The Sanctuary Movement recently reemerged under the Trump era as a popular movement to protect and defend the communities of color and immigrants. It is stated that “in the Trump era, activists are once again proclaiming various institutional spaces—from college campuses to entire cities—sites of sanctuary” (Barron, 190). However, it is important to note that the Sanctuary Movement dates back to the 1980s when the movement fought against US-backed wars and persecution of asylum seekers from Central America (Barron, 190). Therefore, the most recent version of the Sanctuary Movement primarily focuses on internal affairs, such as the deportation of ‘illegal aliens’ or discriminatory actions against people of color. Historically, the movement fought against external policies of the United States, such as wars and selective immigration policies.
The first tactic used by the Sanctuary Movement and its activists is called ‘framing,’ which is based on bringing attention to the violence committed against immigrants by focusing on their identities. It is stated that the movement “sought to put a human face on the tragedy to evoke empathy in the United States … to the needs of those being forced out of a war-torn region” (Barron, 190). The second tactic is creating sanctuary cities or ‘solidarity cities,’ and the core goal is to provide a safe location, space, and region for persecuted immigrants and people of color (Maira, 140). For example, Rev. Mike Yoshii stated that “the city of Alameda has declared it is a sanctuary city. Our church was always a sanctuary space” (Maira, 143). I think both strategies are highly effective because the former humanizes disadvantaged groups, and the latter provides safe-havens and my reaction is that I am fascinated by the massive impact of the Sanctuary Movement.