Support NeoGAF

[GK86]

Link. Full article at the link.

Students at colleges around the United States are asking their school leaders to establish so-called “sanctuary campuses” following President-Elect Donald Trump’s win. The idea behind these demands is to protect young people who feel threatened by his victory. But it’s not clear exactly what the term “sanctuary campuses” means or how far universities will go to comply with the request.

Trump has promised, among other things, to deport millions of undocumented immigrants who are criminals and end an Obama-administration program that grants some young people in the United States without papers temporary relief from the threat of removal. He also at one point proposed barring all Muslims from entering the country, though that pledge has since morphed into one that would instead involve “extreme vetting” of immigrants from certain parts of the world. So in response, students in the U.S. are calling on their universities to support undocumented students and other people who might be vulnerable under a Trump administration by becoming “sanctuary campuses.” That term has no standard definition, though, and while Wesleyan has moved to adopt it, other schools are questioning how feasible becoming a sanctuary campus really is.

The term is generally derived from the “sanctuary city” concept, which also varies in meaning. Broadly, major cities like Chicago and New York have said they will serve as “sanctuaries” for immigrants, typically by saying they will not turn over undocumented immigrants to federal immigration officials. San Francisco, for instance, more than two decades ago passed a law prohibiting local police from holding undocumented immigrants if they are not facing charges or do not have a record of violent felonies.

Students have asked dozens of schools across the country for similar assurances. They want the schools to refuse to turn over the names of undocumented students, for example, and many have asked their colleges to provide confidential counseling and legal services for such students.

Could a Trump administration, with backing from Congress, also threaten to withhold federal funding for colleges by, say, refusing to issue student loans to students at sanctuary campuses? Could they withhold federal research grants? It’s hard to say right now.

For instance, the California State University system recently reiterated that it would remain a welcoming space for undocumented students. But the chancellor, Timothy White, seemed to acknowledge during a recent meeting of the board of trustees that the system could be legally forced to turn over information. According to the Los Angeles Times, “Unless forced to by law, he said, Cal State ‘will not enter into agreements with state or local law enforcement agencies, Homeland Security or any other federal department for the enforcement of federal immigration law.’”

Faculty at Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut, who would like to see the school become a sanctuary campus, met on Monday with administrators to “have a better sense of what their expectations are for a sanctuary campus,” said Joanne Berger-Sweeney, the school’s president. Her faculty expressed interest in the school declining to pass immigration information to federal authorities, and in establishing a network of alumni who are willing to offer pro bono legal help to undocumented students.

While Berger-Sweeney says she wants to support students, including undocumented ones, she said that at a recent conference, college presidents discussed the sanctuary-campus concept and “admitted that we are not yet sure what is being requested of us.” Financial retribution is “of course, a concern,” she said. Many of the presidents in attendance also acknowledged their obligation to consult boards of trustees when a decision—to become a sanctuary campus, say—carries “fiduciary implications.” Berger-Sweeney indicated she would be speaking with her school’s board about what it would mean to become a sanctuary campus.

Still, many administrators cited particular concern about what the prospective policies mean for undocumented students. While Trump has said in recent days that he would prioritize the deportation of immigrants who are criminals, immigration enforcement generally was a popular topic among his voter base—and targeting college students who have been granted temporary deportation reprieves would be an easy way to identify undocumented immigrants because there is a federal database with all of their information. “That’s the scary thing,” said Tim Cresswell, Trinity’s dean of faculty and the vice president for academic affairs.

Cresswell also pointed out an important difference between schools and cities. Where sanctuary cities have police forces that could theoretically face off with immigration officers, schools don’t have that manpower. In that sense, identifying as a sanctuary campus “doesn’t really mean very much,” he acknowledged.

Here in NYC, Columbia University has said "will neither allow immigration officials on our campuses without a warrant, nor share information on the immigration status of undocumented students with those officials unless required by subpoena or court order, or authorized by a student."

And on Thursday, there will be a rally at LaGuardia Community College to turn it into a sanctuary campus.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

President Obama was clearly not confident when the DACA question came up during his press conference a couple weeks ago. It's going to be a mess once the admin gets around to it. Reince is claiming they want to tackle other priorities first like the wall and getting out violent immigrants, though.

 

[Slayven]

It is going to be a mess, stay safe folks.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

Aren't all campuses sanctuary campuses? Or can you really get deported for applying to university?

 

[Haly]

So this is like extending the sanctuary city concept to campuses? All for it tbh, although that this is even on the table is highly disconcerting. I just hope we don't reach that point where students have to butt heads with law enforcement on a country-wide scale.

 

[Alienfan]

While all those requests are necessary, branding the campuses like that seems kind of dumb, like the article said it's just going to make it easier for the government to control and deny funds if you group all these universities together like that? But I guess on the flip side if major universities follow suit that aspect probably won't be much of an issue

 

[iamblades]

I do find it interesting when the usual ideas of local/non-government power as a bulwark against federal power shift like this.

I do think progressives are going to end up regretting the amount of power they have given to the federal executive over the last 80-90 years though. If not this time, then 10 or 20 years down the road.

I just hope it's not quite enough yet to push this thing over the edge to complete authoritarian dystopia.

 

[Slayven]

I bet when people realize those factory jobs ain't coming back and those approval numbers start tanking hard the wall will just get higher

 

[Pau]

While all those requests are necessary, branding the campuses like that seems kind of dumb, like the article said it's just going to make it easier for the government to control and deny funds if you group all these universities together like that? But I guess on the flip side if major universities follow suit that aspect probably won't be much of an issue

But if they don't publicize that they're doing this stuff, how will the students know?

My campus, which is a CUNY school and provides financial aid to DACA students, has monitors running messages about this daily. Such a shitty situation. :/

 

[Fuchsdh]

I do find it interesting when the usual ideas of local/non-government power as a bulwark against federal power shift like this.

I do think progressives are going to end up regretting the amount of power they have given to the federal executive over the last 80-90 years though. If not this time, then 10 or 20 years down the road.

I just hope it's not quite enough yet to push this thing over the edge to complete authoritarian dystopia.

I doubt it. The problem with progressives is they have for way too long not understood that state and local politics has dramatically more of an effect on their day-to-day lives than national elections; and thus even when Obama was president they didn't show up at midterms and let Republicans run roughshod over their states. Maybe this gets them to wake up, but the problem isn't executive power.

As to the concept, it seems unclear as to why universities would have lists of illegal immigrants in the first place. The article doesn't seem to make that clear, and suggests they don't actually know either. The stuff about declining to offer any information unless compelled to by law makes more sense, but it's still not clear if they were really doing this normally anyhow.

As made clear later on in the article, this really seems like educators making symbolic gestures rather than them actually having any power to do anything if ICE actually came looking to apprehend illegals who are students.

The proof will be in the pudding, but considering Trump has already walked back a lot of his more strident promises, I highly doubt illegal immigrants with their noses clean have much to worry about that isn't an issue already (although that's not necessarily much of a comfort.) The reality is that they're going to target obvious targets and convicted criminals for deportation first no matter what. We'll see if Trump and the Republicans are willing to fund the immigration agencies enough to actually seriously dent the illegal immigration numbers.

 

[Dude Abides]

I do find it interesting when the usual ideas of local/non-government power as a bulwark against federal power shift like this.

I do think progressives are going to end up regretting the amount of power they have given to the federal executive over the last 80-90 years though. If not this time, then 10 or 20 years down the road.

I just hope it's not quite enough yet to push this thing over the edge to complete authoritarian dystopia.

Immigration has always been a federal issue and local governments and private entities have always been able to decide how much they wish to cooperate with the federal government absent a court order.

So your post doesnt make much sense in this context other than a predictable "lol liberal hypocrites" knee-jerk.

 

[Ihyll]

DACA recipients did the right thing and came forward out of the shadows and registered with USCIS, they received work permits and SSNs

The majority of them now have mortgages, jobs, credit cards and other expenses that they won't be able to take care of if the Trump administration follows through on its promise to get rid of DACA

 

[GameAddict411]

DACA recipients did the right thing and came forward out of the shadows and registered with USCIS, they received work permits and SSNs

The majority of them now have mortgages, jobs, credit cards and other expenses that they won't be able to take care of if the Trump administration follows through on its promise to get rid of DACA

But now soon it will be gone. I remember a thread on Gaf where some DACA posted about their life prospects after Trump won, and it was heartbreaking. There is going to be a lot of injustice in the following 8 years. I don't think every university could afford to jeopardise their federal funding by refusing to follow federal law. It's going to be tough and I would definitely start looking for a plan B if I was an Illegal immigrant or a DACA beneficiary.

 

[iamblades]

I doubt it. The problem with progressives is they have for way too long not understood that state and local politics has dramatically more of an effect on their day-to-day lives than national elections; and thus even when Obama was president they didn't show up at midterms and let Republicans run roughshod over their states. Maybe this gets them to wake up, but the problem isn't executive power.

As to the concept, it seems unclear as to why universities would have lists of illegal immigrants in the first place. The article doesn't seem to make that clear, and suggests they don't actually know either. The stuff about declining to offer any information unless compelled to by law makes more sense, but it's still not clear if they were really doing this normally anyhow.

As made clear later on in the article, this really seems like educators making symbolic gestures rather than them actually having any power to do anything if ICE actually came looking to apprehend illegals who are students.

The proof will be in the pudding, but considering Trump has already walked back a lot of his more strident promises, I highly doubt illegal immigrants with their noses clean have much to worry about that isn't an issue already (although that's not necessarily much of a comfort.) The reality is that they're going to target obvious targets and convicted criminals for deportation first no matter what. We'll see if Trump and the Republicans are willing to fund the immigration agencies enough to actually seriously dent the illegal immigration numbers.

I'm not saying the progressives are going to be able to make a similar change state by state, I'm just saying there is clearly an attitude shift starting to happen.

Also, if you don't think growing executive power is a serious issue, you haven't been paying attention. The executive branch now has broad law-making power(basically the only thing congress really controls these days is the checkbook), it has it's own adjudication system for administrative law that receives nothing but deference by the actual courts, and agents of the executive receive effectively complete immunity from liability for their wrong-doing(this last bit is a problem at all levels of government, not just federal, granted).

It's a problem now, and it's going to be much worse if something isn't done to reverse the trend.

Immigration has always been a federal issue and local governments and private entities have always been able to decide how much they wish to cooperate with the federal government absent a court order.

So your post doesnt make much sense in this context other than a predictable "lol liberal hypocrites" knee-jerk.

It's not just immigration though, it's drug laws, criminal justice reform, etc.

 

[Seth Enosh]

Immigration has always been a federal issue and local governments and private entities have always been able to decide how much they wish to cooperate with the federal government absent a court order.

So your post doesnt make much sense in this context other than a predictable "lol liberal hypocrites" knee-jerk.

States actually used to regulate immigration themselves (although this doesn't make much sense in a modern world, of course). http://www.americanbar.org/publicat...responsible-for-u-s--immigration-policy-.html

Various states passed laws aimed at preventing a variety of populations from entering the borders of their states, including individuals with criminal records, people reliant on public assistance, slaves, and free blacks.

It was not until the late 19th centu­ry that Congress began to actively reg­ulate immigration, in particular, with measures designed to restrict Chinese immigration. By this time, the Supreme Court had begun to articulate clear limits on state immigration powers.​

 

[Ihyll]

But now soon it will be gone. I remember a thread on Gaf where some DACA posted about their life prospects after Trump won, and it was heartbreaking. There is going to be a lot of injustice in the following 8 years. I don't think every university could afford to jeopardise their federal funding by refusing to follow federal law. It's going to be tough and I would definitely start looking for a plan B if I was an Illegal immigrant or a DACA beneficiary.

It's just fucking stupid to get rid of it. These people have jobs, they don't qualify for any sort of welfare or even unemployment..these people actually are contributing members of society...but let's just kick them out..smh

 

[Dude Abides]

It's not just immigration though, it's drug laws, criminal justice reform, etc.

And little else. Note that "drug laws" are essentially a sub-issue of the larger "criminal justice reform" issue. Aside from criminal justice and national security, the federal government isn't generally enforcing statutes liberals have problems with. Conservatives don't object to Title VIi or the Clean Air Act or the NLRA or the ADA because they think those issues are better dealt with at the state level. They object because they don't think any government at any level should be regulating in those areas.