In our Ideas and Suggestions post, scribblesinink linked to a statement by Sam Liccardo, the mayor of San Jose: “We’ve Got Your Back" (sourced via morgandawn).


The statement reaffirms (alongside other points, such as not tolerating hate crimes, no matter the immigration status of the victim or person who reports the crime) that the city will not allow its police to be used for federal immigration enforcement. This is often referred to as being a “sanctuary city":

A sanctuary city [...] has adopted a policy of protecting undocumented immigrants by not prosecuting them solely for violating federal immigration laws [...]. Such a policy can be set out expressly in a law (de jure) or observed only in practice (de facto). The term applies generally to cities that do not use municipal funds or resources to enforce national immigration laws, and usually forbid police or municipal employees to inquire about a person's immigration status. The designation has no precise legal meaning. (source: Wikipedia, emphasis mine)

According to the Washington Post, researchers into immigration policy estimate there are currently up to 300 local jurisdictions (cities or counties) with a sanctuary policy.

Opponents of the sanctuary movement say it shields criminals. The subject hit the headlines after the death in July 2015 of Kate Steinle, a woman who was shot and killed in San Francisco, allegedly by an undocumented immigrant and repeat felon who had been deported five times to Mexico. San Francisco police had released him from custody after drug charges were dropped, despite a request from the Department of Homeland Security to deport him.

However, law enforcement agencies that support sanctuary policies believe they’re acting in the best interest of their communities. They say such policies ensure that victims and witnesses of crime feel safe enough to report crimes to the police, without the fear of possible deportation, making it more likely criminals will be identified and prosecuted. They argue sanctuary policies also help police to focus on local policing issues (the mayor of San Jose mentions “violent, predatory and other high-priority crimes") and avoid a drain on their resources resulting from what is actually federal responsibility. At least one research study has found sanctuary policies have no statistically meaningful effect on crime.

Trump’s position is that he will "cancel all federal funding to sanctuary cities" on his first day in office, while stepping up action against illegal/undocumented immigrants.

What can you do?

Find out whether your local jurisdiction has a sanctuary policy. You can either ask the offices of your local mayor or chief of police, or check at this site or this site — both of these sites are run by non-profits working against the sanctuary movement/in favour of Trump’s immigration and deportation policies, but they do appear to have the most comprehensive and most up-to-date lists.

If your local jurisdiction has a sanctuary policy, contact your mayor, chief of police, local councilors and other representatives to express your support and ask your local mayor or chief of police to make a statement similar to the one made by the mayor of San Jose, reaffirming that policy (if they have not already done so).

If your local jurisdiction does not have a sanctuary policy, ask your local representatives to introduce one or, if there’s an existing effort to introduce one, ask them to support it. For example, in Boston city councilor Tito Jackson has called on the city to become a sanctuary city. (Thanks to spikedluv for posting about this already.)

You could also contact your your Senators, Congressmen and State Senators to ask them to make a statement in support of sanctuary policies.