‘Invasion of the Sanctuaries’

This is in response to your editorial (Jan. 20), “Invasion of the Sanctuaries.”

As I see it, those Catholic priests, nuns, Presbyterian ministers and Quakers, who were indicted in the recent federal government crackdown on the church Sanctuary Movement, are about as “American” as the lawbreakers and conspirators who ran the pre-Civil War underground railroad for runaway slaves.

What they are doing is about as treasonous and un-American as the Boston Tea Party.

We’ve seen their sort before--men like William Penn with his concern for injustice, his radical notions about treating Indians fairly, and his nonviolent religious principles mixing with politics when he founded the colony of Pennsylvania. He went so far as to enact legislation with guarantees of personal and political liberty, just the sort of thing his fellow Quakers had been agitating for since arriving in the colonies.

Those religious folks with their ideas about a “higher authority” didn’t stop there. Oh no! Some other Quaker upstart named John Woolman came along before the Revolution and started stirring up trouble about slaveholding. Before you knew it a National Abolition Movement was founded. Those religious “do-gooders” just don’t seem to know when to stop until they actually get something done.

Now, here we are in the 1980s and along comes another bunch of nonviolent religious folks. If it isn’t kindness toward the Indians in the colonies, or freedom for black slaves, now it’s sanctuary for refugees from the death squads in Central America. There they go again, helping people, out of concern for their fellow man, based on their faith and belief in God. There are laws against this sort of thing. And wouldn’t you know it, some Quaker philosopher named Jim Corbett is involved right from the start. Another “do-gooder” getting things done, and this time he’s got a Presbyterian minister as a sidekick and co-conspirator; along with priests, nuns, clergy of all sorts, Christian lay workers and Jewish rabbis.

Now I ask you, in this very year when the Statute of Liberty is getting some long overdue restoration, what is America coming to?

JOHN LONGENECKER

Los Angeles

Your editorial regarding the arrests of clergymen who harbor and aid Central American refugees contains a startling contradiction. First you say that “church people are clearly breaking the law,” but you conclude with “Clergymen . . . are not criminals in any sense of the word.” You appear to be encouraging people to violate the immigration laws.

If these are political refugees, as you seem to argue, then why did most of them journey the entire length of Mexico to get to the United States? Is Mexico refusing them political asylum?

Famine, war, human rights violations, genocide; yes, the world is filled with refugees. Making them all American citizens, however, is a poor excuse for dealing with the real problems--problems that seem to always be with us. America cannot be a lifeboat for the world.

JAMES A. LEAVITT

Los Angeles

Dennis P. Riordan’s article (Jan. 23), “No Sanctuary from Government,” deserves some comment on its logic. Perhaps he should have properly entitled his article, “No Sanctuary from the Law,” because I don’t seem to recall anything from the Constitution or the Bill of Rights where it says that we shall have the freedom to violate the law within the confines of churches or because we believe it is the “Christian thing to do.”

I am constantly hearing from religious leaders about their precious separation of church and state, which normally is interpreted as meaning that the government shall not interfere in any church’s religious affairs. That is fine and dandy; however, I would remind those same leaders that the reverse is also true in that the church has no right to interfere in the government’s enforcement of the law either.

This is so because religious institutions are only one of many types of institutions existing in this country, but all are subject to the laws of the people. Thus, as a law-abiding citizen of this country, it matters not to me whether it is members of the Elks, Shriners, the Boy Scouts of America or the Catholic Church who are breaking the law by smuggling illegal aliens. They can and should be prosecuted for their illegal acts.

For those religious leaders arrested to attempt to hide behind their church to avoid prosecution for illegal activities it represents a crass prostitution of their own professed beliefs as well as an arrogant disregard for the will of the people not unlike the man who robs banks because he believes all bankers are evil.

I seriously question the sincerity of those arrested as it appears that assisting illegal aliens in their plight is secondary to the “rush” they must get out of playing Robin Hood against the “evil” federal government and the “high” they must be enjoying from all the publicity. If those arrested were really sincere about helping the aliens in question they would be doing all they can to help them legally immigrate, lobbying their legislative bodies, writing their legislators and pushing to get laws changed. But then that isn’t very exciting.

PETER M. BEGICH

El Toro

How very sad that the assistant secretary of state for human rights and humanitarian affairs appears to be in no way humane. According to Elliot Abrams’ article (Editorial Pages, Jan. 17), the desperate plight of Salvadoran refugees is a fantasy created by “activist political groups, well-meaning church groups and biased TV shows.”

I have recently returned from El Salvador. In returning to my job as a school teacher, I find it difficult to live with the grim and oppressive reality I saw there. I do not claim to be an expert on El Salvador. In his only realistic remarks, Abrams pointed out that it is a complicated matter.

There exist in El Salvador grossly overcrowded refugee camps, of which 70% are children. Forty percent of those children have lost their parents in the war that Abrams insists has nearly diminished. There you can see Salvadoran citizens with grotesque scars and missing limbs due to the napalm and white phosphorus bombings that occur with unnerving frequency in their villages. These are facts not fantasy. It is for these and many other more terrifying reasons that these people are fleeing their country.

During my visit to the U.S. Embassy in El Salvador I was told by the assistant to the ambassador, David Passage, that the Salvadoran government is in possession of a “stockpile” of napalm. A delegation from the Los Angeles area visited El Salvador and confirmed napalm and phosphorus burns. The number of burn victims they identified was low because many of them do not survive these civilian bombings.

These Salvadorans have obviously not been fortunate enough to experience the “significant decrease in violence” that Abrams speaks of. If these facts, which delegation after delegation have seen, are not proof of oppression and persecution then no such proof exists.

As for the so-called “program” that exists for Salvadorans deported back to El Salvador--it is simply not the epitome of efficiency claimed. According to Kathy Barmon, the human rights coordinator at the U.S. Embassy in El Salvador, she was able to reach only 50% of the 400 Salvadorans recently deported. How can Abrams claim that deportees are perfectly safe when they return to El Salvador when only half have recently been contacted.

We are in no way meeting our obligations in El Salvador. Our first step must be to stop the military aid we are sending to El Salvador, which is only serving to maintain the oppression that personifies this country. Our second step is as Abrams stated, “The United States is legally obligated and morally bound to protect refugees.” Not only are these people refugees but they are most certainly under political and military oppression. Our third step should be to make every effort to encourage the President of our country to support the peace talks in El Salvador the Contadora process.

Abrams seems overly concerned with the permanent residence status of Salvadoran refugees. Perhaps he should consider that most Salvadorans would probably want to return to their country once peace has made its transformation from their fantasy to a reality for all of El Salvador.

DIANE FOGARTY

Santa Monica

It is clear that Abrams has not bothered to listen to the testimony of any of the almost 1 million Salvadoran refugees (that is almost a fourth of the country’s population). If he had he would know that the program he praises has failed. It has neither eased the terror nor lessened the danger for the returned refugees.

MARY BRENT WEHRLI

Los Angeles