As Trump prepares to take office, here's what you need to know about 'sanctuary cities'

“When we say shelter, it’s really, ‘We’re going to protect you more than the protection you could get anywhere else,'” Gundavaram said. “It’s not, ‘We can actually protect you completely.’ It’s: “You’re safer here than anywhere else.” » »

When a community decides to present itself as a sanctuary, it usually means local authorities won’t help federal agencies locate and apprehend undocumented immigrants, he said.

Natick officials are considering a policy that would prohibit city employees from detaining a person “solely because they believe the person is not lawfully present in the United States or have committed a violation of the rules of immigration”, which would strengthen the situation. a 2017 decision by the state Supreme Judicial Court that local law enforcement officials cannot legally detain a person wanted solely for immigration violations.

The policy would also prohibit the city from using “city funds, resources, facilities, property, equipment, or personnel to directly assist in the enforcement of federal civil immigration laws.”

The proposal stirred intense emotions on both sides. This week, graffiti reading “Expel Illegals” was found on the board president’s car, according to the MetroWest Daily News.

At a restricted board meeting Wednesday, board members said the policy does not make Natick a sanctuary community, but is intended to ensure immigrants can “participate in force investigations of order, whether as victims or as witnesses, without fear of reprisals.

Amherst officials, meanwhile, recently reaffirmed the town’s status as a sanctuary community, meaning it “must not cooperate with” U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, known as the name ICE.

“We affirm that we continue to welcome new immigrants to our great country and our community,” local officials said in a statement. statement last month. “We encourage immigrants and their families to build lives in our community, as many of our ancestors did. »

Tom Homanwho was named “border czar” in the Trump administration, has criticized sanctuary communities. After Boston Mayor Michelle Wu said in a television interview that local officials would not assist with federal mass eviction efforts, Homan hit back.

“Either she helps us or she leaves, because we’re going to do this,” Homan said Monday in an interview with conservative media outlet Newsmax.

In a recent interview on Fox News, Homan said he had “a clear message” for the sanctuary communities.

“If you let us into the prison, we can arrest the bad guy in the prison and in the security of the prison,” he said. “A single officer could do it, but when you release a public safety threat into the community, you put the community at risk.” You are putting my officers in danger. You’re putting the alien in danger.

In an interview, Gundavaram explained more about sanctuary cities in light of Trump’s promised crackdown. His comments have been edited and condensed.

What role does the federal government play in combating immigration compared to state and local governments?

Immigration is an exclusively federal matter. There are ways that states, counties, and cities can enact policies that affect immigrants, but ultimately immigration status is entirely federal. So if someone applies for immigration assistance, they go through the federal government. If they apply for a visa, if they apply to remain in the United States, if they apply for asylum, temporary protected status, work authorization, all of that is done through the federal government.

It is based on a long history that immigration is often considered a border issue, which is the domain of the president. It comes down to this idea of borders and national security and relationships with other countries, and all of that makes it a federal government issue and essentially an executive branch issue.

How do sanctuary communities take this into account?

The question of this idea of “sanctuary” is therefore not that we can really protect the person. There are four ways I view sanctuary: states, counties, cities, and (college) campuses. But none of those four entities can actually protect anyone because immigration is federal and the federal government can exercise authority over immigration.

I think sanctuary is not a word we should use. This comes up a lot in the immigration field, these words are used and I think have sort of a misleading concept. Another term is “lawful permanent resident.” This can confuse people because it makes you feel like you can’t be deported, whereas green card holders can be deported.

So I think there’s a lot of things in immigration law where we use words that can confuse people or imply something that’s not necessarily true, and I think that’s true here with sanctuary. It’s not about a sanctuary as a place where one can find refuge or safety, it’s much more about whether these entities will help the federal government.

So if sanctuary communities can’t provide any real legal protection, how can they better serve undocumented people compared to any other place?

The one that comes up the most is detention requests (from immigration officials), which essentially involves asking someone to be detained in a state or county detention center rather than in an immigration detention center. The other is a campus or city that has immigration status information, they might say we’re not going to give you that information just because you ask for it.

More aggressive measures would be if a city told its police officers not to ask questions about people’s immigration (status) when you stop them for routine things. If you stop someone, in some cities they may simply say, “What is your immigration status?” In another city there might be a policy that you shouldn’t ask about it because it’s not relevant.

The highest protection would be if (a community) said we will actually provide you with legal defense in your immigration case. It is a form of sanctuary. This is not about preventing people from being arrested, but of course providing them with immigration representation.

I wonder, and hope, that in the coming onslaught of this administration’s policies and procedures, more cities or states might rally around or offer additional protections to non-citizens in the form of a legal representation, which would actually be the closest thing to sanctuary.

Nick Stoico can be contacted at [email protected].