The Complex Tangle of Federal, Local, and State Policies on Sanctuary

The question of sanctuary policies frustratingly can rarely be answered with a clear-cut response. Much of the confusion regarding the answer to this question lies in the complex interplay between the various governing bodies that dictate the laws that affect sanctuary and migration.

It is best to think of this web of relationships in three prongs: the federal level, the state, and the local. Later on, we can discuss the “hyperlocal” which can come in to play during certain circumstances. Unfortunately, these three levels are rarely in agreement with one another, which is what leads to uncertain situations, and even unfortunate consequences for the affected parties.

On the federal level, the Trump administration has made its policy clear. Sanctuary cities, and the propagation of sanctuary policies are illegal. Federal immigration policy triumphs local and state policy, and federal immigration agents are meant to be able to carry out their duties unimpeded by any actors. This is not explicitly extended to elementary and secondary education, but it is assumed that the blanket approach that the administration has taken will also apply to educators shielding their students from deportation.

On the state level, New York has reflected its Democratic leaning, with Governor Andrew Cuomo enacting legislation barring state police from asking about people’s immigration status and copying some of the reforms put forth by California Governor Jerry Brown. That being said, some critics argue that the Governor and legislature have not gone as far as possible in enacting sanctuary policy, with Cuomo’s primary challenger Cynthia Nixon pledging to make New York a true sanctuary state.

On the city level, Mayor Bill De Blasio and the City Council has been fairly progressive in his sanctuary policy approach. The two biggest pro-sanctuary initiatives have centered around limiting city cooperation with federal immigration officials, by banning city property and employees from enforcing federal immigration law. De Blasio has also threatened to sue the Trump administration over the federal funds threat the DOJ leveled against sanctuary cities.

Clearly, the three levels are straightforward in their individual descriptions, but the difficulty lies in the overlap of their parameters. In the case of New York City, and public schools in particular, technically there is nothing that can legally bar federal immigration officials from conducting an immigration raid (although there are efforts). The chances of this are slim, considering that teachers, administrators, and school resource officers are not allowed to ask students about their immigration status or assist any investigation. Ultimately, the possibility is always there, but the chances are slim--moreso for political realities, given the terrible optics associated with conducting elementary school raids.

The bigger concern is the threat of deportation of these young students’ parents, and the negative financial, emotional and societal effects that this action would inflict on them. In this regard, this is where the hyperlocal level can come into effect. Hundreds of articles have been posted online and in print, recounting the inspirational stories of communities that have come together to protect their undocumented neighbors, or care for their children in their absence. Often, the only people that these undocumented people can count on are the very families that live on their own block and provide them with the resources and support to make it through their stressful situations. Until there is some sort of widespread federal reform, this is the level that will provide the greatest sanctuary.