Last week, Mayor Ivy Taylor sent a memo to City Manager Sheryl Sculley requesting clarity on San Antonio’s “sanctuary city” status.

The loosely coined term “sanctuary city” refers to a municipality that declines to cooperate with federal immigration authorities, often to preserve local policing strategies. Police, for instance, won’t ask individuals of their immigration status in order to preserve trust and keep lines of communication open.

That’s the unofficial policy of the San Antonio Police Department.

“We don’t ask anyone for their immigration status,” Police Chief William McManus told me.

Now, local Democrats — and some City Council members — want to make it official.

“Recently, questions have surfaced among my Council colleagues regarding the City of San Antonio’s immigration policies and procedures, known commonly as our ‘sanctuary city’ status,” Taylor wrote to Sculley.

“It is my understanding that (SAPD), through their successful application of community based policing principles and strategies, has established a practical and efficient approach to dealing with immigrants that also ensures that dangerous criminals are remanded to the appropriate authority,” Taylor continued. “However, I also understand that SAPD does not have a written policy regarding their immigration procedures.”

Taylor’s memo acknowledges a need for “a written policy” and requests that the city brief the council’s Governance Committee on how to create one.

It’s a controversial issue, especially right now. (Maybe that’s why the mayor, elected with the strong support of conservatives, declined my request for an interview on Friday.)

On Tuesday, Senate Democrats blocked a bill that sought to crack down on sanctuary cities by denying federal law enforcement funds. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, a Republican presidential candidate, had co-sponsored the legislation.

But is San Antonio a sanctuary city?

Manuel Medina, chairman of the Bexar County Democratic Party, doesn’t think so. He’s been needling council members to push for a written policy to make it one.

“Each city defines what a sanctuary city is to them,” Medina told me. “Here in San Antonio, the resolution that we’ve drafted consists of three specific items. Item number one: Chief McManus’ immigration policies are working. They’re keeping us safe. And we want to make them permanent.”

Item number two: San Antonio must stop adhering to a discredited federal program of local-level immigration policing called Secure Communities.

Under those guidelines, cities cooperate with immigration authorities by detaining anyone who is arrested and then suspected of being in the country illegally — a practice San Antonio still follows, according to Medina and Councilwoman Shirley Gonzales.

“Once (suspects are) arrested and taken to jail, that’s when they can potentially get deported and sent back regardless of the level of the offense,” Gonzales said. “As a city, we definitely don’t want to be interfering if we have violent criminals. But if people are being stopped for routine violations, we don’t want to put them in the same categaory as violent criminals.”

The Department of Homeland Security has replaced Secure Communities with a new Priority Enforcement Program, which only seeks custody of immigrants convicted of serious crimes, and only upon their imminent release.

“Has the city gotten in line with the new guidelines? The answer is no,” Medina said.

Item number three: Medina wants the city to appoint an “immigrant commission” to advise the mayor on immigration issues.

“It looks like there’s common ground between us and a majority of city council and the mayor,” Medina said. “I’ve had no conversation with the mayor. I’ve met with almost every council member. We’re looking for a common sense approach.

“We need guidelines,” he added. “We need to work with (Immigration and Customs Enforcement). But those guidelines should represent our values in San Antonio. And we in San Antonio know that 99.9 percent of undocumented immigrants are good people.”

bchasnoff@express-news.net