Immigration Federalism in Minnesota: What Does Sanctuary Mean in Practice?

University of St. Thomas Law Journal, Dec 2017

By Virgil Wiebe, Published on 01/25/18

A PDF file should load here. If you do not see its contents the file may be temporarily unavailable at the journal website or you do not have a PDF plug-in installed and enabled in your browser.

Alternatively, you can download the file locally and open with any standalone PDF reader:

Immigration Federalism in Minnesota: What Does Sanctuary Mean in Practice?

Bluebook Citation Virgil Wiebe, Immigration Federalism in Minnesota: What Does Sanctuary Mean in Practice? Immigration Federalism in Minnesota: W hat Does Sanctuar y Mean in Practice? Virgil Wiebe 0 0 University of St. Th omas IMMIGRATION FEDERALISM IN MINNESOTA: WHAT DOES SANCTUARY MEAN ARTICLE IN PRACTICE? VIRGIL WIEBE* * Robins Kaplan Director of Legal Education, Professor of Law, Co-Director, Interprofessional Center for Counseling and Legal Services, University of St. Thomas School of Law. Thanks go to presenters in the University of St. Thomas Law Jour nal Spring 2016 Symposium. St. Olaf Legal Scholars summer interns Julia Pilkington and Nathan Webster contributed to research. Ling Wang provided helpful feedback and research. R R R R R R R R R 582 INTRODUCTION I n March 2016 , the University of St. Thomas Law Journal gathered scholars from around the country to discuss whether Sanctuary can make communities secure. Our symposium title, “Can Sanctuary Keep Communities Secure?” played on two contrasting approaches to immigration—the R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R notion of Sanctuary, which often stands in tension with legal authority, and Secure Communities, a controversial immigration enforcement program of the Obama Administration designed (but perhaps not implemented as designed) to deport dangerous immigrants. The conception of this paper arose from the desire to open the symposium by framing issues in the context of Minnesota. I asked the question “What is Sanctuary?” and sought answers from the on-the-ground reality of Minnesota’s immigrant communities. The paper answers the question at six levels in the state of Minnesota: (1) the home, (2) houses of worship, (3) educational institutions, (4) cities (and other sub-state authorities such as counties), (5) the state, and (6) national/federal level. “Sanctuary” inherently suggests the need for safety and security, and begs other questions, namely, who needs security and sanctuary, who makes up our community and “homeland” and who gets to speak about and build the legal protections that make up a tapestry of safety. At each level, at least one specific policy/legal issue is addressed (e.g. separation ordinances in the city section, driver’s licenses at the state level, and responses to federal enforcement actions) to show how dynamics have played out in Minnesota. I address the dynamics of immigration federalism in Minnesota to assess the state of sanctuary in the land of ten thousand lakes, by identifying institutional and societal actors: the community, the federal government, the state government, regional authorities (most notably sheriffs), city governments, and civil society groups. How individuals inhabit and exercise power within these institutions matters. I conclude that Minnesota is a state of reluctant welcome, and that the forces arrayed for and against immigrants (particularly those of unauthorized status) are in an unsteady balance, with pro-immigrant forces gaining some ground in recent years. The elec tions of November 2016 at both the state and national levels may mark another shift toward law and order and away from the grace of Sanctuary. WHAT IS SANCTUARY? [Jeb Bush]’s terrible. He’s terrible. He’s weak on immigration. You know, the sanctuary cities, do you know he had five of them in Florida while he was governor? Can you believe this? I didn’t know that. Donald Trump, June 11, 2015 1 In recent years, the term “Sanctuary” has become a slur, used by forces opposed to more generous immigration policies to tar efforts to be more 1. Joshua Gillin & Amy Sherman, Trump Says Florida had Five ‘Sanctuary Cities’ when Jeb Bush was Governor, POLITIFACT (July 15, 2015, 4:05 PM) , statements/2015/jul/15/donald-trump/trump-says-florida-had-five-sanctuary-cities-when-/. hospitable to immigrants, particularly those with u nauthorized status. The 2016 presidential election laid bare divisions not only around the country, but in Minnesota as well on immigration issues.2 The concept of Sanctuary has a long and storied history in both religious and civil contexts, from the Greeks to the Romans, from Jewish law to medieval Europe.3 One legal scholar argues that while the Sanctuary impulse has been alive and well in America for well over a century (from the Underground Railroad for runaway slaves, to conscientious objectors in the Vietnam era, and to the Sanctuary movement of the 1980s and the New Sanctuary movement of the 2000s), the concept has never been enshrined in law as it was in England.4 Professor Rose Cuison Villazor has persuasively argued against immigrant advocates using the term and has also helpfully distinguished between private forms of sanctuary (which may involve open or clandestine defiance of federal laws concerning harboring by individuals or places of worship) and public sanctuary (such as separation ordinances by cities or states aiming to limit the sharing of immigration information with federal authorities).5 The private/public distinction is a helpful one, but one that may be seen more as a continuum as opposed to a strict dichotomy. A strict reading of the concept would be one that treats a particular geographical location (a church or an entire city) as a legally sanctioned place of refuge where a person can seek protection from other forms of legal sanction (such as statepermitted private vengeance in the Old Testament sense, criminal prosecution in the medieval context, or deportation in the modern context). In this article, I take a broader (and perhaps politically riskier) view of the term as an active stance of hospitality to unauthorized immigrants and other immigrants facing removal. I move from the most private of spaces (home), to places of worship (which may include sheltering persons within the actual walls of church buildings or in the homes of parishioners), to the quasi-public spaces of schools (be they private institutions or formally public ones). Public forms of Sanctuary include city ordinances and state laws that some have argued might be more properly called “disentanglement” policies (such as separation ordinances more pejoratively known as “sanctuary cities” and driver’s licenses not requiring formal immigration status), as well as federal laws and policies that offer permanent or temporary legal cover for immigrants (such as asylum, temporary protected status, deferred action for child arrivals, or formalized enforcement priorities). THE HOME AS SANCTUARY—THE LIMITS TO ONE’S CASTLE The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter; the rain may enter; but the King of England cannot enter—all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement! William Pitt (1763)6 Under jurisprudence that has developed over the centuries, the sanctity of the home comes in for special protections under both the Fourth Amendment prohibitions on unreasonable searches and seizures, and also under the right to privacy. But those protections often mean less to the poor and marginalized than to those with power and status,7 and especially to both unauthorized and authorized immigrants.8 It is not unusual for immigrant families in the U.S. to be “mixed status,” meaning individuals in a home have a variety of legal statuses. Under one roof, for example, there may be unauthorized immigrants (either visa overstays or those having entered without legal admission), U.S. citizens, legal permanent residents, asylum-seekers, asylees, persons with temporary protected status, and persons with deferred action for childhood arrivals (DACA). The Ja nuary 2016 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids targeted at newly arrived Central American women and children with outstanding removal orders (who in many cases had not had legal representation) created a great deal of fear amongst such immigrant communities.9 Even though the action ostensibly was targeted at communities other than those in Minnesota,10 attorneys in Minnesota received multiple reports of home raids at that time conducted by ICE agents. “A client of mine in proceedings had ICE show up at her door today. She didn’t let them in,” wrote a colleague on January 7.11 Two related reactions to these raids illustrate protections for Sanctuary at the level of the personal dwelling, reactions that have been exercised with limited success before in Minnesota. The first reaction is the exercise of Fourth Amendment rights against entry into one’s home without a valid search warra nt. In January 2016 , this came into play both in Minnesota and around the country. Spanish-language press distributed information about the Fourth Amendment, as did immigrants’ rights groups and attorneys.12 Attorneys in Minnesota reported clients refusing entry to ICE agents into their homes.13 But there are limits to the use of the Fourth Amendment to protect even those not targeted specifically by immigration search warrants. A commonly reported occurrence for immigration practitioners is hearing about a warrant-based home raid by ICE agents in which the target of the warrant is not found but others in the home are questioned, detained, and deported—a practice upheld by the Supreme Court in 2005.14 Exigent circumstances also can be used to justify warrantless residential searches.15 ICE conducts so-called consent-based searches of immigrant homes as well, although these often face criticism as being coercive in nature. During Operation CrossCheck (immigration enforcement actions involving federal, county, and local law enforcement), beginning in 2007, ICE raids in Wilmar, Minnesota came under scrutiny as being coercive.16 In one federal lawsuit, plaintiffs alleged misconduct like the following: At 10:15 [A.M.] on April 13, 2007, Cardenas woke up to the sound of loud knocking, the doorbell ringing, men yelling, and banging on the windows. Cardenas looked out of her windows and saw men in black clothing surrounding her house. The noise awoke her son J.A.P., age six, who began crying. Cardenas put J.A.P. in the bathroom with the family dog. After leaving the bathroom, she heard voices in the house and then entered the living room where five armed men were present. Cardenas asked the men what they wanted, and they told her they were police officers with arrest warrants. The officers asked repeatedly for permission to search the home, and Cardenas repeatedly denied these requests. Cardenas alleges that the officers became aggressive, commented on her tattoos, threatened her with arrest, and falsely stated that her fiance´ gave them permission to search. Officer Schmidt arrived about fifteen minutes into the incident; his father, Chief Schmidt, did not arrive until the conclusion of the incident. The officers left Cardenas’s home after approximately 45 minutes of requesting consent to search. J.A.P. remained in the bathroom for the entire time the officers were there. Cardenas never gave the officers permission to enter her home.17 Efforts to hold federal and local officials accountable were met with limited success; many claims made in federal court were dismissed on a variety of grounds.18 The standard for challenging even warrantless searches in the immigration context is quite high.19 Second, groups and individuals have immediately reacted to home and business raids, using political and policy arguments to pressure the government to cease such activities. Ja nuary 2016 raids were met with protests, demonstrations, community education sessions, and letters of condemnation at both the local and national level.20 In Minnesota, Immigrant Law Center of Minnesota, Navigate MN, ISAIAH, The Advocates for Human Rights, Casa de Esperanza, Agora, Catholic Charities of St. Paul & Minneapolis, Conversations with Friends, Jewish Community Action, and others joined 17. Arias v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Div. of the Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 07-1959 ADM/JSM, 2009 WL 2171037, at *2 (D. Minn. Jan. 1, 2009) (internal citations omitted). 18. Id. 19. See, e.g., Stephanie Francis Ward, Illegal Aliens on I.C.E., ABA JOURNAL (Jun. 1, 2008, 01:10 PM) In I.N.S v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032, 1039 (1984), the Supreme Court held that the “exclusionary rule would not apply in civil deportation hearing to require that admission of illegal entry by alien after allegedly unlawful arrest be excluded from evide nce.” In 1975 , the Supreme Court also endorsed the use of racial profiling in border areas for immigration officers in U.S. v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 875 (1975). See also Jennifer Chacon, A Diversion of Attention: Immigration Courts and the Adjudication of Fourth and Fifth Amendment Claims, 59 DUKE L.J. 1563, 1608–10 (2010). 20. Immigrant Law Center of Minnesota (ILCM), FACEBOOK, Jan. 8, 2016, https://www (describing community “Know your Rights” meeting on Jan. 13, 2016) ; Kids in Need of Defense (KIND), Due Process Before Deportation, Jan. 5, 2016 (on file with author). over one hundred and fifty organizations from around the country to decry the raids.21 Volunteer attorneys from Minnesota played a critical role in stopping the deportation of at least twelve families arrested and taken to the Dilley Detention Center in Texas for removal.22 While federal enforcement actions threaten the sanctuary of home, other executive branch actions can be seen as protecting the family unit and thereby protecting the home. The now enjoined DAPA program (first called Deferred Action for Parental Authority and later renamed Deferred Action for Parents of Americans in Residence) sought to allow the authorized parents of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residence authorized presence in the United States. This program, currently enjoined by the actions of Texas and twenty-five other states, purported to provide protection to families while Congress struggles to act on immigration reform. The Supreme Court, in a divided vote, upheld the injunction with a one sentence per curiam decisio n in June 2016 .23 The election of Donald Trump as Preside nt in November 2016 almost certainly signaled that the DAPA program would not come into effect.24 HOUSES OF WORSHIP—THE QUINTESSENTIAL SANCTUARIES It is the policy of the Service to attempt to avoid apprehension of persons and to tightly control investigative operations on the premises of schools, places of worship, funerals and other religious ceremonies.25 Perhaps the quintessential sanctuary is the house of worship. Among the primary dictionary definitions of sanctuary is “the room inside a church, 21. ILCM, FACEBOOK, Dec. 31, 2015, posts/551809254855298. 22. Center for New Americans Defends Asylum Seekers Targeted by Federal Immigration Raids (Jan. 12, 2016) , -01-12-center-new-americans-de fends-asylum-seekers-targeted-federal-immigration-raids; Soni Sangha, Hasty Raids Led to Mistakes: Deportation Halted for at Least 20 Migrants Targeted, FOX NEWS LATINO (Jan. 8, 2016) , http://lati /01/08/hasty-raids-led-to-mistakes-deportation-halt ed-for-at-least-20-migrants/; AILA, CARA: 33 Mothers and Children Protected from Immediate Deportation, AILA Doc. No. 16011330 (Jan. 13, 2016) 2016/cara-33-mothers-children-protected-deportation. 23. U.S. v. Texas, 579 U. S. ____ (2016). For critical commentary, see Anil Kalhan, United States v. Texas: The Supreme Court’s Silent Endorsement of Trumpisprudence, DORF ON LAW BLOG (Jun. 27, 2016, 7:00 AM) , /06/united-states-v-texas-scotustrumpisprudence.html; Cecillia Wang, Symposium: A Non-Decision with Teeth, SCOTUSblog (Jun. 23, 2016, 3:55 PM) , 24. Linda Qiu, Donald Trump’s campaign promises for the first 100 days, POLITIFACT (Nov. 10, 2016, 2:43 PM) (“Trump . . . promised to eliminate Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents or DAPA”). 25. Memorandum from James Puleo, Acting Assoc. Commissioner, Office of Operations, to District Directors & Chief Patrol Agents, U.S. I.N.S., HQ 807-P (May 17, 1993). synagogue, etc., where religious services are held,” as well as “a place where someone or something is protected or given shelter.”26 Davidson does an admirable job of detailing how the physical spaces of churches in medieval England acquired (and then lost through abuse) the status of sanctuary.27 In the context of Minnesota, it is worthwhile to look at faith-based sanctuary and immigration through three lenses: the Sanctuary movement of the 1980s; the New Sanctuary movement of the 2000s; and the post-9/11 focus on the Somali community in Minnesota. The Sanctuary Movement of the 1980s in Minnesota While this article primarily focuses on the period since 2001, the Sanctuary movement of the 1980s forms an important background and inspiration for the New Sanctuary movement.28 The Sanctuary movement of the 1980s developed in the United States in response to U.S. foreign policy that prevented the vast majority of asylum-seekers from El Salvador and Guatemala from gaining asylum status. During the 1980s, at the height of government sponsored terror campaigns in El Salvador and Guatemala against real and perceived opposition and indigenous groups, the grant rate for asylum in the U.S. for nationals from those two countries hovered around two percent. In Minnesota, a number of churches joined the Sanctuary movement, including St. Luke’s Presbyterian of Wayzata, Minnesota, which declared itself a sanctuary in 1982.29 That church sheltered a refugee under the pseudonym of Rene´ Hurtado. Twenty-five years later he recounted his story of leaving the unit of the Salvadoran military that had committed human rights abuses. Churches in Minnesota supported sanctuary congregations in other parts of the country, most notably in Arizona, which faced infiltration by 26. Sanctuary, MERRIAM-WEBSTER ONLINE DICTIONARY (last visited Jan. 27, 2017), www\dictionary\sanctuary. 27. Davidson, supra note 3. 28. Hector Perla & Susan Bibler Coutin, Legacies and Origins of the 1980 US–Central American Sanctuary Movement, 26 REFUGE 7 (2009), refuge/article/view/30602/28112. 29. As of mid-1986, “five Twin Cities churches ha[d] declared sanctuary, welcoming illegal aliens from El Salvador and Guatemala at the risk of criminal prosecution of their own members. Only one outstate church, First Unitarian in Duluth, ha[d] followed suit.” Conrad deFiebre, Churches are Refugee Stops on Overground Railroad, STAR TRIB. (Minn.), 01-A (May 9, 1986). See also History, St. Luke Presbyterian Church, (last visited July 25, 2016) . By 1987, the number of Sanctuary churches in Minnesota had grown to eight, and [d]ozens of churches and religious organizations ha[d] declared their support.” Jean Hopfensperger, Sanctuary Movement Finds Itself a Home, STAR TRIB. (Minn.), 01-A. (Mar. 23, 1987). Those eight were five in the Twin Cities and three in Duluth. “Hundreds of other churches and religious groups in Minnesota are involved in everything from collecting bail for refugees held in U.S. detention facilities to fueling the overground railroad that takes refugees to legal asylum in Canada.” Id. 5-DEC-17 10:22 590 UNIVERSITY OF ST. THOMAS LAW JOURNAL federal agents seeking to investigate and prosecute individuals within churches who had sheltered refugees within their congregations.30 Beyond congregations willing to openly defy federal law against harboring the undocumented, a larger number of congregations supported Central American refugees through the Overground Railroad (ORR). ORR grew out of Reba Place Fellowship in Evanston, Illinois, and Jubilee Partners in Comer, Georgia, inspired both by the Underground Railroad of the 19th century and the efforts of French Huguenot villages in France during World War II that sheltered Jews fleeing Nazi genocide. The effort focused primarily on getting Salvadoran and Guatemalan asylum seekers legally through the United States and into Canada, which at the time was much more receptive to refugee status claims. In a small number of cases, ORR also found placements for asylum seekers to pursue their claims within the U.S. ORR staff, primarily in Texas, screened immigrants (both in U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) detention and in various nongovernmental refugee shelters) and then assisted them in getting documents allowing them to travel through the United States.31 Churches such as Bethel Mennonite in small-town Mountain Lake, Minnesota, hosted refugees through ORR. Churches in Lake Wilson, Virginia, Preston, Northfield, Two Harbors, Duluth and Rochester, and Minneapolis participated.32 Minnesota played a key role in the network, as border crossing points into Canada were one of two ways to be processed into Canada (the other being through Canadian consulates in Dallas and Atlanta). As the process could often take several weeks or months, Minnesota churches would host refugees in their homes or churches and assist with transportation. By the late 1980s, the Duluth Sanctuary churches had joined the effort, moving from attempting to evade U.S. border authorities in getting refugee applicants to Canada, to more openly participating in the ORR.33 The federal government took aggressive action in the mid-1980s to infiltrate and prosecute members of the Sanctuary movement along the southern border.34 That said, local government officials in Minnesota and elsewhere pushed back in support of the movement. Some local officials and local governments expressed sympathy and support for the Sanctuary R 5-DEC-17 10:22 movement. According to a 1987 article, three Minnesota cities declared themselves “cities of refuge,” meaning city officials would “not take action threatening the safety of a sanctuary refugee.”35 In 1987, the local INS District Director, Gerald Coyle, stated that the INS did not aggressively pursue sanctuary refugees in churches because he did not want to “play into their hands” and cause media attention.36 I n 1988 , it was revealed that the FBI had conducted surveillance on St. Luke’s and two other sanctuary congregations in the Twin Cities (Twin Cities Friends Meeting of St. Paul and Walker United Methodist in Minneapolis), a revelation which received harsh criticism by DFL State Representative Phyllis Kahn.37 By the end of the 1990s, as the Central American civil wars drew to a close and a major class action lawsuit against the U.S. government exposed the structural bias against Central American asylum claims and forced a restructuring of the entire process, the need for sanctuary in houses of worship diminished.38 The New Sanctuary Movement in Minnesota In the current era, a new Sanctuary movement has formed to shelter immigrants facing separation from their families.39 Unlike the earlier movement, which focused more on political refugees, the current effort has focused on keeping families together. In 2008, ICE in Minnesota, while asserting that it would seek to deport persons on its priority list, also stated that as a general rule it would not conduct enforcement actions against churches, schools, and hospitals.40 I n 2016 , the Robbinsdale United Church of Christ proclaimed itself a sanctuary congregation, indicating that it was willing to shelter migrants within its physical building and face legal conseR 5-DEC-17 10:22 592 UNIVERSITY OF ST. THOMAS LAW JOURNAL quences.41 In sharing the decision, the pastor explained that the decision was the result of watching two of its own families face the separation and pain caused by deportation.42 Of some interest is the fact that the church consulted with the city council (one of the church members sits on the city council and is a county attorney) and the police department and felt supported by each in their decision.43 By early 2016, the movement had not gathered as much steam or attention as that of the 1980s and 1990s, although the pastor of the Robbinsdale church claimed that over 300 churches had joined the movement.44 One reason may well be that the home (discussed earlier in this section) had merged with houses of worship as a place of sanctuary of political and economic migrants. Many immigrant families are of mixed legal status, and many are faithful attendees of houses of worship. Unlike the Sanctuary movement of the 1980s and 1990s, in which refugees played more of a behind-the-scenes role and were often depicted more as objects of protective action by Americans with status,45 Sanctuary became not simply the committee room and homeless shelter of white progressive congregations, but the lived realities of congregations that predominantly serve immigrant communities. And also unlike the Sanctuary movement of the 1980s and 1990s, where refugees were behind-the-scenes or depicted in these roles,46 immigrants (particularly young people referred to as “Dreamers”) took the lead in pushing for immigration protections.47 The November 2016 election of Donald Trump reinvigorated the Sanctuary Movement in Minnesota. On December 6, 2016, the non-profit group ISAIAH held a public meeting at which thirteen Minnesota congregations declared themselves to be sanctuary churches, meaning that churches “would have individuals residing in their place of worship for an undetermined amount of time, while the community of Sanctuary works on the stay of removal orders for each person residing in the space or until those individuals can safely arrive to another place of sanctuary.”48 Similar to the R 5-DEC-17 10:22 1980s movement in Minnesota, another similar number of “ ‘sanctuary support’ congregations have agreed to assist the faith-based network with donations of food, money, clothing and toiletries, or prayer vigils, news conferences and legal assistance,” rather than actually house individuals.49 The group drew inspiration in part from the Underground Railroad and also from Leviticus 19:33–34: “When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God.”50 Legal Issues Facing Sanctuary Congregations The practice of the New Sanctuary Movement has been to openly provide shelter, while appealing to the federal government to exercise its discretion and not remove individuals from the U.S. Recent federal practice has been to avoid confrontation with churches and schools. While “not intended to condone violations of federal law,” ICE established a strict policy in 2011 against certain immigration enforcement actions in “sensitive locations,” including churches and schools.51 Whether such a policy survives under the Donald Trump administration very much remains to be seen, as the federal anti-harboring statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1324,52 has been wielded by the federal government in the past to curtail the sanctuary movement. For example, in the 1980s, the FBI used paid informants to infiltrate the movement in Arizona, leading to the convictions of seven sanctuary workers.53 The New Sanctuary Movement contends that because its position is to openly provide shelter, they are not violating the harboring element of the law.54 A leadi ng Ninth Circuit case from 1976 defined harboring as including both concealment and simple shelter.55 I n 1975 , the Second Circuit found that the term “harbors” should be read broadly “to encompass conduct tend UNIVERSITY OF ST. THOMAS LAW JOURNAL ing substantially to facilitate an undocumented person’s remaining in the United States illegally,”56 a definition which the Fifth Circuit has adopted.57 More recently, a Second Circuit court has more narrowly held that harboring is “conduct which is intended to facilitate an alien’s remaining in the United States illegally and to prevent detection by the authorities of the alien’s unlawful presence.”58 The Sixth and Seventh Circuits have also found a narrower definition of harboring, saying that it requires a clandestine element.59 Legal research indicates that this issue has not been addressed by the Eighth Circuit, the federal court circuit in which Minnesota sits. Congregations taking the step of providing sanctuary should be aware of the risks involved in such prophetic actions. SCHOOLS, COLLEGES, AND UNIVERSITIES AS PLACES OF SANCTUARY College and University Admission for Unauthorized Immigrants Shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001, INS officials contacted some colleges and universities in Minnesota to strongly suggest that it would be illegal for them to admit unauthorized immigrants. Over the course of the following decade, many colleges and universities in Minnesota took actions to allow unauthorized students to enroll in their institutions. Often this took the form of “don’t ask” policies. On application forms, boxes requiring the choice of resident or U.S. citizen were either illuminated or replaced with options such as other. While social security numbers are generally required for federal financial aid, that number is not required for simple admission. At my own institution, the University of St. Thomas, an internal ad hoc committee in 2005 a nd 2006 studied the issue and suggested to university administration to clear the path for unauthorized immigrants to gain admission to the University of St. Thomas through a “don’t ask” policy.60 The administration did act positively on that proposal in 2007.61 2017] The Minnesota Dream Act: In-State Tuition at State Institutions for Unauthorized Immigrants In the mid-2000s a movement developed to get in-state tuition for residents of states where they had resided and gained a high school education. Such proposals by and large withstood challenges in federal courts.62 In Minnesota, a similar effort, which spanned several years, was successful. Notably, this effort was spearheaded by the so-called “Dreamers” along with immigrant advocacy organizations. The Minnesota legislature passed the Minnesota Dream Act (also k nown as the Prosperity Act) in 2013 ,63 and Governor Mark Dayto n signed it into law in May 2013 . Undocumented students who attended Minnesota high schools for at least three years, graduated or earned a GED, registered for Selective Service, and have applied for legal status (if a federal process exists for them to apply for) are eligible. Primary benefits include in-state tuition, Minnesota state financial aid, and privately funded financial aid through Minnesota public colleges and universities.64 The passage of the legislation took nearly a decade of effort on the part of state legislators, civil society groups, and community activists, including undocumented students. Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty had halted a similar bill in 2007.65 As of June 2014, other states had passed similar laws, including California, Texas, Washington, and New Mexico.66 Anti-Trump Universities?: The Rapid Rise of the “Sanctuary Campus” In the immediate aftermath of the election of Donald Trump, a movement arose across a number of colleges and universities in a call for “Sanc62. See, e.g., Michael A. Olivas & Kristi L. Bowman, Plyler’s Legacy: Immigration and Higher Education in the 21st Century, 2011 MICH. ST. L. REV. 261 (2011). 63. Minn. Stat. § 135A.043 (2013). 64. Minnesota Dream Act Fact Sheet, MINN. OFF. OF HIGHER ED., http://www.ohe.state. (last visited Feb. 11, 2016) . 65. Isela Gomez, The Minnesota Prosperity Act (MN Dream Act II): the Movement to Pass the Minnesota Dream Act and Impact on Students of Color in Minnesota Minn. Minority Educ. Partnership, Inc., Untapped Talent Series (Oct. 2014), 12/Policy-Brief_Dream-Act-Final.pdf. Nearly 50 groups were involved in the effort, including Mesa Latina, Minnesota Minority Education Partnership (MMEP), Centro Campesino, Jewish Community Action, Citizens League, NAVIGATE, Tamales y Bicicletas, Unite Here!, Department of Chican@ Latin@ Studies at the University of Minnesota. Id. at 3. 66. Minnesota Dream Act Fact Sheet, MINN. OFF. OF HIGHER ED., supra note 64, at 7. Jenna Ross, Minnesota’s ‘Dream Act’ Law Makes College Possible for Immigrant Students, STAR TRIB. (Minn.) (Aug. 20, 2013, 5:48 AM),; Juventino Meza, Community Voices: What the Passage of the Minnesota Prosperity (Dream) Act Means, MINNPOST (July 3, 2013), https:// www.mi /07/what-passage-minnesota-prosperity-dream-actmeans; Alex Friedrich, Minnesota Senate Passes Dream Act Legislation, MPR NEWS (May 1, 2013, 5:26 PM) , http://blogs.mpr /05/minnesota-senate-passes-dream-actlegislation/. UNIVERSITY OF ST. THOMAS LAW JOURNAL tuary campuses.” University campuses (along with places of worship, hospitals, other schools, and places of political demonstration) had, in 2011 , been designated as “sensitive locations” by ICE, where ICE enforcement actions were not to occur absent exigent circumstances, or when led there by other law enforcement agents.67 Such a policy might not fare well in a Trump administration, but the uproar that would come from enforcement actions on campuses would be considerable. What constitutes a Sanctuary campus has yet to come fully into focus, but media reports i n December 2016 list several approaches under consideration that include refusing to assist federal immigration agents, demanding warrants before allowing such agents onto campus, or offering financial and legal assistance to undocumented students. Some universities have discussed such approaches while eschewing the “Sanctuary” label.68 Swarthmore College in Pennsylvania has clearly laid out its determination of their Sanctuary campus: Nearly 2,000 members of our community have asked that Swarthmore become a Sanctuary campus. We wholeheartedly pledge to do so. This means that to the fullest extent of the law: The College will not voluntarily share student information with immigration enforcement officials; The College will not voluntarily grant access to College property to immigration enforcement officials; The College will not support the enforcement actions of immigration officials on campus. Public Safety will continue to refrain from inquiring about or recording the immigration status of community members; The College is not enrolled in “e-verify” and will not do so; and The College does not make housing decisions based on immigration status and will not do so. The College will do everything within its power to promote the safety of any member of our community who may face heightened threat.69 The protection of student information finds support in federal law. Professor Elizabeth McCormick primarily focused her recent writing on the requirements of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA) as applied to primary and secondary, FERPA applies equally to post-secondary education: 2017] IMMIGRATION AND SANCTUARY IN MINNESOTA 597 The importance of acknowledging the privacy protections afforded by FERPA is nonetheless significant since it serves as an important counterweight to the myth surrounding anti-sanctuary provisions that there can be no restrictions on a school district’s ability to share immigration status information with federal immigration authorities. . . [T]his is an important message not just for immigrant children and families seeking to enroll in public schools but also for school officials and employees who may misunderstand their obligations under FERPA in light of the antisanctuary provisions.70 Other moves that have garnered even more nationwide support are calls for a continuation of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival program by university and college leaders.71 In Mi nnesota, as of mid-December 2016 , presidents of thirteen colleges and universities had signed the call.72 Additionally, the Minnesota presidents of the University of St. Thomas, the College of St. Scholastica, Saint John’s University, College of Saint Benedict, and St. Catherine University signed along with over a hundred others “A Statement from Leaders in Catholic Higher Education,” which said in part: Undocumented students need assistance in confronting legal and financial uncertainty and in managing the accompanying anxieties. We pledge to support these students—through our campus counseling and ministry support, through legal resources from those campuses with law schools and legal clinics, and through whatever other services we may have at our disposal.73 A petition signed by more than a thousand students, faculty members, and staff called on the University of Minnesota to declare itself a sanctuary and protect students from deportation,74 including not sharing student information and preventing campus police from working with ICE agents.75 University President Eric Kaler committed only to advocating for undocumented students and international students.76 SANCTUARY CITIES: “SEPARATION” OR “NONCOOPERATION”? It is at the level of cities that the notion of Sanctuary has received the most attention. The 2015 case of Kathryn Steinle in San Francisco reignited controversy over so-called Sanctuary Cities. These local ordinances and policies have faced efforts to eliminate them at both the state legislative level in Minnesota, as well as around the country. And, a federal statute has had limited effect in curtailing them. These jurisdictions see the role of local government and law enforcement to be primarily public safety and service provision, rather than civil immigration enforcement. The Kate Steinle murder in S an Francisco in summer 2015 reignited debate about Sanctuary City policies across the country. In a thorough reexamination of the Federal Anti-Sanctuary legislation from 1996 and court cases considering efforts to use it against municipalities, Professor Elizabeth McCormick concluded that: (1) “the federal anti-sanctuary statutes do not mandate that states and localities do anything,”77 (2) “the anti-sanctuary statutes prohibit restrictions on communication; they do not prohibit restrictions on other activities by state and local agencies and officers,” and “[t]herefore, a state or municipal government can prohibit its employees or officers from inquiring about immigration status where it is not otherwise required by law,”78 (3) “the anti-sanctuary statutes do not provide for a private right of action for individuals claiming harm in connection with them, whether that claim is for damages or to compel compliance with the statutes,”79 (4) “the federal anti-sanctuary measures do not repeal or otherwise override the privacy protections in other federal statutes . . . they do not provide a blank check for the voluntary sharing of information that is otherwise protected from disclosure under federal law,”80 and (5) “states and municipalities may mandate certain R 2017] IMMIGRATION AND SANCTUARY IN MINNESOTA 599 types of cooperation with federal immigration enforcement” such as mandatory status checks, so long as they do not conflict with federal immigration authority.81 Minneapolis and St. Paul, through their city councils, had each passed separation ordinances in 200382 and 200483 respectively. These ordinances fall into the broad category of “Don’t Ask” ordinances, as opposed to “Don’t Tell” ordinances, in that both ordinances placed limits on collecting immigration data during the conduct of municipal business, rather than explicating limiting the ability of agencies or individuals to share immigration information. For example, the St. Paul ordinance states in part that: With the exception of inquiries allowed by law or as necessary for law enforcement purposes, no St. Paul city officer or employee should inquire into the immigration status of any person or request any documents or information verifying the immigration status of any individual. Employees shall comply with any properly issued subpoena for the production of documents or witnesses, even if related to immigration issues or issues of homeland security.84 That said, there are notable exceptions to those limits. In both ordinances, for instance, criminal division employees of the cities are allowed to do the following: a. Inform persons of the possible immigration consequences of a guilty plea. b. Question and conduct cross-examination of a witness or defendant regarding immigration status. c. Inquire about immigration status for purposes of bail or conditional release. d. Investigate and inquire about immigration status when relevant to the potential or actual prosecution of the case or when immigration status is an element of the crime. e. Take immigration status and collateral effects of possible deportation into consideration during discussions held for the purpose of case resolution.85 Additionally, both ordinances state that nothing “shall prohibit public safety personnel from assisting federal law enforcement officers in the in2017] IMMIGRATION AND SANCTUARY IN MINNESOTA 621 on their visually different driver’s licenses.185 What did happen was that persons who had four-year licenses issued under the earlier rule were unable to renew their licenses.186 Legislative Efforts to Restore Drivers’ Licenses for All Gathers Slow Support: 2009 –2016 During the spring of 2009, Democratic state representatives introduced driver’s license legislation.187 The law would have “allow[ed] certain identification cards issued by a foreign government as a form of proof of identity” and would have “eliminate[d] an administrative rule that the applicant provide proof of legal residency in the United States.”188 The bill cleared committee in the spring of 2010 ,189 but had faced a grassroots organizing effort to stop it, with opponents claiming driver’s licenses for the undocumented would not encourage greater insurance coverage, would threaten national security, encourage voter fraud, and take jobs from Minnesotans and legal residents.190 In 2009, researchers at the University of Minnesota published a study based on the “veil of darkness” methodology applied to the traffic stop data gathered in 2002, showing statistically significant racial profiling in traffic stops in Minneapolis for both Black and Latino drivers. The methodology allowed them to “circumvent[ ] a key statistical problem that undermines the results of [the] previous studies—namely that the characteristics of drivers of different racial and ethnic groups also differ on dimensions other than race and ethnicity.”191 That same spring, the legislature did pass another driver’s license bill: one prohibiting the state from compliance with the 2005 federal REAL ID UNIVERSITY OF ST. THOMAS LAW JOURNAL Act. Out of concern for privacy, the bill passed the House unanimously and by a vote of 64-1 in the Senate and was signed by Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty. By that point, twenty-three states had passed similar legislation.192 In the fall of 2012, the Minnesota Democratic Farm Labor party (DFL) took control of both houses of the Minnesota legislature, after having rega ined the governor’s mansion in 2010 .193 This raised hopes amongst immigrant advocates that progress could be made on the driver’s license issue. Efforts to lift restrictions on access to drivers’ licenses were re newed in the spring of 2013 , with the bill passing in the Senate without any Republican votes,194 but getting stuck again in the House.195 While primarily championed by the DFL, four co-authors in the House were Republicans from Greater Minnesota (i.e., outside the metro area of the Twin Cities).196 Republican Representative Rod Hamilton hails from Mountain Lake, a small farming community in southwestern Minnesota and claims the occupation of pork producer.197 Opponents had again raised the specter of voter fraud and pointed out abuses in other states with similar laws where a small number of nonresidents had obtained drivers’ licenses.198 More than 200 advocates for the bill staged a hunger strike at the end of the session, demanding a meeting with the governor, arguing that such legislation would make for safer roads with more insured and licensed drivers.199 Efforts were renewed by immigrant advocates led by Mesa Latina; in the spr ing of 2014 , in an effort to bring together community activists, and labor and business support for immigration reform. As the legislative session from the prior year had not officially closed and the Senate vote pass2017] IMMIGRATION AND SANCTUARY IN MINNESOTA 623 ing the legislation still stood, advocates focused their efforts on DFL House leader Paul Thissen and an unenthusiastic Governor Mark Dayton.200 Advocates argued that extreme weather and inadequate public transportation forced immigrants to drive to get to work and take children to school. Driving without a license could lead to arrest and being turned over to ICE for deportation, separating families.201 At a rally at the Capitol rotunda in March 2014, the local president of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) said “[i]t is a basic right to be able to get to and from work free from fear.”202 The efforts fell short, with the session coming to an end with no legislation. In November 2014, Republicans regained control of the Minnesota House while Democrat Mark Dayton won reelection as governor,203 further complicating ongoing efforts to pass similar legislation in 2015. While the legislation again passed the Senate, the Republican controlled House failed to move the legislation,204 notwithstanding support from the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, the American Civil Liberties Union, the United Commercial and Food Workers Union, religious organizations, and numerous local law enforcement officials.205 In a turnabout from the previous decade when a Republican controlled state government argued that the federal government could not preempt driver’s license regulations, at least one Republican opponent raised federal preemption as a reason NOT to restore drivers’ licenses to unauthorized immigrants: “Realistically this is a federal issue. I would like to see it resolved, but Congress and the President have not seen fit to do UNIVERSITY OF ST. THOMAS LAW JOURNAL that,” said state Rep. Mark Uglem, R-Champlin. “So until they do, I don’t know what we as a state should be doing. Should we override the federal government? I don’t think so.”206 But Rod Hamilton, the Republican pork producer from Mountain Lake, came out more strongly for the bill in 2015 : It will boil down to the Declaration of Independence and the moral belief that we all believe is a right: that we are all created equal with a right to liberty and happiness. . . . This is bigger than a driver’s license, and we all know that.207 In 2015, over 600,000 undocumented immigrants received drivers’ licenses in California,208 likely the largest number amongst the fourteen states providing for drivers’ licenses regardless of immigra tion status as of June 2016 .209 Condi tions in 2016 initially seemed to spell success for advocates in favor of drivers’ licenses for unauthorized immigrants in Minnesota. Civil libertarians from both the left and the right in the state legislature had long resisted federal mandates under the REAL ID Act to mandate certain requirements for drivers’ licenses to be used for air travel and access to federal government buildings. By late 2015, however, widespread opposition amongst other legislatures to REAL ID had melted from twenty-three states in 2009 to only four (New York, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Louisiana).210 Under rising pressure from the Governor and a deadline for compliance looming in 2018, both the Democrat controlled Senate211 and the Republican controlled House passed bills allowing for two types of licenses— one federally compliant and useable for all purposes, and a noncompliant version that could be used for driving but not for air travel or access to federal buildings.212 The House version, however, removed rulemaking authority from DPS and required proof of citizenship. DPS rulemaking would 2017] IMMIGRATION AND SANCTUARY IN MINNESOTA 625 leave open the possibility of allowing unauthorized immigrants to receive the noncompliant licenses. Conferees from the House and Senate were unable to reach a resolution before the session ended for the year.213 Hopes that the issue would be taken up in a special legislative session soon faded. As noted, a central issue behind this decades-long debate are data privacy concerns on both the left and the right. While presumably anyone concerned about keeping their data from the federal government could opt for the non-compliant ID or driver’s license, how that database would be secured from disclosure by a state employee wishing to share it with the federal government under 8 U.S.C. § 1373 would raise vexing Tenth Amendment questions addressed above i n Part VII. As 2016 drew to a close and cities braced for an enforcement minded Trump administration, this issue came to the fore as two Republican New York City Council members sued to enjoin the city from destroying data it collected to issue IDs used by many unauthorized immigrants living there.214 At the time of writing, the 2017 legislative session was about to commence with uncertainty on the issue. The need to comply with the federal mandates of REAL ID was set to meet up in an especially contentious legislative session. Efforts to call a special sessio n in late 2016 to resolve budgetary and health care issues collapsed in rancor between the Democratic Governor and Republican House leader. Republicans had regained control of both houses of the state legislature as well.215 The Interplay of Driver’s Licenses, License Plate Readers, Racial Profiling, and Federal Immigration Detainers How does all of this matter to unauthorized immigrants and their families? The lack of a driver’s license can lead to arrest by local law enforcement and being turned over to federal authorities for removal. If conscious or implicit bias leads in the first place to the arrest, such racial profiling 213. John C. Reich, Home Stretch-Second to Last Week, INSIDE THE MINN. CAP. BLOG (May 16, 2016) ,; Minnesota Activists Fend Off Anti-Immigrant Provisions In REAL ID Drivers License Bill, FIGHT BACK NEWS (May 20, 2016) , /5/20/minnesota-activists-fend-antiimmigrant-provisions-real-id-drivers-license-bill; Christine M. Zimmer, End of the Line-Almost. . . ., INSIDE THE MINN. CAP. BLOG (May 23, 2016) ,; Thomas J. Hanson, Session Closing Chaos: Special Session in the Wings, INSIDE THE MINN. CAP. BLOG (May 31, 2016) , sion-closing-chaos-special-session-89637/. New Mexico, which had long allowed unauthorized immigrants regular drivers’ licenses, adopted a two-tier system i n 2016 in order to comply with REAL ID. Steve Terrell, MVD Says It’s Taking Steps Toward Two-Tier License System, THE NEW MEXICAN (Aug. 4, 2016, 12:13 AM) , .html. 214. Kelcee Griffis, ID NYC Data Dump Delayed by Judge, Pending Hearing, LAW 360 (Dec. 22, 2016, 7:47 PM) , 215. Bierschbach & Kaul, supra note 94. UNIVERSITY OF ST. THOMAS LAW JOURNAL leads to intentional or de facto immigration enforcement by local law enforcement. This section looks at how the pieces fell into place in the late 1990s and 2000s for an integrated process of mass deportation through traffic tickets. The Minnesota Supreme Court held in 1996 that it “is not unconstitutional for an officer to make a brief, investigatory, Terry-type stop of a vehicle if the officer knows that the owner of the vehicle has a revoked license so long as the officer remains unaware of any facts which would render unreasonable an assumption that the owner is driving the vehicle.”216 Questions have been raised about racial profiling in traffic stops for some time in Minnesota.217 It is the ACLU’s opinion that because a valid vehicle stop will not, absent other evidence, lead to liability for racial profiling, targeting Latino-looking drivers and making pretextual stops based on minor traffic infractions (or the registered owner’s lack of a driver’s license) can be a low-risk, high-reward proposition for police officers who feel compelled to engage in informal immigration enforcement. Discriminatory policing may also occur when officers who have unrecognized, internalized racial biases or anti-immigrant biases when they choose to focus their efforts on identifying unlicensed drivers as opposed to observable traffic violations such as speeding or careless driving.218 More explicit racist profiling has also occurred. The Metro Gang Strike Force, a joint law enforcement operation involving police departments and sheriff’s offices, ran off the rails in the mid-2000s.219 Immigrants fell victim to shakedowns when their vehicles were impounded and taken to the Minneapolis impound lot. There were reports of officers forcing undocumented Honduran and Mexican immigrants to pay to recover their vehicles and then reporting them to ICE in violation of Minneapolis ordinance.220 The report into the operation of the Strike Force also found that “[t]he Strike Force’s mission does not support the creation of roving ‘saturation’ details that stop people for traffic violations or seize the funds of an undocumented alien who has committed no other offense. Yet this is what we found, many times over.”221 In another example, the Chaska, Minnesota police department fired a veter an officer in 2015 after Latino residents complained that they had been 2017] IMMIGRATION AND SANCTUARY IN MINNESOTA 627 targeted for abuse, ticketing, and arrest. Natalie Lopez complained that the officer had staked out her house for several days before stopping her. She said the officer “gave her a ticket for not having a driver’s license, telling her he wanted to send all people without licenses back to Mexico.” She told the city council “I don’t think he has the right to ask me if I’m legal here.”222 The mid-2000s also saw a dramatic rise in the use of automated license plate readers using high speed cameras to collect and analyze thousands of plates. While serving some legitimate law enforcement purposes, the practice raised racial profiling concerns. License plate reader systems can also facilitate discriminatory targeting. An agent who manually enters plates into a license plate reader system based on discriminatory rationales could check far more plates than he could without the technology. Also, discrimination can exist in deciding where to place the cameras. Whole communities may be targeted based on their religious, ethnic, or associational makeup.223 The rapid rise in the use of immigration detainers by ICE in the late 2000s added more fuel to the fire,224 with observers making the links between these dynamics in the past few years at the national level.225 FEDERAL LEVEL SANCTUARY: REMOVAL PRIORITIES, REFUGEES, AND ASYLUM SEEKERS The general period under consideration, 2001-2016, saw two presidents put their mark on immigration policy, one Republican and one Democrat. Each tried and failed to pass comprehensive immigration reform in the face of stiff opposition. This Part briefly addresses how each administration’s removal priorities, including deferred action, provided some forms of 222. Susan Feyder, Chaska Police Department Fires Veteran Officer, STAR TRIB. (Minn.) (Apr. 22, 2015),; see also Jon Tevlin, ACLU Review of One Cop’s Record is Point of Contention, STAR TRIB. (Minn.) (Jan. 13, 2013) , 223. American Civil Liberties Union, You Are Being Tracked: How License Plate Readers Are Being Used to Record America ns’ Movements (July 2013 ), 071613-aclu-alprreport-opt-v05.pdf. It bears noting that the Minnesota State Patrol’s practice of deleting massive license plate data after forty-eight hours has been seen as a model national policy. Id. at 17, 20. 224. National Immigrant Justice Center, CERD Shadow Report: Immigration Detainers Encourage Racial Profiling, INT_CERD_NGO_USA_17787_E.pdf; US Compliance with the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, American Civil Liberties Union Shadow Report to the 7th-9th Periodic Reports of the United States, 85th Session of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Geneva, 11-29 August 2014, at 6–7 (July 9, 2014), https:// 225. See, e.g., Anil Kalhan, Immigration Policing and Federalism Through the Lens of Technology, Surveillance, and Privacy, 74 OHIO STATE L.J. 1105 (2013). UNIVERSITY OF ST. THOMAS LAW JOURNAL de facto protection to immigrants and refugees. Immigration enforcement by the executive branch involves the exercise of considerable discretion by federal immigration law enforcement. Federal law also provides a variety of legal statuses that can be characterized as Sanctuary—protection from past or future harm. In another article, I have portrayed immigration law as making up a “hotel” with different floors, including a floor of Sanctuary. Included on it are the following statuses: Asylum (and related relief of Withholding of Removal and Convention Against Torture), Refugee Status, Special Immigrant Juvenile Status, the Violence Against Women Act, Temporary Protected Status, and U & T visas for victims of crime and human trafficking.226 Here, we will briefly look at refugee status (which immigrants are processed for abroad), and asylum (which is sought after arriving in the U.S. through other means). Federal Immigration Enforcement in Minnesota since 2001 George W. Bush’s administration (2001–2008) was characterized by a schizophrenic approach to federal immigration enforcement that would be continued under the B arack Obama administration (2009 –2016). The Bush administration was marked on the one hand with increasingly aggressive interior enforcement of immigration laws in the form of workplace raids targeting unauthorized workers;227 and on the other hand with ultimately unsuccessful support for a bi-partisan comprehensive immigration reform package in Congress in the years of the president’s time in office.228 Bush’s efforts at heightened border security were pushed forward under the Obama administration, with ample financial support from Congress.229 The DHS under Barack Obama initially ended workplace raids aimed at arresting and deporting workers, and shifted the focus to greater scrutiny of employers’ record keeping responsibilities. Rather than raid, arrest, and deport workers at their job sites, the approach got them fired when records were audited and employers required workers to renew I-9 forms. Presumably, unauthorized workers simply failed to show up for work and employers faced increasing fines for failing to properly document their worker’s eligi2017] IMMIGRATION AND SANCTUARY IN MINNESOTA bility for employment. Well-publicized raids in Minnesota followed this national pattern.230 Obama also earned the moniker “Deporter-in-Chief” by presiding over record-breaking numbers of deportations in a fruitless effort to convince hardliners that he was serious about enforcement, while making efforts at comprehensive immigration reform.231 On the other hand, in 2014, after another failed bi-partisan attempt at comprehensive immigration reform,232 the Obama administration followed up its 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program233 with a series of executive actions in No Extended DACA and related Deferred Action to Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) garnered the most press due to being enjoined by twenty-six states.235 DACA resulted in approximately 750,000 people coming forward to claim deferred action. In Minnesota, over 5000 people received deferred action.236 What would happen to those recipients under a Trump administration was very much in question. The range of options included a proposal for President Obama to grant pardons to DACA recipients as a closing act; attempting to immediately revoke the deferred action and take steps to remove DACA recipients upon President Trump taking office; letting DACA 230. Sasha Aslanian, 1,200 Janitors Fired in ‘Quiet’ Immigration Raid, MPR NEWS (Nov. 9, 2009),; Sasha Aslanian, More Janitors Fired In Minn. After Immigration Audit, MPR NEWS (Mar. 14, 2011), http://www.mprnews .org/story/2011/03/14/harvard-janitors-immigration. 231. Nikki Hager, The Obama Administration and Immigration Policy: The Immigration Enforcement Record In Recent Years, COUNCIL ON HEMISPHERIC AFFAIRS (Jan. 30, 2015), http:// 232. For a compelling documentary on the political dynamics of the summer of 2012, see Immigration Battle, PBS FRONTLINE (Oct. 20, 2015),; Esther Yu-Hsi Lee, ‘Immigration Battle’ Answers The Question Of How Immigration Reform Died, THINK PROGRESS (Oct. 20, 2015, 9:59 AM), immigration/2015/10/20/3713637/immigration-battles-documentary/. 233. Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), USCIS, (updated July 27, 2016) , 234. Fixing Our Broken Immigration System Through Executive Action - Key Facts, Dep’t of Homeland Sec. (Nov. 20, 2015) , ken-immigration-system-through-executive-action. 235. The Fifth Circuit injunction of the DACA executive action was affirmed in a per curiam 4-4 Supreme Court Decision, U.S. v. Texas, 579 U. S. ____ (2016). For a compilation of analysis of the DAPA case and all filings and decision, see U.S v. Texas, SCOTUS BLOG http://www (last visited Aug. 7, 2016) . 236. Kelsey Kudak, For Young Immigrants, DACA Offers a Thread of Hope, ST. CLOUD TIMES (Aug. 10, 2015, 7:24 PM) , news/local/2015 /08/10/young-im migrants-daca-offers-thread-hope/31420471/. While around 5000 in Minnesota applied for the status, the Migration Policy Institute estimated there were about 16,000 who might have qualified. Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Profile: Minnesota, MIGRATION POL’Y INST., undated, (last visited Jan. 1, 2017). UNIVERSITY OF ST. THOMAS LAW JOURNAL expire without renewal and return recipients to fully unauthorized status; renewing DACA; or seeking a legislative fix such as the bi-partisan BRIDGE act to extend the status for three years while Congress works on a long-term fix.237 The exercise of executive branch discretion in immigration enforcement arguably reached its limits under President Obama, a reach which may well be exercised in unforeseen ways by a Trump administration. In the modern era of refugee resettlement, Minnesota has become a destination both for newly-arrived refugees and for secondary resettlement.238 Since 2001, among the most significant groups resettled include Hmong refugees from Laos, Karen refugees from Burma, and Somalis. Refugee resettlement is directed by the federal government. In Minnesota, the state government assists in such resettlement in collaboration with religious and secular non-profit resettlement agencies known as VOLAGS (voluntary agencies).239 Resettleme nt numbers in fiscal year 2016 were 2,630, up 15% over the previous year and up from a low of 990 in 2009. Resettlement agencies predicted a leveling off of refugee numbers in the state in 2017 due to a challenge in finding affordable housing and the uncertainty following the election of Donald Trump.240 Hmong refugees began arriving in Minnesota in significant numbers in the 1970s and 1980s, as part of the resettlement of refugees from the Vietnam War. Recruited by the CIA to fight in a secret war against the Lao communist forces, the Hmong were on the losing end of the war and many fled to camps in Thailand. In response to Thai government efforts to close the camps in the 2000s, the U.S. admitted one last significant wave of Hmong refugees in 2004, with many being resettled in Minnesota.241 The Karen refugees from Burma had also fled in large numbers to camps in Thailand (and to some extent India), as a result of repression from the central Burmese government. Many were supporters of the Karen National Liberation Army, which has been engaged in a decades’ long struggle 2017] IMMIGRATION AND SANCTUARY IN MINNESOTA for greater independence and autonomy. Karen are predominantly animist, Buddhist, and Christian, but most resettled to the U.S. are Christian. As a result of considerable missionary activity from the United States in the nineteenth and twentieth century, many of the Karen had converted to the Baptist faith and found welcome in a number of Baptist congregations in Minnesota.242 Government resettlement of the Karen began in 2005 and it is estimated that there are about 10,000 Karen in Minnesota, the largest concentration in the United States.243 Somali refugees began being resettled in Minnesota in the mid-1990s and make up the largest concentration of Somali refugees in the United States.244 Minnesota came into the election spotlight and Donald Trump’s calls for “extreme vetting” in the wake of two high-profile events involving Somali refugees.245 Duri ng the summer of 2016 , nine young Somali men were convicted of conspiring to join the terror group ISIS. They were sentenced in November to terms of imprisonment ranging from time served (twenty-one months) to thirty-five months, reportedly setting a national example for attempting a nuanced approach at balancing punishment and deterrence for extremist recruiters with hopes of rehabilitation for those susceptible to being drawn in.246 On September 19, a knife wielding assailant later identified as a Somali immigrant injured ten people at a mall in St. 242. Ehtaw Dwee, A Focus on the Karen Refugees from Burma, (visited Dec. 31, 2016) ; Tim Nelson, Refugees from Myanmar may be Next Wave for Minnesota, ST. PAUL PIONEER PRESS (Oct. 6, 2007, 11:01 PM; updated Nov. 14, 2015, 6:33 AM) , anmar-may-be-next-wave-for-minnesota. 243. Ibrahim Hirsi, KOM helps Karen Refugees Adjust to Life in Minnesota, MINNPOST (Mar. 8, 2016) , americans/2016 /03/kom-helps-karen-refugees-adjustlife-minnesota; Arrive Ministries, The Karen in Minnesota, (last visited Dec. 31, 2016) . 244. See, e.g., Kirsti Marohn, Fact Check: How Many Refugees Live Here?, ST. CLOUD TIMES (Jan. 10, 2016, 7:00 AM) , http://www.sctimes/story/news/local/immigra tion/2016 /01/2016/factcheck-how-many-refugees-live-here/78415922/ (citing estimates of 40,000–80,000 Somalis living in Minnesota); Amy Forliti, With Minnesota Set to Receive 2,500 Refugees in 2017, Here’s a Look at the Process, ST. PAUL PIONEER PRESS (Dec. 2, 2016, 7:27 PM; updated Dec. 5, 2016, 6:05 PM) , /12/02/with-minnesota-set-to-recevie-2500-refugess-in-2017heres-a-look-at-process (stating that forty percent of Minnesota’s refugees are from Somalia, with over 15,000 Somalis being resettled in Minnesota since 2003) . 245. Conor Gaffey, US Election: What’s Behind Donald Trump’s Comments on Somali Refugees, NEWSWEEK (Nov. 7, 2016, 12:27 PM) ,; Mila Koumpilova, Donald Trump’s Comments about Minnesota Somalis Met with Outrage, STAR TRIB. (Minn.) (Aug. 7, 2016, 7:06 AM) , http:// 246. Steve Karnowski, Minnesota Terror Sentences Expected to Set National Pattern, ST. PAUL PIONEER PRESS (Nov. 19, 2016, 5:05 PM; updated 5:50 PM) , 2016/11/19/minnesota-terror-sentences-expected-to-set-national-pattern; Day 3:Prosecutors in Minn. Terror Case Hope Long Sentences Deter Future Terrorists, KSTP NEWS (Nov. 16, 2016, 5:34 PM) , http:/ UNIVERSITY OF ST. THOMAS LAW JOURNAL Cloud, Minnesota before being killed by an off-duty police officer.247 St. Cloud, another welcoming destination over the years for Somali immigrants, has also become a focal point for anti-immigrant forces, “with antirefugee and anti-Muslim speakers [making] numerous stops in Central Minnesota, often to packed houses.”248 Has the Somali community in Minnesota become a hotbed of terror recruitment? Somali community leaders say that “unemployment, not radicalization, is the biggest obstacle facing young Somali men in the Twin Cities,” with an unemployment rate in the heavily Somali Cedar-Riverside neighborhood of Minneapolis at 17% (three times that of the Twin Cities overall). Addressing unemployment will reduce susceptibility to recruitment.249 These events came on the heels of controversy around the resettlement of Syrian refugees in the United States. Unlike governors from many states that called for a halt to Syri an refugee resettlement in 2015 a nd 2016 (and in some cases unsuccessfully sued the federal government or local nonprofit resettlement agencies to halt Syrian refugees),250 Governor Mark Dayton of Minnesota joined other governors in declaring that he would not take steps to block Syrian refugees, so long as they were thoroughly screened.251 Following the election of Donald Trump, the St. Paul City Council took the largely symbolic step of passing a resolu tion in December 2016 , welcoming Syrian refugees to Minnesota, both because of the tiny numbers of Syrians coming to Minnesota and because cities have little say in actual policy making on the issue.252 2017] IMMIGRATION AND SANCTUARY IN MINNESOTA The future of refugee resettlement is very much in play as a new administration comes into office in Washington. Vice President Mike Pence as Governor of Indiana unsuccessfully sued a refugee aid organization to block Syrian refugees, with the Seventh Circuit ruling that the Refugee Act prohibits national origin discrimination.253 Georgia Republican Tom Price, tapped to head the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (charged with the task of resettling refugees) unsuccessfully sponsored legislation to block Syrian refugees, a move supported by Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions (nominated to be the Attorney General).254 Asylum and Related Forms of Immigration Relief Similar to refugee status, asylum seekers must qualify based on the refugee definition found in the INA. Refugee adjudication takes place abroad, whereas asylum adjudication occurs in the United States. Persons who are in some form of legal status or who have not been placed in removal proceedings apply for asylum affirmatively at USCIS Asylum Offices, and, if unsuccessful there, may take their cases before immigration judges. Persons that the DHS seeks to deport must press their cases before immigration judges. Bars to asylum may prevent someone from getting such status for which they may otherwise qualify—including missing the one year filing deadline, committing certain crimes in the U.S. or abroad, torturing or persecuting others, or being a security or terrorist threat.255 A person seeking asylum after arrival in Minnesota faces perplexing choices and challenges. In my experience, asylum seekers in Minnesota usually come here because they have family or friends, or friends of friends. In my experience as an attorney supervising a law school immigration clinic, the most basic needs of shelter and daily provision drive the choice to come to Minnesota and seek asylum rather than relocating elsewhere. What factors affect one’s chance of success after arriving? Legal Resources. Being represented has long been shown to increase one’s chances of winning asylum. One study in the mid-2000s showed that 93% of unrepresented asylum seekers in court lost asylum, while only 64% of represented asylum seekers were denied.256 Minnesota is blessed with an UNIVERSITY OF ST. THOMAS LAW JOURNAL active and well-trained private immigration bar populated by skilled and often multi-lingual attorneys,257 as well as an array of legal aid and nonprofit organizations and law school clinics that provide representation to low and moderate income immigrants.258 Mental Health providers. Minnesota is also the home of service providers especially focused on the multi-varied needs of asylum seekers and refugees, including the Center for Victims of Torture,259 the CommunityUniversity Health Care Center (CUHCC),260 and the University of St. Thomas Interprofessional Center for Counseling and Legal Services (IPC).261 Beyond providing mental health services, these agencies also often provide expert mental health reports documenting the immediate and ongoing effects of persecution and torture on asylum seekers, which can bolster their claims for legal relief. The chance of winning asylum often depends upon who decides your case, and in what jurisdiction the case is heard. National studies of grant rates by judges and asylum officers have shown wildly diverging chances of success, even when adjudicators in the same jurisdiction are hearing similar types of cases from the same country.262 I n December 2016 , TRAC Immigration at Syracuse University concluded that the “outcome for asylum seekers has become increasingly dependent upon the identity of the immigration judge assigned to hear their case. . . . [D]ifferences in judge denial rates have significantly increased during the last six years.”263 Statistically significant factors include the gender of the immigration judge (women generally have lower denial rates),264 whether the adjudica257. See, e.g., American Immigration Lawyers Association Minnesota/Dakotas chapter, http:// According to the Minnesota State Bar Association (MSBA), there were 195 active members of the Immigration section of the MSBA as of June 30, 2016 . MSBA Immigration Law Section 2015-16 Annual Report, Minnesota State Bar Assoc. (June 30, 2016 ), tion/publications#.WGfbAYFOJR4. 258. AHR, ILCM, MMLA, SMLRS, AILA, law clinics. 259. CENTER FOR VICTIMS OF TORTURE, (last visited Aug. 2, 2016) . 260. COMMUNITY-UNIVERSITY HEALTH CARE CENTER, (last visited Aug. 2, 2016) . 261. UNIV. OF ST. THOMAS INTERPROFESSIONAL CENTER FOR COUNSELING & LEGAL SERVICES, (last visited Aug. 2, 2016) . 262. See generally ANDREW I. SCHOENHOLTZ, PHILIP G. SCHRAG & JAYA RAMJI-NOGALES, LIVES IN THE BALANCE : ASYLUM ADJUDICATION BY THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (2014); JAYA RAMJI-NOGALES, ANDREW I. SCHOENHOLTZ & PHILIP G. SCHRAG, REFUGEE ROULETTE : DISPARITIES IN ASYLUM ADJUDICATION AND PROPOSALS FOR REFORM (2009 ). 263. TRAC IMMIGRATION, ASYLUM OUTCOME INCREASINGLY DEPENDS ON JUDGE ASSIGNED (Dec. 2, 2016) , 264. RAMJI-NOGALES ET AL., supra note 262, at 47. Curiously, the gender of asylum officers apparently does not make a difference. Id. This may be due to the fact that, unlike for immigration judges, all asylum officer decisions must be approved by both an immediate supervisor and the director of the particular asylum office in question. 2017] IMMIGRATION AND SANCTUARY IN MINNESOTA tor worked for a non-governmental organization (which tends to lead to lower denial rates),265 whether the adjudicator has worked for the government (which tends to lead to significantly higher denial rates amongst immigration judges but not amongst asylum officers),266 and how long they have been on the job (the longer on the job, the higher the denial rate for judges, but the lower for asylum officers).267 a. Minnesota Immigration Judges Have Some of the Highest Asylum Denial Rates in the Country. Since 2001, the Bloomington Immigration Court, which covers Minnesota and the Dakotas, has had two or three sitting immigration judges at any given time. These judges have granted asylum at rates considerably below the national average, for a variety of reasons. Judge Susan Conley de Castro of the Bloomington Immigration Court both defies and falls in line with the national characteristics. Like most judges, she has come to deny a higher percentage of cases over time. Prior to becoming a judge, she worked as an attorney for the former INS (the predecessor of ICE) (which generally leads to a higher denial rate), as well as for legal aid organizations, including one that advocated for the rights of immigrants in Minnesota (a characteristic which generally leads to a lower denial rate).268 Compared to Judge Castro’s denial rate of 75.6% from 2009–2014, “nationally during this same period, immigration court judges denied 48.5% of asylum claims. In the Bloomington Immigration Court where Judge Conley de Castro was based, judges there denied asylum 79.4% of the time.”269 Prior to taking over as chief judge in Minnesota, Judge Castro served in San Antonio, Texas. While in San Antonio, Judge Castro had the second highest denial rate in that court of five judges (64%), well-above the national average of 53% during that time period.270 UNIVERSITY OF ST. THOMAS LAW JOURNAL Differences between adjudicators in the same locale reviewing similar populations can be significant. Between 2000 and 2005, Judge Kristin W. Olmanson of the Bloomington court had an asylum denial rate of 77.1%, ranking her fifty-sixth of 208 judges nationally. Judge Joseph R. Dierkes, on the other hand, from the same court, had a 63.9%, placing him 109th nationally.271 In subsequent years up until Judge Dierkes retired (and was replaced by Judge Castro), the denial rate differences between the two judges narrowed somewhat, but still remained significant.272 Prior to becoming an immigration judge, Dierkes practiced both as a private attorney representing immigrants in Missouri and as an attorney for the INS.273 Judge Olmanson had an asylum denial rate and ranking (74.9% and sixtyninth of 270 judges)274 quite similar to th at of Judge Castro for the 2009 –2014 time period while both served in Bloomington. Judge Olmanson spent her entire career in government service prior to judicial service, either as an immigration prosecutor with INS or as an assistant county attorney. She also attended college (Gustavus Adolphus) and law school (William Mitchell) in Minnesota.275 The particular docket being seen by a judge can make a difference in asylum denial rates. Judges that see primarily persons in immigration detention are more likely to deny asylum simply because there is a higher likelihood that an asylum seeker also has criminal convictions that would bar them from asylum (although not necessarily Withholding of Removal or Convention Against Torture relief). In 2008, the Bloomington Court acquired a long needed third immigration judge in William Nickerson. Prior to coming to Minnesota, Judge Nickerson had an asylum denial rate of 81.6% from 2004–2006 at the Lancaster, California Immigration Court. From 2008–2010, his denial rate in Minnesota was 78.1%.276 Judge NickerTION COURT BEFORE AND AFTER THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S DIRECTIVE, immigration/reports/209/include/denialrates.html (last visited July 9, 2016) . 271. TRAC IMMIGRATION, ASYLUM DENIAL RATES BY IMMIGRATION JUDGE FY 2000–FY 2005, (last visited July 9, 2016) . 272. TRAC IMMIGRATION, JUDGE-BY-JUDGE ASYLUM DECISIONS IN IMMIGRATION COURT BEFORE AND AFTER THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S DIRECTIVE, reports/209/include/denialrates.html (last visited July 9, 2016) . Judge Olmanson’s denial rate from 2004 to 2006 was 75.9% and Judge Dierkes’ was 69.4%; their respective denial rates from 2007 to 2009 were 75.4% and 70.7%. Id. 273. TRAC IMMIGRATION, JUDGE JOSEPH R. DIERKES FY 2005–FY 2010, immigration/reports/judge2010/00013BLM/index.html (last visited Dec. 31, 2016) . 274. TRAC IMMIGRATION, IMMIGRATION JUDGE REPORTS—ASYLUM, JUDGE KRISTIN W. OLM ANSON, FY 2009 –FY 2014, BLOOMINGTON IMMIGRATION COURT, migration/reports/judge2014/00014BLM/index.html (last visited July 9, 2016) . 275. TRAC IMMIGRATION, IMMIGRATION JUDGE REPORTS—ASYLUM, JUDGE KRISTIN W. OLMANSON, FY 2011–2016 , BLOOMINGTON IMMIGRATION COURT, reports/judgereports/00014BLM/index.html (last visited Dec. 31, 2016) . 276. The Lancaster Court was located in a detention facility. Executive Office for Immigration Review to Close Lancaster Immigration Court, EXEC. OFF. FOR IMM. DEP’T OF JUSTICE (Oct. 29, 2012), 2017] IMMIGRATION AND SANCTUARY IN MINNESOTA son reportedly asked to do nothing but detained cases. His asylum denial rate from 2011–2016 skyrocketed to 97.4% and placed him as one of the highest deniers of asylum in the country (eleventh of 268) and can be explained, perhaps, due to the nature of his docket. Judge Nickerson’s past likely also contributed to his high denial rates.277 After perhaps two years informing the local bar of his eminent retirement, Judge Nickerson made true o n his promise in March 2016 .278 Rumors at the time of writing of this piece strongly suggest that he will be replaced by a local member of the ICE Office of Chief Counsel. While no doubt an honorable individual in his or her own right, such an appointment continues a disturbing nation-wide trend of the EOIR appointing almost exclusively former prosecutors of the Office of Chief Counsel to be immigration judges. Reports are also that additional judges will be appointed to the Bloomington Court. Rese archers found in 2009 that “work experience in an enforcement capacity with the former Immigration and Naturalization Service or the current Department of Homeland Security made judges less likely to grant asylum.”279 Judges without such experience granted asylum at a rate of 48.2%, while judges with one to five years’ experience granted at a rate of 42.5%. Judges with eleven or more years of immigration enforcement experience granted asylum at a rate of only 31.2%.280 From Novem ber 2015 to Ju ne 2016 , EOIR swore in twenty-eight new immigration judges. Twenty-two of the judges had worked in federal immigration enforcement (primarily with ICE or INS, but also with Customs and Border Patrol) for between six and twenty-three years (for an average of thirteen years). Three others had served as assistant U.S. attorneys (for an average of twenty-one years). Of the remaining three, one worked in the Marine Corps primarily as a judge, one for the Civil Rights division of U.S. DOJ, and one for Legal Services.281 Can justice be served when former prosecutors are primarily selected to be immigration judges? UNIVERSITY OF ST. THOMAS LAW JOURNAL b. Immigrants Chances for Asylum Success are Low in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals The Bloomington Immigration Court sits in one of the most difficult federal circuits in which to win asylum, the Eighth Circuit. Twelve of sixteen active sitting judges (both in regular and senior status) were appointed by Republican presidents.282 Professor Ben Casper analyzed all 642 immigration decisions issued by the Eighth Circuit from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2015. 432 of those decisions (67%) involved asylum claims. The court granted relief to the non-citizen petitioner (including remand) in only 9% of the cases.283 These findings are in line with the national study on asylum grant rates by Professors Schoenholtz, Schrag, and Ramji-Nogales. The Eighth Circuit covers fifteen states, the largest geographical area of any federal circuits.284 The Chicago Asylum Office, Which Serves Minnesota, has a Relatively High Denial Rate The Chicago Asylum Office, whose jurisdiction includes Minnesota, granted asylum at a rate of 38.3% in a period studied in 2015. The highest approval rate of the nation’s eight asylum offices was found in San Francisco (76.5%) and the lowest in Houston (27.5%) and New York (22.6%).285 These grant rates largely paralleled the grant rate of 37% found by researchers for the period from 1996–2009, putting it at the fifth lowest grant rate.286 Schoenholtz and his colleagues also analyzed grant rates by taking into account applicants from countries with more abusive and less abusive human rights records to account for regional differences in caseloads. For countries determined to be “less abusive,” the Chicago office had the second lowest grant rate (29%), and for the “most abusive” countries, the fourth highest grant rate (52%).287 2017] IMMIGRATION AND SANCTUARY IN MINNESOTA These researchers also looked at the success rates for applicants from the same countries across different asylum offices, settling on applicants from Cameroon, Columbia, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Russia, and Somalia. It considered offices where there had been at least 500 decisions. The Chicago office therefore was compared to other asylum offices for four of those countries. For Cameroon applicants, Chicago had the highest grant rate (56%) of the four offices with sufficient volume. The lowest grant rate was in Houston (40%). For Ethiopian applicants, Chicago had nearly the lowest grant rate (58%) of the five offices with sufficient volume. The lowest grant rate was in Houston (57%). The highest grant rate was in San Francisco (81%). For Somali applicants, Chicago had the lowest grant rate (34%) of the five offices with sufficient volume. The grant rate in Houston was next lowest (40%). The highest grant rate was in San Francisco (89%), with Arlington at 70% and Los Angeles having 73% grant rates. For Russian applicants, Chicago again had nearly the lowest grant rate (32%) of the five offices with sufficient volume. The lowest grant rate was in New York (28%). The highest grant rate was in San Francisco (65%).288 Why the disparities? Qualitative interviews with asylum officers pointed to differences in office cultures and different controlling precedent in federal circuit courts. One asylum officer, not from Chicago, said “I have the perception that Chicago is a conservative office.” Supervisory approaches and the influence of the office director affect outcomes. Also discussed were patterns of fraud, without identifying which offices were most affected.289 Whether an applicant was represented made a big difference in Chicago—with an attorney, chances of success were 42%; without a lawyer, the chances sank to 32%. The Chicago office’s large differential between represented and unrepresented individuals compared to other offices suggests that perhaps the quality of attorneys in the area is relatively high.290 What does immigration federalism look like in Minnesota? Are we a state of hospitality and welcome? As this article has laid out in considerable detail, those questions are not easily answered, but some patterns emerge. Minnesotans have largely embraced a welcome of refugees and asylees through civil society organizations and state level policies. Gaining asylum through the immigration courts and the Chicago Asylum Office is more difficult than most other places in the country, but asylum seekers do have a variety of civil society resources upon which to draw in their search for safety. 288. Id. at 147–51. 289. Id. at 152–55. 290. Id. at 161. UNIVERSITY OF ST. THOMAS LAW JOURNAL National trends and policies definitely affect the immigration climate in Minnesota, but forces were so evenly balanced that often efforts at progressive reform or restriction were stymied. Over the course of the fifteen years under examination, Minnesota neither saw the arrival of Californialevel welcome to immigrants nor Arizona-style comprehensive restrictionist legislation at the state level. In-state tuition at the state level for some unauthorized immigrants passed, but the concerted effort to reinstate drivers’ licenses for all Minnesota reside nts fell just short as of 2016 . The interplay between local law enforcement actions and immigration detainers documented in other parts of the country played out in Minnesota—the lack of drivers licenses combined with federal immigration detainers led to removals. Restrictionist efforts to broaden E-Verify and to punish “Sanctuary” cities fell short as well. And while the state voted for Hillary Cli nton in the 2016 presidential election, the outcome was narrower than predicted and Donald Trump emphasized refugees as a source of terrorism on his last visit to the state in the waning days of the campaign. While Minnesota might be seen nationally as a liberal state that provides social benefits attractive to immigrants of all stripes, the reality is more nuanced as the push and pull between largely Republican restrictionists based in rural and suburban districts and largely Democratic proponents of greater welcome from urban areas do legislative battle at the state House over issues like drivers’ licenses, sanctuary cities, and E-Verify. Individuals in leadership matter at all levels. Elected executives in particular make a big difference. Stalemate by deliberative bodies can lead to more aggressive actions by persons elected to executive positions like president, governor, sheriff, and mayor. At the federal level, executive branch decisions on immigration removal priorities mattered a great deal to the daily lives of Minnesotans in the absence of legislative action (such as whether to enforce immigration laws through raids targeting unauthorized employees for removal, by focusing on employer compliance with work authorization documentation, or by exercising discretion aggressively to provide work permits through deferred action on a large). At the state level, gubernatorial executive actions have an impact. For instance, the decision by Governor Pawlenty to require proof of lawful immigration status to acquire a driver’s license has had a ripple effect on individual lives and state politics for years. While Governor Dayton arguably has the power to reverse that decision, the drivers’ license issue has largely moved to the legislature for resolution. The governor also has the veto threat, which has been used to stop both immigrant friendly and restrictionist legislation over the past decade. Elected sheriffs make a big impact at the intersection of local law enforcement and federal immigration enforcement as they decide whether or not to honor civil immigration detainers. The sheriffs of the two largest counties in the state opposed immigration detainers in 2014, but found few sheriffs in Greater Minnesota willing to follow their lead. May2017] IMMIGRATION AND SANCTUARY IN MINNESOTA ors also can provide push back, with the support of city councils, against federal policies by supporting ordinances and service provision that seek to disentangle local policies from federal enforcement. 2017 promises to be a year of change at the executive level. President Trump will assume office at the end of January. Mark Dayton announced he would not run for reelection as governor. Democratic mayor of St. Paul Chris Coleman announced plans to ru n for governor in December 2016 , and immigration restrictionist Hennepin County Sheriff Rich Stanek was seen as considering a run for the same office. Ramsey County Sheriff Matt Bostrom resigned to pursue an academic career, and Minneapolis Mayor Betsy Hodges faces reelection in 2017. Executive branch initiatives are not unfettered. At the national level, both immigrant friendly Deferred Action for Parental Accountability (DAPA) and immigration enforcement focused detainers ran into trouble in litigation in federal courts. Executive action can be undone by the next election as well. Matt Bostrom’s election over long-time Ramsey County Sheriff Bob Fletcher disrupted a closer relationship between ICE and the county. Efforts by civil society groups such as the ACLU to change detainer policy affected actions by sheriffs around the state. Actions by Minneapolis and St. Paul to pass “Don’t Tell” separation ordinances, while not going as far as other ordinances around the country, made federal and state efforts to restrict those policies less likely to succeed. As this article goes to press, there is a sense that immigration federalism is about to enter a new era in the nation and in Minnesota. Republicans with a restrictionist bent inhabit the White House and control both houses of Congress. Republicans with concern over unauthorized immigrants and refugees seen as a threat to national security have taken control again of both houses of the Minnesota legislature, and the governor’s office will soon be an open seat. The divide between urban welcome and rural/suburban caution (and even outrage) seems to have grown. At the same time, the election of Donald Trump seems to have energized the integrationist element within the state, with calls for Sanctuary campuses, Sanctuary churches, and Sanctuary cities growing louder (while facing efforts to shut those efforts down). Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 639 2 . Tim Pugmire , Much at stake, Minnesota immigrants keep close eye on presidential elec- tion Politics , MPR NEWS (Oct. 19 , 2016 ), immigrants-watch-election-closely. 3 . Michael Davidson , Sanctuary: A Modern Legal Anachronism 42 CAP . U. L. REV. 583 , 585- 86 ( 2014 ). 4. Id. at 594- 608 . 5. Rose Cuison Villazor , What Is a “Sanctuary”?, 61 SMU L. REV. 133 , 135 - 38 ( 2008 ). 6. Quoted in Miller v . United States , 357 U.S. 301 , 307 ( 1958 ) and cited to in Jordan C. Inviolate Home , 85 IND. L.J. 355 , 360 - 61 ( 2010 ). 7. See, e.g., Budd, supra note 6 (recounting “the long and robust history of our right to in the Fourth Amendment , 95 CORNELL L. REV. 905 ( 2010 ) (arguing for restrictions on the estab- lished notion of the home as an inviolate space and citing cases and articles to the contrary). 8 . David A. Super , A New New Property, 113 COLUMBIA L. REV. 1773 , 1803 - 06 ( 2013 ). 9. Dan Hernandez , Tom Dart & Jessica Glenza, 'Fear Overrides Everything': Immigrants Desperate for Reassurance after ICE Raids , GUARDIAN (Jan. 6 , 2016 , 8 :22 AM), https://www 2016 /jan/06/ice-raids -immigrant-families-deportation-fear (“Agents ar- rived at the Morales home around 4:30 am on Saturday. The knocking was so loud, it rattled the windows in the house and it seemed like the agents would break down the door . ”). 10. Reporter Mila Koumpilova of the Minneapolis Star Tribune tweeted on January 7 , 2016 America; @ICEgov says that operation is now over .” @MilaKoumpilova, TWITTER (Jan. 7 , 2016 , 1 : 51 AM ), 11. E-mail from Elizabeth Streefland to AILA MN-DAK listserv , Re: [mn-dakotas] ICE workplace raids (Jan. 7 , 2016 , 12 :45 PM CST ) (on file with author ). 12 . See , e.g., E-mail from Shiu-Ming Cheer , Nat'l Immig . L. Ctr, RE: Immigration Raids Alert : Information and Resources to Virgil Wiebe (Jan. 6 , 2016 , 2 :00 PM CST ) (on file with author); ACLU, What To Do If You're Stopped By Police, Immigration Agents or the FBI ( 2015 ),; ACLU, Que´ Debe Hacer Si la Polic´ıa, Agentes de In- migracio´n o el FBI Lo Detienen ( 2015 ), 13. E-mail from Elizabeth Streefland to Virgil Wiebe, Re: [mn-dakotas] ICE workplace raids (Mar. 26 , 2016 10:49 AM CST ) (on file with author ). 14 . “ Police officers executing a search warrant at a house need no independent reasonable it does not prolong the detention . ” 3B AM. JUR. 2D ALIENS AND CITIZENS § 1854 ( 2016 ) (citing Muehler v . Mena , 544 U.S. 93 ( 2005 )). 15 . 3B AM. JUR. 2D ALIENS AND CITIZENS § 1854 ( 2016 ) (citing U.S. v . Troop, 514 F. 3d 405 (5th Cir . 2008 ); U.S. v. Gonzales-Barera, 288 F. Supp . 2d 1041 (D. Ariz . 2003 )). 16 . Shannon Prather , Willmar, Minn./Immigration Raids, Arrests Trigger Lawsuit, ST. PAUL PIONEER PRESS (Apr. 19 , 2007 ), 2007 /04/19/willmar-minn-immigra tion-raids-arrests-trigger-lawsuit/ . 30. Charles P. Lutz , Spying in the Churches: The State v . the First Amendment , 108 THE CHRISTIAN CENTURY 650 , 650 - 53 ( 1991 ). 31 . Gavin R. Betzelberger , Off the Beaten Track, On the Overground Railroad: Central American Refugees and the Organizations that Helped Them 11 LEGACY 17 , 23 - 25 ( 2011 ), http://; see also Nadine Epstein, Refugees Find Sanctuary in Ca- MONITOR (Dec. 30 , 1986 ), 1986 /1230/arail.html. 32 . deFiebre, Churches are Refugee Stops on Overground Railroad , supra note 29; Hopfen- sperger , Sanctuary Movement, supra note 29 . 33. Pat Prince , “Overground” Railroad Tries to Stay Above Board, STAR TRIB. (Minn.) , 01 - A (May 10 , 1988 ). 34 . Joe Gandelman , Latin Americans Seeking U.S. Asylum Tell of Dangers, Fears, SAN DI- EGO UNION-TRIBUNE , A-7 (Jan. 25 , 1985 ). 35 . Hopfensperger , Sanctuary Movement, supra note 29 . 36. Id . 37 . Paul McEnroe , Twin Cities Spying Involved Churches, Fundraising, STAR TRIB . (Minn .), 10- A ( Jan . 28, 1988 ); Philip Shenon, FBI Spying is Rife, Agency Made List of Enemy Groups, N.Y. TIMES , 1 -A (Jan . 28, 1988 ). 38 . Mary Benanti , Sanctuary's Changing Role , USA TODAY (Dec. 14 , 1989 ); Jean Hopfen- (Minn.) , 01 - A ( Dec . 29, 1990 ). 39 . Puck Lo, Inside the New Sanctuary Movement That's Protecting Immigrants from ICE, THE NATION (May 6 , 2015 ), https://www.thenation. com/article/inside-new-sanctuary-movement- thats-protecting-immigrants-ice/ . 40. “ ICE spokesman Tim Counts reiterated the agency's stance on the matter , via e-mail: Emerging Among Churches Near and Far, TWIN CITIES DAILY PLANET (Aug. 6 , 2008 ), http:// 41. ROBBINSDALE (MN) UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST, ROBBINSDALE UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST IS A SANCTUARY CONGREGATION (Mar . 1, 2016 ), 2016 /03/01/ we-are-a-sanctuary-congregation/ . 42. Hot Topics Cool Talk-Immigration Reform : Economic and Pastoral Perspectives , UNIV. OF ST. THOMAS (Mar 19 , 2016 ), xI7F9GZwL8M (see particu- larly the first fifteen minutes) . 43 . Id . (starting at minute forty-two). The pastor also happens to be a police chaplain . Id. 44. Id . 45 . Perla & Bibler, supra note 28, at 16 . 46. Id . 47 . Juventino Meza , Undocumented students and allies organize in Minnesota, TWIN CITIES DAILY PLANET (Jan. 16 , 2013 ), http://www.tcdailyplanet. net/our-story-undocumented-students- and-allies- organize-minnesota/. 48. Cleo Greene , Minnesota Church Leaders Vow to Protect Immigrants Seeking Refuge, KSTP (Dec. 06 , 2016 , 12 :05 PM), -announce-sanctuary-for- undocumented-immigrants/4336488/. 49. Frederick Melo , 13 Minnesota Churches Eye 'Underground Railroad' for Those Facing Deportation , ST. PAUL PIONEER PRESS (Dec. 6 , 2016 , 5 :41 PM, updated Dec. 7 , 2016 , 2 :41 PM), 2016 /12/06/st-paul -mn-churches-immigrant-sanctuaries-deportation/ . 50. Id . 51 . Memorandum from John Morton, Director, U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, Enforcement Actions at or Focused on Sensitive Locations , Policy Number: 10029 .2 ( Oct . 24 , 2011 ), -policy . pdf. 52 . 8 U.S.C. § 1324 ( 2016 ). 53 . Gregory A. Loken & Lisa R. Babino , Harboring, Sanctuary and the Crime of Charity under Federal Immigration Law , 28 HARV. C.R.-C.L. L. REV . 119 , 119 - 22 , ( 1993 ) (citing U.S. v . Aguilar , 883 F.2d 662 ( 9th Cir . 1989 ), cert. denied, 111 S. Ct . 751 ( 1991 ) ) . Sanctuary workers in Texas also faced prosecution and conviction . Id. at 129-31 , n. 51 (citing U.S. v. Merkt, 764 F.2d 266 ( 5th Cir . 1985 ) (Merkt I)); U.S. v . Merkt, 794 F.2d 950 ( 5th Cir . 1986 ) (Merkt II), cert . denied, 480 U.S. 946 ( 1987 ); U.S. v. Elder, 601 F. Supp . 1574 (S.D. Tex . 1985 ). 54 . Sanctuary Not Deportation: A Faithful Witness to Building Welcoming Communities, n.d., (last visited Nov . 21 , 2016 ). 55. U.S. v. Acosta de Evans, 531 F.2d 428 ( 9th Cir .), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 836 ( 1976 ). 56. U.S. v. Lopez, 521 F.2d 437 , 440 ( 2d Cir . 1975 ), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 995 ( 1975 ). 57. U.S. v. Cantu, 557 F.2d 1173 , 1180 ( 5th Cir . 1977 ), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1063 ( 1978 ). 58. U.S. v. Vargas-Cordon, 733 F.3d 366 , 382 ( 2d Cir . 2013 ). 59 . In U.S. v. Belevin-Ramales, 458 F. Supp . 2d 409 , 410 - 11 ( E.D. Ky . 2006 ), the court aliens” (by stating that Susnjar v . U.S., 27 F.2d 223 ( 6th Cir . 1928 ) had not been “abrogated or implicitly overruled.”) . In U.S. v. Costello, 666 F.3d 1040 , 1047 ( 7th Cir . 2012 ), the court held 1048. 60 . The University of St. Thomas “Dream Act” (Feb. 2006 ) (on file with author ). 61 . Alex Skjong , Undocumented Students Admitted to St. Thomas, THE AQUIN , 1 - 2 ( Apr . 25, 2008). 67. Memorandum from John Morton, supra note 51 . 68. Russell Contreras & Sophia Tareen , Universities Exploring 'Sanctuary' Status for Immi- grants , ABC NEWS , ( Dec 3 , 2016 , 2 :40 PM), exploring-sanctuary- status- immigrants- 43950046 . 69 . Swarthmore Board Pledges Sanctuary for Undocumented Students , All Community Mem- bers , SWARTHMORE COLLEGE NEWS & EVENTS (Dec. 2 , 2016 ), events/swarthmore-board-pledges-sanctuary-undocumented-students-all-community-members. 70 . Elizabeth M. McCormick , Federal Anti-Sanctuary Law : A Failed Approach to Immigra- tion Reform and a Poor Substitute for Real Reform, 20 LEWIS & CLARK L. REV . 165 , 214 ( 2016 ), lcb201art4mccormick .pdf. 71. Statement in Support of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) Program .edu/news/2016/11/21-college-university -presidents-call-us-uphold-and-continue-daca (last visited Dec. 12 , 2016 ) (listing 553 colleges and universities as of December 12, 2016 ). 72 . Id . (Augsburg College, Bethel University, Carleton College, St. Catherine University, St. lege , Minnesota State University Moorhead, and Winona State University). 73 . Press Release, Ass'n of Catholic Colls. and Univs., A Statement from Leaders in Catho- lic Higher Education (Nov. 30 , 2016 ), DACA-11-30-16.pdf. 74 . David Clarey, Petition circulating U calls for “sanctuary campus”, MINN. DAILY (Nov . 21, 2016 , 9 :28 AM), -make-u-sanctuary- campus. 75. See Tom Steward, Universities Face Loss of Funding Over Sanctuary Campuses , CTR. FOR THE AMERICAN EXPERIMENT (Dec. 8 , 2016 ), 2016 /12/ universities-face-loss-funding-sanctuary-campuses/ . 76. Id . 77 . McCormick , Federal Anti-Sanctuary Law , supra note 70, at 229 (citation omitted) . 78 . Id. at 229. “ On the other hand, states and municipalities may not . . . place restrictions on striction is part of a broader policy to protect confidential information from disclosure . ” Id. at 230 (citation omitted) . 79. Id. at 230. 80. Id. 81. Id. at 230-31 (citation omitted) . 82 . See MINNEAPOLIS , MINN., CODE OF ORDINANCES tit. 2 , ch. 19 ( 2017 ) (effective July 11, 2003 ). 83 . See ST . PAUL, MINN., CODE OF ORDINANCES pt. III, tit . III, ch . 44 ( 2017 ) (effective May 5, 2004 ); see also St. Paul passes 'INS separation' ordinance, WORKDAY MINN ., (Apr. 28 , 2004 ), -passes-ins-separation-ordinance. 84. ST . PAUL, ORDINANCES § 44 . 02(a)(1). 85 . MINNEAPOLIS, ORDINANCES § 19 . 30(a)(2); ST . PAUL, ORDINANCES § 44 . 03(a)(2 ). 185. Rachel E. Stassen-Berger , Licenses Tied to Visas Not An Issue, ST . PAUL PIONEER PRESS, Sept. 8 , 2003 , at B1. 186. Id . So far, more than 1800 people with status-check licenses have approached their can- cellation date . Of those, 653 people have proved they have extended or have applied to extend their visas and received extensions on their Minnesota driver's licenses as well . Id . 187. H.F. 1718 , 2009 - 2010 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Minn . 2009 ), bill.php?view=chrono&f=HF1718&y=2009&ssn=0&b=house. 188. HOUSE RESEARCH BILL SUMMARY, DRIVER'S LICENSE REQUIREMENTS , H.F. 09 - 3052 , at 5385 ( Minn . 2010 ), 189. H.F. 1718 , supra note 187. 190. Ruthie Hendrycks , Minnesota Fighting to Stop Drivers Licenses for Illegal Immigrants, THE PPJ GAZETTE (Mar. 20 , 2010 ), 2010 /03/20/minnesota-fighting -to-stop-driv ers-licenses-for-illegal-immigrants/ . 191. Joseph A. Ritter & David Bael , Detecting Racial Profiling in Minneapolis Traffic Stops: A New Approach , CURA REPORTER 11 , 15 ( 2009 ), 2 - Ritter-Bael . pdf. This [veil of darkness] method, developed by Grogger and Ridgeway, compares the stop rates for nonwhite drivers during daylight and darkness using only stops that occur at times of day when it is light at some times of the year and dark at other times. The new approach avoids statistical problems that have plagued the study of racial profiling. Our results point strongly to the presence of racial profiling in Minneapolis. Id. at 16- 17 . 192 . Press Release, ACLU, 23 States Push Back Against Unfunded Mandate To Create Na- tional ID (May 18 , 2009 ), -rejects-real-id-act- 2005 . 193. Catharine Richert , How the DFL and its Allies Engineered a Takeover of the Legislature, MPR NEWS (Nov. 20 , 2012 ), better-minnesota-dfl-legislature-takeover . 194 . Lisa Peterson-de la Cueva, Immigrant Driver's License Bill Passes MN Senate , Goes to MN House , TC DAILY PLANET (May 19 , 2013 ), passes-mn-senate- goes- mn-house/; S.F. 271 , 88th Leg., Reg.Sess. (Minn . 2013 ), https://www.revi Senate&f=SF271&ssn=0 &y= 2013 . 195. H.F. 348 , 88th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Minn . 2013 ), b=House&f=HF348&ssn=0 &y= 2013 . 196. Id . The Republican Representatives were Rod Hamilton of Mountain Lake , Bob Gunther of Fairmount, Kelby Woodard of Belle Plaine, and Mike Beard of Shakopee. Id. 197 . REPRESENTATIVE ROD HAMILTON (R) DISTRICT : 22B, MINN . HOUSE OF REPRESENTA- TIVES , ?leg_id=12264 (last visited July 30, 2016 ). 198 . Kyle Potter , Bill Easing Drivers License Restrictions for Illegal Immigrants Clears Sen- ate Committee , MPR NEWS (May 19 , 2013 ), minn-licenses-illegal-immigrants. 199. John Croman, Immigrants Stage Hunger Strike Over Driver's Licenses , USA TODAY (May 14 , 2013 , 6 :29 PM), hunger-strike/2159419/. 200. Brad Sigal , Immigrant Struggle for Drivers Licenses Heats Up in Minnesota, FIGHTBACK!NEWS (Mar. 18 , 2014 ), 2014 /3/18/immigrant-struggle- ing Right to a Drivers License, FIGHTBACK!NEWS (Mar . 27, 2014 ), http://www.fightbacknews .org/ 2014 /3/27/hundreds-immigrants -rally-capitol-demanding-right-drivers- license. 201. Id. 202. Id . 203. Thomas Freeman et al., Minnesota Legislative Update: 2014 Minnesota Election Recap, Faegre Baker Daniels (Nov. 6 , 2014 ), = 22233 . 204. Peter Cox , Advocates to Push Immigrant Driver's License Bill in Special Session , MPR NEWS (May 26 , 2015 ), 205 . Melissa Colorado , Undocumented and Driving: The Debate over Licenses for All, KARE 11 NEWS (Minn.) ( May 1 , 2015 , 7 :49 AM), documented- and-driving/26691711/; Mila Koumpilova, Drive for Immigrant Licenses Picks Up in Minnesota , STAR TRIB. (Minn.) (Mar. 12 , 2015 , 10 :31 AM), immigrant-driver-s-licenses-picks- up- in-minnesota/296006481/; Doug Grow, Supporters of Immi- grant Driver's Licenses Wait on Fate of Transportation Bill Provision , MINNPOST (May 15 , 2015 ), 2015 /05/supporters-immigrant -drivers-licenses- mented Immigrants Access to Driver's Licenses, WEST CENT . TRIB. (Minn.) (Mar. 2 , 2015 , 6 : 28 AM) , -officials-support-granting-undocumen ted-immigrants-access-drivers-licenses . 206. Peter Cox , Advocates to Push Immigrant Driver's License Bill , supra note 204 . 207. Jared Goyette , Bill to Allow Undocumented Immigrants to Obtain Driver's Licenses Hits Roadblock in the House , MINNPOST (Mar. 26 , 2015 ), sketchbook/ 2015 /03/bill-allow -undocumented-immigrants-obtain-drivers-licenses-hits- roadblo. 208. Brenda Gazzar , 605 ,000 Undocumented Immigrants Received Driver's Licenses Last Year , L.A. DAILY NEWS ( Jan . 26, 2016 , 10 :22 PM), 20160126 /605000-undocumented -immigrants-received-drivers-licenses-last-year. 209. State Laws Providing Access to Driver's Licenses or Cards, Regardless of Immigration Status , NAT'L IMMIGR. LAW CTR ( June 2016 ), drivers-license-access-table . pdf. 210 . Abby Simons , REAL ID Worries For Minnesota Driver's Licenses About to Get Real, STAR TRIB. (Minn.) (Sept. 27 , 2015 ), http://www.startribune. com/real-id-issues-are-about-to-get- real- for-minnesotans/329655171/. 211. SECOND ENGROSSMENT B. SUMMARY , S.F. 244 , 89th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Minn . 2015 ), = 3062 . 212. It should be noted that SF 271 from the 2013-14 session had similar provisions , but support from the governor was lacking . S.F. 271 , 2013 Sen., Reg. Sess. (Minn . 2009 ). 216. State v. Pike , 551 N.W.2d 919 , 922 (Minn. 1996 ). 217 . See generally Walsh, supra note 165; Ritter & Bael, supra note 191 . 218. Feist et al., Racial Profiling in Greater Minnesota, supra note 98, at 104-105 . 219 . Randy Furst , Payouts Reveal Brutal, Rogue Metro Gang Strike Force, STAR TRIB. (Minn.) (Aug. 5 , 2012 , 5 :15 PM), http://www.startribune. com/payouts-reveal-brutal-rogue-metro- gang-strike-force/165028086/. 220. Report of the Metro Gang Strike Force Review Panel , 22 - 23 (Aug. 20, 2009 ), https:// pdf. 221. Id. at 11 . 226. Virgil Wiebe , The Immigration Hotel, 68 RUTGERS L. REV . 1673 , 1720 - 27 ( 2016 ), https:/ / 2528343 . 227. See , e.g., Mark Steil, Fear and Uncertainty in Worthington Follow Immigration Raid, MPR NEWS (Dec. 13 , 2006 ), 228. Comprehensive Immigration Reform, THE WHITE HOUSE , http://georgewbush- (last visited Aug. 2 , 2016 ); Bush's Speech on Immi- gration , N.Y. TIMES (May 15 , 2006 ), 2006 /05/15/washington/15text- TALKING POINTS MEMO (Sept. 4 , 2015 , 6 :00 AM), ministration-courting-latinos. 229 . Comprehensive Immigration Reform, supra note 228; J.B. Wogan , Border is More Se- cure , But Not to Everyone's Satisfaction, POLITIFACT (Aug. 31 , 2012 , 5 :32 PM), http://www.politi 237. Reena Flores , What can Obama do to help protect DREAMers from Donald Trump?, CBS NEWS (Dec. 8 , 2016 , 6 :00 AM), - daca-pro ents , LAW 360 ( Dec . 9, 2016 , 7 :55 PM), duce-bridge-act-to-protect-daca-recipients. 238. Allison Sherry, Minnesota Among Top States for Refugee Resttlement, STAR TRIB . (Minn.) (Sept. 2 , 2016 , 7 :24 AM), 239. Resettlement Programs Office , Minn. Dep't of Human Services, .us/ (last visited Dec . 31 , 2016 ); Minn. Dep't of Human Services, Refugee Assistance, http://mn .gov/dhs/people-we-serve/adults/services/refugee-assistance. 240 . Mila Koumpilova , Amid Affordable Housing Shortage, Minnesota Plans to Keep Refugee Arrivals Level , STAR TRIB. (Minn.) (Nov. 21 , 2016 , 6 :15 AM), 241. Jennifer Yau , The Foreign-Born Hmong in the United States , MIGRATION POL'Y INST. (Jan. 1 , 2005 ), -hmong-united-states. 247. Officer, Suspect ID'd in Crossroads Stabbings, ST . CLOUD TIMES (Sept. 17 , 2016 ; up - dated Sept . 19 , 2016 , 6 :28 AM), several-hurt-crossroads-center-incident/90607870. The FBI later concluded that the suspect was at Cloud Mall Attacker , FBI Says, ST. PAUL PIONEER PRESS (Sept. 28 , 2016 , 3 :04 PM; updated 6 : 54 PM) , 2016 /09/28/st-cloud -mn-mall-attack-fbi-extremism-extremism- james-comey. 248 . Stephanie Dickerell , Amid St . Cloud's Cultural Tension Relationships Improve , ST. CLOUD TIMES (Oct. 6 , 2016 , 11 :29 AM), amid-st-clouds-cultural-tension-relationships/ improve/91660194 . 249. Alexia Hernandez Campbell, America's Real Refugee Problem, THE ATLANTIC (Oct . 24 , 2016 ), 250. Jill Barreto , Border War: The Resettlement of Syrian Refugees in a Divided United States , May 2016 , unpublished (on file with author ). 251 . David Montgomery & Rachel E. Stassenberger, Mark Dayton Won't Oppose Syrian Ref- ugees in Minnesota, ST . PAUL PIONEER PRESS (Nov. 15 , 2015 , 11 :01 PM; updated Dec. 17 , 2015 , 4 : 59 PM ), 2015 /11/15/mark-dayton -wont-oppose-syrian-refugees-in- (Nov. 17 , 2016 ), 2015 /11/dayton-blasts -governors-who-op pose-syrian-refugees. 252 . Fred Melo , St. Paul council urges more Syrian refugees in its city, and the state , ST. PAUL PIONEER PRESS (Dec. 5 , 2016 , 4 :08 PM, updated 4 :10 PM), 2016 /12/05/st-paul -council-urges-more-syrian-refugees-in-its-city-and-the-state/ . 253. Jessica Corso , 7th Cir. Beats Back Ind.'s Ban on Syrian Refugee Aid, LAW 360 ( Oct . 3 , 2016 , 6 :06 PM), -beats-back-ind-s-ban-on-syri an-refugee-aid; Exodus Refugee Immig ., Inc. v. Pence, 838 F.2d 902 ( 7th Cir ., 2016 ). 254 . Forliti, supra note 244 . 255. See generally DREE K. COLLOPY, AILA ASYLUM PRIMER (7th ed. 2015 ). 256. TRAC IMMIGRATION , IMMIGRATION JUDGES ( July 31 , 2006 ), tion/reports/160/index.html; TRAC IMMIGRATION, CONTINUED RISE IN ASYLUM DENIAL RATES: IMPACT OF REPRESENTATION AND NATIONALITY (Dec. 13 , 2016 ), reports/448 (in FY 2016 , “more than five out of every ten represented asylum seekers were suc- 2. 265 . Id. at 49- 51 . 266. SCHOENHOLTZ ET AL., supra note 262 , at 180. The difference may be accounted for by the gration judges, who come more heavily from immigration enforcement posts . Id . 267 . Id. at 189-92 ( asylum officers-various theories discussed as to why the rate increases over time) . 268. TRAC IMMIGRATION , JUDGE SUSAN E. CONLEY DE CASTRO FY 2009- FY 2014 , BLOOM- immigration/reports/judgereports/00182BLM/index.html (last visited July 9 , 2016 ) [hereinafter Castro TRAC report]. 269. Id . 270 . San Antonio Immigration Court denies more Asylum Cases that [sic] National Average, Texas Immigration Lawyer Blog (Aug. 1 , 2011 ), http://sinelson.typepad. com/susan-i-nelson-im migrat/ 2011 /08/san-antonio-immigration -court-denies-more-asylum-cases-that-national-average- .html. From 1994 to 1999 , her denial rate was 63.4 % in San Antonio. TRAC IMMIGRATION, ASY- LUM DENIAL RATES BY IMMIGRATION JUDGE FY 1994- FY 1999 , reports/160/include/judge_9499_ name -r. html (last visited July 14 , 2016 ). From 2007 to 2009 , it had crept up to 66.4%. TRAC IMMIGRATION, JUDGE-BY-JUDGE ASYLUM DECISIONS IN IMMIGRA277 . TRAC IMMIGRATION , JUDGE WILLIAM J. NICKERSON , JR. FY 2011 - FY 2016 , BLOOM- INGTON IMMIGRATION COURT , BLM/index.html (last visited Dec . 31 , 2016 ). 278 . Posting of David Wilson, , to mn-dakotas@lists.aila. org (Mar . 29, 2016 ) (on file with author). 279 . RAMJI-NOGALES ET AL., supra note 262, at 49. 280. Id. at 50 . 281. Press Release, Exec. Off. for Imm. Rev., U.S. Dep't of Justice, EOIR Swears in 15 Immi- gration Judges (June 27, 2016 , updated June 29, 2016 ), swears- 15 - immigration-judges; Press Release, Exec. Off. for Imm. Rev., U.S. Dep't of Justice, EOIR Swears in Two Immigration Judges (April 22 , 2016 ), Executive Office for Immigration Review Swears in Nine Immigration Judges (Feb. 1 , 2016 ), Immigration Review Swears in Two Immigration Judges (Nov. 9 , 2015 ), eoir/pr/executive-office-immigration-review-swears-two-immigration- judges-0 . 282. Eighth Circuit Immigration Opinions for the 10-Year Period: January 1 , 2006 - Decem- ber 31 , 2015 , handout by Prof. Ben Casper, Univ. of Minn. Law School , at AILA Upper Midwest Conference , May 13 , 2016 (on file with author). Party affiliation, however, is not a clear predictor . The average percentage of Republican appointees voting in favor of non-citizens was 8.33% (with a range from 3% to 22%). If the outlier of Judge Melloy (22%) is taken out of the equation, the average percentage drops to 7.1%. The four Democratic appointed judges averaged 6.5% in favor of non-citizens (ranging from 4% to 9%). They include a Johnson appointee, two Clinton appoin- tees and one Obama appointee. 283 . Id . Visiting judges voted for the non-citizen 17% of the time, accounting for the slight upward nudge for the circuit as a whole . Id . 284. SCHOENHOLTZ ET AL., supra note 262 . The title page frontispiece displays a map showing the federal circuits . Id . 285 . Jason Dzubow , The Easiest Office to Win Asylum, and Why You Shouldn't Apply There , THE ASYLUMIST (Feb. 25 , 2015 ), 2016 /02/25/the-easiest -office-to-win- asylum- and -why-you-shouldnt-apply-there/ . 286. SCHOENHOLTZ ET AL., supra note 262, at 3 , 144 . 287. Id. at 144-46.

This is a preview of a remote PDF:

Virgil Wiebe. Immigration Federalism in Minnesota: What Does Sanctuary Mean in Practice?, University of St. Thomas Law Journal, 2017,