99% Invisible - 250- State (Sanctuary, Part 2)

Episode Date: March 8, 2017

In the 1980s, the United States experienced a refugee crisis. Thousands of Central Americans were fleeing civil wars in El Salvador and Guatemala, traveling north through Mexico, and crossing the border into the U.S. [Note: Just tuning in? Listen to … Continue reading →

This is 99% invisible. I'm Roman Mars. In the 1980s, the United States experienced a refugee crisis. Thousands of Central Americans were fleeing brutal civil wars in El Salvador and Guatemala. They were traveling north through Mexico and crossing the border into the US. We covered this history in the show last week if you haven't heard that episode yet. Go listen now. This is part two. In response to this mass migration, a network of churches across the country declared themselves

sanctuaries. That's producer Delaney Hall. In defiance of federal policy, some of these churches helped smuggle central Americans across the border and offered shelter to people who were threatened with deportation. And most of the churches did this publicly, without trying to hide what they were doing. By the mid-1980s, the sanctuary movement had become very visible and also very controversial. Here's a report that aired on NBC around that time. In the eyes of the congregation at St. Mary's Church, they are heroes.

In the eyes of the federal government, they are criminals who smuggle aliens into this country illegally. The government didn't like that churches were openly defined immigration law in harboring undocumented immigrants. The Immigration and Naturalization Service, now known as Immigration and Customs Enforcement,

or ICE, contended that many of these people didn't have legitimate asylum claims. The agency's stanceended that many of these people didn't have legitimate asylum claims. The agency's stance was that many of these migrants had come to the U.S. to find jobs, not because they feared political persecution. A refugee from El Salvador, the administration contends he and others like him have come here for economic reasons, but the young man listed other reasons for fleeing his homeland. Matanzas, killings, repression, repression, sincerity, misery, and hunger. The U.S. government found itself in a tough situation. They could allow the churches to continue openly disregarding the law, or they could launch

an investigation into the movement and risk public disapproval by targeting sympathetic church workers. In 1984, the government launched an investigation into the sanctuary movement. They called it Operation Sojourner, a biblical term for traveler or wanderer. The goal was to collect enough evidence to indict the leaders of the movement and to stop churches from sheltering migrants. The investigation would eventually raise big questions about the freedom of religion and the right of churches

to declare themselves protected spaces, free from government intrusion. This is an issue that's playing out in the news again today, as churches and other institutions anticipate large-scale deportations under President Donald Trump. On day one, I'm going to begin swiftly removing criminal illegal immigrants from this country. Demonstrators outside the immigration office in Colorado, supporting a mother of four from Mexico, Genet Viscara.

Currently, in 2017, many churches are starting to shelter undocumented immigrants once again. In this episode, we're going to look back at what happened in the 1980s. The last time a big confrontation happened between the federal government and sanctuary churches. In 1984, shortly after the government launched its investigation, a couple of new volunteers approached members of the sanctuary movement, asking if they could get involved. Their names were Jesus Cruz and Solomon Graham. I thought they don't fit the usual sanctuary volunteer profile, right? They look a little tough and a little too experienced on the border for the average volunteer we're

getting. This is Reverend John Fife. Back in the 1980s he was the pastor at South Side Presbyterian Church in Tucson, Arizona. He helped found the sanctuary movement. And Fife said that even though crews and grams seemed a little different somehow, it was his policy to welcome all who said they wanted to help. They had crucifixes around their necks and they presented themselves as folks who'd heard about the sanctuary movement and wanted to be a part of it, so we welcomed them and included them in. Cruz and Graham began attending meetings and helping transport Central American migrants

through the Sanctuary Network. They would drive folks from Tucson to Phoenix, or from Phoenix to Albuquerque, or from Phoenix to LA, so they would drive legs on the Underground Railroad. But as it would turn out, crews and Graham were not ordinary volunteers. They were undercover informants. The government had hired them to infiltrate the movement and gather evidence. Crews and Graham were both former smugglers. They'd worked on the border as guides, bringing people into the country illegally.

Then they'd been caught by immigration. And they'd reached an agreement that if they would infiltrate us and inform the government about what we were doing that they would not only pay them but drop the charges against them. The INS had decided to investigate the sanctuary movement using the same tactics they might use against any criminal smuggling enterprise. The agency wasn't swayed by the religious motivations of people like Reverend Fife. Here's Alan Nelson, the then commissioner of INS, speaking with ABC in 1985. If you and I are meeting in a church building to plan to rob a bank and open with a prayer and close with a prayer, I don't think many people would say this is a church service that

should be protected. They have the right to think what they want. Anybody does. That doesn't exclude them from obeying the walls of the United States. This is Ruth Ann Meyers. She became the INS district director for Arizona in 1984. She didn't oversee the investigation into the sanctuary movement, but she was briefed on it when she arrived at the Phoenix office. Yeah, I was totally surprised. In my experience, I had no knowledge before of a church breaking the law and harboring illegal aliens smuggling and harboring. Meyer says the case was pretty straightforward. These people were breaking the law. pretty straightforward. These people were breaking the law.

The law of the United States. I'm in favor of, excuse me, legal immigration, but not ill-legal immigration. I think we have the right to have our laws and to enforce them and decide who comes into this country and who doesn't. Cruising Graham along with a couple of other government agents, spent 10 months undercover, gathering evidence against the sanctuary workers. Their methods would eventually come under public scrutiny, because they hadn't just infiltrated the sanctuary movement.

They were also secretly recording meetings, conversations, and in some cases church services. Today's day is 1st, 1st, 4th, time is about 8 pm. We're going to deliver the needy when they come. These undercover methods struck some people as offensive and overreaching. Here's Anthony Lewis, then a professor at Harvard Law School, speaking to ABC News in 1985. All it's the methods that bother me. I think most of us Americans would believe that in America you are entitled to a sense of privacy when you go into a church, maybe privacy of a particular kind, you and you God.

The state was infiltrating and secretly surveilling churches in a country where the separation of church and state is a deeply held ideal. We reached out to two agents who were involved with the case, and both declined to speak to us. The people overseeing the investigation at INS thought these methods were justified. They saw the movement as more political than religious. Yes, there were many that thought it was under the guise of the church. Meaning, the sanctuary workers were using religion as a cover to push a political

agenda and undermine immigration laws. And it's true that some sanctuary volunteers were vocally critical of the American policy in Central America. Some expressed support for the left wing movements developing there. In fact, there was a divide within the movement itself about whether their works should be motivated primarily by humanitarian concerns or political ones. That debate got to the point where we decided to have a gathering and and try to resolve it. But two weeks before that meeting was supposed to happen, the government indicted 16 of the sanctuary workers in Tucson, including Reverend V. on January 14th, 1985, federal agents swept down a resting 63 Guatemalan and Salvadoran refugees across the United States and handing out indictments to 16 leaders of the sanctuary movement. That morning, Reverend Fife was sleeping when he heard someone banging on his front door.

And so I got up and I went to the door and there were two border patrol agents here. His immediate concern was for the refugees that were staying at Southside Presbyterian Church right across the street from his house. The only thought that occurred to me was I got all these vulnerable people over in the church. I need to keep these guys occupied. So I invited him in, made coffee, stalled every way I could. He read through the entire indictment the officers had handed him, trying to buy some time.

My charges were pretty clear and they were pretty typical of everyone. They were a number of counts of conspiracy to violate federal law, harboring illegal aliens, transporting illegal aliens, and eating illegal aliens. And everyone had different counts under each of those categories. Eventually, the Border Patrol agents went on their way, and Reverend Fife and the other leaders of the sanctuary movement were left with a daunting situation. They faced an impending, high-profile trial in which they'd be facing off with the federal

government. And the charges against them were serious. If convicted, they could spend years in prison. They got to work assembling a team of lawyers to defend them. So there's two bases as I see it for sanctuary. It's very simple, really. to defend them. So there's two bases as I see it for sanctuary. It's very simple, really. This is James Brazenham, one of the defense lawyers.

The first is religion, and many churches, many religions, have as a distinct imperative that you are to assist people who are on the road and who are fleeing some form of violence oppression. It's the teaching of Jesus. The defense thought there was an argument to be made that the sanctuary workers were just acting in accordance with their faith. Not only that, the lawyers believed the religious rights of the sanctuary workers had been violated by the government agents who'd infiltrated their churches and

made secret recordings. And that's intimidation of people who are pursuing their Bible studies in a church. The second part of the Defences' argument had to do with asylum law. The law provides that when a person shows up at the border and they are fleeing certain specific kinds of oppression or violence, they have a right to come in. And when that is true and that can be established in an immigration court, that person is entitled to stay in the United States.

That's asylum. As the defense team researched the laws, they started to believe that their clients hadn't really violated the law at all. They thought the US government had. I did research both how the United States government was handling asylum applications from people from Central America, and I also researched international law. This is A-Bates Butler III, another lawyer for the sanctuary volunteers. And I was appalled by what I discovered about how the United States government was systematically

it seemed denying asylum applications from Central America. This was all happening in the context of a major shift in US refugee policy. Before 1980, the US approached to taking in refugees had been expressly political. It gave preference to refugees fleeing communist countries and countries in the Middle East. In 1980, President Carter signed the Refugee Act into law. The law was supposed to create a fairer system by adopting a more humanitarian non-ideological definition of a refugee. It used the criteria developed by the United Nations, which identified a refugee as anyone with a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, social group, or political opinion.

Even though these new criteria were in place when Reagan came into office, the lawyers for the sanctuary workers believed the government was not following its own law. They thought INS was turning away large numbers of balsavadorans and Guatemalans who should have qualified as political refugees. Butler had been skeptical of the sanctuary movement when he first learned about it, but his research had changed his mind.

And so I moved from a position of, well, this is all fine and dandy and this is the religious thing to do, but it's illegal. I moved from that position to it's lawful to help these people and it's the United States government that is violating the law. The defendants and their supporters marched to the federal building in Phoenix for the first round of arrangements this morning. The charges transporting aliens illegally, harboring them, and conspiracy. Inside the courtroom, the defendants pleaded not guilty.

They were released without bail. Their trials were set for April 2nd. The sanctuary people say those trials will be a major test of religious freedoms in this country. This afternoon in Tucson, more arrangements. After months of preparation, the defense team was feeling confident. They thought they had sympathetic clients, a good amount of public support, and compelling legal arguments.

Here's Revan 5 again. Our position was, oh, we welcome the opportunity to make that case in court. And we think we're gonna win in a slam dunk. But then, very early on, the defense team faced a major setback. The lead prosecutor for the government was a lawyer named Donald Reno Jr.

And one of his first moves was to file a series of motions, asking the federal judge who was hearing the case to limit the arguments the defense could make. And then the federal judge who was hearing our case ruled that we couldn't say anything in our defense during our trial, about five subjects. United States Refugee Law, International Refugee refugee law, conditions in El Salvador, conditions in Guatemala, or religious faith. So that wiped out our entire legal position.

I mean, what was left? Nothing was left. And the way my attorney explained it was, well, federal judges in criminal prosecutions have enormous power to exclude evidence that they believe is not relevant to the charges that are being filed against the defendant. The judge had effectively reduced the case to its most basic level. Had the sanctuary workers engaged in a conspiracy to smuggle and harbor undocumented people? Yes or no?

There was to be no discussion about context, history, or motivations. One of the defendants was a man named Jim Corbett. Along with Reverend Fife, he'd helped to found the sanctuary movement. Corbett died in 2001, but in an archival interview, he described the situation that the defense team found itself in. He said it was as if a man was driving late at night in freezing weather. His car breaks down, so he goes to a nearby house and breaks in and then is discovered and brought to trial. And the judge rules out any evidence that would indicate that it was 40 below. His car had gone bad, he had had stopped, went to the only house in the area and entered it.

Without understanding the context, Jim thought there was no way that jury could understand why the sanctuary workers had decided to shelter Central Americans. Now, in terms of the necessity defense, we're talking about something very similar with people fleeing torture and murder in a very different context, but to rule out the ability to refer to that necessity simply makes a mockery of the law. The judge named Earl Carroll died in early February of 2017. We requested an interview with prosecutor Donald Reno Jr. but he's still an active litigator for what's now known as

Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The agency declined our request to speak with him. But he was featured in a news report from 1985 and he described the sanctuary movement as quote, an alien smuggling conspiracy. The government says that's not much different from drug smuggling. Over the next several months, the prosecution laid out its case against the sanctuary workers, relying heavily on testimony from their undercover informants. Reno characterized the sanctuary movement as a smuggling operation, pure and simple. The defense team tried to undermine those accounts in cross-examination

and to sneak in details about context and motivation when they could. But in most ways, their hands were tied. And when it came time for the defense to present their case, they declined to put anyone on the stand. The defense arrested without questioning a stand. The jury deliberated for more than 48 hours, spread over nine days. On May 1, 1986, 16 months after the indictments and more than six months since the start of

the trial, the jury filed into the courtroom to read the verdict. Of the 11 sanctuary workers who went to trial, three were acquitted of all charges. Eight were found guilty, including Reverend V, which hit Bates Butler, the lawyer, really hard. After the jury came in, I was so disgusted. With the system that I had worked in for so long I didn't want to be a part of it. And we were so upset that our government and our court system had cast aside our clients with their moral positions and that we felt like the government and the courts were bankrupt. The system was bankrupt.

But the other defense lawyer, James Brazenhan, had known there were significant hurdles they needed to overcome. You know, Joyce are very good, but they they come into the box with their own attitude. And the attitude is people just can't come over the border. If you're gonna do that, you gotta pay the price. Ruth Ann Meyers of the INS thought the verdict was fair. The people that worked in the sanctuary movement did not present those people to immigration offices.

They smuggled them into the U.S. They gave them, quote, sanctuary in their churches. They did not follow the law. Next came the sentencing by the judge. We really were worried that the judge was gonna put him in prison. My attorney told me, take a toothbrush in your hip pocket when you go to sentencing because they want you bad.

toothbrush in your hip pocket when you go to sentencing because they want you bad. So I had made arrangements with the congregation and with my family and everything, expecting to go to prison. And much to our astonishment, he sent and install of us who were convicted to five years' probation. The judge gave them relatively lenient sentences, considering they'd been convicted of in some cases, felonies. So we were relieved at that point. I think I don't know what he thought, but I thought that if he gave these nice people

jail term, it would be awful. The public opinion on that. And I think he had some sense that that might be true. Many of the sanctuary workers, including Reverend Fife, went back to their communities and continued their work in the sanctuary movement. Churches continued sheltering people. Volunteers continued helping people across the border. Many of the sanctuary volunteers had made clear in their closing arguments in the trial that they wouldn't stop doing the work.

The government may have sentenced John Fife and seven others sanctuary activists, but it is hardly silenced them nor stopped them from across country crusade. In fact. And at that point, did the government just back off? I mean, they must have known that you were continuing to do exactly what they'd just tried you for. They backed off us here in Tucson, but they tried one more trial. In New Mexico, the government charged a man and a woman who were part of the sanctuary

movement for transporting undocumented immigrants. And the jury in that case found them not guilty. And at that point, we knew that the movement had grown to the point where juries would no longer convict sanctuary workers. Not long after the criminal trial had ended, a group of churches and refugee rights organizations filed a class action lawsuit against the government. They alleged, among other things, that the government had engaged in discriminatory treatment of asylum claims made by Guana Mollens and Salvadorans. In 1990, the government settled the lawsuit.

They agreed to give everyone who was here without documents from those countries, temporary protected status, work permits, and they agreed to a whole series of reforms of the political asylum process. So we essentially began to wind down this sanctuary movement. But even though the churches were slowing their work, the whole idea of sanctuary was spreading. College campuses, cities, counties, even whole states began to declare themselves sanctuaries, and not just for refugees fleeing persecution, but for undocumented people more broadly. This accelerated through the 1980s and has continued up to today. But what exactly sanctuary means varies from place to place?

Anything you want. That's part of the problem. And each city is probably a little bit different. Once again, lawyer James Brosnahan. Usually, the local authorities, police, sheriffs will not assist in the deportation of undocumented people. In some places, police aren't allowed to inquire about a person's immigration status, or to give that information to the federal government. In other places, all residents are promised access to city services, regardless of their

immigration status. These policies can be set in law, or they can just happen in practice. President Donald Trump talked a lot about sanctuary cities during his campaign, and he's pointed to murders committed by undocumented immigrants as evidence that sanctuary cities should not exist. He's threatened to pull federal funding from cities that identify as sanctuaries, and he's also promised to accelerate deportations. In response, churches are once again sheltering people. I think a lot of congregations across the nation are struggling with what

will it mean to be faithful to the mandates of our faith underneath this administration. This is Alison Harrington. She's the current pastor of Southside Presbyterian in Tucson. The church where the sanctuary movement began in the 1980s. She and her congregation provided sanctuary to a couple of people who were threatened with deportation during the Obama administration. They're now having conversations about whether that work will expand in the next few years.

I mean, I can't ignore the fact that my predecessor, John Fife, was indicted for doing the work that I'm doing right now and that he was looking at 10 years in prison. I try not to think about that, but you can't ignore that. Since 2011, churches have had some protected status as sanctuaries. In that year, immigration and customs enforcement

under President Obama issued a memo. It said that some sensitive locations require special consideration by immigration officers. The government has said we won't enter into those sensitive locations unless it's an extreme situation or we have higher levels of approval and those sensitive locations are houses of worship, hospitals, and schools. But that practice isn't codified into law, and could easily change. Recently, there have been reports of immigration agents targeting undocumented people in hospitals and schools.

Churches might also be vulnerable. That's going to have to be worked out through a number of institutional decisions as well as court decisions decisions well into the future. What's going to be the result five years from now? We'll see. No one knows. 99% Invisible Was Produced This Week by Delaney Hall, with Sharifusif, Avery Trollfoman, Emmett Fitzgerald, Sam Greenspan, and me Roman Mars. Katie Mingle is our senior editor, Kurt Colstead is the digital director, and Terran Mazza is our office manager.

Sean Rial composed original music for this episode with additional music by Ok Akumi and Melodium. Thank you to Miriam Davidson, the author of Convictions of the Heart for letting us use tape of her interview with Jim Corbett. We are a project of 91.7K ALW in San Francisco and produced on Radio Row in beautiful downtown Oakland, California. You can find the show and join discussions about the show on Facebook. You can tweet at me at Roman Mars in the show at 99PI work.

We're on Instagram and Tumblr too. But the nexus of all things 99PI is at 99PI. Duttlework. All things 99PI is at 99PI.org. Radio TPI.