Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: ICE access to Common House

[Ted Rau (ted]

Hey Pare
I love what you say.
I agree that policies and governance - anything explicit - are a two-sided
thing. Sometimes people chase false safety using those measures.

I personally (but that's just me speaking) am not even a huge fan of value
statements. Too many times have I witnessed that they brought on more
discussion and frustration. They are often too vague to mean anything, but
people fill them with their imagination of what *(other!)* people should or
should not do.

Using governance/policies for what they're good - like, as you say -
determining how the community as a whole can give agency so we can act as
"the community" to the legal world.
Use "what we do" workflows for what they are good for.
We need to know the limits and good use cases for all of our tools. You
can't use a screwdriver for everything.

What's more important is the underlying coherence we can form, through
rules but also through mutual understanding and caring.
Sometimes deep conversations and mutual understanding replace the need for
value statements or vague policies.
Because, ultimately, we stick to policies because we care, and care in
community is maintained by lived relationships, not by paper.


On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 1:49 PM Pare Gerou via Cohousing-L <
cohousing-l [at] cohousing.org> wrote:

> Hi all — I’m loving the fierce community protectiveness and solidarity this
> discussion about ICE officials in the CH is bringing out.
>
> It is interesting that the Linden cohousing draft goes beyond a values
> statement to becomes a formal policy about what individuals should do to
> respond if approached by enforcement/government officials in shared space.
> Given my lens, I’m a little cautious about choosing a *formal policy* for
> that, versus other types of shared commitments.
>
> In my Greek Village Cohousing group I run an “Intentional by Legal Design”
> workshop — the idea is to help intentionally “place” commitments into the
> right legal/governance containers, so community life feels aligned, humane,
> and protected — without over-policing behavior or creating accidental
> liability or conflict or dashed expectations.
>
> It is less a Bylaws and traditional US cohousing documents class (done
> quite well at IC.org and US Coho), and has some synergy with the wonderful
> materials in sociocracy courses and books, but it is more of an overall
> “intentional by design” look at questions like *where should commitments
> live* and also tackles the sticky enforceability in community issue. I’ve
> thought about expanding it to include others if people are interested in
> attending when I provide it to our Greek Village Cohousing group.
>
> With that lens (where do we express our commitments and our values): even
> with the best intentions, formally legislating individual, in-the-moment
> conduct in high-stakes, fact-specific encounters with federal enforcement
> can unintentionally expose the community legally.  It can also create
> conflict if someone responds differently in real life.  I also note that
> formal policies are the kinds of documents that can be compelled in
> discovery later.
>
> A community can rally, with overwhelming solidarity, without choosing a
> binding formal policy.  There are many legal design tools I talk about with
> our group.
>
> One possible alternative in this instance:  Express the strong values
> language in solidarity. Repurpose the formal policy into a “what we do”
> instructions called an informal SOP/”Support plan” (who we call, how we
> support neighbors, how we coordinate care), paired with a neutral sounding
> formal policy on *representation in common areas* (clarify who speaks or
> acts on behalf of the community if enforcement officials make requests in
> shared space).
>
> Creating a strong values statement and a set of informal SOP Support Plan
> guidelines couched as “how we support neighbors” paired with more clarity
> about who is formally representing the community in those shared spaces
> when faced with government officials -- this all preserves collective
> action without pre-legislating any one particular person’s personal
> response during a high stakes event or providing discoverable formal
> policies during this period of time.
>
> I’d also genuinely love to hear from our wise governance -sociocracy and
> consent teachers like Ted and Jerry, Sharon Villines, Diana, Caroline and
> others—about this issue of what is appropriate for a formal policy.
>
> And if anyone wants to go deeper on general legal/policy design in
> cohousing and intentional community, feel free to email me — I’m happy to
> include others in a future workshop.   -Pare Gerou (Evi) for Greek Village
> Cohousing
>
> On Sat, Nov 22, 2025 at 4:14 PM Laurie Frank via Cohousing-L <
> cohousing-l [at] cohousing.org> wrote:
>
> > At Linden Cohousing, we approved a policy that reads:
> >
> > Policy Against Admitting I.C.E. Agents
> > approved March 12, 2025
> >
> > It is the policy of Linden Cohousing not to admit agents of US
> Immigration
> > and Customs Enforcement (I.C.E.), or those working with them, into our
> > locked building, unless they have a valid judicial warrant. No member,
> > artist, visitor, or guest shall allow I.C.E. (or those working with them)
> > into our building, without a valid judicial warrant.
> >
> > Each member, artist, visitor, and guest shall be provided with a red Know
> > Your Rights card to show to I.C.E. Anyone may call upon a volunteer
> lawyer
> > within Linden Cohousing to determine if a warrant is valid.
> >
> > Explanation of Policy
> > All persons within the United States are protected by the Fourth and
> Fifth
> > Amendments to the US Constitution. The Fourth Amendment protects us from
> > unreasonable searches and seizures. The Fifth Amendment provides the
> right
> > to remain silent.
> >
> > The red Know Your Rights card which can be shown to or read to I.C.E.
> > reads:
> > I do not wish to speak with you, answer your questions, or sign or hand
> > you any documents based on my 5th Amendment rights under the United
> States
> > Constitution. I do not give you permission to enter my home based on my
> 4th
> > Amendment rights under the United States Constitution unless you have a
> > warrant to enter, signed by a judge or magistrate with my name on it that
> > you slide under the door. I do not give you permission to search any of
> my
> > belongings based on my 4th Amendment rights. I choose to exercise my
> > constitutional rights. These cards are available to citizens and
> > noncitizens alike.
> >
> > You have constitutional rights:
> > • DO NOT OPEN THE DOOR if an immigration agent is knocking on the door.
> > • DO NOT ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS from an immigration agent if they try to
> > talk to you. You have the right to remain silent.
> > • DO NOT SIGN ANYTHING without first speaking to a lawyer. You have the
> > right to speak with a lawyer. • If you are outside of your home, ask the
> > agent if you
> > are free to leave and if they say yes, leave calmly.
> > • GIVE THIS CARD TO THE AGENT. If you are inside of your home, show the
> > card
> > through the window or slide it under the door.
> >
> >
> > - Laurie Frank
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at:
> > http://L.cohousing.org/info
> >
> >
> >
> >
> _________________________________________________________________
> Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at:
> http://L.cohousing.org/info
>
>
>
>

-- 

Leader of Sociocracy For All <https://www.sociocracyforall.org>
Certified sociocracy consultant <https://www.iscb.earth/team/ted-rau/>
I offer coaching/consulting
<https://www.sociocracyforall.org/find-a-sociocracy-consultant/>
Book time with me <https://calendar.app.google/jr744VNJcUxPx32NA>