Students urge New Haven Unified to adopt sanctuary-style immigration protections; board forms review group

Dozens of students and community members urged the New Haven Unified School District Board of Education on May 5 to adopt a sanctuary-district-style immigration resolution to protect students, families and staff from immigration-enforcement-related fear.

Students from James Logan High School’s Ethnic Studies and Social Justice Academy (ESSJ) framed the request as a matter of safety and educational access. Makavoy, a sophomore, said the policy would reduce barriers to attendance and protect families, adding, "I urge you to use your humanity to make New Haven a sanctuary district." Several student speakers cited district survey data and national detention figures to underscore urgency.

Other student speakers stressed the need for clear, visible protections rather than buried or ambiguous policies. Elijah Nuen, a junior, referenced locally collected figures and argued the ESSJ draft should be adopted as written or shared with students for substantive review, saying the data show "39.7% of students in NHUSD fear ICE presence and 15.9% have been personally affected," and that only a small share — 3% — report feeling protected by the board.

At the board level, staff presented an information item that included both the ESSJ student draft and a district-drafted alternative (which drew on other districts’ language such as Hayward Unified). Dr. Johnson recommended that a small group of two board members work with staff to review the drafts and return with suggested next steps, noting the ESSJ text contains elements (for example, a proposed funded immigrant resource coordinator position) that would require further analysis because no budget or specific job class currently exists.

Board members debated process and timing: Trustee Gonzalez and others favored a quick path to place a resolution on the agenda at the next meeting and recommended broader community surveying and staff-run data collection. Trustees volunteered to serve on a two-member review group; trustees also asked staff to include students from ESSJ in the review process. Trustees and staff identified desired implementation elements, including expanded multilingual communications, annual and onboarding staff training for immigration-related incidents, a centralized web resource hub, and periodic implementation updates (for example a 90-day implementation/status report).

No formal motion to adopt a resolution was made at the meeting. Instead the board agreed to convene a small board–staff review team, seek student input, and return with a refined proposal and implementation timeline for consideration at a future meeting.

What happens next: two board members and district staff will meet with student representatives and community stakeholders to reconcile the ESSJ draft and the district draft, clarify budgetary needs for proposed positions, and recommend concrete, site-level actions (training, signage, resource pages) for board consideration.