united-states police immigration arrest religion
Can illegal aliens claim sanctuary in a church?
<p><a href="https://twitter.com/julito77/status/829757846040494082">This tweet</a> (as quoted in a <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/02/09/an-arizona-mom-is-deported-how-many-others-might-face-the-same-fate/">Washington Post article</a>), seems to suggest that illegal aliens can claim sanctuary in a church:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>#GuadalupeGarcia attorney says @ICEgov has lied to him and he will advise future clients to seek sanctuary in churches.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>(For context, Guadalupe Garcia was living in the US without documentation and was deported during a regular check in with ICE.)</p>

<p>However, I did a search and only turned up articles saying this wasn't actually a law in the United States. Then I came across the case of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elvira_Arellano">Elvira Arellano</a>, who sought refuge in a Methodist church for a year. I'm assuming the church didn't simply hide her whenever the police came around for a whole year, since she did interviews and such, but she was arrested when she left, so the authorities were clearly still actively looking to arrest her.</p>

<p>Are police legally required to recognize a claim of sanctuary in a church?</p>

<p>The case you identify is not unique. For example, the Unitarian church in Denver has done much the same thing.</p>

<p>There is not a legal right to sanctuary in a church. But, as a manner of law enforcement discretion and public relations and customary traditions of law enforcement respect for churches that long predate the formation of the USA, law enforcement routinely acts as if there was a right to sanctuary in churches (in the absence, for example, of an active shooter situation or a hostage crisis or a kidnapping with a missing victim). I am not aware of any case in which immigration officials have taken push to shove and breached a claim of sanctuary by a church protecting an illegal immigrant in a church. </p>

<p>In England, where there was an established church, the established Anglican Church historically did have a right to intervene in certain ways in the criminal justice process (e.g. the "privilege of clergy").</p>

<p>UPDATE (February 21, 2017): My original answer was not entirely correct so I am updating this post. It turns out that in 2011 that Immigrations and Customs Enforcement made what was previously a mere custom into <a href="http://www.cpr.org/news/story/inside-colorados-church-movement-to-protect-immigrants-due-for-deportation?utm_content=bufferb024f&amp;utm_medium=social&amp;utm_source=facebook.com&amp;utm_campaign=buffer" rel="noreferrer">an official policy</a>, something I was not previously aware of.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The answer, it turns out, is policy and tradition. A 2011 Immigration
  and Customs Enforcement policy defines churches, schools and hospitals
  as "sensitive places" where enforcement actions should be limited. And
  the tradition of sheltering those who need it goes back to the Middle
  Ages, said David Poundstone with the Mountain View Friends Meeting.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The official policy is set forth <a href="https://www.ice.gov/ero/enforcement/sensitive-loc" rel="noreferrer">here</a>. The policy is in the public domain and given the interest this post has generated I post it in full below:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Customs and
  Border Protection (CBP) have made available Frequently Asked Questions
  (FAQs) to supplement existing guidance concerning enforcement actions
  at or focused on sensitive locations and clarify what types of
  locations are covered by these policies. </p>
  
  <p>The ICE and CBP sensitive locations policies, which remain in effect,
  provide that enforcement actions at sensitive locations should
  generally be avoided, and require either prior approval from an
  appropriate supervisory official or exigent circumstances
  necessitating immediate action.  DHS is committed to ensuring that
  people seeking to participate in activities or utilize services
  provided at any sensitive location are free to do so without fear or
  hesitation.</p>
  
  <p>Do the Department of Homeland Security's policies concerning
  enforcement actions at or focused on sensitive locations remain in
  effect?</p>
  
  <p>U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Customs and
  Border Protection (CBP) have each issued and implemented policies
  concerning enforcement actions at or focused on sensitive locations.
  The ICE Sensitive Locations Policy and the CBP Sensitive Locations
  Policy remain in effect, and these FAQs are intended to clarify what
  types of locations are covered by those policies.</p>
  
  <p>What do the Department of Homeland Security policies require for
  enforcement actions to be carried out at sensitive locations?</p>
  
  <p>The policies provide that enforcement actions at or focused on
  sensitive locations such as schools, places of worship, and hospitals
  should generally be avoided, and that such actions may only take place
  when (a) prior approval is obtained from an appropriate supervisory
  official, or (b) there are exigent circumstances necessitating
  immediate action without supervisor approval.  The policies are meant
  to ensure that ICE and CBP officers and agents exercise sound judgment
  when enforcing federal law at or focused on sensitive locations, to
  enhance the public understanding and trust, and to ensure that people
  seeking to participate in activities or utilize services provided at
  any sensitive location are free to do so, without fear or hesitation.</p>
  
  <p>What does the Department of Homeland Security mean by the term
  “sensitive location”?</p>
  
  <p>Locations covered by these policies would include, but not be limited
  to:</p>
  
  <p>Schools, such as known and licensed daycares, pre-schools and other
  early learning programs; primary schools; secondary schools;
  post-secondary schools up to and including colleges and universities;
  as well as scholastic or education-related activities or events, and
  school bus stops that are marked and/or known to the officer, during
  periods when school children are present at the stop; Medical
  treatment and health care facilities, such as hospitals, doctors’
  offices, accredited health clinics, and emergent or urgent care
  facilities; <strong>Places of worship, such as churches, synagogues, mosques,</strong>
  <strong>and temples; Religious or civil ceremonies or observances, such as</strong>
  <strong>funerals and weddings;</strong> and During public demonstration, such as a
  march, rally, or parade. </p>
  
  <p>What is an enforcement action?</p>
  
  <p>An enforcement action covered by this policy is any action taken by
  ICE or CBP to apprehend, arrest, interview, or search an individual,
  or to surveil an individual for enforcement purposes.  </p>
  
  <p>Actions not covered by this policy include activities such as
  obtaining records, documents, and similar materials from officials or
  employees, providing notice to officials or employees, serving
  subpoenas, engaging in Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP)
  compliance and certification visits, guarding or securing detainees,
  or participating in official functions or community meetings.</p>
  
  <p>Will enforcement actions ever occur at sensitive locations?</p>
  
  <p><strong>Enforcement actions may occur at sensitive locations in limited</strong>
  <strong>circumstances, but will generally be avoided.</strong>  ICE or CBP officers 
  and agents may conduct an enforcement action at a sensitive location with
  prior approval from an appropriate supervisory official, or if the
  enforcement action involves exigent circumstances.</p>
  
  <p>When may an enforcement action be carried out at a sensitive location
  without prior approval?</p>
  
  <p>ICE and CBP officers may carry out an enforcement action at a
  sensitive location without prior approval from a supervisor in exigent
  circumstances related to national security, terrorism, or public
  safety, or where there is an imminent risk of destruction of evidence
  material to an ongoing criminal case. </p>
  
  <p>When proceeding with an enforcement action under exigent
  circumstances, officers and agents must conduct themselves as
  discreetly as possible, consistent with officer and public safety, and
  make every effort to limit the time at or focused on the sensitive
  location.</p>
  
  <p>Are sensitive locations located along the international border also
  protected?</p>
  
  <p>The sensitive locations policy does not apply to operations that are
  conducted within the immediate vicinity of the international border,
  including the functional equivalent of the border.  However, when
  situations arise that call for enforcement actions at or near a
  sensitive location within the immediate vicinity of the international
  border, including its functional equivalent, agents and officers are
  expected to exercise sound judgment and common sense while taking
  appropriate action, consistent with the goals of this policy.</p>
  
  <p>Examples of operations within the immediate vicinity of the border
  are, but are not limited to, searches at ports of entry, activities
  undertaken where there is reasonable certainty that an individual just
  crossed the border, circumstances where DHS has maintained
  surveillance of a subject since crossing the border, and circumstances
  where DHS is operating in a location that is geographically further
  from the border but separated from the border by rugged and remote
  terrain.</p>
  
  <p>Are courthouses sensitive locations?</p>
  
  <p>Courthouses do not fall under ICE or CBP’s policies concerning
  enforcement actions at or focused on sensitive locations.  </p>
  
  <p>Where should I report a DHS enforcement action that I believe may be
  inconsistent with these policies?</p>
  
  <p>There are a number of locations where an individual may lodge a
  complaint about a particular DHS enforcement action that may have
  taken place in violation of the sensitive locations policy.  You may
  find information about these locations, and information about how to
  file a complaint, on the DHS, CBP, or ICE websites. </p>
  
  <p>You may contact ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) through
  the Detention Reporting and Information Line at (888)351-4024 or
  through the ERO information email address at ERO.INFO@ice.dhs.gov,
  also available at <a href="https://www.ice.gov/webform/ero-contact-form" rel="noreferrer">https://www.ice.gov/webform/ero-contact-form</a>. The
  Civil Liberties Division of the ICE Office of Diversity and Civil
  Rights may be contacted at (202) 732-0092 or
  ICE.Civil.Liberties@ice.dhs.gov.</p>
  
  <p>You may contact the CBP Information Center to file a complaint or
  compliment via phone at 1 (877) 227-5511, or submit an email through
  the website at <a href="https://help.cbp.gov" rel="noreferrer">https://help.cbp.gov</a>.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The policy is drafted in a manner that it doesn't actually prohibit enforcement in a sanctuary, even in the absence of exigent circumstances, but it does call for a process to be followed if this is done, and discourages doing so without prohibiting this action.</p>

<p>If a person is within a political unit X, they are in the jurisdiction of X, and unless them have specific immunity (e.g. <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei">Art. 1 Sect. 6 Cl. 1</a> of the Constitution, congressional immunity from arrest), they may be arrested. A <a href="http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_1_1961.pdf">foreign embassy</a> would be the one place located within the borders of a nation which (per Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations Art. 22) is inviolable, and we speak of it as being "foreign soil". A church has no special status in the US whereby one can be granted immunity from arrest, and there could not be under the First Amendment, in that it would amount to an establishment of religion (granting a special privilege to a church).</p>

<p>There is no law in any jurisdiction I know of in the US that formalizes sanctuary in any house of worship (church or otherwise).</p>

<p>When a congregation and its clergy decide to grant sanctuary to somebody, it is a conspicuous act of civil disobedience.  Usually a decision to grant sanctuary is accompanied by a commitment by the clergy and congregation to other techniques of nonviolent civil disobedience, such as 24 hour vigils and sit-in blockades. The people doing this need to be prepared to refuse entry to the house of worship, even to a police officer carrying a valid warrant.</p>

<p>If the civil authorities decide they aren't going to honor sanctuary, they can take the person by force. For example they can arrest all those standing vigil and charge them with obstruction of justice, or shut off power, or even break down the building's door.</p>

<p>But the civil authorities doing this <em>will</em> make the newspapers and the TV news.  The power of sanctuary comes from the power of nonviolent civil disobedience.</p>

<p>It also comes from the historic reluctance of the judiciary to intrude on church matters. This is based in part on the Reformation-era (1500s) delineation of separate power for princes and bishops (state and church in modern language).</p>
