Sanctuary: a Complex Case

Lutheran and Presbyterian church officials are suing the federal government for planting undercover agents in Arizona congregations during investigations that led to the so-called “Sanctuary” trial now under way in Tucson.

Eleven defendants, including several Protestant and Roman Catholic clergy members, have been charged with smuggling aliens into this country; what they did was help refugees from combat zones in Central America enter the United States. Administration spokesmen insist that few Salvadorans or Guatemalans who flee to this country are in danger, but come only for the economic benefits. Unstated, but clear, is the Administration’s concern that the Sanctuary Movement generates public opposition to its policies in Central America.

The Sanctuary Movement is not nearly as organized or as coordinated as the name implies. It is largely an expression of concern by 300 U.S. churches, synagogues and religious congregations about violence in Central America, backed up by public promises to shelter refugees from the turmoil. Some churches do house and feed refugees from El Salvador and Guatemala, helping them relocate here from their war-torn homelands.

And while some Sanctuary activists are motivated by opposition to U.S. government policies in Central America, most say that they are motivated by religious conviction. They insist that they are helping people who have run for their lives. They also claim to find legal support in key sections of U.S. refugee laws and United Nations refugee protocols that the United States has signed.

The Sanctuary case in Tucson raises complex legal questions with no easy answers. The old tradition of sanctuary is of dubious legality in this country, even with its historic separation of church and state. Nevertheless, government historically has not interfered with church activities. Unfortunately, the federal judge presiding in the Tucson case has refused to allow any testimony about that history, the religious beliefs of the defendants or U.S. policy in Central America, treating the trial as a simple alien-smuggling case.

For that reason the lawsuit filed in Phoenix this week by officials of the Presbyterian Church U.S.A. and the American Lutheran Church against the U.S. Justice Department could be as useful as it will be controversial. The churches run the risk of losing and leaving legal precedents that could be used to justify future state interference with religious activities. If they win, however, they will force the Justice Department to rethink the tactics that it used in the Tucson case, such as using paid informants to infiltrate prayer meetings. However questionable the activities at those meetings, the government’s decision to secretly monitor and tape-record the sessions was just as questionable. And before federal agents make a regular practice of infiltrating religious meetings, they should at least have to defend such unprecedented activities before competent legal authorities.