World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

Sanctuary movement

Article Id: WHEBN0002998342
Reproduction Date:

Title: Sanctuary movement  
Author: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Language: English
Subject: James A. Corbett, John Fife, Well-Founded Fear, Central America Resource Center, Safe house
Publisher: World Heritage Encyclopedia

Sanctuary movement

The Church as a Place of Refuge

The Sanctuary Movement was a religious and political campaign in the United States that began in the early 1980s to provide safe-haven for Central American refugees fleeing civil conflict. It responded to restrictive federal immigration policies that made obtaining asylum difficult for Central Americans.

At its peak, Sanctuary involved over 500 congregations across the country that, by declaring themselves official “sanctuaries,” committed to providing shelter, material goods and often legal advice to Central American refugees. Various denominations were involved, including the Lutherans, United Church of Christ, Roman Catholics, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, Jews, Unitarian Universalists, Quakers, and Mennonites.

Movement members acted in open defiance of federal law, and many prominent Sanctuary figures were arrested and put on trial in the mid and late 1980s. The roots of the movement derive from the right of sanctuary in medieval law and Jewish and Christian social teachings.


  • History 1
    • Central American Conflict 1.1
    • Public sanctuary 1.2
    • Historical Parallels 1.3
  • Sanctuary Trials 2
  • Broader Issues 3
  • See also 4
  • References 5
  • External links 6


Central American Conflict

Between 1980 and 1991, nearly 1 million Central Americans crossed the U.S. border seeking asylum. Most were fleeing political repression and violence caused by civil wars in Guatemala and El Salvador, though some had fled Nicaragua in the wake of the 1979 Nicaraguan Revolution. In El Salvador, the military killed over 10,000 people by 1980, including the famous Archbishop Oscar Romero and four U.S. churchwomen. In Guatemala, government-backed paramilitary groups killed 50,000, disappeared 100,000 and perpetrated 626 village massacres.[1] Official policy under the Reagan administration greatly hindered Central Americans from obtaining asylum status, however. Congress forbade foreign aid to countries committing human rights abuses, and it is well documented that the U.S. provided funds, training and arms to the Salvadoran and Guatemalan governments throughout the 1970s and 1980s.[2] Because admitting these governments' abuses would bar the U.S. from providing further aid, the Reagan administration instead argued that Central Americans were “economic migrants” fleeing poverty, not governmental repression. Consequently, Central Americans stood little chance within the U.S. immigration system, where asylum is granted based on proof of “well-founded fear” of persecution. Just prior to the beginning of the Reagan Administration, Congress had passed the Refugee Act which incorporated this international definition of political asylum into US law - which formerly granted refugee status only to those "fleeing Communism." However, the Reagan Administration retained enormous discretion under the law and used all its power to prevent the legal recognition of Central American claims. And the numbers reflect this. Approval rates for Guatemalans and Salvadorans hovered somewhere under three percent in 1984, as compared to a sixty percent approval rate for Iranians, forty percent for Afghans fleeing Soviet invasion, thirty-two percent for Poles, twelve percent for Nicaraguans escaping the Sandinistas and one-hundred percent for Cubans. In 1983, one Guatemalan was granted asylum in the United States.[3]

Many Central Americans who found their way to the United States were placed in detention centers and sent home. Many protested this move, claiming that they would face severe dangers upon their return. An American Civil Liberties Union study in 1985 reported that 130 deported Salvadorans were found disappeared, tortured, or killed.[1]

Public sanctuary

Sanctuary formed as a reaction to these policies. As a movement, it originated along the border with Mexico and Arizona, but was also strong in Chicago, Philadelphia, California and Texas. In 1980, Jim Corbett, Jim Dudley, John Fife and a handful of other residents of Tucson, Arizona, began providing legal, financial and material aid to Central American refugees. Their decision to do so—and therefore openly oppose federal law—was inspired by a mixture of shocking refugee stories, personal encounters, political sympathies and religious conviction. As Corbett recounts, the tradition of his Quaker faith and its involvement in the Underground Railroad compelled him to take action. Gary Cook, associate pastor of the Central Presbyterian Church in Massillon, Ohio, cited the simple experience of personal interaction: "We're a very conservative group of folks politically. But once we encountered the refugees face to face, we couldn't justify not taking them in."[4]

For Dudley, one of Corbett's friends, it was his experience coming across a man on the side of the road on the outskirts of Tucson one afternoon. As he described in an interview, after picking up the hitchhiker, Dudley learned through broken Spanish that the man was a Salvadoran attempting to make it to San Francisco. As they drove into town, Border Patrol agents stopped the car and identified the man as an illegal alien and promptly took him away. Dudley recalls the pleading look on the Salvadoran's face and the fear in his voice as he asked Dudley to lie to the patrol agents and tell them he was a friend and that they were going to Tucson together. Dudley left that day troubled and confused. Why was the man so afraid? Were the border agents going to send him back? What would happen to him if they did?[5]

On March 24, 1982, the second anniversary of Archbishop Oscar Romero's assassination, Fife, the minister of the Southside Presbyterian Church in Tucson, after sharing his concerns with leaders of his congregation, declared his congregation a public sanctuary. Outside the church building he posted two banners that read: “This is a Sanctuary for the Oppressed of Central America,” and “Immigration: do not profane the Sanctuary of God.”[6] A rush of churches, synagogues and student groups across the country followed suit, and by 1985 Sanctuary became a national movement with roughly five hundred member-sites across the United States.

Movement members likened Sanctuary to the "Underground Railroad" of the 19th century: Central Americans would flee their countries, often under extremely dangerous circumstances, travel up through Mexico and eventually find a safe haven in a sanctuary community in the United States or Canada. To give a picture of how this phenomenon worked in practice, refugees coming through Tucson would make it to Nogales (the nearest border town in Mexico), often on foot, and find refuge at El Sanctuario de Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe (Sanctuary of Our Lady of Guadalupe) Catholic Church. With help from Padre Ramón Dagoberto Quiñones, the head priest at Guadalupe, they would travel a short distance across the border to the Sacred Heart Catholic Church, whose steeple was visible from across the border in Mexico. There they could find shelter, food, legal advice and perhaps a little money. The two churches kept in constant contact, and priests and lay people traveled frequently between parishes.[5]

Over the years of the movement, which slowly died out after 1988, activists developed a number of coordinated routes for transporting individuals to designated Public Sanctuaries, the communities that accepted them. At first a part of the effort was to get those with credible claims to Canada, whose landed immigrant status became available once a refugee turned him/herself in on Canadian soil. But the U.S. government convinced the new conservative government to tighten the border and exclude more Central American refugees. This led to many more U.S. churches becoming welcoming sanctuaries. Prospective candidates or families were matched by numerous factors with a community that was prepared to house them and assist them to make political statements by recounting their personal history. Those who were not willing to do public speaking, for example, would be matched with a community that was not interested in doing that level of organizing or was located in a rural area where little public effort was possible. Volunteers drove refugees to exchange points where they would be transported to their next night's lodging, until they reached their destination. The system was highly decentralized; despite the pre-organization, it was fairly ad hoc; and different groups found varying methods for providing publicity or secrecy as protection.

Once the refugees found safe-haven in a Sanctuary community, U.S. congregations, student groups and activists often invited Central Americans to share their beliefs and experiences with the community. Refugees were invited to the pulpit to give their testimonies during church services, congregations held special Central American peace nights where stories were shared and information given, and Central Americans and North Americans talked frequently and openly, whether through Bible studies, meetings or rallies. As one congregant of Tucson's Southside Presbyterian Church remembers:

On any given night there might be from two to twenty-five [refugees] sleeping in the church. The congregation set up a one-room apartment for them behind the chapel. When that was full, they slept on foam pads in the Sunday school wing.[5]

Although many associate Sanctuary with Catholics and Quakers, the denominational make-up of the movement was quite diverse. 36% of Sanctuary congregations were Catholic, 22% were Presbyterian, 36% were Quakers, 28% were Unitarian, 2% Jewish, 10% came from university campuses and 1% from seminaries. The following are a sampling of official statements issued by major denominations within the U.S.[7] The Presbyterian Church:

The Presbyterian Church recommends that “That the General Assembly support congregations and individuals who provide sanctuary to asylum seekers as a way of showing Christian compassion for them and stressing the need for change in our government's policies and actions; and that other congregations be challenged seriously to take this stance.” 1983.

The American Lutheran Church:

“Resolved, that The American Lutheran Church at its 1984 General Convention…offer support and encouragement to congregations that have chosen to become refugee sanctuaries.” 1984.

The American Baptist Churches in the U.S.A.:

“Therefore, we commend to American Baptist churches the following:…that we respect those churches that, responding to the leading of God's Spirit, are providing sanctuary for refugees fleeing certain suffering and death in central America.” 1984.

The Rabbinical Assembly:

“The Rabbinical Assembly endorses the concept of Sanctuary as provided by synagogues, churches and other communities of faith in the United States.” 1984.

Secular groups also embraced the Sanctuary movement, such as Berkeley, California, declared itself a sanctuary. Writer Barbara Kingsolver popularized the movement in her 1998 novel The Bean Trees, in which she provides a fictional account of a Sanctuary member housing refugees in her Tucson home.

This movement has been succeeded in the 2000s by the movement of churches and other houses of worship to shelter immigrants in danger of deportation. The New Sanctuary Movement is a network of houses of worship that facilitates this effort. The New Sanctuary Movement allows U.S. officials into Catholic churches without permission of Catholic officials.

From the late 1980s continuing into the 2000s, there also have been instances of churches providing "sanctuary" for short periods to migrants facing deportation from

  • Sanctuary Movement history on New Sanctuary Movement page
  • The Sanctuary Movement from the Dean Peter Krogh Foreign Affairs Digital Archives

External links

Convictions of the Heart: Jim Corbett and the Sanctuary Movement, Miriam Davidson, University of Arizona Press, 1988

  1. ^ a b “Sanctuary Movement - Immigration and Naturalization Service.” Chicago Religious Task Force on Central America.
  2. ^ Coutin, Susan Bibler. The Culture of Protest: Religious Activism and the U.S. Sanctuary Movement. Boulder: Westview Press, 1993.
  3. ^ Press, Robert M. “Is it safe for Guatemalan Refugees to return home?” Christian Science Monitor. May 30, 1985. “Sanctuary Movement.” University of Arizona Library Special Collections: Tucson, AZ.
  4. ^ McGrath, Ellie. “Religion: Bringing Sanctuary to Trial.” Time Magazine. October 28, 1985.
  5. ^ a b c Tomsho, Robert. The American Sanctuary Movement. Texas Monthly Press: Austin. 1987.
  6. ^ Davidson, Miriam. Convictions of the Hearth: Jim Corbett and the Sanctuary Movement. University of Arizona Press: Tucson, AZ. 1998.
  7. ^ “Denominational Breakdown of Sanctuaries.” April 1985. “Sanctuary Movement.” University of Arizona Library Special Collections: Tucson, AZ.
  8. ^ See Randy K. Lippert (2005). Sanctuary, Sovereignty, Sacrifice: Canadian Sanctuary Incidents, Power and Law. ISBN 0-7748-1249-4
  9. ^ "Elvira Arellano Arrested Outside Downtown Church: Chicago Immigration Activist Taken Into Custody Sunday Afternoon"
  10. ^ O'Brian, William. “From Charity to Solidarity.” Chicago Religious Task Force. “Sanctuary Movement.” University of Arizona Library Special Collections: Tucson, AZ.
  11. ^ “Informer's ‘friendship’ with refugees is latest in list of history's betrayals.” The Arizona Republic. May 24, 1985. University of Arizona Library Special Collections: Tucson, AZ.
  12. ^ Gzesh, Susan. “Central Americans and Asylum Policy n the Reagan Era.” Migration Information Source. 2006.


See also

Most recently, Michael Charles Tobias and Jane Gray Morrison, in their book Sanctuary: Global Oases of Innocence, with a Foreword by the Queen of Bhutan, and Preface by PETA co-founder Ingrid Newkirk, as well as their most recent book, The Metaphysics of Protection, placed the sanctuary movement within a global ecological context, relating to the fact that flora and fauna worldwide (terrestrially) have thus far enjoyed a mere 12% at best of protection; in the marine environment, less than 2%.

Awareness of injustice by the US government led a number of US activists to investigate other nonviolent strategies for countering the Reagan war policies. Among other efforts founded by this initiative was the Witness for Peace, q.v.

Studies regularly cited by Public Sanctuaries and sanctuary advocates during this period showed that about 2% of Salvadorans and less than that of Guatemalans who fled excruciating political and religious violence in their homelands, even when it was targeted against them as individuals, were granted asylum under Reagan policies, applied by INS administrative judges. When legal defenses improved the quality of the evidence they used --which was difficult, as crude death threat notes were regularly excluded as "incredible"; if large numbers of similarly placed persons (union organizers, Catholic base community catechists, members of Maya-speaking campesino organizations) also suffered and were murdered-- the government insisted that it was "general violence" and that the Asylum Law applied only to individuals targeted. As a result, when the Public Sanctuary movement began to spread outside of the Tucson area, most advocates insisted it was the government that was breaking the law and that sanctuary workers were upholding the intended meaning of the refugee and asylum treaties brokered by the United Nations, the origin of the US Laws. Still it was inconvenient for the Reagan Administration to support the ARENA governments of El Salvador and the Ríos-Montt and successor dictatorships of Guatemala if they also had to admit so many refugees from government assisted violence. The Santa Fe Doctrine of US hegemony which the Reaganists followed insisted that all social unrest was a factor of the Cold War; they could not accept that Sandinistas had very indigenous reasons for rejecting Somoza, or that the revolutionary movements of El Salvador and Guatemala might have legitimate concerns about their nations' governments. Such black-white thinking did not allow for concern about the masses of poor Central Americans who were caught between the rich supported by US dollars and prestige and the revolutionaries with Marxist language.

Sanctuary also points to the effects of foreign policy on asylum policy within the United States. The Reagan administration's stance on Central American refugees reflected the government's broader goals within the region, which in itself reflected a Cold War strategy of containment and counterinsurgency. Therefore, asylum applications during the Cold War were not necessarily cases viewed within a vacuum and on an individual basis but opportunities to deny controversial activities of right-wing governments that the U.S. was supporting and grant status to citizens fleeing communist or Soviet-backed regimes.

Sanctuary represents an interesting concept oft discussed in sociology, political science and history: the tension between transnational and nation-state bounded conceptions of rights and citizenship. Sanctuary members viewed themselves as part of a transnational community with universal rights and responsibilities existing outside national boundaries. The United States government, however, viewed Sanctuary members as citizens of the nation who were acting politically and in defiance of federal laws. They rejected movement members' claims to international law's applicability inside U.S. courtrooms, as well as arguments that they were acting out of solely religious motivation.

Broader Issues

Though the court did find eight movement members guilty on alien smuggling charges, most received suspended sentences or underwent short house arrests. Supported by the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act did Congress allow fleeing Central Americans to apply for permanent residence.[12]

The Sanctuary Trials spurred public outcry from many sympathetic to the movement. Demonstrations at INS facilities were held in San Francisco, Chicago, Milwaukee, Cincinnati, Philadelphia, New York City, and Tucson, among other places.

The defense also called upon international law to defend their actions. They argued that the U.S. administration's policy towards Central Americans violated the 1980 Refugee Act, a U.S. law enacted under Carter that reflected international norms set down in the 1951 U.N. Convention and 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.

In what became known as “The Sanctuary Trials,” the defendants called upon their rights protected under both the U.S. constitution and international law. They employed First Amendment free exercise claims, arguing they were simply living out their faith by providing refuge to their fellow brethren in need; this was the call of the Gospel and an exercise of their religion. As Sister Nicgorski stated on the day of her arraignment, “If I am guilty of anything, I am guilty of the gospel.” Defendants referenced passages in the Old and New Testaments, such as Leviticus 19:34 ("The stranger who sojourns with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself) and the story of Exodus (“What answer is there for the envoys of the nation? This: that the Lord has fixed Zion in her place, and the afflicted among God's people shall take refuge there” [Isaiah 14:32]).

In 1986, in the more publicized of the two cases, the Justice Department indicted sixteen U.S. and Mexican religious on 71 counts of conspiracy and encouraging and aiding “illegal aliens to enter the United States by shielding, harboring and transporting them.” This group of indictees included Father Quiñones from Our Lady Church in Nogales, Catholic Reverend Anthony Clark, Jim Corbett, John Fife, Sister Darlene Nicgorski, and a handful of other Sanctuary members and lay religious from participating churches.

In 1985, the INS launched a ten-month investigation dubbed Operation Sojourner, sending paid informants into sanctuary communities to gain the trust of members, find information and report back to federal officials. In 1985, the government initiated criminal prosecutions against two activists in the Rio Grande Valley—Catholic layman Jack Elder and Methodist Stacey Merkt, both of whom provided sanctuary to Central Americans at Casa Oscar Romero in Brownsville, Texas.[11]

The Immigration and Naturalization Service Agency (INS) decided to crack down on movement members by the mid-1980s, which culminated in a series of high-profile trials in Texas and Arizona.

Sanctuary Trials

Because the refugees are here, a new exodus has already begun. Those enforced exiles are being joined by North American religious people who are voluntarily exiling themselves from a civil law without justice. Undocumented refugees and outlawed Christians and Jews are together forming a new exodus community that takes seriously a God who acts in history. Public sanctuary is an act that refuses to leave foreign policy to ambassadors and generals and compassion to the limits of law. The new exodus community is beginning to live a love that demands justice and acts with the power and authority that love carries. It is an authority rooted deep in Judeo-Christian tradition and US history itself.[10]

The Sanctuary Movement traced its roots to the ancient Judaic tradition of Sanctuary. As movement member Mary Ann Lundy phrased it, “The idea comes from the original Judeo-Christian concept of Sanctuary, where persons fleeing the law could go to places of worship and be protected.” In the Old Testament, God commanded Moses to set aside cities and places of refuge in Canaan where the persecuted could seek asylum. This concept can also be found in ancient Roman law, medieval canon law and British common law. Movement members also appealed to U.S. history, including the abolitionist movement and the Underground Railroad of the nineteenth century, the housing of Jews during World War II, the idea of the U.S. as a safe haven for immigrants and the civil rights struggles of the 1960s. For Sanctuary congregations, this provided justification for acting against federal laws, and many members saw themselves as part of a larger transnational community. As Corbett wrote in 1983:

Historical Parallels

The movement itself was declared a 1984 winner of the Letelier-Moffitt Human Rights Award.


This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.

Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from Project Gutenberg are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.