In a time of rapid political change, students across the United States are calling for universities to declare themselves “sanctuary campuses,” but some administrators, including those at Syracuse University, are wary of the federal complications that may accompany the adoption of sanctuary policies.

A sanctuary campus, though not narrowly defined, proposes that universities refuse to comply with federal laws pertaining to the identification or deportation of undocumented students. These sanctuary policies are generally consistent with the U.S. Constitution, and universities are free to impose them, as it is not the responsibility of universities to enforce federal law.

The sanctuary campus movement began shortly after the election of President Donald Trump, who has proposed mass deportation of undocumented people.

But several universities, including SU, have hesitated to declare themselves sanctuary campuses over concerns of losing federal funding by not complying with federal mandates. A bill sitting in Congress proposes to strip such funding from universities that ignore federal requests.

“It is really a question of universities having to decide how best they are going to be able to serve their students,” said Christopher Lasch, an associate professor at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law. “I think the overarching fear is that if you sort of catch (the president’s) eye and become a target for his retaliation, that is going to cause the university trouble.”

That hasn’t stopped the campus community members and official campus organizations from calling on SU Chancellor Kent Syverud to declare the university a sanctuary campus.

The first such calls came the week following Trump’s election, when about 1,000 protesters participated in the National Walkout at SU, part of a nationwide demonstration in support of the sanctuary campus movement. A petition urging SU and the State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry administrators to declare their respective universities as sanctuary campuses garnered more than 500 signatures.

Additionally, both SU’s Graduate Student Organization and Student Association have passed resolutions calling on SU to declare itself a sanctuary campus.

Syverud has twice shied away from doing that. In a December email to the campus community, Syverud said SU “simply cannot ignore federal laws.” He again acknowledged the sanctuary campus push during an address to the community on Jan. 17, but added that it’s “not exactly clear” what a sanctuary status would mean. He also said the university cannot disregard federal laws without facing the risk of losing that funding.

Syverud did, however, urge various leadership groups on campus to examine Trump’s immigration policies and has repeatedly expressed support for undocumented students.

“It is our policy not to share student information, like … immigration status, unless required by law,” Syverud said in the email to the campus.

Syverud’s reluctance to declare sanctuary status is common among leaders at universities across the country, given the potential of losing federal funding. Other universities that have not declared sanctuary status include SU peer institutions Boston University and Northwestern University.

A bill was introduced to the House of Representatives in December that aims to strip federal funds from any entity that does not oblige to the requests of the federal government for information or detainment of non-citizens.

The bill, titled “Federal Immigration Law Compliance Act of 2016,” has many potential legal problems but gives an idea of the type of policies that could be enacted under Trump, said Lasch, the University of Denver Sturm associate professor of law.

Unlike Trump’s recent executive order targeting sanctuary cities, such as the city of Syracuse, that bill would include repercussions for universities.

There are currently several federal policies in place that intend to ensure privacy and protection of undocumented students, but some sanctuary campus supporters are worried the new administration may reverse them.

The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act protects the privacy of students’ education records by requiring a subpoena, warrant or court order to access those records unless consent is given. But for international students, some of those rights are waived, meaning authorities could have access to their immigration status, experts said.

Sam Ogozalek | Assistant News Editor

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, an executive order signed in 2012 by  former President Barack Obama, has garnered significant attention in recent months. The order allows a portion of undocumented individuals who entered the U.S. as minors to avoid deportation. But because DACA is an executive order, it can be modified or withdrawn at any time by the current president.

Syverud in November made SU a signatory on a letter in support of DACA.

“I feel strongly that all students must feel welcome, safe and supported,”  Syverud said in an email to the campus community after signing the letter.

Current policy held by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services states that information collected through DACA will not be released to Immigration and Customs Enforcement or to Customs and Border Protection for the purpose of immigration enforcement unless certain criteria are met, including national security concerns, fraud or criminal offenses. But, that policy “may be modified, superseded, or rescinded at any time without notice,” per the USCIS.

The petition to the administration of SU and SUNY-ESF called for campus authorities to refuse to allow ICE officers on campus. But current ICE policies indicate that it is unlikely ICE officers would attempt to enter campus and target DACA recipients or undocumented students.

ICE officers act in accordance with the Department of Homeland Security, which prioritizes deportations around individuals who pose a threat to national security, border security and public safety.

“Provided (DACA recipients) do not commit serious crimes or otherwise become enforcement priorities, these people are extremely unlikely to be deported,” according to a DHS memorandum.

Undocumented individuals at colleges and universities in the U.S. have never been subject to large-scale immigration enforcement, per the American Council on Education. That is in part due to ICE’s sensitive locations policy, which states that immigration enforcement should not occur at sensitive locations, including colleges and universities, unless there are national security or public safety concerns.

But that policy, like others, could be modified or rescinded by Trump’s administration, per the American Council on Education. In theory, Trump could alter the policy to make deportations of undocumented students more feasible.

Those in favor of the sanctuary status have also requested that SU’s Department of Public Safety refuse to collaborate with ICE officers in the potential enforcement of immigration laws.

Federal law does not mandate that local law enforcement, including campus police officers, enforce federal immigration laws. State or local police may enter a cooperative agreement with ICE, but it is not required by law. Currently, 37 law enforcement agencies have signed such an agreement, but none have done so in New York state.

Tony Callisto, senior vice president for safety and chief law enforcement officer, said in a statement to the SU community on Monday that DPS neither inquires about immigration status of individuals on campus nor assists federal officials in immigration investigations or raids.

Callisto’s statement came just hours before the Student Association assembly unanimously approved a bill calling for SU to adopt sanctuary status.

Jacob Greenfeld | Assistant Photo Editor

Marcus Lane, a SA assembly member, wrote SA’s sanctuary campus resolution. Lane said he appreciates that Syverud has addressed previous calls for sanctuary campus, but added that more must be done.

“It’s very clear that people are going to be alarmed, be suffering or potentially be harmed because of this presidency, and I think it’s in SU’s best interest to be at the forefront of this sort of movement,” Lane said. “… This sort of hate speech or hate crimes or hate policies are intolerable.”

Not everyone within SA fully supports the bill. Anjani Ladhar, co-director of SA’s Student Life Committee, said she doesn’t believe sanctuary status is in the best interest of the university and its students.

Her main concern stems from the risk of losing financial aid, given that a lot of the student body relies on federal aid, she said. She added, though, that SU officials should continue to speak out to provide comfort to undocumented students.

Ladhar is one of two students on SU’s Internationalization Council. After the council discussed the sanctuary campus movement, Ladhar said it became clear to her that university leadership cares about the safety of undocumented students

“(But for somebody) who just sees it from the outside, like the rest of the students, it doesn’t look like they are doing anything,” she said.

Eagerness for more explicit support of undocumented students from university leadership is felt in pockets across campus. Tom Perreault, a professor in the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs who signed the sanctuary campus petition, called it “absolutely essential” that SU declares sanctuary status.

Perreault said he suspects Svverud is hesitant to declare sanctuary status because of what Perreault called a conservative tendency of the Board of Trustees, adding that he hopes with sustained pressure from the community, administrators will change their minds.

“I think the university has an ethical obligation, a moral obligation to students in that situation to resist what is, I think, a radical position and an inhumane position which is taken by the (Trump administration),” Perreault said. “… It’s important that the university recognizes these kinds of threats to people’s liberties and to safety.”

It is clear that Trump intends to remove non-citizens from the country, Lasch said. And without strong institutions such as universities that are willing to oppose the president, he added, an erosion of democracy could occur.

“If you don’t have that kind of counter-balance, then you have unchecked presidential power,” Lasch said. “And it certainly seems that universities and colleges across the country are going to have to decide whether they are going to be an instrumental part of trying to make sure that we still have a rule of law in this country.”

Graphic by Kiran Ramsey | Senior Design Editor

Published on January 31, 2017 at 11:53 pm

Contact Taylor: tnwatson@syr.edu