Local Policy Advocacy Playbook

Approximately 70% of ICE arrests originate from encounters with local law enforcement and the criminal legal system. Severing this pipeline is the primary objective of local sanctuary advocacy.

Sanctuary Policy Framework

What Sanctuary Policies Do

Function	Mechanism
Limit cooperation	Restrict local resources for federal enforcement
Refuse detainers	No holds beyond release time
Protect data	No sharing immigration status information
Restrict access	No ICE in jails, courthouses
Build trust	Community cooperation with local police

Key Policy Elements

Element	Implementation
Decriminalization	Decline charging survival offenses
Cite and release	Issue citations instead of arrests
ICE detainer refusal	Release at scheduled time regardless of ICE requests
No 287(g)	Prohibit deputization agreements
No notification	Don't share release dates with ICE
Warrant requirements	Judicial warrant for any cooperation

Decriminalization Strategy

The Pipeline Problem

Stage	Policy Intervention
Contact	Reduce unnecessary police encounters
Arrest	Cite instead of arrest for eligible offenses
Booking	Limit biometric data sharing
Jail	Refuse ICE detainers
Release	No notification to ICE

Target Offenses for Decriminalization

Offense	Rationale
Driving without license	State bars undocumented from licenses
Loitering	Pretextual, racially biased enforcement
Minor traffic violations	Does not require jail booking
Low-level misdemeanors	Disproportionate immigration consequences

Prosecutorial Declination Policies

Policy	Implementation
Automatic declination	List of offenses never charged
Immigration consideration	Factor collateral consequences in charging
Post-conviction review	Vacate older convictions

ICE Detainer Policies

Why Refuse Detainers

Reason	Evidence
4th Amendment violation	Detainers lack probable cause
Civil liability	Courts have awarded damages
Community trust	Immigrants avoid police when scared
Resource diversion	Local taxpayers fund federal enforcement

Court Precedents

Case	Holding
Galarza v. Szalczyk (3d Cir.)	ICE detainers are voluntary requests
Miranda-Olivares v. Clackamas County	County liable for honoring detainer
Morales v. Chadbourne	Detainer violation = 4th Amendment violation

Model Detainer Policy

Element	Standard
No holds	Release at scheduled time
No notification	Don't share release date/time
Warrant requirement	Only comply with judicial warrant
Documentation	Log all ICE requests
Training	Staff understand policy

Ending 287(g) Agreements

What 287(g) Does

Function	Impact
Deputizes local police	As immigration agents
Screens in jails	Every arrestee for immigration status
Enables interior enforcement	Uses local resources
Generates fear	Community avoids police

Arguments Against 287(g)

Argument	Evidence
Racial profiling	DOJ, academic studies
Public safety harm	Crime reporting drops
Cost	Local taxpayers fund federal mission
Community trust	Undermines policing legitimacy
Legal liability	Civil rights violations

Termination Strategy

Target	Approach
Sheriff	Direct pressure, electoral
County commission	Budget control
State legislature	Statewide prohibition

Engaging Local Officials

City Council/County Commission

Tactic	Application
Public comment	Pack hearings, coordinated testimony
One-on-ones	Direct meetings with members
Constituent pressure	Phone calls, emails, visits
Coalition lobbying	United organizational front
Media pressure	Op-eds, press conferences

Building Political Support

Strategy	Implementation
Vote counting	Map supporters, opponents, persuadables
Relationship building	Ongoing engagement, not just asks
Champion cultivation	Find internal advocates
Public education	Shift community understanding
Electoral consequences	Make clear political costs

Engaging Law Enforcement

Police Chief Engagement

Approach	Content
Public safety argument	Crime reporting, community cooperation
Legal liability	4th Amendment, detainer lawsuits
Resource argument	Federal mission, local resources
Professional standards	Constitutional policing

Sheriff Engagement

Factor	Consideration
Elected official	Directly accountable to voters
Independent authority	Not controlled by county commission
Political positioning	Electoral vulnerabilities
Personal ideology	May be resistant

Training Resources

Topic	Content
ICE vs. local role	Legal distinctions
Warrant identification	Administrative vs. judicial
Constitutional requirements	4th Amendment basics
Community trust	Policing effectiveness

District Attorney Engagement

Why DAs Matter

Function	Immigration Impact
Charging decisions	Criminal conviction = deportation trigger
Plea negotiations	Immigration consequences
Diversion programs	Avoid conviction
Post-conviction	Vacate problematic convictions

"Immigration-Safe" Policies

Policy	Implementation
Decline low-level offenses	Automatic non-prosecution
Consider collateral consequences	Factor immigration in charging
Alternative dispositions	Diversion, deferred adjudication
Padilla compliance	Ensure defense counsel advised
Post-conviction review	Unit to vacate old convictions

Counter-Messaging

Opposition Arguments and Responses

Opposition Claim	Counter-Message
"Sanctuary = lawlessness"	Sanctuary policies comply with all laws; they're about local priorities
"Protecting criminals"	73.6% of ICE detainees have no criminal convictions
"Federal preemption"	Supreme Court: States can refuse to participate
"Public safety risk"	Research shows sanctuary cities are safer

Values-Based Messaging

Value	Application
Family	Keeping families together
Community	Building trust, not fear
Safety	Everyone reports crime without fear
Fiscal responsibility	Local taxes for local priorities
Constitutional	Due process, 4th Amendment

Key principle: Don't myth-bust (reinforces opposition framing). Lead with affirmative values.

School and Workplace Policies

School Sanctuary Policies

Element	Standard
FERPA enforcement	No status information sharing
ICE notification	Parents alerted, community informed
Warrant requirement	Review before any compliance
Safe zones	Schools as protected space
Emergency plans	Family communication protocols

Workplace Policies

Element	Standard
Worker notification	72 hours for I-9 audits
Non-public areas	No consent to warrantless entry
Worker rights posting	Visible rights information
Anti-retaliation	Protection for organizing

Implementation and Compliance

After Passage

Phase	Action
Training	Staff understand new policy
Systems update	Database changes, form updates
Documentation	Tracking ICE requests and responses
Public communication	Community knows protections exist

Monitoring Compliance

Method	Purpose
Public records requests	Obtain logs, communications
Community reporting	Track violations
Data analysis	Compare booking to ICE transfer
Policy audits	Review operational manuals

Defending Against Rollback

Threats to Sanctuary

Threat	Response
State preemption	Legal challenge, local resistance
Political change	Build broad coalition support
Federal pressure	Stand firm, legal defense
Media attacks	Aggressive counter-messaging

Building Durability

Strategy	Implementation
Codify in law	Ordinance stronger than policy
Build political consensus	Bipartisan support
Institutionalize	Staff training, systems
Public commitment	Make reversal politically costly

Policy Advocacy Checklist

Research Phase

[ ] Document current local policies
[ ] Research 287(g) status
[ ] Analyze jail data and ICE transfers
[ ] Map political landscape
[ ] Identify champion officials

Campaign Phase

[ ] Build coalition support
[ ] Develop messaging strategy
[ ] Conduct community outreach
[ ] Lobby decision-makers
[ ] Mobilize for public hearings

Passage Phase

[ ] Secure votes
[ ] Draft policy language
[ ] Manage floor debate
[ ] Counter opposition
[ ] Celebrate victory

Implementation Phase

[ ] Monitor compliance
[ ] Train staff
[ ] Document violations
[ ] Defend against rollback
[ ] Build on success

Related Resources

Last updated: March 24, 2026