Cities vs. the INS : Sanctuary: Reviving an Old Concept

When City Council members declared Berkeley a “City of Refuge” last February, city employees were told not to cooperate with Immigration and Naturalization Service officers investigating or arresting Guatemalan and Salvadoran refugees.

On that same day, 1,900 miles away, council members in St. Paul, Minn., adopted their own resolution opposing the federal government’s policy of deporting Central American refugees, and backing a sanctuary movement that gives haven to refugees in churches and synagogues.

Those cities were the first to throw their support behind the sanctuary movement. Since then, leaders in nearly a dozen cities across the country, including New York and Chicago, have issued legislative or executive directives curtailing cooperation with the INS. From other cities have come statements opposing the Reagan Administration’s iron-fisted policy toward Salvadoran and Guatemalan refugees seeking political asylum.

Aim at U.S. Policy

A number of cities, including Los Angeles and Seattle, are considering similar steps, aimed at persuading the Reagan Administration to allow an estimated half a million undocumented Salvadorans and Guatemalans--whom the federal government considers largely economic and not political refugees--to remain in the United States.

“I see it as a growing movement,” said Berkeley Mayor Eugene (Gus) Newport. “And I think it’s growing faster than most people realize . . . for both churches and cities.”

Federal officials are disturbed by the growing city role.

“We think it’s unfortunate, and we think it’s somewhat dangerous,” said Duke Austin, an INS spokesman in Washington, who warned that by encouraging the sanctuary movement and restricting the flow of information about illegal aliens from local governments to the INS, cities will make it easier for “terrorists and criminals” to blend into the refugee population.

Steeped in Tradition

The concept of providing sanctuary, in which fugitives are immune from arrest in churches or other sacred places, is steeped in Judeo-Christian and Greek tradition. And in the current immigration dispute, religious workers have led the way as nearly 250 places--mainly churches --have declared themselves sanctuaries.

As more cities throw their support behind the sanctuary movement, the movement’s impetus has grown and supporters claim that a secular tradition has been revived, reminiscent of the Underground Railroad days when governmental bodies as well as individuals tried to protect fugitive slaves.

“You see (the sanctuary issue) moving from religious groups to cities,” said Gustav Schultz, a Lutheran minister who is chairman of the National Sanctuary Defense Fund, “and my hope is that it will move toward pushing the country back to being a sanctuary as a whole.”

The cities’ support has been largely symbolic, but opponents grumble that local politicians are overstepping their bounds. And although the INS does not accuse city governments of acting unlawfully or obstructing immigration enforcement, federal officials are concerned that the cities’ actions will undermine respect for the law.

“There are ways to show support for valid causes,” said Joseph Thomas, deputy director of the INS in Los Angeles, where more than 250,000 Salvadorans have reportedly settled illegally. “There are ways to show support for law. There are ways to show support for any activity. But the way to show that support is not to sanction violations of law.”

Thomas added that although his office does not routinely ask Los Angeles officials for help, a declaration of sanctuary by the city might harm the city’s working relationship with the federal agency in areas, such as narcotics law enforcement, where Los Angeles police sometimes get help from the INS in arresting illegal immigrants on drug charges.

“That’s really what we’re talking about here,” Thomas said. “The City of Los Angeles comes to the Immigration Service and says, ‘We want help.’ We say, ‘Fine.’ We go to the City of Los Angeles and say, ‘We need help,’ and they say, ‘No.’ Everybody being human, the next time the City of Los Angeles comes to me and says we need help, what do you think my answer will be?”

Clerics on Trial

The modern sanctuary movement is said to have begun in 1981 in Tucson, where 11 clergymen, nuns and lay religious workers are now on trial, accused of the felonies of harboring, shielding and transporting illegal aliens.

In response to the federal government’s decision to prosecute, the sanctuary movement launched a lobbying effort that has persuaded city leaders to back the sanctuary cause.

Officials in Takoma Park, Md., and Madison, Wis., for example, responded by barring city workers from assisting INS actions against refugees housed in church sanctuaries in their cities.

“To the extent that civil disobedience can be sanctioned, our action provided that approval,” said Alderwoman Eve Galanter of Madison.

Local governments in Olympia, Wash., Ithaca, N.Y., and Burlington, Vt., commended sanctuary workers and called for a change in the federal immigration policy toward Guatemalan and Salvadoran refugees.

City a Sanctuary

In a symbolic gesture, city councilors in Cambridge, Mass., also declared their city a sanctuary for refugees from Haiti as well as from war zones in Central America.

Other cities have taken similar steps, relying on executive orders rather than council actions.

In Chicago, Mayor Harold Washington declared in March that the city would no longer allow its facilities to be used “for spot detentions and inquiries by immigration officers” and would cease giving information to the INS about city residents. All questions regarding citizenship status also were ordered stricken from applications for city jobs and services.

Last month, New York Mayor Edward Koch issued a memo to department heads reminding them of a policy that municipal employees refrain from reporting illegal immigrants to federal officials except when the alien “appears to be engaged in some kind of criminal behavior.”

While a spokesman for Koch said the mayor’s action was not tied to the sanctuary issue, other city officials said the memo was a response to public hearings that involved discussions over the plight of refugees and questions about the sanctuary movement.

City officials nationwide defend non-cooperation by saying that they fear that illegal aliens might avoid seeking help or reporting crimes if they believe that they will be turned over to the INS.

Non-Cooperation Policy

It is not clear how much the INS is being hurt by non-cooperation because it is not known how much the agency relies on tips or help from public employees. Building inspectors and health care workers in Los Angeles, for example, do not divulge information about illegal aliens in their normal duties, city officials said. And, under a six-year-old policy, Los Angeles police insist that illegal aliens are not turned over to the INS unless they are suspected of felonies or major misdemeanors.

Los Angeles sanctuary leaders, however, claim that LAPD policy is unevenly enforced and charge that some refugees have been detained and turned over to the INS merely because of their immigration status.

A sanctuary policy by the city would help “codify” police policy, said Linton Joaquin, an attorney for the Central American Refugee Center of Los Angeles, which handles political asylum cases. And it would also remind other city departments that refugees--whether here illegally or not--are entitled to city services without harassment, he said.

INS officials concede that cities are not breaking any laws by declining to cooperate in the enforcement of federal immigration statutes. But these officials also claim that the cities are embracing a specious legal principle.

‘No Concept in Law’

“There is no concept in U.S. law for a sanctuary in either a city or a church,” said INS spokesman Austin. “You can’t harbor illegal aliens in the City of Cambridge (just) like you can’t harbor criminals in a church.”

Supporters, however, claim that while participation of cities in such a movement may be unusual, there is historical precedent.

The Seattle Citizens Commission on Central America--formed in 1983 in a voter-approved ballot initiative--issued a recent report describing how cities have declared themselves “sanctuaries” dating back to Biblical days.

The report also recalled the Civil War era when fleeing blacks relied on a flourishing Underground Railroad of people in various towns who would house and protect slaves as they fled north. At the same time, state legislatures passed “personal liberty laws” to hinder efforts by the federal government and slave owners to find and return fugitive slaves, the commission noted.

In more recent times, the City of Berkeley declared itself a refuge in 1971 for sailors on board an aircraft carrier when they refused to serve in the Vietnam War. A dozen sailors sought sanctuary in local churches and city officials helped mediate a settlement that enabled the sailors to file for conscientious objector status within the Navy, according to Schultz, the national sanctuary movement leader, who is pastor of the University Lutheran Church in Berkeley.

Stance a Precursor

Schultz said that stance 14 years ago was a precursor to the city’s resolution on Central American refugees.

In Los Angeles, politicians are moving cautiously toward a sanctuary endorsement, saying that they fear a backlash from citizens worried that new immigrants will take scarce jobs and housing and be a drain on public services.

“There may be people out there who think that there are enough legal and illegal immigrants here already and who would not look favorably upon the City Council taking an action which may symbolically open the flood gates,” said Los Angeles City Councilman Michael Woo, who has drafted a pro-sanctuary resolution.

Mayor Tom Bradley has backed some of the resolution’s provisions in the past and has formed his own Central American Refugee Advisory Commission. Organized labor has voiced general support for refugees. And Councilman Robert Farrell, who sits with Woo on the council committee considering a sanctuary stand, has been a staunch ally of the sanctuary movement.

In his resolution, Woo blames the federal government’s asylum policy for the “climate of fear prevalent among Central American refugees living in Los Angeles.”

Calls for Opposition

And he calls on the council to oppose the deportation of “law-abiding . . . refugees who have fled their homelands for fear of losing their lives.”

The resolution also advises city employees not to concern themselves with whether someone is here legally when dealing with the public, although Woo added that the city is not encouraging interference in law enforcement efforts.

Councilman Hal Bernson, the third member of the council committee, expressed reservations about such a policy, especially over a provision that would symbolically declare Los Angeles “a sanctuary city.”

“I don’t see where the (sanctuary) issue belongs before the City Council,” said Bernson, who represents a portion of the San Fernando Valley. “It’s not a city issue. Sure it concerns the city, but there is nothing we can do other than to make a statement to the federal government. . . . “

Church groups, which spearheaded the sanctuary drive in other cities, are lobbying heavily in Los Angeles.

“We’ve had some (council) aides saying, ‘We’re with you,”’ said Sister Jo’ann De Quattro, a Roman Catholic nun who chairs the sanctuary committee for the Southern California Ecumenical Council’s Interfaith Task Force on Central America. “We don’t want ‘probably.’ We think it’s very important this issue pass. What would be disastrous would be a defeat of this proposal.”

Sending a Message

Sister Darlene Nicgorski, another Roman Catholic nun, who is one of the sanctuary workers now on trial in Tucson, said that cities are “critical politically in terms of these (sanctuary) efforts” and added that a favorable vote in Los Angeles would send a sweeping message to both sides in the controversy.

To some sanctuary proponents such as the Rev. Donald L. Smith, a Presbyterian minister who works with refugees for the Southern California Ecumenical Council, the message is for the Reagan Administration to change its “uneven” immigration policy.

“Sanctuary began because people were responding to a human, material need,” Smith said. “But you very quickly discover, in the process, that it can’t stop there. You’re just putting on a Band-Aid unless you address the total situation.”

Those in the sanctuary movement believe civil strife is so widespread and human rights violations so serious in El Salvador and Guatemala that returning people to those countries would jeopardize their lives and well-being.

They argue that the federal government is discriminating against Salvadoran and Guatemalan refuges--because it is friendly to their governments--and that the Administration is violating its legal obligations under the Protocol and Refugee Act, which Congress passed in 1980.

Question of Intent

The INS and the State Department, in turn, contend that those immigrants are largely economic refugees--seeking better jobs and wages rather than escaping political or religious persecution--and do not qualify for political asylum.

The federal government’s views are reflected in the number of asylum applications turned down by the INS. In the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, only 24 Salvadoran applications out of 1,140 processed by the Los Angeles office were approved for asylum. Only one Guatemalan applicant was granted asylum out of 193 applicants.

By comparison, the INS granted roughly half of nearly 2,600 applications from Iranians and approved 67 Nicaraguan applicants while denying 335.

Nationally, the picture was much the same--with rejection of 99% of applications from Salvadorans and Guatemalans.

Congress’ Refugee Act of 1980 states that political asylum should be granted to immigrants with a “well-founded fear of persecution,” but U.S. officials contend that they have not found any solid evidence of human rights violations against aliens sent back to El Salvador or Guatemala.

Concept in Dispute

Sanctuary proponents, however, dispute those findings.

The American Civil Liberties Union recently completed a study comparing the names of 8,500 deportees to lists of known deathsquad victims and other “victims of political persecution.” The study reportedly found “112 likely cases of persecution, including 52 political murders, 47 disappearances and 13 unlawful political arrests.”

Carol Wolchok, director of the ACLU political asylum project, said the study reveals “a substantial body of evidence that (deportees) have been victims of human rights abuses after they left the United States.”

Some refugees, at recent public hearings in Los Angeles, told their own horror stories about the tragedies they have seen and the dangers they would face if deported.

One Guatemalan said that her husband was shot and that she was fearful of the same fate if returned to her native land. A Salvadoran widow said she was imprisoned after her husband, a college professor, was assassinated, and worried about being returned to jail if deported.

Students Found Dead

A former high school student in El Salvador, who left five years ago, said his family urged him to flee after his name appeared on a list carried by National Guardsmen--and eight other students on that list were found dead.

Father Peter Canavan, a Catholic priest and director of the Newman Student Center at Los Angeles City College, said refugees want to return to their countries but not until the violence and state of siege ends. Many of the 1,000 students from Central America enrolled at his campus share that view, he said.

“If you want them to go back and live as groundhogs, then go ahead and send them back to live under those conditions,” Canavan told city officials. “They know it would be suicide for them to return.”

At the storefront headquarters of El Rescate--a service center for Central American refugees in downtown Los Angeles--a 53-year-old Salvadoran man, who called himself “Pedro” told The Times how he escaped with his son, daughter and 5-year-old grandson last September.

Speaking through an interpreter, “Pedro” said that civil violence has left 20 members of his family killed or missing and offered little choice to survivors but to leave El Salvador and make the monthlong trek to the United States.

“It is a Calvary of pain and suffering,” he said of his native land. “And you can’t keep living like this.”