus police would not question students solely about their immigration status, join any cooperation agreements with federal immigration authorities, and would provide legal help for students detained for deportation through its law school.[11]

As with cities, application of the “sanctuary” label varies from campus to campus. An updated list of .

School Districts

Like their higher education counterparts, school districts have also adopted resolutions regarding their support for immigrant students and families. The Los Angeles Unified School District, Pittsburgh Public Schools, Clark County School Board, and others have issued statements through their school boards defining their ongoing commitment to students regardless of immigration status.[12]

Such policies for public schools need to navigate existing federal laws that prohibit school districts from providing third parties, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement, with information contained in student records and federal laws that prohibit anyone from intentionally harboring individuals residing in the country illegally from detection.[13]

The Des Moines Public Schools adopted a “sanctuary” barring staff from asking about students’ immigration status and funneling federal inquiries through the superintendent's office and district attorney.[14]

Mapping Sanctuary Cities and Communities

provides a that helps show the degree to which local law enforcement offer assistance to federal immigration authorities, as well as the degree to which localities have enacted laws or policies limiting their involvement in federal immigration enforcement.

CityLab based on data released to The Texas Tribune 2014 state-level estimates of undocumented immigrant populations from the Pew Research Center.[15]

provides a .

From the

Sanctuary Jurisdictions

Congressional Action and President Trump's Interior Enforcement Executive Order:

State and Local “Sanctuary” Policies Limiting Participation in Immigration Enforcement:

Plan to Restrict Federal Grants to “Sanctuary Jurisdictions” Raises Legal Questions: