Conceptualizing Sanctuary as a Process in the United States ⋆^⋆

⋆ Heartfelt thanks to Olivia Lawrence‐Weilmann, Kiana London, Charlotte Morse, Sandy North, and Quinn Wallace for our years of collaboration on immigrant sanctuaries and the Mount Holyoke College Dean of Faculty Research Assistance grants that enabled our work together. Many thanks to Karen Culcasi, David Hernández, Ned Houston, Dave Kaplan, Cathy Luna, Emily Skop, Richard Wright, and the anonymous reviewers for feedback on earlier drafts of this article.

Abstract

While contentious national debates persist about the promise or peril of so‐called “sanctuary cities,” this article draws on an archive of U.S. subfederal policies that focused on local responses to immigration and enforcement from 2001–2014 to argue that sanctuary constitutes a process rather than a binary state of being. Such a conceptualization underscores the broad spectrum of policy endeavors that comprise sanctuary and shifts the focus away from a reductionist question of whether or not a place is a sanctuary to inquiries into how sanctuary functions as a process in both policy creation and application. I focus on sanctuary as a process to demonstrate its socio‐spatial heterogeneity and to highlight how the assertion of local values within sanctuary policies advances internal bordering. Textually analyzing sanctuary policies in this way illustrates how the process of sanctuary can simultaneously resist the bordering efforts of federal immigration enforcement and reborder local practices to cultivate belonging for citizens and noncitizens alike.

• belonging
• immigration
• sanctuary policies
• process
• United States

⋆ Heartfelt thanks to Olivia Lawrence‐Weilmann, Kiana London, Charlotte Morse, Sandy North, and Quinn Wallace for our years of collaboration on immigrant sanctuaries and the Mount Holyoke College Dean of Faculty Research Assistance grants that enabled our work together. Many thanks to Karen Culcasi, David Hernández, Ned Houston, Dave Kaplan, Cathy Luna, Emily Skop, Richard Wright, and the anonymous reviewers for feedback on earlier drafts of this article.

⋆ Heartfelt thanks to Olivia Lawrence‐Weilmann, Kiana London, Charlotte Morse, Sandy North, and Quinn Wallace for our years of collaboration on immigrant sanctuaries and the Mount Holyoke College Dean of Faculty Research Assistance grants that enabled our work together. Many thanks to Karen Culcasi, David Hernández, Ned Houston, Dave Kaplan, Cathy Luna, Emily Skop, Richard Wright, and the anonymous reviewers for feedback on earlier drafts of this article.

Notes

⋆ Heartfelt thanks to Olivia Lawrence‐Weilmann, Kiana London, Charlotte Morse, Sandy North, and Quinn Wallace for our years of collaboration on immigrant sanctuaries and the Mount Holyoke College Dean of Faculty Research Assistance grants that enabled our work together. Many thanks to Karen Culcasi, David Hernández, Ned Houston, Dave Kaplan, Cathy Luna, Emily Skop, Richard Wright, and the anonymous reviewers for feedback on earlier drafts of this article.

1. In an effort to clarify the term, Harald Bauder and Dayana Gonzalez (2018) propose four features that unite sanctuary cities in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. These include: 1) an official commitment by local authorities to the premise of sanctuary; 2) a public challenge to the prominent narratives that criminalize migrants; 3) the articulation of collective urban membership and identity; and 4) the rejection of national immigration and refugee laws (Bauder and Gonzalez 2018, 126).

2. The “Welcoming America” movement, for instance, seeks to create inclusive communities through public, private, and voluntary sector partnerships in an effort to produce greater prosperity. Peer‐to‐peer knowledge transfers, network connections, technical assistance, and a certification program underpin “Welcoming America” and its programs and materialize its ambitions (Welcoming America 2018). Although some places, such as Los Angeles and Chicago, have both sanctuary and welcoming policies, the accent in these programs is different. Sanctuary policies hinge on immigration enforcement practices and the management of local expenditures and procedures while “Welcoming America” emphasizes economic development approaches that can contribute to enhanced inclusion in economic and social life. Both types of policies consider how to produce and expand experiences of local belonging yet mobilize different practices to reach this goal.

3. In our communication with municipal employees, we asked for policies that mentioned at least one of the following: sanctuary city, immigrant sanctuary, safe space, Secure Communities, citizenship status, undocumented, immigrant, immigration, or noncompliance with federal immigration enforcement. We used the same terms in our online archival searches.

Additional information

Funding

Mount Holyoke College

Notes on contributors

Serin Houston

Dr. Serin D. Houston, Assistant Professor of Geography and International Relations, Mount Holyoke College, South Hadley, MA, 01075; [[email protected]].