Springfield Must Be a Sanctuary

 In 2025, many marginalized groups are experiencing increased discrimination in policy, rhetoric and access to resources. Opinions on immigration are varied and often polarize debates, with some legislators calling for implementation of policy to cooperate with and assist the federal government in locating and detaining undocumented immigrants and others scrambling to draft and pass policies that refuse and resist federal deportation operations in their communities. While immigration has been a major topic of division among citizens and lawmakers in different eras in the United States, Donald Trump and his administration have created the most aggressive anti-immigration policy in the nation’s history. Primary reasons for the tactics used to identify, detain and deport undocumented (and also documented) immigrants have been cited as alleged criminality, espionage, negative tax influence, disproportionate resource consumption and employment acquisition of immigrants in the United States (EO 14159, 2025).

To consider any of these assertions to be truthful, is to believe harmful misinformation. It’s critical to identify myths and prioritize facts to the contrary. Though there are beliefs that immigrants deprive non-immigrants of job opportunities, they actually contribute significantly to job creation, and with over 7 million available jobs and relatively low unemployment rates, immigrants also contribute to significant need for workforces. Beliefs about immigrants contributing significant tax burden are also unfounded, with refugees and asylees alone contributing approximately $581 billion to the economy and paid over $89 billion in local and federal taxes in 2023. One of the most dangerous and popular myths about immigration is that immigrants contribute significantly to crime in America. This couldn’t be further from the truth, with research consistently finding that there is no correlation between immigration and increased crime rates and, in some instances, immigration has been shown to decrease crime rates (Immigrants Make the US Stronger, 2025). 

While the above facts should be well-known and responsibly distributed, they are not as effectively distributed as they should be and the myths are established and distributed by the executive office and supportive media, social media and citizens. The cost of this reckless assertion of ignorance and aggression is felt most by the people who need to be in America for their well-being and safety and that of their loved ones as well. The rights of asylum-seekers and refugees are protected in the American constitution and the current executive orders violate these rights, as well as international laws. The capture, detainment and deportation of these particularly vulnerable individuals places them in grave and immediate danger and separates many of them from their families, despite legislative and voter support to the contrary. In an internationally infamous case in 2025, one such person was kidnapped from his home in the middle of the night and deported to El Salvador in an expedited process which ended in his placement in one of the deadliest mega-prisons in El Salvador.

Kilmar Abrego Garcia was abducted by ICE agents from his home the night of March 12, 2025, in response to an accusation that he is a member of the El Salvadoran gang, MS-13. This allegation is based on a confidential informant who claimed Abrego Garcia had been a member of the gang in New York. Abrego Garcia has never lived in New York, and he has received no criminal convictions in any country. He was granted protections from deportation by an immigration judge based on the likelihood that he could be harmed in El Salvador. The Department of Justice (DOJ) has admitted that Abrego Garcia was deported by mistake, but the White House has made many statements against Mr. Abrego Garcia that do not reflect any admittance of error. An ongoing struggle between the executive and judicial branches of government have led to Mr. Abrego Garcia being moved from the mega-prison, Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo (CECOT), to a detention center in Santa Ana, El Salvador, but it is unclear whether Abrego Garcia will ever be released from custody in El Salvador and the White House continues to insist that he is an active member of MS-13, and a terrorism threat to the United States. The White House has also made statements that Kilmar Abrego Garcia will never live in the United States again and that he will be immediately deported if he ever returns, despite an order by the Supreme Court that DOJ facilitate his return. His wife and three children are American citizens and may never see their loved one again if he is not allowed to return to the United States (Habeshian, 2025).

Kilmar Abrego Garcia was one of many immigrants with protected status who are under threat, both in their countries of origin and in the United States, despite having legal protections for their well-being. Many of them, like Abrego Garcia are law-abiding, have not been convicted of any crimes, and uphold the responsibilities of their immigration status dutifully. It is our responsibility, as a country which has written into the fabric of its policies a determination and dedication to protecting those who come here seeking safety and opportunity, to protect them in their time of need. The executive orders of the White House do not reflect the values of the majority and they must be challenged at each level of authority and by every person who is an ally to immigrants. State and local arresting agencies have been receiving messages to cooperate with and assist ICE in the capture and detainment of people who are suspected to be in the country illegally. They have been urged and even ordered to accommodate ICE operations against immigrants by providing and employing their resources to said operations.

Ideally, the United States would unanimously establish an intention, code and implementation of law which honors the rights and opportunities of all immigrants, but the actions of Mr. Trump and his supporters do not inspire confidence that this is the case or will be any time during this presidency. While the current actions against immigrants and international cooperation are extreme in comparison, there have been other government actions against immigrants in the United States at the executive and judicial levels. It is crucial that state, municipal and local governments establish official and permanent status as sanctuary cities by setting permanent jurisdiction which limits cooperation with federal immigration authorities and supply of personnel or resources to support operations by federal immigration authorities. This way, human beings stand a greater chance of remaining safely and securely in their homes, with their loved ones, and their rights and dignity intact and protected.  

Many immigrants are facing persecution in the United States, both by the government which has sworn to defend them and by citizens who have been emboldened by the actions of a fascist occupation of the federal government. It is the duty of the people to hold local, state, federal, judicial and executive powers accountable for the values they claim to embody and enforce. It is the duty of the people to establish, in written and enforced policy and in community action, robust and thorough safeguards for immigrants in the United States. America benefits from the people who come here to live their lives in safety and to contribute to the success and strength of their new home. This country belongs to the people and very few who live here, legally or otherwise, got here without someone immigrating here before them or with them in tow. It is time to ensure that what is happening in this country right now never happens in the United States ever again. If America truly is an example for the rest of the world to follow, it stands to reason that the rest of the world ought to feel safe and welcome on American soil. 

References

Combatting Disinformation: Immigrants Make the U.S. Stronger. (2025, May 10). Global Refuge. https://www.globalrefuge.org/get-involved/advocate-with-us/disinformation/EO 

Habeshian, S. (2025, April 30). Timeline: The case of a Maryland man mistakenly deported to El Salvador. Axios Politics & Policy. https://www.axios.com/2025/04/14/timeline-kilmar- abrego-garcia-deported-caseMishell, Z. (2025, March 3). Trump’s Executive Orders: What Do They Mean and How We Can Fight Back. Interfaith Alliance Achieving Democracy Together. https://www.interfaithalliance.org/post/trumps-executive-orders 

Rose, J. (2025, April 11). Maryland judge again asks government to return man wrongly deported to El Salvador. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2025/04/11/nx-s1-5361148/maryland-judge-mistaken-deportation 

14159, FR Citation: 90 FR 8443. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential- actions/2025/01/protecting-the-american-people-against-invasion/

Protecting the Human Rights of Undocumented Immigrant Children in SB 2065, a policy brief.

 The conversation surrounding public education and its future is ever present. With the federal executive branch signing an executive order to dismantle the Department of Education, there are many programs and laws within that can now be challenged at the state level. The Department of Education is aiming to shut down almost all operations besides funding for low-income schools, funding for children with disabilities, and Pell grants and federal student loans. As stated by Representative Bobby Scott of Virginia, a large portion of why the Department of Education was created was to “guarantee the enforcement of students' civil rights.” Students were guaranteed the right to a public education regardless of their background. It is worrisome that legislators may push to remove this right to education from the hands of undocumented immigrant children. 

Senate Bill 2065 in Illinois is looking to protect this right for all children, regardless of immigration or documentation status. With SB2065, a student cannot be denied free education, participation in school activities, or benefits from school. These rights can also not be denied to any person(s) associated with the child. This bill also prohibits schools from disclosing any personal information regarding a student or an associated person’s immigration status. A school cannot let an immigration officer onto the school site for any reason unless they have proper identification, a judicial warrant, a statement of purpose, and approval from the superintendent and their legal counsel. These protections are going to allow the most vulnerable students to continue their education. The attack on immigration and education go hand in hand, and this bill would help add protections for this population. 

A simple reason to favor this policy is the Supreme Court Case Plyler v. Doe. This case ruled in 1982 that it would be prohibited to deny a child education based on the immigration status of their family. The court voted this way with their reasoning being the 14th amendment. Concerning this case, the 14th Amendment is used to explain that states cannot deny “to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” A reason to be against this policy is that it could be viewed as overly tailored to the immigrant population, when these rights should be extended to all new students. While the bill was written for this population, many other demographics could also benefit from this type of legislation. 

Opposing this bill could be deemed as morally wrong. It is a belief among many that opposing this would greatly single out the children of immigrants. It is an American principle that all are equal before the law, and the law applies to all. Excluding these children from the right to education is harmful. The move to disregard these children from the education system would be against the very principles our democracy is founded upon.  A common argument opposing bills such as this one is that education is not a right. It is believed instead that the children of these immigrants have not earned the right to enjoy the public benefits of the United States. Their parents being undocumented means that they do not deserve the privileges that society has to offer. It is also a common misconception that paying for these children to be educated is too costly. 

As noted earlier, opposition to this bill may come from the fact that it is too narrowly focused. Adding more demographics or making the bill more general could help it get passed if there were a majority against it. With immigration being such a hot topic at the moment, it could be fairly polarizing, depending on the party. Making it more general could help appeal to the more conservative minded who are not open to working with undocumented immigrants. Opposing this bill could look bad politically. Since the topic of the bill is guaranteed education to children, opposition could come off as simply not being in favor of equal education with hints of racism and xenophobia. This could then lead people in the general public to make assumptions based on the stance chosen and severely oppose any future political action. There are no real downsides to supporting this bill besides losing potential supporters who most likely would not agree with your politics in the first place. 

To conclude, Senate Bill 2065 is a bill in which you should strongly support. With the current political environment, people want to feel as if their politicians are going to protect them and their children. Giving the children of immigrants a fair chance in the education system is only right. I suggest that you strongly support and consider becoming a co-sponsor to get this bill passed immediately. 

For the first policy paper, students may write either an advocacy letter or a policy brief that contains a recommendation.  This is a policy brief with a recommendation to support a bill to reaffirm the educational human rights of all children in Illinois, regardless of their immigration or documentation status. 

The Constitution of Illinois says that education is free and universal.  Although most school districts illegally and unconstitutionally ask parents to pay fees (which can be waived in cases of economic hardship), education is generally nearly free, and nearly universal, at least up to high school graduation. 

I think your brief does well to cite the Plyler v. Doe case.  This, along with the 14th Amendment and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Illinois Constitution all point in the same direction as this bill, that education must be universal, and no children can be excluded from public education or alternatives to public education if certain behavioral problems prevent mainstream public education. 

I think you also have done well to point out that attacks on public education are “hand in hand” with attacks on immigrants. Xenophobia has significant overlap with the tendency to complain about public education and argue for abolishing public education and replacing it with private schools and a system of vouchers that would give households money to pay for education at any of the private schools. 

In most Illinois senate and house districts it would look bad to oppose this bill.  However, we do have several extremely MAGA districts in rural downstate Illinois where I would expect opposition to this bill.