Advocacy Overview
Advocacy Overview
Section titled “Advocacy Overview”Documentation and rapid response are critical, but lasting change requires policy advocacy. This section provides concrete tools for engaging with elected officials to end harmful immigration enforcement programs.
Why Advocacy?
Section titled “Why Advocacy?”Rapid response networks document and respond to immigration enforcement. But prevention requires changing the policies that enable enforcement:
| Reactive (What We Do Now) | Proactive (What Advocacy Does) |
|---|---|
| Document ICE activity | End 287(g) agreements |
| Support detained individuals | Pass sanctuary policies |
| Verify sightings | Refuse ICE detainers |
| Train volunteers | Defund collaboration |
Both are necessary. Rapid response without advocacy is an endless cycle. Advocacy without rapid response lacks urgency and evidence.
What Can Actually Change?
Section titled “What Can Actually Change?”Local Level (Most Achievable)
Section titled “Local Level (Most Achievable)”These decisions are made by county commissioners, sheriffs, city councils, and mayors:
| Policy | Who Decides | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| 287(g) Agreements | Sheriff + County Commission | Ends local police acting as ICE |
| ICE Detainer Policy | Sheriff | Stops holding people for ICE beyond their release date |
| Jail Access | Sheriff + County Commission | Prevents ICE from entering jails |
| Police Cooperation | City Council + Police Chief | Limits police from asking about status |
| Sanctuary Ordinances | City Council | Formal policy limiting cooperation |
State Level (Medium Difficulty)
Section titled “State Level (Medium Difficulty)”State legislatures can:
- Pass statewide sanctuary laws (California, Illinois, New Jersey)
- Ban 287(g) agreements statewide
- Prohibit ICE access to state databases
- Limit state agencies from cooperating with ICE
Federal Level (Hardest, But Important)
Section titled “Federal Level (Hardest, But Important)”Congress can:
- Terminate the 287(g) program entirely (PROTECT Immigration Act)
- Defund ICE enforcement grants
- Require judicial warrants for detainers
Your Advocacy Toolkit
Section titled “Your Advocacy Toolkit”Step-by-step guide with sample scripts, talking points, and strategies for effective communication with elected officials at all levels.
Specific toolkit for organizing to end 287(g) agreements in your jurisdiction, including legal arguments, community organizing, and model policies.
Key Arguments for Any Immigration Policy Discussion
Section titled “Key Arguments for Any Immigration Policy Discussion”1. Public Safety Argument
Section titled “1. Public Safety Argument”Fact: When immigrant communities fear police, they don’t report crimes.
- Victims of domestic violence won’t call 911
- Witnesses to violent crimes won’t come forward
- Community policing becomes impossible
“Major cities with sanctuary policies have lower crime rates on average than comparable non-sanctuary cities.” — Center for American Progress, 2017
2. Fiscal Argument
Section titled “2. Fiscal Argument”Fact: Immigration enforcement is expensive and diverts local resources.
- ICE doesn’t reimburse counties for detaining people on their behalf
- Training officers for 287(g) costs money
- Lawsuits from civil rights violations are expensive
- ICE’s $10B grant program sounds good but creates long-term liability
3. Civil Rights Argument
Section titled “3. Civil Rights Argument”Fact: 287(g) programs have documented civil rights violations.
- DOJ found systematic racial profiling in Maricopa County (Sheriff Arpaio)
- 65% of agencies with 287(g) agreements have documented civil rights violation records
- Fourth Amendment concerns with ICE detainers (several circuit courts have ruled they’re unconstitutional holds)
4. Legal Liability Argument
Section titled “4. Legal Liability Argument”Fact: ICE detainers are requests, not mandates.
- Third Circuit Court of Appeals: Honoring ICE detainers without a warrant is a new arrest requiring probable cause
- Counties have paid millions in settlements for detaining people on invalid ICE holds
- Local officials can be personally liable
5. Values Argument
Section titled “5. Values Argument”Fact: Immigration enforcement should not be local police work.
- Police should focus on local crime, not federal civil immigration violations
- Separation of local and federal enforcement exists for a reason
- Communities elect sheriffs to protect them, not to deport them
Finding Your Targets
Section titled “Finding Your Targets”Who Makes These Decisions?
Section titled “Who Makes These Decisions?”| Decision | Primary Target | Secondary Targets |
|---|---|---|
| 287(g) Agreement | County Sheriff | County Commissioners, County Board |
| ICE Detainer Policy | County Sheriff | County Commissioners |
| Jail ICE Access | County Sheriff | County Commissioners |
| City Sanctuary Policy | City Council | Mayor |
| State Policy | State Legislature | Governor |
Research Your Officials
Section titled “Research Your Officials”- Find your elected officials: USA.gov/elected-officials
- Check voting records: VoteSmart.org
- Find their public positions: Search local news for statements on immigration
- Identify upcoming elections: Candidates are more responsive before elections
Principles of Effective Advocacy
Section titled “Principles of Effective Advocacy”1. Be Specific
Section titled “1. Be Specific”Don’t ask officials to “support immigrants.” Ask them to:
- Decline to renew the 287(g) MOA when it expires
- Pass Resolution X-123 limiting ICE cooperation
- Issue a public statement opposing the Task Force Model
2. Be Local
Section titled “2. Be Local”Connect the issue to your community:
- “In our county, XX people were transferred to ICE last year”
- “Our neighbor Maria was detained during a traffic stop”
- “Local businesses are losing workers”
3. Be Persistent
Section titled “3. Be Persistent”One phone call won’t change policy. Effective advocacy requires:
- Multiple contacts over time
- Coalition building
- Public pressure (letters to editor, town halls, protests)
- Showing up repeatedly
4. Be Organized
Section titled “4. Be Organized”Individual advocacy is good. Organized advocacy is powerful:
- Form a delegation to meet with officials
- Coordinate calling campaigns
- Pack public comment periods
- Create accountability through tracking and follow-up
Coalition Partners
Section titled “Coalition Partners”You don’t have to do this alone. Connect with:
- Immigrant rights organizations — ACLU, ILRC, local immigration legal services
- Faith communities — Churches, mosques, synagogues often have sanctuary networks
- Labor unions — Workers’ rights intersect with immigrant rights
- Civil liberties groups — ACLU, NAACP, local civil rights organizations
- Business groups — Chambers of commerce concerned about workforce
- Public health advocates — Health departments, community clinics
Getting Started
Section titled “Getting Started”- Know your jurisdiction — Does your area have 287(g)? ICE detainer policy? Check here
- Identify your targets — Sheriff, county commissioners, city council
- Find coalition partners — Who else is working on this?
- Choose your ask — Start specific and achievable
- Make contact — Use the scripts and strategies
- Follow up — Advocacy is a marathon, not a sprint