The City of Rochester, NY — A Sanctuary City
From the City’s website re: its status as a Sanctuary City
“The City of Rochester—the home of Frederick Douglass and Susan B. Anthony—has a long-standing history of policies and practices that support equal rights for all.
There is understandably a level of fear and concern being caused by the current rhetoric around immigration enforcement. In the City of Rochester, immigrants and refugees can contact the police and other City agencies without fear of adverse immigration consequences.
Federal agencies, not local governments, are responsible for implementation and enforcement of immigration and refugee policies. Federal law does not require local law enforcement or other local service providers to inquire into an individual’s immigration status.
In 1986, the Rochester City Council declared Rochester as a City of Sanctuaries, a place where those fleeing general conditions of persecution in their homelands could find shelter.
The City of Rochester does not create or maintain a registry based on a person’s national origin, race, or religion.
City personnel do not inquire, or request proof of immigration status or citizenship when providing services or benefits, unless specifically required to do so by law.
Rochester Police Department General Orders prohibit bias-based profiling in traffic contacts, field contacts, investigations, and asset seizure and forfeiture efforts.
Rochester Police do not stop, question, interrogate, investigate, or arrest people based on actual or suspected immigration or citizenship status.”
See the following article on an incident earlier this year with the City’s Rochester Police Department and Federal officials. Considering the many inhumane and cruel incidents at the Federal level across the country re: immigration, arrests, deportations, and more, this is a very serious situation and the City should be commended or its history and current role in protecting our human rights. Diminishing the rights of anyone diminishes them for us all.
The concept of Sanctuary Cities—municipalities that limit their cooperation with federal immigration enforcement—rests on deep social, democratic, and Gospel-oriented values. Here’s a breakdown of how these perspectives support the moral and civic legitimacy of sanctuary policies:
Social Value Propositions
- Community Trust & Safety
- When immigrants can report crimes, access healthcare, and send children to school without fear of deportation, public safety increases for all.
- Sanctuary cities foster inclusive communities where trust in local authorities isn’t undermined by federal enforcement policies.
- Dignity & Human Rights
- Recognizes that all people, regardless of status, deserve basic human dignity, protection, and participation in society.
- Upholds the social contract that human worth is not conditional on legal papers.
- Economic Contributions
- Immigrants, documented or not, contribute labor, taxes, entrepreneurship, and cultural vitality.
- Sanctuary cities affirm this role as economically beneficial, not burdensome.
Democratic Value Propositions
- Local Autonomy: Sanctuary cities represent a constitutional principle of federalism, where local governments have the right to prioritize community welfare over federal enforcement agendas.
- Protection from Overreach:
- Limits the use of local law enforcement as an arm of federal immigration control, preserving their primary role: protecting and serving all residents.
- Acts as a check on federal overreach, particularly when enforcement actions conflict with local democratic values.
- Rule of Law & Justice: Being a sanctuary city doesn’t mean lawlessness—it means applying the law equitably and justly, rather than punitively based on identity or origin.
Gospel-Oriented Value Propositions
- Radical Hospitality
- (Hebrews 13:2): “Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by doing that some have entertained angels without knowing it.”
- Sanctuary cities live out a Gospel mandate to welcome the stranger, especially the vulnerable and marginalized.
- Compassion Over Legalism
- (Matthew 25:35–40): “I was a stranger and you welcomed me.” The teachings of Jesus emphasize mercy, love, and neighborly responsibility, often in tension with rigid legal frameworks.
- Prophetic Justice (Isaiah 1:17, Micah 6:8): “Seek justice, correct oppression.”
- Sanctuary policies are a modern embodiment of prophetic resistance—standing against unjust systems and choosing compassion over compliance.
- Kinship Over Borders
- (Galatians 3:28): “There is neither Jew nor Greek… for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
- Affirms the spiritual unity of all people, transcending national or legal status.
Summary:
Sanctuary cities are not just legal or political statements—they are moral declarations. They reflect a belief in a society where law serves humanity, where communities protect the vulnerable, and where faith is practiced through justice and welcome.
A DRAFT Public Statement in Support of Sanctuary Cities
In this moment of national division and fear, we affirm the profound moral, democratic, and spiritual values that underpin the work of Sanctuary Cities across our nation. These communities are not acts of defiance—they are acts of conscience.
Democracy Rooted in Local Wisdom
Sanctuary Cities reflect one of our democracy’s oldest principles: that local communities should have a voice in how they are governed. By choosing not to entangle local police with federal immigration enforcement, these cities protect public safety, uphold civil rights, and preserve the trust between neighbors and public servants. This is not lawlessness; it is local leadership protecting the integrity of community life.
A Society That Honors Human Dignity
Sanctuary Cities recognize that no human being is illegal. They affirm that immigrants—regardless of documentation—are our coworkers, classmates, parishioners, and friends. These policies help families stay together, children stay in school, and workers stay protected. They make us safer, stronger, and more compassionate.
A Gospel Mandate to Welcome
For those of us shaped by the Christian tradition, this is also a spiritual calling. Jesus said, “I was a stranger and you welcomed me.” (Matthew 25:35) The Gospel teaches us to love the stranger, seek justice, and show mercy. Sanctuary is not a partisan issue—it is a sacred principle.
We remember the prophets who told us to “defend the oppressed” (Isaiah 1:17) and the apostles who proclaimed that in Christ “there is no longer Jew or Greek… for all are one.” (Galatians 3:28) To offer sanctuary is to say: every person has worth, and every family has a right to safety.
A Call to Courageous Kinship
In supporting Sanctuary Cities, we choose courage over compliance, solidarity over silence, and neighborliness over nationalism. We believe that welcoming the stranger is not just good policy—it is holy work.
Let this be our message:
🕊️ Sanctuary is not a threat to our country—it is a reflection of its deepest values.
🕊️ To offer sanctuary is not to defy the law—it is to uphold the law of love, of justice, and of community.
🕊️ In sanctuary, we do not hide from who we are—we live into who we are called to be.
Political and Personal Risks
Taking a stand as a Sanctuary City—or publicly defending that stance—carries real political and personal risks, both for local governments and individual citizens. These risks stem from federal retaliation, legal complexities, and heightened social tensions. Here’s a breakdown:
Political Risks for Cities
1. Loss of Federal Funding
- Risk: The federal government may attempt to withhold or threaten funding for public safety, housing, or transportation programs.
- Context: Although many of these threats have been challenged in court (and sometimes overturned), they create uncertainty and pressure.
2. Legal Challenges
- Risk: Sanctuary policies may face lawsuits from the federal government or politically motivated legal groups.
- Example: The Trump administration previously sued Rochester and other jurisdictions for refusing to comply with immigration detainer requests.
3. Political Backlash
- Risk: Local elected officials may face opposition from conservative constituents or be targeted in campaigns accusing them of being “soft on crime” or promoting “lawlessness.”
- Impact: Politicians may lose reelection or face recall efforts fueled by fear-based narratives.
4. Intergovernmental Conflict
- Risk: Sanctuary policies can create tension between city and state governments, particularly if the state is controlled by anti-sanctuary leadership.
- Outcome: States may pass laws trying to override local autonomy or force local law enforcement to cooperate with ICE.
Personal Risks for Citizens
1. Harassment or Surveillance
- Risk: Activists, faith leaders, or volunteers who help undocumented people could face intimidation, surveillance, or even investigation.
- Reality: While rare, ICE has reportedly monitored sanctuary-related activism in some cases.
2. Public Stigmatization
- Risk: Defenders of sanctuary cities may be publicly labeled as “un-American,” “radical,” or enablers of crime, particularly in polarized communities or social media spaces.
3. Legal Gray Areas
- Risk: Individuals offering aid (e.g. housing, legal support) to undocumented immigrants might worry about legal exposure, especially under harsh federal policies.
- Note: Federal law criminalizes “harboring” undocumented people, but enforcement of this provision is infrequent and controversial.
4. Physical and Emotional Toll
- Risk: Facing protests, online harassment, or even physical threats can take a toll on community organizers, clergy, and educators who defend sanctuary policies.
Why People Still Take the Risk
- Moral clarity: Many believe this is not just a legal issue—it’s a human rights issue.
- Community strength: Sanctuary defenders often act from deep community bonds and spiritual convictions.
- Legal resilience: Courts have upheld many sanctuary policies under the 10th Amendment (local autonomy).
- Historical echoes: Similar risks were taken in the civil rights movement, the Underground Railroad, and efforts to resist Japanese internment.
- In Rochester think of Frederick Douglass, Susan B. Anthony, and Harriet Tubman
Here are some key factoids to support informed discussion (note some of the data points should be further checked and verified for accuracy)
Factoid 1: Immigrants Commit Fewer Crimes Than Native-Born Citizens
- Multiple studies, including from the Cato Institute and American Immigration Council, show that both documented and undocumented immigrants are significantly less likely to commit crimes or be incarcerated than native-born U.S. citizens.
- In Texas (the only state that tracks this by legal status), undocumented immigrants had 50% lower arrest rates for homicide than U.S.-born citizens (2015–2018).
- Significantly lower rates for sexual assault and larceny as well.
Factoid 2: Undocumented Immigrants Are Underrepresented in Prisons
- According to 2021 data from the Cato Institute, the incarceration rate for undocumented immigrants is over 40% lower than for native-born Americans.
- When adjusting for age and gender (key crime correlates), the gap remains wide.
Factoid 3: White Americans Are More Likely to Commit Certain Violent Crimes
- The FBI’s Uniform Crime Report shows that white Americans (who are about 60% of the population) are disproportionately represented in arrests for:
- Rape (65%)
- Aggravated assault (59%)
- Burglary (68%)
- This undermines the racialized scapegoating of immigrants as uniquely “dangerous.”
- Recall Timothy McVeigh born in Lockport NY, the Oklahoma City bomber and white nationalist terrorist who slaughtered 167 men, women, and children in 1995
Factoid 4: Sanctuary Cities Do Not Have Higher Crime Rates
- A 2017 study in Justice Quarterly found that sanctuary jurisdictions have lower crime rates or no statistical difference compared to non-sanctuary cities.
- Sanctuary policies do not shield people from criminal prosecution—they simply limit local cooperation with civil immigration enforcement.
Factoid 5: Criminalizing Immigration is a Political Choice
- The act of “being undocumented” is a civil violation, not a criminal offense.
- Nearly half of undocumented people in the U.S. entered legally and overstayed a visa—not by “crossing illegally.”
Summary
The criminalization of immigrants—especially people of color—is driven more by political fear-mongering than by facts. Sanctuary policies are not “harboring criminals;” they are protecting constitutional values and community safety.
Final thought: the city, its mayor and the Rochester Police Department need our support in protecting its status as a Sanctuary City. Neighboring towns should consider making supporting statements and address their allyship and solidarity with the mayor. Churches and other institutions should be speaking out as well. Please consider adding your voice to this discussion for all the reasons listed above in this post.
Appendix
A Public Communications Plan re: Sanctuary City — Some Building Blocks –
A public communications plan for a city supporting Sanctuary City policies should be clear, values-driven, and proactive. Its goal is to build public trust, dispel misinformation, and affirm the moral and legal basis for the city’s position. Here’s a structured plan tailored for public communication:
Public Communications Plan: “Sanctuary Is Safety, Justice, and Dignity”
1. Objectives
- Clearly define what the city’s sanctuary policy does and does not do.
- Emphasize public safety, community trust, and moral values.
- Counter myths with facts (e.g., crime, legality, cost).
- Build inclusive, cross-sector support.
- Prepare responses to backlash or misinformation.
2. Core Messages
- Primary Message: “Our city is committed to protecting all residents—regardless of immigration status—because we believe in justice, safety, and the dignity of every person.”
- Supporting Messages:
- Sanctuary policies make us safer, not less safe.
- We support local police doing community-focused work—not immigration raids.
- Sanctuary means no cooperation with civil immigration enforcement, not shielding criminal behavior.
- We uphold the Constitution and human rights, side by side.
3. Audiences:
- General Public: Build trust and awareness.
- Immigrant Communities: Reassure safety and support.
- Local Media: Provide consistent framing and access to spokespeople.
- Faith and Civic Leaders: Amplify moral and justice-based arguments.
- Law Enforcement: Emphasize public safety and practical enforcement priorities.
- Business Community: Stress immigrant contributions and workforce stability.
4. Key Strategies & Tactics
A. Proactive Media & Messaging
- Press releases with clear language and FAQs.
- Op-eds by the mayor, police chief, and community leaders.
- Local radio and Spanish-language news outreach.
- Public service announcements (PSAs) with affirming messages of welcome and unity.
B. Town Halls & Community Forums
- Hold inclusive events in multiple languages.
- Invite legal experts, faith leaders, and immigrants to share stories and facts.
- Partner with schools, unions, and nonprofits.
C. Visual Campaign (Digital + Physical)
- Use banners, posters, and social media:
- “We Are a Sanctuary City. We Keep Families Together.”
- Storytelling videos highlighting immigrant families, frontline workers, and law enforcement.
- Hashtags like #SanctuaryIsSafety, #WeAllBelong, or #CityOfWelcome.
D. Crisis Response Toolkit
- Pre-drafted statements for:
- Federal retaliation or ICE raids.
- Violent incidents or misinformation campaigns.
- Centralized spokesperson and media contact.
5. Anticipating Opposition
- Prepare respectful counterpoints for common arguments:
- “Sanctuary cities promote crime.”
- In fact, sanctuary policies reduce crime by building community trust.
- “You’re defying federal law.” The Constitution gives local governments discretion on enforcement priorities.
- “It’s unfair to citizens.” Public services benefit when all residents can participate without fear.
6. Evaluation
- Track sentiment on social media and in press coverage.
- Conduct periodic surveys to assess public understanding and trust.
- Host listening sessions with immigrant residents.
Closing Statement: This isn’t just about policy—it’s about identity. A successful communications plan positions a sanctuary city as one that cares, protects, and leads with justice.
Final note of attribution: much of this content was adapted from online resources but the inspiration for the exploring of available content and its presentation is my contribution.
