RESOLUTION OPPOSING SENATE BILL NO. 273, PRINTER'S NO. 259, AND HOUSE BILL NO. 14, PRINTER'S NO. 32, ON "SANCTUARY CAMPUSES"
WHEREAS, the Philadelphia Bar Association, the oldest association of lawyers in the United States, is committed to advancing the fair and effective administration of justice; and
WHEREAS, U.S. citizenship is not a requirement to attend an institution of higher education in Pennsylvania; and
WHEREAS, immigrants, and particularly undocumented immigrants, face major barriers in obtaining higher education; and
WHEREAS, many immigrants currently without legal immigration status entered the United States with some form of lawful status, such as a visa; and
WHEREAS, numerous immigrants obtain legal status, such as asylum, only after arriving in the United States; and
WHEREAS, many undocumented immigrants were brought to the United States as children and were unaware of their immigration status; and
WHEREAS, being present in the United States without lawful status is not a crime; and
WHEREAS, institutions of higher education may not discriminate on the basis of national origin as a condition of their continued receipt of federal funding pursuant to Title VI;1 and
WHEREAS, Pennsylvania higher education students who live in on-campus housing are entitled to the same Fourth Amendment protections and privacy rights as if they were living in a private home;2 and
WHEREAS, students entrust a significant amount of personal, private information to the institutions of higher education which they attend, the privacy of which is protect by federal law;3 and
WHEREAS, campus law enforcement collaboration with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) would undermine trust in campus public safety services, leading many immigrants to avoid coming forward to seek protection, report crimes, and cooperate in investigations, and possibly to avoid participating and engaging in intellectual pursuits with their peers and instructors; and
WHEREAS, the mission of institutions of higher education in Pennsylvania include offering a broad education that will lay a durable foundation for critical and creative thinking and improving the wellbeing and health of individuals and communities through integrated programs of teaching, research, and service;4 and
WHEREAS, institutions of higher education thrive on and are enriched by the diversity of scholars and students;5 and
WHEREAS, institutions of higher learning further their mission by declaring themselves sanctuary campuses, thereby announcing their support for students who are uncertain how they will be affected by the immigration policies of the current administration; and
WHEREAS, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) itself has historically limited immigration enforcement activities on college and university campuses in acknowledgement of the sound public policy reasons for protecting these sensitive locations;6 and
WHEREAS, immigration enforcement is a job for federal immigration authorities and not for colleges and universities, whose role and purpose is to educate students and foster academic development and exploration for students and educators, regardless of immigration status; and
WHEREAS, on December 17, 2015, the Philadelphia Bar Association passed a resolution opposing Senate Bill No. 997, Printer's No. 1384, on "Sanctuary Cities," and called on the Pennsylvania General Assembly to oppose "any other bill that would punish counties or municipalities for making the decision to disentangle local policing from enforcement of civil immigration laws"; and
WHEREAS, on September 29, 2016, the Philadelphia Bar Association passed a resolution opposing House Bill No. 1885, Printer's No. 3075, on "Sanctuary Cities," and called on the Pennsylvania General Assembly to oppose "any other bill that would punish counties or municipalities for making the decision to disentangle local policing from enforcement of civil immigration laws"; and
WHEREAS, on January 31, 2017, in the Pennsylvania General Assembly, Senator Rafferty introduced Senate Bill No. 273, Printer's No. 259 and Representative Knowles introduced House Bill No. 14, Printer's No. 32, both of which would, among other things, prohibit colleges and universities in Pennsylvania from receiving funds through a State appropriation if the school adopts a policy that:
- Prohibits the enforcement of a federal or state law pertaining to an immigrant or immigration;
- Refuses federal authorities access to campus for the purposes of investigating or enforcing a federal law pertaining to an immigrant or immigration;
- Directs employees of the institution of higher education not to communicate, coordinate, or cooperate with federal authorities regarding an immigrant or immigration; or
- Takes adverse employment action against an employee of the institution of higher education for communicating, coordinating, or cooperating with federal authorities regarding an immigrant or immigration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Philadelphia Bar Association calls on members of the Pennsylvania General Assembly to oppose Senate Bill No. 273, Printer's No. 259 and House Bill No. 14, Printer's No. 32, and any other bill that would punish institutions of higher education for making the decision to protect their students' rights to privacy and disentangle campus policing from the enforcement of civil immigration laws.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Philadelphia Bar Association authorizes the Chancellor or the Chancellor's designee to communicate the content of this resolution to members of the General Assembly, the Governor, state and local public officials, other bar associations, and the public at large, and to take such other action as may be appropriate.
PHILADELPHIA BAR ASSOCIATION
BOARD OF GOVERNORS
ADOPTED: March 30, 2017
1 34 CFR § 100.1.
2 Com. v. McCloskey, 217 Pa. Super. 432, 435-36 (1970) (student in on-campus housing has "reasonable expectation of freedom from governmental intrusion" into his dormitory room); Piazzola v. Watkins, 442 F.2d 284, 289 (5th Cir. 1971); Smyth v. Lubbers, 398 F. Supp. 777, 786 (W.D. Mich. 1975) ("The [student's] dormitory room is his house and home for all practical purposes, and he has the same interest in the privacy of this room as any adult has in the privacy of his home, dwelling, or lodging."); Beauchamp v. State, 742 So. 2d 431, 432 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999) (holding the student "did have an expectation of privacy in his dormitory suite," which the court noted was "comparable to a motel room or a room in a boarding house"); Com. v. Neilson, 666 N.E.2d 984 (Mass. 1996) (recognizing that college student had legitimate expectation of privacy in dorm room); State v. Houvner, 186 P.3d 370 (Wash. App. 2008) (holding reasonable expectation of privacy in shared hallway of dormitory floor).
3 20 U.S.C. § 1232g (2013).
4 University of Pennsylvania, Mission of the College, https://www.college.upenn.edu/college-mission; Penn State University, Mission and Character, http://www.psu.edu/this-is-penn-state/leadership-and-mission/mission-and-character.
5 See id.
6 See IMMIGRATION & CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, Enforcement Actions at or Focused on Sensitive Locations, Oct. 24, 2011, https://www.ice.gov/doclib/ero-outreach/pdf/10029.2-policy.pdf.