Hmm…In what category would you put Bowdoin?
http://bowdoinorient.com/article/11672
Probably not specifically. The idea of cheering on the notorious flouting of federal or state law by institutions or the government is a relatively recent phenomenon.
First, as a practical matter, the ICE agents will be busy for years deporting criminals (gang members, drug dealers, those who have stolen identities etc.)
But, remember the case over the Solomon Amendment. Law schools did not want military recruiters on campus. The Supreme Court found that the federal government had every right to stop federal money from going to campuses that were preventing military recruiters from being there. I doubt any campus could afford to flout federal law and not take federal money. This ‘sanctuary campus’ sounds pretty but will have zero practical effect.
But, in that specific case, Rumsfeld vs. FAIR, the Supreme Court was upholding the constitutionality of a specific law (the Solomon Amendment.) Is there a similar law that says, The Department of Education has the right to withhold funds to any educational institution requesting a subpoena before turning over information subject to FERPA protection or requesting an arrest warrant where its assistance may be requested in apprehending one of its students? I’ve been searching the web and could not find any law to that effect.
In the FAIR, the schools were saying that they had a First Amendment right to prevent the recruiters on campus. I don’t think a good argument could be made that preventing enforcement of the law is somehow a protected constitutional right.
Yes, but, don’t you see? That’s a straw argument. The sanctuary campuses aren’t preventing the enforcement of any law; they are merely not volunteering to help in its enforcement. I don’t see how the Feds have a leg to stand on without some enabling legislation - which I cannot find.
Just curious - is this thread not political? I have been banned previously for violating rules by talking about politics. In other words, I might have used the term “illegal immigrant.” I might have wondered how illegal immigrants get financial aid. I might have wondered why law abiding universities who feed at the trough of federal dollars shelter illegal immigrants. But I won’t bring up any of those issues because they are political. I will just wonder how a long thread about so-called “sanctuary” campuses is not political. How about a sanctuary for law abiding Americans?
Asking how undocumented students get financial aid is not political, it is can be answered in facts (no federal aid, some states and private organizations provide it). Discussing whether such aid should be given is political, so that discussion wouldn’t be allowed.
We are discussing what the rules are, not what they should be.
“if you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares back at you”
Presidents and Board of Trustees that declare that they are a “sanctuary college” are engaging in politics. As others have laid out, it doesn’t actual make any changes or provide actual “sanctuary”.
It does, however, invite a political response.This is especially problematic for public (or private, such as Emory) universities in blue states, where state funding is at the whim of the state legislature. It doesn’t take much to get a response from the state legislature.
If you push enough buttons, these colleges could even get a response from a “Blue” federal administration/congress. The negative impact of any response would far exceed any benefit from declaring a sanctuary college. That response could include new laws or regulations, that would never had been put in place, without all of publicity around sanctuary colleges.
Keep in mind that currently, most of the conflict is between the federal government asking local authorities to put a hold on prisoners. This doesn’t apply to campus police (who turn over any offenders that need to be jailed to local authorities). There is a real beef here between federal and local government (much involving funding), but it has no impact on colleges.
Also, cities are lead by politicians who see a real political benefit to declaring their city is a sanctuary (votes), while the down side has been none existent. Colleges are political, only in that they are in the business of lobbying for funds. Does this help or hurt in that effort?
@Gator88NE, very well said.
@circuitrider, pick your point. Either sanctuary colleges are going to seek to impose new procedural hurdles to the enforcement of the law (requiring warrants before the authorities enter campus, refusing to produce otherwise unprotected information or some as yet unmentioned device) or they simply will not cooperate in a police action. If it is the first, the action would be openly in contravention of law. If it is the second, then the action is meaningless except as a political gesture since the colleges are not normally asked to affirmatively enforce immigration law. I would add that if it is the second point, then the statements by these various schools are particularly egregious because anyone literate enough to attend college should understand the definition of sanctuary.
Huh? I think the article answers that question clearly:
Which is exactly my point. The bottom par is no different than 99.9% of all colleges.
Even if DACA is eliminated on Jan 21, it will be an extremely rare college that will immediately start sending a repot to ICE for all of the undocumented students that they have on campus. They didn’t do report to ICE before DACA, and they won’t report if DACA goes away by a new Exec Order.
There is no federal law requiring such a report to ICE.
You’re attempting to create a false dichotomy. You can pursue your Constitutional right to access the courts even if the end result is to slow the government down. The Founding Fathers understood this.Time to see, “Hamilton” again. 
^ I have no idea what you are talking about at this point.
^I apologize. I’m trying to make this as simple as possible. Let me put it another way: The Constitution creates a right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. Do you agree with that?
The same Constitution also has for its goals “… insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense…”. Defense is such an important part of the Constitution that it is described several places. In fact, article 4 states:
“United States shall guarantee to every State a republican form of government and shall protect each of them against invasion”
^So, you’re arguing that there’s a conflict, correct? Between the two rights, I mean. The right to be secure from unreasonable searches and the right to be safe against foreign invasion, right?
Constitutional rights for the undocumented? We extend some constitutional rights to non-citizens, but not all. Some ‘guests’ have the right to a judge before deportation, others do not.
Except that right now we’re discussing the rights of sanctuary colleges. That was the point of @Ohiodad51 's question at post#110.
The question I’m raising is what branch of government decides conflicts in the law? Not the Executive Branch. And, especially not the Executive Branch at the point of a gun.
As a parent about to send my son to college in just two years, I hope and trust that college officials will protect all their students from physical harm or coercion, including deportation for immigrants or placement in an internment camp for religious minorities. I hope college officials will engage in civil disobedience if it comes to that. (Let’s hope it doesn’t come to that!) In Europe during the Holocaust, there were people who turned over Jews to authorities. There were also the Danish people, who refused to cooperate because they would not allow any part of their people to be singled out, as well as individual people throughout the world like Schindler and the family who sheltered Anne Frank.
One can judge a community by how it treats its most vulnerable members.