How the sanctuary movement offers lessons for fighting ICE: ‘an impact that spans decades’
Key Takeaways
- The sanctuary movement began in the 1980s with religious groups protecting Central American refugees; it shaped long-term local resistance to federal immigration enforcement.
- It has been reported that President Trump has targeted sanctuary jurisdictions, including plans to withhold federal funds and to deploy federal agents to major cities, while critics say those policies do not reduce crime.
- Research finds no link between sanctuary policies and higher crime; sanctuary jurisdictions are associated with improved outcomes for immigrant families but often fall short of fully blocking ICE (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) enforcement.
- For immigrants and asylum seekers, sanctuary policies can reduce fear and encourage reporting of crimes, but limits in local cooperation mean legal risk and uncertainty remain.
Overview
It has been reported that President Trump recently fired Department of Homeland Security secretary Kristi Noem, who argued that sanctuary cities make federal enforcement harder. It has also been reported that the administration plans to halt some federal payments to jurisdictions that limit cooperation with ICE and has stationed federal agents in cities such as Los Angeles, Chicago, Minneapolis and Washington DC. Sanctuary jurisdictions—local laws or policies that restrict police or city agencies from coordinating certain immigration enforcement activities with federal authorities—remain a flashpoint in a fight over who polices immigration on the ground.
Roots and history
The modern sanctuary movement grew out of 1980s faith-based activism that housed, clothed and shielded Central American refugees fleeing war and political violence in El Salvador, Guatemala and Nicaragua. Asylum is the legal protection given to people fleeing persecution; during that era many were denied asylum despite large refugee flows. The movement’s moral and civil-disobedience tactics forced public attention on U.S. foreign policy and asylum adjudication and ultimately seeded policies that today number in the hundreds of jurisdictions. For immigrants, that legacy meant networks of support and local political pressure to limit cooperation with federal deportation efforts.
Sanctuary policies now and the evidence
More than 300 U.S. cities, counties and states have adopted some form of sanctuary policy—varying widely from simple limits on honoring ICE “detainer” requests to broader restrictions on local-federal data sharing. Scholars and public-health researchers have found no empirical association between sanctuary policies and higher crime rates; some studies link sanctuary status to reduced domestic violence among Hispanic women, higher workforce participation, and lower reliance on public assistance. Still, legal experts note sanctuary rules rarely create absolute protection: local police often continue to interact with ICE through informal cooperation or state-level programs such as 287(g), and federal prosecutors retain tools to pursue cases that lead to immigration consequences.
What it means for immigrants today
For people navigating the system now—undocumented immigrants, asylum seekers and mixed-status families—sanctuary policies can lower the immediate risk of local law-enforcement referrals to ICE and reduce the fear that keeps victims from reporting crimes. But those protections are partial. ICE and DHS (the Department of Homeland Security) operate detention and removal; USCIS (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services) handles many immigration benefits and asylum adjudications, and federal action—like withholding funds or deploying agents—can still increase enforcement pressure regardless of local ordinances. Practically, immigrants should know their local jurisdiction’s policies, seek trusted legal counsel or local immigrant-rights groups, and document interactions with police and federal officers when safe to do so.
Source: Original Article