Over the past decade, the increased involvement of local police in facilitating the deportation of undocumented migrants has played a central role in creating a record-breaking volume of deportations from the United States. In response to the so-called deportation crisis, nearly 500 localities have declared themselves “sanctuary” jurisdictions. This term refers to the cities, counties, and states that limit their cooperation with federal authorities on immigration matters. Supporters typically argue that sanctuary jurisdictions are safer because sanctuary policies encourage good relationships between migrant communities and local law enforcement. Opponents insist that sanctuary policies defy federal law and harbor criminals, creating a dangerous environment for U.S. citizens. My talk will explore three moral justifications for sanctuary policies—the public safety, civil disobedience, and collective resistance arguments—and offer a preliminary defense of the latter of these justifications. Specifically, I will argue that although some sanctuary policies can be justified by appeals to public safety considerations, others are best understood as a form of legitimate collective resistance.