|
|
|
| Current Issue |
|
|
| Resources |
|
|
|
Introduction: The Sanctuary Movement
| Article
# : |
10882 |
|
|
Section : |
Modern Thought
|
| Issue
Date : |
7 / 1986 |
1,166 Words |
| Author
: |
Editor
|
On May 1, 1986, a federal jury in Tucson, Arizona, pronounced a verdict of guilty upon eight defendants who had been charged with violations of immigration law, while three other defendants were adjudged not guilty of similar charges. It was a special case. The accused individuals were on trial because of their involvement in sanctuary, a movement which had placed itself in opposition to American policy in Central America. Defenders of sanctuary claim that the American government's policy has resulted in the "torture and death" of innocent people in El Salvador and Guatemala. The defendants were tried and convicted for their acts of civil disobedience (or for their acts of "civil initiative," according to Jim Corbett's description).
There are two identifiable strains of thinking within the sanctuary movement, and, consequently, two lines of objections to the positions it takes. The first strain of sanctuary thinking is humanitarian, and it is from this that the movement has gained its popular strength. The representatives of this strain insist that they are evenhanded for all Latin Americans (including Nicaraguans) and solely humanitarian in motive. They contend that human beings are being victimized by their governments in Central America and forced into crossing our borders as refugees, despite the objections of the U.S. government. Movement workers further contend that, by deporting these immigrants, we return them to persecution and possible death. Thus, the humanitarian sanctuary activists see assisting these people as a moral obligation. They often stress that the U.S. government is itself a lawbreaker, in violation of the 1980 Refugee Act and numerous articles of international law.
The first question to be addressed to the humanitarian defense of the sanctuary movement concerns its sincerity. The average churchgoer responds to sanctuary out of a simple desire to help alleviate human suffering, apart from any political or ideological concerns. But it is possible to discern alternate motives and goals among the movement's leaders and organizers. Sam Francis maintains that the two strains of sanctuary differ only with respect to their tactics and propaganda appeal. The second point of contention concerns the problem of ascertaining the human rights situation in Central America. Government sources reject the numbers cited by sanctuary activists, while sanctuary workers reject the government's statistics. The third relevant question pertains to civil disobedience itself.
While it is probably true that the United States ought to improve its refugee policy, is civil disobedience justified in this case? If it is
...
Read Full Article
Look for this article in Ask.com
|
|
