A Natick native who lived in San Jose for nearly 40 years but moved back to her hometown after she said the California city deteriorated because of its sanctuary commitment fears that the same could happen here if a town board approves a similar policy.

The Natick Select Board is slated to vote this week on an immigration documentation policy that seeks to restrict town employees from inquiring about or collecting information regarding citizenship or immigration status unless required by federal or state law.

While the Select Board has said the policy won’t turn the Greater Boston community into Massachusetts’ next sanctuary city, its language mirrors that seen in other cities and towns committed to the status.

Kathryn Kelly, born and raised in Natick before moving to California in high school, told the Herald that she saw the quality of life in San Jose decline after enacted sanctuary city status in 2007.

The purpose of the resolution adopted in San Jose, in the wake of immigration sweeps in the Bay Area, is for illegal immigrants to not fear local authorities, which “can critically undermine the health and safety of our community,” the measure states.

Kelly said she and her family moved back to Natick, a town of roughly 36,500, three years ago after experiencing declining schools and an explosion in crime and the homeless in San Jose, a city of more than 1 million.

“San Jose, the most beautiful city, turned into a ghetto,” Kelly told the Herald. “It just got so out of control.”

“The bottom line is these policies definitely attract illegals to come to your town because they feel safe there,” she added, “they know they’re not going to be arrested for being illegal, they know they’re not going to be reported, and they know that they can put their kids in good schools.”

Under Natick’s draft policy, detaining a person based on the belief he or she is not in the U.S. legally or that the individual committed an immigration violation would itself be a violation.

Per a fact sheet published on the town website, the draft policy “shields town law enforcement personnel from liabilities resulting from local enforcement of federal immigration laws … and the town from liability should a town employee violate the policy.”

The policy does not “offer to provide shelter, housing, legal assistance, or other services to immigrants, documented or undocumented,” “apply to school employees,” nor “ignore ICE warrants or other judicial warrants for the arrest of individuals for criminal behavior.”

A debate has flared around what the board seeks to accomplish with its draft policy.

Myriam Hernandez Jennings immigrated from Chile as an 18-year-old who had been living under “cruel dictatorship.” She and her husband have lived in Natick for 24 years, raising her two sons in the “welcoming town.”

Hernandez Jennings, a co-founder of Natick is United, has worked with officials and another group, the Natick Welcoming Immigrant Policy Coalition, on drafting the policy over the past couple of years.

“The opposition to the policy, it is not based on factual information,” she said at a Select Board meeting last week. “Having the policy reminds those who are vulnerable … that they are safe here, that they can reach out to police when they’re facing trouble, and that we care for their well-being.”

The dispute shaking the community has gotten so intense that Select Board Chairwoman Kathryn Coughlin’s car has been targeted, with a suspect defacing her vehicle in spray paint with the message “Deport illegals.” Police are investigating the incident.

Addressing financial concerns ahead of a looming tax override, Coughlin told residents last Wednesday that there are “no known associated burdens” anticipated with the policy.

Coughlin, emphasizing that Natick won’t enact sanctuary status, pointed to how the draft policy doesn’t propose the creation of an immigration director position, as seen in Somerville, a city that pays the financial costs of those fighting deportation.

The chairwoman pointed out how Boston and Cambridge have much larger populations and different government structures than Natick. She compared her town to Concord, Amherst and Northampton, all of which enacted sanctuary status in 2017.

Newton and Lawrence are the Bay State’s other sanctuary cities.

“They have not seen in the seven years that they have had these policies an influx in migrants,” Coughlin said. “Do you know why? Nobody can afford to live there. There is no housing.”

“There’s a nine-year wait for Section 8 housing vouchers in Natick,” she added. “If people just showed up, there are (no) services. … They’re not coming here, it’s too expensive.”

Coughlin has reiterated that “the timing of the rollout of this policy post-election is utterly coincidental” and “is not a reaction to recent elections nor is it in response to fear-mongering.”

Officials have highlighted how they must follow a 2017 ruling from the state Supreme Judicial Court that “extends to local law enforcement, and Natick must refrain from arresting or holding a person based on a federal civil immigration detainer.”

Detainers, per the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, request that local or state law enforcement “maintain custody of the noncitizen for a period not to exceed 48 hours beyond the time the individual would otherwise be released.”

“If someone comes in who is arrested for a crime, we have to do our due diligence,” Police Chief James Hicks said. “They do have the right to be released from court on their own personal recognizance.”

Resident Carole Gates highlighted how officials have said the policy has been in its draft process since October 2022, but “many residents” hadn’t heard about it until late November when the issue appeared in a Herald article.

“The whole process was designed to discourage us,” she told the newspaper on Saturday, “to dissuade us and to downplay the importance and the magnitude of the policy at hand. It has resulted in a lot of frustration, we all felt that we were filibustered.”