47 in Congress Write to Judge, Ask Leniency in Sanctuary Case

In an unusual move, 47 members of Congress have written a letter to a federal judge in an effort to lighten the sentences of eight Christian activists convicted recently in Arizona of helping to find sanctuary for Salvadorans fleeing their homeland, it was learned Monday.

The letter asks U.S. District Judge Earl H. Carroll, who will pass sentence on the activists today, to “consider the underlying circumstances in Central America and the humanitarian motives of the defendants.”

The lawmakers, led by Reps. Joe Moakley (D-Mass.) and Morris K. Udall (D-Ariz.), assert that El Salvador “is plagued by high levels of violence, including politically motivated kidnapings and slayings.” The June 18 letter, a copy of which was made available to The Times, says that at least 40,000 civilians have been killed since 1979 and that 25% of the population has been displaced.

Movement Called Response

“The sanctuary movement is a response to these conditions,” the letter says.

The legislators, who said they were reluctant to write the court because of their “fundamental commitment to the rule of law” and their “respect for the judicial process,” closed the two-page letter by citing broad congressional support for allowing the Salvadorans to stay in this country.

“It is our hope that factors such as these will be looked at by the court prior to the sentencing of the defendants,” it added.

An aide in Phoenix said that the judge had received the letter, along with many others from around the nation, and that he had read all of them. However, the aide said, the judge had made no comments about any of the letters.

Convicted on May 1

A federal jury convicted the eight sanctuary activists May 1 on 16 felony charges and two misdemeanor counts of helping illegal aliens flee Central America. Among those convicted were two Catholic priests, a nun and the Rev. John M. Fife, co-founder of the sanctuary movement.

Wade J. Henderson, associate director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the congressional letter “reflects the concern over what appears to be a substantial imbalance of justice.”

However, Patrick Burns, director of research and public affairs at the Federation for Immigration Reform, called the sanctuary movement “the sanctimonious movement,” adding: “They’ve had their day in court, and they’ve lost. The sanctuary movement is clearly in violation of the law.”

Burns, whose organization works to stop illegal immigration, called it “regrettable that Congress is trying to influence a case.” He added: “I do not think anyone should stand above the law. In America, that’s what you go to jail for.”

Focus of Policy Debate

Since the verdict, groups on both sides have used the case to make arguments for and against U.S. immigration policy.

Supporters of the sanctuary movement also are supporting a bill that would allow the estimated 500,000 Salvadorans in the United States to remain here illegally for about two years under a status known as extended voluntary departure.

The Administration has argued that granting special status to the Salvadorans would create a “magnet” for others in the region who also would immigrate illegally.

In a letter to a Republican member of the House Judiciary Committee, which is considering the bill, Secretary of State George P. Shultz said the immigrants face no danger if they return to their country.

Results of Study Disputed

Shultz, citing a study, said that of 7,000 who have returned, only two have died. One resulted from a “barroom fight over a soccer match,” he said, and “another was killed perpetrating a robbery.”

But the American Civil Liberties Union charged that the Intergovernmental Committee for Migration, which conducted the study, was “ill-equipped” to monitor the returning Salvadorans.

Gretchen S. Bolton, chief of mission in Washington for the Geneva-based organization, which is composed of 32 countries, including El Salvador and the United States, said the group stands by the study.