The Sanctuary Case

A trial began in Arizona last week that should illustrate the hypocrisy of U.S. policy on refugees from Central America. Pretrial rulings by the presiding judge in the “Sanctuary case” in Tucson will make it difficult to get those issues on the record, but they must emerge eventually if justice, not political expediency, is to be served.

The 11 defendants on trial for illegal-alien smuggling are not hardened criminals. They include two Roman Catholic priests and one nun, a Presbyterian minister and seven religious lay workers. None deny helping illegal immigrants from El Salvador enter the United States. But they insist that they acted out of religious conviction and in keeping with international law.

Reagan Administration officials hope that the Sanctuary case will end a practice that is linked to growing domestic opposition to its policies in Central America and to its handling of people who flee the violent chaos in that region: churches declaring themselves sanctuaries for Central American refugees.

The tradition of religious sanctuary is of uncertain legality under the U.S. Constitution, with its separation of church and state. But historically governments in this country have not routinely violated the sanctity of churches and religious meetings. Federal agents did that in this case, infiltrating church groups in Arizona to gather information for indictments against the 11 defendants on trial. The infiltration was not necessary. The churches with which the defendants worked are among hundreds that have publicly declared themselves sanctuaries.

The Tucson defendants argue that, in providing haven to refugees from political violence in Central America, they were motivated by religious faith and a belief that the government’s practice of routinely deporting Central American refugees is legally untenable.

Under the 1968 United Nations protocol on refugees and the U.S. Refugee Act of 1980, the argument raised by the defendants may have some merit. Both documents require that the United States give refuge to all persons who have a “well-founded fear” of persecution in their homeland. Sanctuary activists say that language requires the government to presume that persons who flee here from war-torn countries are refugees, and that this status precludes their being deported back to their homelands while hostilities continue. In practice, U.S. immigration officials presume that most Central Americans are motivated to come here by money, not fear, and routinely deny them asylum. Thus hundreds of illegal immigrants have been sent back to El Salvador during that country’s civil war.

That policy demands serious scrutiny. But under the rigid rules set by presiding U.S. District Judge Earl H. Carroll, the policy will not even come up in the Sanctuary trial. Federal prosecutors persuaded Carroll to bar from the court proceedings any testimony that might be construed to deal with federal refugee policies, events in Central America or the religious beliefs of the defendants. Government officials insisted that the case involves nothing more than an illegal-alien smuggling conspiracy. Carroll went along with them. Under his rules, the defendants will have little chance of proving their innocence in the trial itself. They may have to wait for an appellate hearing to make their case.

The unjust treatment of Central American refugees will continue until Congress forces the Administration to change its mean-spirited refugee policies. There are remedies available to the government under existing immigration laws for handling those refugees more humanely. One would be granting them “extended voluntary departure” status, under which they admit being in the United States illegally but are allowed to remain until turmoil in their homeland ends. The Administration routinely grants this status to refugees from Poland. To refuse to do the same for people fleeing El Salvador is sham, designed to not embarrass a friendly government. To that extent the Sanctuary trial is consistent with current U.S. policy. It, too, is a sham.