Sanctuary response
I am grateful to writer/activist Rebecca Solnit for her thoughtful discussion “The way we get through this is together.” Held on Martin Luther King Day, the conversation with Liz Ogbu, Akaya Windwood, Bill McKibben, Charlie Jane Anders, and Anand Giridharadas offers ways to “celebrate community and cultivate a pathway for hope in these dark times.” It is a rich, thoughtful discussion, reflecting expansive experiences by people deeply engaged in efforts to create a just and peaceful world.
As the first week of Trump’s presidency unfolds, I have been thinking about key ideas they explored. One that I have found helpful is to consider the distinction between reaction and response.
It is obvious the barrage of outrageous executive orders, tinged with petty cruelties and vindictiveness, is designed to provoke reaction, to cloud thinking. They are intended to weaken resistance by invoking fear. To react allows these forces to determine our framework for action. Reaction is an immediate, instinctive response, a survival mechanism often based on past experiences.
A response requires something more of us. It means expanding our understanding of a situation, thinking not only about immediate issues, but also long-term consequences.
The series of executive actions on immigration require a response. There is no doubt that the passage of the Laken Riley Act mandating the federal retention of undocumented immigrants accused of even minor crimes will bring extraordinary pain and sorrow to thousands of people. Individuals suspected of crimes will be swept up and put in for profit prisons, families will be disrupted, children frightened.
In the name of safety, time honored legal safeguards for human rights are set aside. An individual’s freedom can be taken based only on accusation of even a minor offense, due process considerations have been muted, including barring detainees from requesting bond hearings, and setting up situations where a person can face years imprisoned awaiting some determination of their status.
Evidence from current detentions, done in a much less frantic manner, documents the dangers of this accelerated attack. Anthony Enriquez, vice president of U.S. advocacy and litigation at Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights explained that data obtained from ICE shows that under the last administration nearly 1,500 American citizens were wrongfully detained, over 60 percent of the people in immigrant detention have no criminal record and most of the remaining 40 percent are convicted of nonviolent offenses such as traffic violations. Mr. Enriques said, “Mandatory detention requires immigration officials to lock up people without any suspicion that they are a danger to the community or a flight risk. It hasn’t brought safety, efficiency, or decency—only profits for private prison executives.”
This is why police chiefs and local civic leaders have supported Sanctuary Cities. They know that sanctuary communities are safer communities.
Providing sanctuary reflects our best aspirations for each other. It is a way of publicly saying that every human being deserves shelter from harm. It is also a way to acknowledge that some aspects of the human experience are sacred. To go to a place of worship, to seek care for the sick, to develop and protect our children are essential to our humanity. These activities, singled out by Trump for attack, must be defended. To do less erodes the essence of our own humanity.
In the days ahead, every one of us needs to find ways to support and sustain those who face this assault. We welcome the court battles launched by the ACLU and states, the guidance on rights given by officials, and the labor unions that have offered multiple ways to protect fellow workers.
Each of these acts is a response to support as we organize in our neighborhoods to protect each other and to provide for our common good.