clergy & faith leaderS’
toolbox for immigrant justice
- Start here
- Sacred Texts & Reflection
- Your Tradition
- Protect & Prepare
- Teach & Learn
- Advocate & Organize
- Vote & Civic Engagement
- St. Louis & Missouri
- Build This Together
- Before you rely on this
You are a moral voice, and elected officials hear it differently than they hear an activist. This Collective has already proved that: more than 80 clergy signed a letter on conditions at the Ste. Genevieve jail, and the congressman responded personally. This section is about what comes next.
Congress, and what to do when a letter isn’t enough
Eighty-plus signatures got a personal response and no written report. The standard next move is not another letter — it is a scheduled district-office visit by a small clergy delegation with one specific ask.
Six steps: pick the ask, decide solo versus delegation, schedule it, use a lobby-visit roadmap, run the meeting, follow up with staff. This is the direct answer to a letter that got no report.
The RAFT framework, under 150 words, localizing a federal issue — and how to run a congregational letter-writing session.
Templates for the fast version.
Four downloads including ‘Supporting Immigrant Neighbors in Your City’ (updated May 2026) and how to run an advocacy meeting.
Join a standing local lobbying team for the long haul.
Sheriffs — four Missouri jails, four elected officials
A distinction that matters for every letter you write. Bed rental (an IGSA contract, which is what Ste. Genevieve, Greene, Phelps and Ozark counties have) is a different practice from deputization (a 287(g) agreement) and different again from information sharing. Naming the right one is what makes a letter land instead of being dismissed.
The strategy the Collective already identified is sound: sheriffs see themselves as public servants working under unseen constraints. Appeal to their desire to serve, to public safety — this makes their community less safe, and is a net negative for them — to their standing as elected officials, and where it applies, to their own faith. And name plainly that the financial implications should not outweigh the moral ones.
Lays out the three sheriff practices — information sharing, deputization, bed rental — which is exactly the distinction four separate letters need. Open the full PDF in a browser; the site blocks automated readers.
Dated 2015, and the detainer-form analysis is obsolete — but the power mapping is not. It explains who actually holds which lever: sheriffs run the jail, county legislative bodies pass the budget and can create oversight.
Has a dedicated sheriff’s-department section with concrete demands and tactics: sign-on letters, call-ins, budget leverage. Sign-on letters are already your method.
Older, but it correctly identifies county commissioners as primary targets at bed-rental facilities — not just the sheriff.
They do not publish a state-by-state list; you write to program@detentionwatchnetwork.org and they connect you. Worth doing now — there may be Missouri campaigns you don’t know about.
287(g) and local police cooperation
Verify before you publish. This Collective’s notes record that a North County police collective — Vinita Park, Hanley Hills, Wellston, Pine Lawn, Uplands Park, Velda Village Hills, Beverly Hills and Dellwood — signed a 287(g) agreement in April 2026. We could not confirm this against ICE’s official participating-agencies list, because ice.gov blocks automated access. Someone must open ice.gov/identify-and-arrest/287g in an ordinary browser and download the spreadsheet before this claim appears in print. Naming a department that isn’t a partner, or missing one that is, both do real harm.
One more legal note. Missouri’s § 67.307 RSMo prohibits municipalities from adopting sanctuary policies. That is not the same as requiring a 287(g) agreement — 287(g) participation is voluntary under federal law. Have counsel confirm the current statutory picture before making any claim about what Missouri law requires of these eight towns.
Start here. Plain-language explainer of the three models — Warrant Service Officer, Jail Enforcement, and Task Force (near-full ICE powers in the community). English and Spanish.
The most current 287(g) document we found. If the North County agreements are Task Force Model, this is the moral and policy argument, freshly dated.
Shows current agreements and jurisdictions that terminated them. The terminations are your organizing precedent. Open the interactive map for Missouri.
The named playbook for getting an agreement rescinded. Dated 2019; strategy holds, specifics don’t.
Line-by-line annotation of the actual agreement text — use it to read whatever the eight municipalities signed.
Applications, needs assessments, internal emails, MOAs. Shows exactly what a records request to Vinita Park and the others should ask for.
The page lists a live ILRC contact for campaign help: Lena Graber, lgraber@ilrc.org. That may be the single highest-leverage email address in this toolbox for the North County fight.
A settlement barring ICE from warrantless ‘collateral’ arrests, covering Missouri along with Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky and Wisconsin. Given how many local detentions begin at a traffic stop, this is directly relevant here.
A family who believes a loved one was detained this way can submit this. Two honest caveats to pass on: filing it does not itself provide a lawyer or secure release, and it is not a defence to deportation.
Places Missouri among states with laws mandating some local participation in immigration enforcement.
This is not theoretical here — what local advocacy has already produced
Clergy sometimes assume advocacy means writing to Washington and waiting. The record in this region says otherwise, and it is worth knowing before you decide your own ask is too small.
In May 2026, Ashrei facilitated a congressional oversight visit to the Ste. Genevieve County Jail, co-facilitated with Abide in Love Ste. Genevieve. Rep. Wesley Bell and Rep. Nikki Budzinski toured the facility. What they found — roughly 150 ICE detainees, a pregnant woman without adequate prenatal care or clean water, people sleeping on thin trays because of overcrowding — was carried by St. Louis Public Radio, KSDK, the Belleville News-Democrat and others. A visit happened because organisations here asked for it and prepared the ground.
The same pattern holds for local enforcement data, for 287(g) reporting, and for the accountability work in Overland following the deaths of Glendy González de la Cruz and Nixon Pérez Paz. Ashrei has placed this story in local media more than thirty times since 2022, including in Spanish. Faith leaders were the story in February 2026, when clergy marched across the Martin Luther King Memorial Bridge — the action this Collective grew out of.
The practical lesson: a specific, documented, local ask — made by named clergy, to a named official, about a named facility — moves. Ashrei has built the oversight instrument to support it, including a structured set of questions for detention facility visits covering medical and prenatal standards, ICE officer access, law library compliance, pod occupancy, outdoor access and language interpretation. Ask for it before you meet an official.
Ashrei’s account of the May 2026 visit — what was asked for, what was found, what followed. The clearest template available for what a clergy delegation can set in motion.
St. Louis Public Radio’s coverage. Useful when you need a citable public source rather than an advocacy page.
February 2026. The action this Clergy Collective grew out of — worth reading if you are wondering whether clergy presence registers publicly.
Local reporting on 287(g) in this region, placed by Ashrei. Good background before a conversation with a police chief or city council.
Reflections from the vigil for Glendy and Nixon, a night at the bus station when the hotline rang, what emerges from the dashboard data. Where the work is narrated as it happens.
Detention: visiting, writing, and bonding people out
Writing letters to detained people is the lowest-risk, highest-immediacy congregational action in this entire toolbox. It needs no facility access, no legal training, and no permission. It can be a coffee-hour activity next Sunday.
One caution the Collective raised itself, and it is the right caution: escalation can cost a legal partner the jail access they have carefully preserved. Before organizing anything at a facility, read Freedom for Immigrants’ guidance on what a non-attorney volunteer may and may not do — that document is the guardrail that protects your legal partner’s access.
26 linked resources. The richest visitation hub anywhere. Note: one of its links points at a lapsed domain — see the caution at the bottom of this page.
Start here. Then pair it with a letter-writing event guide and run it after services.
Read this before your legal partner has to ask you to. Defines what a non-attorney volunteer may and may not do.
If you want a standing clergy visitation program at Ste. Genevieve, this is the blueprint.
People inside detention dial 9233# free, Mon–Fri 8am–8pm PT / 11am–11pm ET. Multilingual. Volunteers help submit bond fund requests and connect people to letter-writing and visitation groups. Put this on a wallet card for families at all four jails.
Where a congregation’s money goes furthest fastest.
A second fund, and one that addresses a population often left out of this work.
Court watching. An excellent bigger-commitment option for clergy with weekday hours.
The Collective has already drafted roughly twenty oversight questions covering pregnant and nursing detainees, medical care, legal information and ICE access, jail conditions, and language access. Ask Ashrei for the current version — it is directly reusable.