Push for sanctuary city ordinance continues

As U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents make arrests across Rochester, City Council faces pressure to strengthen the city’s sanctuary city policies. 

At the same time, the city has responded to a federal complaint, and immigration advocates have joined the Council’s progressive caucus in challenging the legislative body to find solutions to accommodate growing concerns among the city’s immigrant communities.

A traffic stop on June 17 when federal agents detained U.S. citizen Jose Castro marked a month of ICE sightings. The Rochester Rapid Response Network manages a community defense line that member Mary Rutigliano says has been active as residents grow concerned over the nature of immigration enforcement. On June 18, the organization posted a tip about agents present at the Rochester Public Market.

“There’s a lot of word of mouth in the community about us,” explains Rutigliano. “It’s being passed around as a resource, which is really how we build trust and connection.”

Fostering trust has been a key focus among those in favor of stronger sanctuary city protections, more notably after Rochester was thrust into the national spotlight with a March traffic stop that saw local police officers allegedly violate existing sanctuary policy by directly assisting ICE agents. While Rutilgliano notes the conversation has shifted since March, she takes issue with how it has been framed.

“The work to expand (sanctuary city policies) was happening even before (the lawsuit),” Rutigliano explains. “It’s frustrating to see (City Council) dismiss concerns from so much of the community.”

In April, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a complaint against the city of Rochester, alleging its sanctuary city policies violate the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, undermining national efforts to address illegal immigration by intentionally obstructing communication among state, federal, and local law agencies. A response filed in late May defends the city’s sanctuary policies against what it describes as overreach by the federal government.

“In short, federal law enforcement agents at the scene unlawfully conscripted local police

to engage in federal civil immigration enforcement in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution,” writes city corporation counsel Patrick Beath. “The federal government appears to believe that the Supremacy Clause allows such commandeering. It does not.”

The ongoing lawsuit remains the source of opposition to an ordinance that would codify a stronger sanctuary city, legislation that continues to be a priority of City Council members like Stanley Martin. The proposed ordinance would give Council the power to investigate and discipline city employees who violate sanctuary policies.

“I would start with being very disappointed around the lack of political will in moving the sanctuary city ordinance forward,” Martin says. “Councilmembers (Kim) Smith, (Mary) Lupien, and myself did a lot of work with the city law department to get it to the point where they were able to say, ‘This is a document that can pass legal muster.’”

Before passing the city’s 2025-26 budget, Council passed a resolution of budgetary intent that allocates available funds toward assisting the immigrant, asylum seeker, refugee, and LGBTQIA+ communities. That remains the only ordinance passed related to the city’s sanctuary city policies, as the legislation was held in committee due to ongoing litigation, which Martin views as a cop-out.

“I think currently how Council is run by the majority, it’s very interested in maintaining the status quo,” she says. “We don’t want to wait for harm to happen, we want to anticipate harm and create the solutions that would prevent the harm from ever happening in the first place.”

Martin views being proactive as the most effective method of responding to the Trump administration, an approach that differs from that of councilmembers like Mitch Gruber.

“We were punched with a frivolous lawsuit. We counterpunch by beating that frivolous lawsuit,” said Gruber recently. “That is what fighting back looks like. And I understand that doesn’t work for everyone, and people want to see different things, and people want to see voices be loud. … But I’ll tell you, as a legislator, the most important way to fight back is take their frivolous argument and put it back in their face and win.”

Martin argues the Trump playbook is well-known and can be mitigated, and that the city’s sanctuary ordinances ultimately aren’t reliant on legal challenges.

“The reality of it is we’re in a defensive posture. Whether we win the lawsuit or lose the lawsuit, right?” she asks. “It doesn’t move us forward. It just maintains the status quo. Whereas with the ordinance, it actually moves us forward and extends protection for the LGBTQ+ communities and immigrants.”

As the legislation continues to remain in committee, there is hope among advocates that new arrivals to City Council may help bring change. Democratic primary winner LaShunda Leslie-Smith has expressed her desire to put forth an immediate, collaborative response to the federal government.

Current councilmembers have affirmed their commitment to strengthening the city’s sanctuary city status, whether through legislation or advocacy. On June 21, Martin joined Smith and Lupien in organizing a communitywide protest against ICE and the current administration in Washington.

“The people of Rochester are not buying it, and I think over the next month, we’re gonna see some real organizing happen in the halls of the city,” concludes Martin. “I think we will be victorious and we will strengthen protections for immigrants and LGBTQ+ neighbors.”

Narm Nathan is a Rochester Beacon contributing writer and a member of the Oasis Project’s inaugural cohort.

The Beacon welcomes comments and letters from readers who adhere to our comment policy including use of their full, real name. See “Leave a Reply” below to discuss on this post. Comments of a general nature may be submitted to the Letters page by emailing [email protected].