Sanctuary cities are not new

andIn January, the chairman of the House Supervisory and Reform Committee James Comer has launched a investigate in policies Sanctuary cities for “their impact on public safety and the application of federal immigration”. Then, Trade asked the mayors of Chicago, Denver, Boston and New York to testify to the Congress so that he can be “publicly responsible”. Instead, the hearing provided an opportunity for the first of these cities to bring their low crime rates and defend their cities policies.

Congress hearings follow an early flash by the Trump administration against those jurisdictions who have committed themselves to protect residents without documents. For example, President Donald Trump issued an executive command This includes a mandate to withhold the federal funds in these jurisdictions, as well as threats to the perception of criminal and civil actions against the elected officials who refuse to help the application of federal immigration. US prosecutor General Pam Bondi froze Hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding for several cities, counties and states. In response, more jurisdictions have was employed to submit trials Against the Department of Justice, arguing that the federal law does not make the local municipalities responsible for the activity of applying immigration. Most recent, Trump cited A Declaration of War of the eighteenth century for deportation of hundreds of immigrants – even after a federal judge issued an order temporarily preventing Command.

While municipal sanctuar policies vary in position and definition, most try to limit cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration officers. While such policies do not prevent immigration authorities from applying immigration laws, they can frustrate promise to forge The highest deportation force in the history of the nation.

The efforts to punish and to pressure the sanctuary municipalities speak of the longevity and potential to organize a social movement practice that the activists have been carrying out for 40 years. The origins of today’s efforts to challenge the state’s ability to retain and deport without documents can be tracked in the 1980s, when the sanctuary activists inaugurated the first concerted national effort of the nation for the justice of migrants and refugees.

Read more: What are the cities of sanctuaries and why are Trump aim?

The movement of the sanctuary cities began in the 1980s as an interruption of the sanctuary movement based on faith, a campaign that provided shelter and protection to Central American refugees running away from civil wars, despite the US immigration policies. Led by churches, synagogues and faith -based organizations, this form of “Sacred Resistance” The places of worship declared as a sanctuary for the asylum seekers Salvadoran and Guatemalan, openly defying the federal authorities to plead for humanitarian aid, the legal reform and the end of US intervention in Central America.

However, the direct challenge of Sanctuary for the power of the state has placed it in the transversals of the Ronald Reagan administration. Near the establishment of the movement, the Federal Bureau of Investigations and Immigration and Naturalization Services have supervised the congregations, infiltrating biblical studies, placing spies in parochial shell, secretly recording private conversations PLACING church offices. Finally, the federal government brought 71 indictments against Sanctuary workers. “Sanctuary process“, Which played on the first pages of national newspapers and night news, concluded in May 1986, with eight defendants found guilty of 18 charges for the transport and shelter of migrants.

These prosecutors have been shown to be a pyrous victory. During the trial, more than two dozen cities and counties joined a “municipal sanctuary” effort. As several Americans have learned about the horrible consequences of American military intervention in Central America, they pushed the chosen officials to issue resolutions and make statements, even if they were largely symbolic, in support of asylum applicants. Some of the first municipal efforts of the sanctuary have appeared in the university cities with active and solidarity networks, such as Berkeley, California; Cambridge, Massachusetts; Ithaca, New York; And Madison, Wisconsin. But the largest cities in the country, including New York, Chicago, San Francisco and St. Paul, they also joined these efforts. In 1986, governors New Mexico and WisconsinMeanwhile, the entire state as “sanctuaries” for asylum applicants declared.

In Berkeley, the members of the Municipal Council have opened this new phase of the Sanctuary’s movement, passing a resolution “City of Refuge” in February 1985. The non-cooperation agreement of the resolution reflected one that the city passed in 1971, when the elected officials offered their support for conscientious objectors who refused to be drafted during the Vietnam War.

Many of these resolutions of the Sanctuary city have made clear allusions to the historical and sacred bases of their efforts. By declaring them “The city of refuge”, For example, San Franciscani returned to the old Hebrew scriptswho asked the cities to be reserved so that the justice applicants will find a safe port. In northern -est, leaders from cities like Cambridge, Massachusetts He referred to the city and nation as places that “for centuries served as a refuge for refugees of religious and political persecution” on all continents. Moreover, they stated that “the historical and moral tradition of the nation is rooted in the provision of sanctuary for persecuted people.”

Various issued resolutions in tone and political. Many have congratulated local worship houses for the provision of sanctuary. In Olympia, Washingtonwhere the Municipal Council has adopted a resolution by calling it “The city of peace“, The elected officials praised the activity of people of faith, mentioning that” these groups and individuals acted in a way that they consider correct and legally correct and in the best tradition of our country, which are based on the principles of providing a safe refuge for those who run from political persecution. ” In Takoma Park, MarylandThe city’s ordinance mentioned that “all people should have an equal right to enjoy the benefits of Takoma Park without fear of harassment or discrimination due to their nationality or citizenship status. “

However, the activists of the sanctuar cities were confronted with pushing. In Los Angeles, the leaders of the city’s faith were among the earliest to organize For support for refugees, the formation of the Ecumenical Council in southern California in 1978. The following year, LAPD has passed Special command 40 which forbade law enforcement forces to initiate “police actions in order to discover a person’s foreign status.” This policy, which presents a stipulation of non-cooperation between local law enforcement and immigration federal agencies, served as an early precursor Until later, “Sanctuary City” policies.

Read more: Sanctuary cities can be better prepared to meet migrants

Until 1985, however, while the Municipal Council debated a new “The city of the refuge“The resolution in support of the growing Central American population, an organized conservative opposition intervened. abrogated Its designation of the “city of the refuge”. However, he failed to distribute his key non-cooperation agreement. The political movement has effectively stripped the city of its sanctuary, although it is not practical.

In Illinois, an active sanctuary coalition in Urbana-Champaign He worked in order to determine their chosen officials to pass an ordinance to make the city of the college a “refuge city” at the beginning of 1986. And here they faced an organized countermoement that sought to stop the dead resolution on its footsteps. The opponents of the sanctuary descended to the city of the college and threatened to threaten the Republican Aldermen with primary provocative if they did not kill the effort. An alderman He said that anyone who voted in favor of the resolution has obviously had communist sympathies and warned that the passage would “attract a lot of illegal aliens here, maybe even terrorists.” After four months of controversial debateThe Local Council has adopted a reduced resolution that asked the Justice Department to follow the 1980 refugee law, but did not include any provision to block the police staff or the city to help the federal application of immigration in the area.

Like the struggle for the sanctuary’s process, however, the debates on the sanctuar cities eventually proved to be fruitful for the Movement for Refugee Justice. The ten -year struggle to ensure that Salvadorans and Guatemalans had a legal path to political asylum in the United States ended with significant victories, including with Successful Judicial Cases against the federal government and the created federal legislation Temporary protected conditionA designation that prevented hundreds of thousands of people from being deported in the coming decades.

Since the 1980s, activists fighting for immigration and refugee justice have continued to resort to sanctuary practices, both sacred and secular, as a method of protecting the members of their communities. By The rebirth of the sanctuary In the mid -2000s to dramatic Explosion of organizing the sanctuary Following Trump’s first presidential elections, the sanctuar congregations and the cities faced opposition to each row. Now, the second Trump administration is about to add another chapter in this fight for decades.