The sanctuary cities in the United States, which limit local cooperation with federal immigration authorities, caused the anger of President Donald Trump during his two administrations.
The border tsar Tom Homan declared in July 2025 that the Trump administration would attack the Sanctuary cities throughout the country and flood the area with agents of the United States Immigration and Customs Control Service (ICE) to pursue its deportation objectives.
I am a migration historian. I have discovered that the concept of sanctuary adopts various forms, from gestures of goodness and support to more formal approaches, such as the protection of migrants at risk of arrest and deportation by churches.
In the United States, sanctuary cities policies were historically designed to support undocumented migrants and refugees, especially those who face deportation. Ordinances based on these policies are usually used by local authorities to indicate the need for substantial immigration reform.
New public policies of Sanctuary cities
The current sanctuary practices and the federal approach in the sanctuary cities are, to a large extent, the result of the way the concept of sanctuary was configured in the United States during the 1980s.
During this period, Iglesias, municipal officials and activists helped migrants fleeing the violent conditions created by the indirect wars of the United States in El Salvador, Nicaragua and Guatemala.
In the early 1980s, migrants who arrived in the United States faced restrictive asylum processes. To a large extent, this was due to the refusal of the Reagan government to recognize the magnitude of human rights violations perpetrated by regimes supported by the United States in Central America.
In 1984, the Federal Government approved less than 3% of asylum requests submitted in the United States by applicants who had fled El Salvador and Guatemala. In comparison, asylum requests of more than 30% were approved – and in some cases, of 60% – of the refugees of Iran, Afghanistan and Poland.
In response, American activists and ecclesiastical and municipal leaders began to advocate for refugees in Central America. They sought to generate changes in both the country and abroad, finally joining what was known as the sanctuary.
This coalition, to a large decentralized extent, focused on protecting refugees by providing safe accommodation, often in Iglesias, and defending their right to request asylum. In addition, they carried out public dissemination activities to raise awareness about the conditions in Central America and the role of the US government in conflicts.
The objective was to change US politics. As a sanctuary worker in Texas said in 1985, according to stories collected in the Latin American Benson collection of the University of Texas in Austin: “The sanctuary offers a way through which people can, first of all, be safe from fear of death and, secondly, denounce what is really happening in Central America.”
The Sanctuary Movement also promoted organized visits to the border between the United States and Mexico to witness the treatment that migrants received from US immigration officials. In Texas, for example, between 1983 and 1985, people were invited to document the activities of immigration officials at the Port Isabel detention center.
The members of the Sanctuary Movement also shared some of the horrors they met from the missionaries and refugees who arrived from Central America, indicate stories from the Latin American Benson collection.
As a member of the Border Witnesses of the Rio Grande reported, according to the preserved records, stories from Central America of violated and stabbed women were repeated and stated and parents killed in front of their families.
As awareness of violence increased in Central America, more people and congregations in the United States joined the sanctuary. At its peak in 1986, the movement had 300 churches that supported the sanctuary for Central American migrants and the principles that supported the sanctuary movement.
We recommend: White House announces that Trump will sign an executive order against the sanctuary cities
Public and symbolic
It was during this boom that American cities began to issue statements of sanctuary and subsequently approved binding ordinances.
In 1985, Berkeley, California, who had previously declared a sanctuary city for conscientious objectors to the Vietnam War, made one of the first statements of the Sanctuary City on behalf of the refugees of Central America. Its resolution reaffirmed the support of the city to the principle of sanctuary and the groups that participate in this ancient tradition of humanitarian assistance.
The municipal authorities declared that no municipal employee would violate the established sanctuaries collaborating in investigations, public or clandestine, or participating or collaborating in arrests for alleged violations of the immigration laws by refugees in the sanctuaries or of whom they offer sanctuary.
Cities such as San Francisco and Santa Fe, New Mexico, continued with binding statements or ordinances. These initiatives were often designed specifically for migrants from Central America and contained criticism of the foreign and asylum policy of the United States.
An ordinance of San Francisco in 1989, still in force, was inspired by the idea that the United States had special obligations with the citizens of El Salvador and Guatemala due to their role in the conflicts that were developed there.
The resolutions on sanctuary cities approved in the 1980s contained a powerful rhetoric and symbolism. This is still valid today, since the statements and policies of sanctuary have become increasingly polarizing in the current political climate.
In addition, as I point out in my own work, the public acts of sanctuary can have a cost, often at the expense of the same people who are supposed to help. In an effort to create public awareness and compassion, those who need refuge often see their most heartbreaking moments exposed to the public.
The Sanctuary Movement, which emerged in the 1980s, partly to protest against the support of the United States to repressive governments, has endured for more than 40 years as an expression of concern and solidarity with immigrants who arrive in the United States.
The question now is how the movement will evolve before the threats of the Trump administration.
Some leaders of Sanctuary cities, such as the mayor of Boston, Michelle Wu, responded by pointing out the value of policies that foster community trust and help keep all residents safe. It remains to be seen how other leaders and communities will respond.
*Laura Madokoro She is an associate professor at Historia at the University of Carleton.
This text was originally published in The Conversation
Do you like photos and news? Follow us on our Instagram
