Spies in the Pews

Media Clip (60 Minutes host, Ed Bradley): To the Reagan administration, sanctuary leaders, like Jim Corbett and Reverend John Fife, who's regarded as the movement's founding father and who was also indicted, do more than save refugees. They attacked US policy in Central America. So the administration set out to break the sanctuary movement. The Justice Department, which declined to be interviewed for this story, launched a 10 month undercover investigation. It used informers who posed as concerned Christians and who wore hidden tape recorders to church meetings so they could gather evidence against sanctuary workers.

Dr. Lloyd Daniel Barba: For nearly three years, sanctuary activists had taken to the pews and the streets to share their message with the nation. They had worked to ring the alarm among their fellow congregants and citizens that they, as Americans, were helping facilitate the deaths of hundreds of 1000s of people in Central America. American taxpayer dollars, they alleged, were propping up military regimes and death squads in Guatemala and El Salvador. These were the very same regimes and death squads that were hunting down everyday Guatemalans and Salvadorans. All this was done in the name of anti-communist efforts to stave off the spread of leftist infiltrators, a key foreign policy preoccupation of the Reagan administration.

Media Clip (Reagan): We must not listen to those who would disarm our friends and allow Central America to be turned into a string of anti-American Marxist dictatorships. [Clapping] The result could be a tidal wave of refugees, and this time, they'll be feet people and not boat people swarming into our country seeking a safe haven from communist repression to our south.

Dr. Barba: And what was the result of Reagan's foreign policy in Central America?

Dr. Sergio M. González: Well, along with hundreds of thousands of dead, more than a million people had, in fact, fled the region of desperation, seeking reprieve from the daily violence and political persecution. They came to the United States seeking safe harbor. But instead of political asylum, promised, as it was by the Refugee Act of 1980 and international refugee law, these people were summarily detained and deported back to their home countries. They were, according to federal officials, not legitimate refugees, but in fact, nothing more than migrants looking for better paying jobs in the US.

Media Clip (Abrams): My sense is that from the Caribbean and Central America, the majority of people emigrating to the United States are not refugees. They are people seeking to build a better life for themselves by finding better employment.

Media Clip (Speaker 2): What you would call 'economic migrants.'

Media Clip (Abrams): That's right.

Dr. Barba: As we've discussed in previous episodes, the sanctuary movement then developed as a rebuttal to the government's claims. It was a faith based response to what had quickly become a humanitarian and political crisis.

Media Clip (Sanctuary Activist on her ministry): It's a wonderful opportunity for the church to act in deed not simply in word. We're not praying for them. We're trying, in some ways, to enter into solidarity by concretely placing ourselves over and against our government, who colludes in their persecution. Clearly colludes.

Dr. Barba: Sanctuary activists did so, knowing that their actions might be perceived by the federal government as illegal and prosecutable. Let's listen into a Quaker member of the movement helping to transport a Guatemalan family from Arizona to Kansas. In the background, you hear the sounds of the highway and passengers in the backseat of the car as she zooms to the next safe house on the movement's Underground Railroad. She describes how she balanced that legal risk with her obligation to a higher calling.

Media Clip (Quaker Activist): For me, I know that the fine is $2,000 and that there's a possible jail term for transporting these people. And I was concerned because I have a young daughter, and I also have a child on the way, and it is a consideration for me. I don't want to go to jail, but you know, you have to do things sometimes that involve some risk, or you may not be doing what you feel is right. If people knew really how oppressed these people were, then they would be likely to be involved in the same thing that we're doing.

Dr. González: Now, this may be the cost, they argued, of living out their faith to welcome the stranger as their God commanded them to do. What they hadn't anticipated, however, was the extent to which the federal government would work to discredit and prosecute them. They also didn't expect the clandestine tactics of the Reagan administration and his department of justice.

Media Clip (Dan Rathers): In Tucson, Arizona, jury selection today in the US government's controversial case against 11 people featuring federal evidence from undercover informants. The 11 on trial include two priests, a nun, a Protestant minister. All members of the so-called sanctuary movement that offers aid, comfort, and shelter to illegal aliens from Central America.

Dr. Barba: Spies in the pews, covert recordings of Bible study sessions, and even church break-ins. These were the methods the federal government had deployed in preparation for what would become one of the most dramatic trials in the history of the US. To the indicted sanctuary activists, this all seemed beyond the pale. As Sister Darlene Nicgorski offered, these actions threatened the very fundamental freedoms Americans held so dearly.

Media Clip (Nicgorski): If the government gets a green light and can go forward with this kind of activity of infiltrating churches, we have lost some basic freedoms upon which this country was founded.

Dr. González: Another sanctuary leader, Reverend John Fife of Tucson's Southside Presbyterian Church, agreed. Here he is making comparisons that any American would have understood in the midst of the Cold War.

Media Clip (Fife): We know that that happens in the Soviet Union, in Poland, and Eastern Europe. We know that that happens in El Salvador and Guatemala. Now, we need to deal with the reality that it has happened here in the United States.

Dr. González: The stakes could not have been higher. Not only were sanctuary leaders facing prison time and fines that could destroy the movement, but the very future of a national network created to offer safe harbor to refugees could still fall apart. With national media covering every moment of the trial, the showdown between church and state that sanctuary activists had initiated in the borderlands in 1982 was about to meet its climax in a federal courtroom.

Dr. Barba: And as a lawyer for one of the sanctuary workers noted, the government's goal here was clear:

Media Clip (Defense Attorney): I think the government's trying to crush the sanctuary movement. They're trying to not allow the individuals that believe that it's the government that's violating the law. They want to not have that story told.

Dr. González: Welcome to Sanctuary, a limited podcast series about immigration, faith and the borders between church and state. Sanctuary is created by me, Dr. Sergio Gonzalez

Dr. Barba: And me Dr Lloyd Barba

Dr. González: In conjunction with the Institute for Religion, Media and Civic Engagement and AxisMundi Media.

Dr. Barba: Sanctuary was produced by Dr. Bradley Onishi and engineered by Scott Okamoto. KariOnishi provided production assistance. Sanctuary was made possible through generous funding from the Henry Luce Foundation and with support from the religion department at Amherst College.

Dr. González: Additional support was provided by the American Academy of Religion. And before we get started, we just want to warn listeners that this series contains infrequent depictions of violence and sexual assault that may not be suitable for all listeners. In our last episode, we discussed some of the growing rifts between the major power poles of the movement. Now, some of this was inevitable, as the movement grew at a breakneck pace. By March 24, 1984, the second anniversary of the movement, activists could already claim their 100th sanctuary. Given the movement's growth, the oncoming response from the federal government was inevitable. From the movement's start, the federal government had mostly responded with passive threats. Government officials really didn't want to give the movement oxygen or media attention. Many in the Immigration and Naturalization Service or INS and the State Department thought, or perhaps hoped that the movement would simply wither away after some splashy media coverage. Here's one Dallas INS official weighing in on this calculation.

Media Clip (INS Official): We're not going to go into churches at this point. But if they're transporting them, keeping them in their homes, they are, in fact, committing a felony. And if we encounter them, we will prosecute them just like we would anyone else.

Dr. Barba: Movement members took the potential for this type of federal prosecution very seriously. Let's listen in to a discernment conversation with the San Francisco-based Catholic order, Sisters of the Presentation, as they debated whether or not to declare their order a sanctuary. It's an excellent example of this whole entire process, as we hear a sister call in to a live, public access show where the sisters were openly discussing this question. You'll hear Sister Bernadette Giles with a question for the Congregational Superior, Margaret Cafferty.

Media Clip (Sister Bernadette Giles): This is Sister Bernadette Giles calling, and I'd like to ask you, Margaret, if the Sisters of the Presentation sign a sanctuary covenant, is there a defense fund available for the congregation in the event that there is prosecution on the part of the government against the Sisters of the Presentation?

Media Clip (Congregational Superior, Margaret Cafferty): Thank you, Sister. I am sure that if we sign the covenant, there will be a defense fund made available. We do have regular fees that we put aside in our budget each year to pay for consultants, and that fee includes our legal fees. So, I am positive that we would be able to meet that crisis if it occurred.

Dr. Barba: As Sister Margaret Cafferty notes, movement participants were certainly aware of the legal risks involved in their activism; many nodes of the movement, including the San Francisco Bay Area, would eventually turn to national organizations like the National Lawyers Guild for support. Activists in the East Bay Sanctuary covenant also founded the National Sanctuary Defense Fund in 1984 to provide legal and financial assistance to those who came under government prosecution.

Dr. González: While the government may have been quiet at the movement's start, sanctuary activists certainly heard the criticism coming from a number of actors. Among them were other people of faith who may have been sympathetic to the plight of Central Americans, but who disagreed strongly with the movement's direct action strategy, its potential to break the law, and its oftentimes overt political criticism of the Reagan administration's foreign policy. Many of the major Protestant denominations in several Jewish associations, had voiced their support for sanctuary in the movement's early years, doing so through their national governing bodies and synods. One major missing voice, however, was the Catholic Church. To be sure, the bishops of the US Catholic Church had taken a clear stance on Central America. Here's Sister Margaret Cafferty again, the Congregational Superior of the Sisters of the Presentation, discussing the bishop's public statements on US intervention in the region:

Media Clip (Congregational Superior, Margaret Cafferty): If there is any issue on which the United States Catholic Conference has a clear position, it's the issue of Central America. We have written statements that have been accepted by the entire body of bishops condemning current US policy of aiding the military governments in Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras. So the policy of our bishops in relationship to Central America is very clear. We also have a number of bishops who have testified before Congress. Bishop Malone, who is currently the President of the United States Catholic Conference, Bishop Roach when he was the president, Bishop Hickey, who is the Archbishop of Washington DC, have all testified before Congress condemning current US policy. So there is no question where the church stands on the question of Central America. Our bishops have made that very clear.

Dr. Barba: Those statements, however, didn't extend to the full throat of support for sanctuary activism, particularly not from the US Catholic Conference of Bishops. In fact, only a handful of Catholic leaders, including Archbishop John Quinn of San Francisco, Archbishop Rember Weakland of Milwaukee, Bishop John Fitzpatrick of Brownsville, and Archbishop Raymond Hunthausen of Seattle, blessed the movement and invited the parishes to join it. Here's Bishop Fitzpatrick on why his diocese took the extraordinary step to get involved in the sanctuary movement.

Media Clip (Bishop Fitzpatrick): We're keeping people from being killed and we're keeping people from starving and so we feel it's a moral issue, and we have not only a right but obligation to get involved in more issues.

Dr. González: That type of leadership among Catholics, however, was an outlier. More common were statements like those made by Cardinal Joseph Bernardin of Chicago, one of the nation's most prominent religious figures. In 1983 he issued a memorandum to his archdiocese. In it, he told area priests that while he'd continue to call on Congress to halt the deportation of Central Americans. Sanctuary, in his view, was engaged in illegal activity. Chicagoland Catholic parishes, then, were barred from entering the movement. The lack of unified Catholic support for sanctuary was notable as Catholic parishes represented the largest denominational component of the movement.

Dr. Barba: Milquetoast statements like those from Cardinal Bernardin, however, paled in comparison to a small but extremely vocal, and sometimes caustic, response from religious conservative organizations. Sergio, you've been doing a deep dive on this topic in your own research; why don't you tell us a bit about the IRD's role in all of this?

Dr. González: You got it, Lloyd. The most active of these was a neoconservative think tank called the Institute on Religion and Democracy, or IRD. Established in 1981, the organization had been founded as a bulwark against what members viewed as a growing infatuation with political, and particularly leftist, causes among American churches. The IRD accused the National Council of Churches, the World Council of Churches, and the governing bodies of many mainline Protestant denominations, of funneling millions of church dollars into Moscow- and Castro-friendly organizations, especially in Latin America.

Dr. Barba: So, these weren't crackpot accusations coming from the fringes of society, right?

Dr. González: Not at all. The IRD Board of Directors was made up of heavyweights, including religious conservative activists, public intellectuals, and veterans of political fights.Many of them held positions with conservative advocacy groups like the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation. And they included people like Catholic journalists and intellectual Michael Novak, prominent Christian cleric John Richard Neauhaus, and sociologist Peter Berger. And most importantly, they were funded by conservative mega-donors like the Sarah Scaife Foundation, the Smith Richardson Foundation and the John M. Olin Foundation.

Dr. Barba: And as I recall, Sergio, it was quick, about within a year of the movement's founding, that the IRD turned their sights on the sanctuary movement. Right?

Dr. González: Now, that's exactly right. The group alleged that Sanctuary was nothing more than communism cloaked in clerical collars.

Dr. Barba: What a line! So the criticism sounded something like, "Oh, here were a bunch of political leftists, really nothing more than activists, using religion to cover their attacks on America and the country's foreign policy." Yeah?

Dr. González: That's exactly it. The consequences of allowing them to continue, as Michael Novak offers here, would be to bring Soviet communism to the country's backyard.

Media Clip (Novak): Suppose that Nicaragua becomes a more totalitarian state in the Cuban model over the next year or two. Suppose that the rebels in El Salvador should win, and they do the same. And then we should wake up one day, 20 years from now, to the criticism that in our generation we've recreated another Eastern Europe on our own doorstep, and that our own Catholic Bishops did it. I think that would be devastating, and it would be an accusation against the church that would last for generations.

Dr. Barba: Oh, goodness. The Novak clip is spot on. And what was worse, they argued, was that the sanctuary activists were manipulating these poor economic migrants from Central America, people who weren't so much fleeing civil wars as looking for better jobs. Basically, they repeated many of the claims coming from the State Department and immigration officials.

Dr. González: Yep, you're right on track, Lloyd. Let's hear some of those claims, here from David Ilghert, The INS director for San Francisco.

Media Clip (Ilghert): I view the Sanctuary Movement as a political movement. It's a group of people that are dissatisfied with conditions, with the government's policies in Central America, and they want to change them. And they're using these innocent persons as pawns to push their political views.

Dr. Barba: And it wasn't a coincidence that the IRD's criticisms of the Sanctuary Movement lined up with those of federal officials.

Dr. González: Not at all. Well-funded and stacked with so many important thought leaders, the IRD, in fact, played an important role in the Reagan administration.

Dr. Barba: Now, I imagine that when listeners think of conservative religious leaders and politics in the 1980s, I'm sure they immediately think of members of the religious right like Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson.

Dr. González: Now, that's probably right, but it was the IRD that really had Reagan's ear. So much so that in the 1980s the magazine Sojourners referred to the group as, quote, the "official seminary" of the Reagan administration. And there was certainly coordination between conservative critics like the IRD and administration officials. Chief among them may have been Elliot Abrams, who served as Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs and later for Inter-American Affairs. Often referred to as the "Gladiator for the Reagan Doctrine," Abrams was relentless in attacking the motivations and objectives of the sanctuary movement. Here's Abrams dismissing the testimonials of Salvadorans and Guatemalans that we've been hearing over the last two episodes.

Media Clip (Defense Attorney): You want to tell me horror stories, I can tell you many more. More horror stories cross this desk every day than you have probably read in the last month. The fact remains that not everybody in El Salvador has the right to live in America because that's not a nice country. It is not a nice country right now. It is one of the 100 not nice countries. And not everybody there has the right to live here.

Dr. González: Along with being a frequent guest on nightly news shows on behalf of the administration, Abrams also attended IRD events, where he offered the government's official stance on Central America and refugee policy. His message was clear, American policy was succeeding south of the border, and sanctuary was illegal.

Dr. Barba: Ultimately, though, the IRD wasn't the only organization that spent considerable energy criticizing sanctuary. Another organization that came out strongly against the movement was the immigration restrictionist Federation for American Immigration Reform, or FAIR. This group, now widely considered an anti-immigrant organization, took a different tact in their criticism. The arrival of so many Central American migrants, asylum seekers, or otherwise, would simply be too much of a strain on the American economy. Here's Roger Connor of FAIR, voicing decades old rhetoric about Latin American migrants:

Media Clip (Conner): ...and we can't have an immigration policy that is determined by the employers who want cheap labor nor can we have an immigration policy that's determined by individuals who will choose to take the law into their own hands. If we do that, and continue it, it will provoke a reaction from the American people that I fear could end up throwing the baby out with the bath water...

Dr. Barba: And let's also hear from FAIR's founder, John Tanton, making the argument on PBS NewsHour:

Media Clip (Tanton): The point is that over the next two decades, in the near term, the United States is going to be faced with hundreds of billions of people in very similar circumstances around the world, and we can't solve that problem by bringing all those people to the United States.

Dr. González: Criticism from officials like Abrams and conservative groups like the IRD and FAIR grew louder as the movement developed a larger national footprint and bigger media presence. But everyday citizens were starting to pay more and more attention to US involvement in Central America and they were beginning to raise questions about how their taxpayer dollars were being used in the region.

Dr. Barba: And as it turned out, this wasn't something the federal government could let stand. Before 1984, federal officials had mostly dismissed the movement as nothing more than misguided church people engaged in questionable activity. Here's Alan C. Nelson, the commissioner of INS, arguing as much:

Media Clip (Nelson): There is no legal basis for the so-called sanctuary movement. I mean, that does not give the church organization a right to say we're going to violate the civil law and have a sanctuary. That just does not have legal standing.

Dr. González: Now Lloyd, that's rather similar to what David Ilghert, the INS director of San Francisco, had to say in his somewhat more, let's say, forceful criticism of the movement.

Media Clip (Ilghert): When the church, any church group, takes the position that by allowing persons who are in violation of any law to assemble on their property-- and again, it's private church properties-- they're saying that no federal agency or no law enforcement agency can go on the premises. I think people that say that are misreading the laws of the United States.

Dr. González: Border Patrol, INS and the FBI demurred, however, at the very idea that officers of the law would ever go into the church space and try to arrest either asylum seekers or sanctuary activists. That all started to change, however, in February of 1984, when Border Patrol agents pulled over a car in the Texas Borderlands

Dr. Barba: Inside that vehicle were sanctuary workers and refugees. They included Sister Diane Muhlenkamp, lay volunteer Stacy Lynn Merkt, Jack Fisher (a Dallas Times reporter) and Salvadorans, Maricio Valle, Brenda Sanchez-Galan, and her daughter. Both Maricio and Brenda had been eyewitnesses of unspeakable atrocities committed against their families and they, too, appeared on hit lists. Merkt, meanwhile, worked at Casa Oscar Romero, a hospitality house in San Benito, Texas that had joined the sanctuary movement in 1983. The Border Patrol agents arrested everyone in the car. Merkt held strong to the belief that her ministry with Central Americans was justified, both legally and as a matter of her faith.

Media Clip (Merkt): I think there are two things we're dealing with there, certainly. Number one is my belief in God's laws ,that I am called to shelter the homeless, to feed the hungry and to welcome the stranger, certainly there is that. The second thing that I'm dealing with there, and that we're dealing with, is the fact that I believe the laws of the United States offer political asylum to persons here, specifically in the 1980 Refugee Act. These folks are allowed the right to be here, to apply for political asylum status. So I think we're talking about two levels here. Number one, a government level, which I believe I'm not guilty of anything there. And number two, God's level, which I know I'm not guilty of disobeying his laws.

Dr. González: The following month, Philip Conger and Catherine Flaherty, both of the Tucson Ecumenical Task Force on Central America, were arrested in Arizona while transporting four Salvadorans. The car that Conger was driving was registered to Southside Presbyterian Church. And in their search, the arresting officers seized sensitive information pertaining to the movement. Now, while being booked, Conger saw a sheet of paper in front of him. He noticed that the sheet contained highly sensitive notes, including the names and addresses of underground railroad contacts along the border and a house in Colorado where many Guatemalans had been taken to. So, while eating an apple, he also swallowed a page and a half and three business cards chock full of top-secret information. As it turned out, the judge presiding over the case ruled that there wasn't reasonable suspicion to stop the car in the first place, so all charges were dropped.

Dr. Barba: But the hits kept coming. In April 1984, INS officers arrived on the premises of Casa Romero, the same hospitality house where Stacy Merkt volunteered. There, they arrested its director, Jack Elder, at his residence on the premises. The charges? The government alleged that three months earlier, Elder had illegally transported three undocumented Salvadoran men from Casa Romerol to a bus station about six miles away. Unlike Merkt and Conger, Elder was not pulled over while transporting people, so initially, it seemed less clear why he'd been in the government's crosshairs. Ultimately, when Elder's case went to trial, jurors felt that the government's case was a flimsy one. Giving those Salvadorans a short ride,they felt, didn't really meet the standard for violating immigration law.

Dr. González: Prosecutors, however, wouldn't be deterred. In December 1984 a federal grand jury announced new indictments against Elder and Merkt, both of whom were already on trial for other sanctuary-related activities. Merkt and Elder now faced charges of transporting undocumented Salvadorans from Casa Romero to McAllen, Texas, about 40 miles west of the hospitality house.

Dr. Barba: And importantly, an illegal maneuver that would become central to future sanctuary court cases, the prosecutors were able to successfully restrict how Merkt and Elder could defend themselves in court. Attorney and sanctuary activist Ignatius Bau described how, quote, "the defense was not allowed to cite any evidence about the United States refugee law or about religious motivations," in this case, for Merkt and Elder. The consequence was a fatal one for the defendants.

Media Clip (PBS MacNeil/Lehrer Newshour): Meanwhile, on another refugee front, a federal jury today convicted two members of the so-called Sanctuary Movement in Houston, Texas. Jack Elder, who was acquitted last month in another case, was found guilty of illegally transporting aliens and faces up to $28,000 in fines and 30 years in prison. Another member of the movement, Lynn Merkt, was found guilty of conspiracy, but innocent on two other counts.

Dr. Barba: Merkt was ultimately ordered to serve 179 days of an 18 month sentence in jail. Elder's original six consecutive one year prison terms were reduced to 150 days to be served in the halfway house.

Dr. González: Now, Merkt and Elder could have decided to shrink away from their sanctuary work. It was probably what federal prosecutors hope would happen, even as they publicly said they weren't targeting churches.

Media Clip: The government denies that sanctuary workers are being singled out for prosecution, but today's convictions are part of a growing confrontation that puts churches at odds with the law.

Dr. González: Instead, the convictions embolden both of them and spurred even deeper solidarities across the sanctuary networks. Here's Jack Elder describing that shift.

Media Clip (Elder): It's the government's prosecution of us that has resulted in this publicity, in this debate. And we're thankful for the debate. We feel that through the debate, we kind of heighten our solidarity, that people are struggling for justice in Central America. So we feel really one with those people.

Dr. Barba: And Sergio, Stacy Merkt also seem to agree.

Media Clip (Merkt): The church is supportive, the church is strong, and the church is coming out stronger. People who have been sitting in the courtroom these past days, people are coming out of the woodwork. I doubt that they'll be scared by this.

Dr. Barba: Were they scared? Perhaps not. But sanctuary activists certainly weren't prepared for what the federal government had planned next. Prosecutors' next target was the very heart of the sanctuary activism in the movement's birthplace.

Dr. González: Lloyd, do you remember that early discussion about the government's public reticence to say too much about sanctuary, or appear to care at all about what activists were up to? Well, scratch all that. Because it turns out that from nearly the movement's inception, the FBI and INS had been inserting spies into the very pews where Christians and Jews were debating whether to become sanctuary congregations. In retrospect, Pastor John Fife from Southside Presbyterian recalled an occurrence from before the movement went public that should have been a red flag.

Media Clip (Fife): The government came to one of our attorneys during a political asylum hearing and said, "We know what you all are up to. You thought it was a big secret. It's not. We, Border Patrol intelligence, know what you're doing. Stop it or we'll indict you." And so the only resolution to that problem was to go public with what we had been doing and what we felt we needed to continue to do to save the lives of refugees and refugee families.

Dr. Barba: That's right. In Episode 2 we described the sanctuary declaration service at Southside Presbyterian Church on March 24, 1982. Now, we told you how over 40 media representatives showed up to report on that day, but we didn't mention that the federal government also had representatives in attendance. Well, by in attendance, we mean that they had some agents in place to begin tracking what they already believed to be illegal activity. Guadalupe Castillo of the Manzo Area Council remembered spotting a man in plainclothes taking pictures from across the street. Fife, having been alerted to this, invited him to join in order to quote, "accurately report exactly what our position is." Sergio, can you read us some excerpts from the report from INS intelligence agent, Thomas Martin, the plainclothes man who was in attendance that day?

Dr. González: You got it, Lloyd. All right, this is what it said: "I attended the 'service' (and listeners, the agent put service in quotation marks) to see what they're going to do. The service appeared to be purely a political show with all the ministers, priests, etc, at the altar area. The quote "frito bandito" appeared in the doorway. I refer to an alleged El Salvadorian [sic] wearing a black mask. It seemed like this quote "service," here again in quotes, was a political event meant to reassure those still not firmly committed to the overt violation of federal law. That everything was all right. And quote, "God is on our side." It seems this movement is more political than religious but that a ploy is going to be Border Patrol "baiting" by that group in order to demonstrate to the public that the US government via its jack-booted gestapo Border Patrol Agents think nothing of breaking down the doors of their church to drag Jesus Christ out to be tortured and murdered. I believe that all political implications should be considered before any further action is taken toward this group."

Dr. Barba: "Frito Bandito." Wow. As it turns out, that quote, "further action," as agents described, would not be too far out on the horizon.

Dr. González: Observing sanctuary declarations from across the street of the church turned out to be the most overt form of surveillance the federal government initiated. More discreet, or rather more covert, were the series of mysterious break ins that began in 1984.

Media Clip: A Baptist church in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Five times in the last 13 months someone broke in, rummaged through confidential files. A Catholic church in Louisville, Kentucky. Its files were rifled during a November break-in. A Methodist church in Los Angeles, and a gaping hole left by intruders who ransacked files here in December.

Dr. Barba: Both sanctuary networks and Central American solidarity organizations filed police complaints after about a dozen cases of pretty obvious instances of forced entry into their offices. As sanctuary activists noted, however, intimidation was just as much a goal of these break-ins as was getting information.

Media Clip (Speaker 1): My sense is that the main purpose was to intimidate. Was to make it very clear to us that they can come in whenever they want and go through files.

Media Clip (Speaker 2): Now I feel along with the anger, sense of outrage, almost like I had been raped or violated.

Dr. González: Sanctuary leaders noted how these break-ins were eerily reminiscent of the COINTELPRO break-ins of the previous decade.

Media Clip (Bill Moyers voiceover): There is some kind of conspiracy here. The victims say it reminds them of black bag operations the government now admits it conducted against civil rights and antiwar groups in the 60s and 70s.

Dr. González: COINTELPRO is short for Counter Intelligence Program, a secret project carried out by the FBI that sought to discredit the movement leaders and organizations of the civil rights and antiwar era. The program targeted the likes of Martin Luther King Jr, the Black Panthers, Cesar Chavez Students for a Democratic Society. The list really goes on. And, obviously, the entire endeavor was a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment rights of movement members. Now, for sanctuary activists, some of whom had been involved in civil rights organizing just a decade earlier, it felt like the state was once again infringing on the right to assemble in protest. For their part, not surprisingly, government agencies denied any part in these break-ins, even when they were called in front of Congress to respond to these accusations.

Dr. Barba: Now, it's unclear what happened to the material gained from these illegal searches. The historical record here, like many stories related to government surveillance, is hard to track. But what we do know is federal investigators are building a much more deliberate case in Tucson. Here, where activists had issued the opening salvo in their fight to protect Central Americans, the government finally openly stared down the movement.

Media Clip (Speaker 1): It was the biggest single action yet against the sanctuary movement, the efforts by a growing number of clergymen and others to offer the protection of the church to undocumented immigrants from Central America. In all, 16 persons were indicted on charges of transporting and harboring illegal aliens. They include two priests, three nuns and a Protestant minister.

Media Clip (Speaker 2): Even the President of the United States is bound by the laws of the country. Merely because a person has the garb of the clergy which all of us respect. I don't think, should put anybody above the law.

Dr. González: And so, on the morning of January 14, 1985, federal agents arrived at movement members' homes with search warrants. They sought to apprehend leaders such as Reverend John Fife, Jim Corbett and Sister Darlene Nicgorski, as well as any sanctuary recipient they might find. Agents rifled through the personal materials and documents of these people now facing federal indictment for smuggling and harboring humans. But in reality, the federal government felt like it had all the material it needed to put these people in jail.

Dr. Barba: And as you can imagine, Sergio, there was nothing short of disorienting for the movement, especially in Tucson, where the indictments were targeted. Now, let's jump back to that day. On the scene, federal agents arrived at the doorstep of Sister Darlene Nicgorski.

Media Clip: [knocking on door] US immigration officers, federal agents, open the door!

Media Clip (Bill Moyers voiceover): The man is a federal agent, and he's raiding the apartment of a Catholic nun in Tucson, Arizona. You're watching part of what the government called "Operation Sojourner," an investigation by the immigration service that led to the indictment of the 11 members of the sanctuary movement who went on trial today. The government also collected evidence by sending paid informers carrying hidden microphones and tape recorders into church meetings.

Dr. Barba: It turns out that 13 months earlier, beginning December 1983, the INS and FBI together had launched "Operation Sojourner." For the next 10 months, paid informants infiltrated the movement. They posed as genuine, concerned Christian sanctuary workers transporting refugees along the underground railroad.

Media Clip (Nicgorski): They posed as good people wanting to help, bringing food, offering their assistance.

Dr. Barba: They learned the ins and outs of the movement by using a wire, sitting in on closed door meetings and attending public religious services.

Media Clip (Government agent recording - Pastor Speaking): For God will deliver the needy when they cry for help.

Media Clip (Government agent recording): Today's date is October 1, 1984. Time is about 8PM.

Dr. González: By late April, 1984, James Rayburn of the Border Patrol was working to build up an extensive case against the sanctuary movement's main workers. He'd become incensed after the airing of a 60 Minutes episode on sanctuary activism, especially because it featured so heavily in his jurisdictional backyard. He became hell-bent on dismantling the movement, or at least the network of sanctuary workers, seemingly operating with impunity in Arizona. Over months, he eventually convinced the FBI to take on the case.

Dr. Barba: To justify his case to the Department of Justice, Rayburn drew material from the politically poignant language in Basta, the movement newsletter published by the Chicago religious Task Force. You might recall from our last episode that Chicago was the admittedly more politically-charged branch of the movement. Basta carried some of the more clear and forceful denunciations of the Reagan administration, often in salty language. Then, crucially, for the government's case, Rayburn recruited, well, we might say, coerced, two men to infiltrate the movement on behalf of the government. Jesus Cruz, as he was called, and his nephew, had earlier been busted in Florida for alien smuggling charges. Caught by INS and facing serious charges, they agreed to becoming informants in 1980 in order to avoid prosecution. We should note that they also got paid $18,000 for their work.

Media Clip (Bill Moyers voiceover): To gather evidence, two paid informers, both illegal aliens, reportedly with criminal records posed as people who wanted to help the refugees. One of them is this man, Jesus Cruz. He volunteered to drive the Central Americans to a safe place. Then he told the immigration service where they were in hiding.

Dr. González: From this operation and the arrests in January 1985, the US Attorney's Office gathered 10 volumes, 4,000 pages each, of evidence. On top of that, the federal government had 100 tapes of recorded conversations between informants and Sanctuary members. It gave the government all the ammunition they needed to prosecute the movement.

Media Clip (PBS MacNeil/Lehrer Newshour): Tomorrow in Tucson, Arizona, a trial begins for 12 sanctuary members arrested last January. The case is being called the most serious clash between church and state since the Vietnam War.

Dr. González: So, in October 1985, sanctuary workers stood indicted as prosecutors opened their case, United States v Aguilar et al. Lloyd, lay it out for us. Who stood trial?

Dr. Barba: So, two of the indicted conspirators were the Catholic priest Father Ramon Dagoberto Quinones, who you heard about in episode two, and parish lay worker, Maria Aguilar. They were Mexican nationals who conspired with their US counterparts. So, north of the border now; their American counterparts included four Catholics. First, we got father Anthony Clark from Nogales, Arizona, Mary Espinosa, a lay worker from Clark's Sacred Heart parish, Darlene Nicgorski, a nun who we've heard a lot about, and Peggy Hutchinson, a director of Catholic education. Then two Quakers, Jim Corbett and Nena McDonald. Also, Pastor John Fife, a Presbyterian. We also have Wendy LeWin, a Unitarian lay worker. And finally, Philip Conger, the director of the Tucson Ecumenical Council, who he heard about earlier.

Dr. González: Wait, wait, wait, the guy who swallowed the papers?

Dr. Barba: That guy. The goal really was to take out the big shots of the movement.

Dr. González: And the Justice Department chose to indict in Phoenix, instead of in Tucson, the movement's home base. By going to Phoenix, they hope for a "Law and Order" jury that might be easier to persuade. And the chances of having Federal District Judge Earl Carroll over the case were one in four. As it turned out, Carroll was selected to preside over the case. He was known for being something of a hard-nosed judge, described by one journalist as quote, "not known as a friend of the dissident, the poor, or the oppressed."

Dr. Barba: Here's where things get into the weeds a bit more, but it's all important. Before the trial began, Prosecutor Don Reno successfully filed a motion in limine, as it's called. The significance of this move for the trial is hard to overstate. In it, he requested that the defense be prohibited from referring to sanctuary leaders' religious convictions. So, all of that interfaith work, Bible study, Christian principles, acting on conscience... out the window. Also, the defense could not broach any aspect of international law. All of the UN protocols and conventions on human rights... also gone. The defense could not describe those fleeing Central America as refugees: so, in other words, the core plank of the entire movement, which largely mobilized religious and political action... that's gone too. There are other aspects to this as well, but we'll leave you with one more. Reno's motion called for no testimony from refugees describing all the violence back home. Testimonios, the very stuff that converted these faith leaders. Adios.

Dr. González: That motion in effect, gutted much of the defense's key arguments, especially those pertaining to religious liberty. It also distorted the foundational principle on which many Tucson sanctuary activists acted, namely, that they were not so much engaging in civil disobedience, but in civil initiative. That, as you might recall from the previous episode, is the view that activists were upholding a "good law," the Refugee Act of 1980 since the US government was failing to do so.

Dr. Barba: And even to Reno's surprise, the judge approved of all of the restrictions provided in the motion. So, the trial really boiled down to a simple alien smuggling case. Do sanctuary workers assist undocumented migrants, quote, "enter without inspection" and quote "further their illegal presence"? And the answer to this was a rather easy one. Let's take it from a 1983 special of 60 minutes where Ed Bradley is speaking to Jim Corbett.

Media Clip (60 Minutes host, Ed Bradley): How many people do you estimate that you helped smuggle into this country?

Media Clip (Corbett - 60 Minutes Special): Personally, I don't know. I haven't kept count.

Media Clip (60 Minutes host, Ed Bradley): Give me a ballpark figure.

Media Clip (Corbett - 60 Minutes Special): Could be 250 or 300 I don't know.

Media Clip (60 Minutes host, Ed Bradley): And you could be sentenced to five years for each one of those?

Media Clip (Corbett - 60 Minutes Special): 1500 years or so. Well, that's what the Act says, yeah. But, I think, in terms of the choices that it's better to go to jail if I have to, then to sit by and watch them go down the drain.

Dr. González: Ironically, Corbett was one of those who actually got off scot free. To be clear, Corbett, speaking about this wasn't proof that he himself smuggled people over. This lopsided legal restrictions notwithstanding, the defense hoped to portray the US government as being guilty of politicizing the asylum process by choosing which refugees would be admitted according to the politics of the country they were fleeing. Throughout the six-month trial supporters held daily vigils outside the courthouse, praying and singing spirituals before waiting television cameras. They visited congregations across Arizona, keeping the trial in the media spotlight. Here's sister Darlene Nicgorki speaking at St Mary's Church in Phoenix.

Media Clip (Nicgorski): In my heart and conscience, I have not done anything illegal. And if I am guilty of anything, I am guilty of the gospel.

Dr. Barba: And Fife also kept at it, exhorting his congregation throughout this time. Here we can listen in on an excerpt from a sermon while he was on trial.

Media Clip: [singing]

Media Clip (Fife): John wrote to the early church, "In love there can be no fear, but fear is driven out by perfect love. Because to fear is to expect punishment. And anyone who is afraid is still imperfect in love. We are to love, then, because God loved us first." So this is the commandment that he has given us. That anyone who loves God must also love the brothers and sisters.

Dr. Barba: The indicted workers also received backing from clerical leadership and denominational bodies. They addressed to the court letters of support for the sanctuary workers.

Dr. González: So the trial really played out for the public too. Here, we can listen in on a PBS update on the trial, capturing prosecutor Don Reno followed by Reverend John Fife:

Media Clip (Reno): The defendants in this case induced, encouraged, or smuggled, as is commonly used, illegal aliens in the United States. Transported them, harbored them, and those are the essential elements.

Media Clip (Fife): People know about this ministry. They know about sanctuary. And so we have refugees just brought to us by caring people in this community who know where to go. On the other hand, we have to, in many instances, bring people ourselves from the border to the sanctuary of the church, and that's been very difficult. A lot of very good people in this community have taken great risks over the last four years to protect the lives of refugees.

Dr. González: The larger public was also kept abreast of key developments in the trial. One major point of contention centered on the secret recordings captured by the infiltrators. Here, we turn to PBS NewsHour:

Media Clip (PBS MacNeil/Lehrer Newshour): While the work of the Sanctuary Movement went on openly at this and other churches paid government informants joined as volunteers. They provided the evidence the government used to build its case against the defendants. There were 91 tapes of phone calls and of conversations between sanctuary workers and infiltrators who were wired with hidden transmitters. But at a pretrial hearing last week, the prosecution unexpectedly announced that it did not plan to use any of the 21 tapes that Reno had been saying for months. He planned to introduce as evidence.

Media Clip (Fife): The government has our case on tapes. On all the tapes they have us talking about refugees, about their torture, about all of the death squads and the massacres in El Salvador and Guatemala. He's got that all on tape. That was our case. And when it comes right down to it, Mr. Reno doesn't want to use that material which describes refugees and the horrors of Central America in some detail.

Dr. Barba: In all, the trial lasted just over six months. And on May 1, 1986, eight of the defendants were found guilty of 18 felony counts of transporting and harboring undocumented migrants.

Dr. González: So Lloyd, I guess we could say the government won the case in Earl Carroll's court.

Dr. Barba: They may have one in court, but they didn't win over the public. In the minds of many Americans, the sanctuary workers were on the right side of justice.

Dr. González: The convictions, the federal government hoped, would end the movement. But instead it supercharged it. And that was thanks in large part to the convicted activists, most of whom took their message on the road. Here's Reverend John Feist speaking with journalist Bill Moyers.

Media Clip (Moyers): Has this hurt the sanctuary movement?

Media Clip (Fife): No, it strengthened it. A friend of mine, a colleague of mine, said there are only two things in this world that grow in value when they're stepped on: Persian rugs in the Christian church.

Media Clip (Bill Moyers voiceover): Right now, there are about 250 churches and temples in the United States offering sanctuary to Central Americans. The government crackdown may be producing martyrs faster than it can hire informers to spy on them.

Dr. González: And just one week after the convictions, Reverend Fife and Sister Darlene Nicgorski appeared on an hour-long special on Donahue, perhaps one of the most highly-watched talk shows of the 1980s. Filmed in Dallas with a live audience of hundreds, the special episode featured a panel with Fife Nicgorski, a Salvadoran man living in Sanctuary, the general counsel for INS, and Roger Conner, the executive director FAIR. In his classic style, Donahue rushed up and down the aisles of the auditorium, trying to capture the mood and ideas of the hundreds in attendance. He asked provoking questions, as he was known to do, playing devil's advocate for as many sides as he could find in the debate.

Media Clip (Donahue): Well, how many refugees do you want to accept in this country and is it okay with you if churches give sanctuary to people who are fleeing persecution from around the world? [Crowd cheering] How many people do you want to let in here, anyway? Everybody who wants to come to America ought to be able to come to America. That's what it says on the Statue of Liberty. 100 years birthday this year! Give me your tired and your poor. Does it bother you at all? And does it matter from what country they're fleeing? It does? How about El Salvador? Can they come here from El Salvador? Well, who's saying no?

Dr. González: And then, he got to the heart of the matter.

Media Clip (Donahue): How do you feel about churches that provide sanctuary to people? That's alright with you? You want to do that, you may go to jail. You'll change churches? What's the matter? I mean, isn't this consistent with the Christian message? If somebody is being persecuted, you're going to let them in?

Media Clip (Donahue - Audience Member): No, no, we have laws in this country. Our spiritual leaders are supposed to be good Christian people, but they're not. If they don't like the laws, change it!

Media Clip (Donahue): But don't break it?

Media Clip (Donahue - Audience Member): Don't break it, right!

Media Clip (Donahue): That's what they said to Martin Luther King, may I say.

Dr. Barba: Fife and Nicgorksi held their own. With the national audience watching, they reminded those in attendance that in 1984 alone, INS had denied more than 13,000 asylum applications from Salvadorans while only approving 503, a rate of less than 4%. In the case of Nicaragua, meanwhile, where the US was supporting the insurgent Contras against the Sandinista government, the US had approved 14% of applications. Iranians, in contrast, had an approval rate of 70%! Fife succinctly described the movement's political and moral charge.

Media Clip (Fife): Our position basically is, we don't want to change the law, we have very good refugee law on the books. Our problem is that the Immigration and Naturalization Service, for political reasons, since 1981 has been violating our very good refugee laws and international laws on the treatment of refugees and when that happens, Nuremberg taught us not to be good Germans. That just because bureaucrats and politicians tell us you can't do that, when human life is on the line, we must act with compassion and we must do peacefully and nonviolently and as clearly and as openly as we can what the faith requires of it.

Dr. Barba: Nicgorski, meanwhile, recounted her conversion story, something she'd done for countless congregations before her conviction. Now she did it for a national audience.

Media Clip (Nicgorski): In fact, I faced the 25 year sentence, Phil.

Media Clip (Donahue): What'd you do?

Media Clip (Nicgorski): What did I do? I helped people. I responded out of compassion. What I knew out of my experience, having lived in Guatemala, I was only there six months, helping to set up a preschool when our pastor was shot and killed, and people from our village told us that we would be killed next if we didn't flee. And I lived in-- we were forced to live in Mexico, and there were some 45,000 Guatemalan refugees who lived along the border there in the state of Chiapas. And we took their testimonies because they trusted us, the madrecitas, who had worked in Guatemala. And I heard horror stories. I lived in my own flesh what it means to be persecuted and what it means to be a refugee. And people like Raul, who was a teacher, don't want to be here to earn a job. That's a smokescreen by this administration, that it's economic to get the support of the people. The truth is, they don't want people to know about what's going on in El Salvador, because we support that government. That's why my relatives, if they came from Poland, could get asylum.

Dr. González: The publicity campaign was effective. It spurred further congregational involvement from houses of worship across the country. By 1987, a year after the convictions, the Sanctuary Movement had grown to include 93 Protestant Churches of various denominations, 67 Unitarian Universalist congregations, 57 Quaker meeting houses, 64 Catholic parishes, 37 Jewish synagogues, and more than 3000 supporting organizations.

Dr. Barba: And just as important was a proliferation of a new form of sanctuary:municipal sanctuary. Inspired by people of faith, city councils, county boards and even states got in on the work. By the end of 1985, nearly 20 cities across the country had voted to declare themselves cities of refuge.

Media Clip (PBS MacNeil/Lehrer Newshour): Last November, the Los Angeles City Council, after a hot debate, declared the city a sanctuary for refugees. Since then, about a dozen cities across the country have adopted similar resolutions, including Seattle on Monday. The Seattle City Council ordered all city employees, from police to educators, to ignore the immigration status of any resident. But beyond the political gesture of opposing US immigration policy, these resolutions may have little practical effect.

Dr. Barba: In Los Angeles, the municipal sanctuary push was led by city councilman Michael Woo.

Media Clip (Woo): This resolution is a local response to the presence of a new population of refugees who have come to our country fleeing persecution due to their political beliefs in their home country. I think it makes a statement that we are reaffirming the American tradition of providing refuge for people who have fled their homelands for fear of their lives. Some people might criticize that for being symbolic, but I think it's something which really gets to the heart of what our country is all about.

Dr. Barba: As Wu noted, these types of declarations may have been somewhat symbolic, but they certainly demonstrated a clear statement on how Americans felt about the country's foreign and refugee policies. And as it would be in nearly 20 cities across the country, the push to declare Los Angeles a "sanctuary city" was ultimately successful.

Media Clip: The city council debate over the sanctuary resolution was long and emotional. The resolution directs city workers to ignore the refugee status of people receiving municipal services. It also prohibits city employees from helping the federal government depart illegal immigrants from Central America. The vote in favor of passage was close. [Council Member 1 Voiceover] Eight ayes, six nos. [Council Member 2 voiceover] Resolution is approved.

Dr. Barba: While the city's official sanctuary status was rescinded shortly thereafter, the spirit of the motion survived in LA's treatment of immigration enforcement.

Dr. González: And on Good Friday in 1986, Governor Toney Anaya declared New Mexico to be a "State of Sanctuary." It was soon followed by Wisconsin later that year. Here's Anaya speaking to Ted Koppel on ABC Nightline about his decision to support the movement.

Media Clip (Anaya): Ted, it's a moral, religious statement, not a political one. What we are attempting to state by our proclamation here in New Mexico, which I issued incidentally on Good Friday, is quite simply, that nobody is above the law, that everybody should abide by the law. In this case, specifically the INS. They should be abiding by the 1980 Refugee Act and classifying these individuals as refugees and not as economic, illegal immigrants. And we would hope that by sending our message out that other states will join and follow suit.

Dr. González: Sanctuary movement activists didn't just constrain the work to public education campaigns. They were also trying to work legislators to find some type of more permanent fix to the problem of deportations. If the executive branch wouldn't follow the Refugee Act of 1980, they argued, some more direct legislative action would be needed. And after years of lobbying alongside other immigrant activist groups, sanctuary activists successfully persuaded friendly congressmen to include stipulations in the Immigration Act of 1990 that would offer asylum protections for Central Americans. Through the Immigration Act of 1990, Salvadorans would be able to apply for temporary protected status, or TPS. Congress expanded TPS two years later in what was called Deferred Enforced Departure, a novel asylee designation extended yearly until 1996.

Dr. Barba: And despite their 1986 convictions, sanctuary activists still looked to the courts for relief. They joined a coalition of religious and civil service groups to sue the federal government for failing to abide by the Refugee Act of 1980. And in 1990, the same year that Congress passed legislation that created the TPS category, this coalition successfully defeated the federal government in court in the case of American Baptist Churches versus Thornburg.

Media Clip (PBS MacNeil/Lehrer Newshour): Now a report on the five year old fight by Central Americans to gain political asylum in the United States. Last week, the Immigration and Naturalization Service said it would stop deportation proceedings against people from El Salvador and Guatemala. The decision is part of the settlement of a lawsuit brought by the refugees. It was the third major change in federal immigrationpolicy in the last few months.

Dr. Barba: The successful verdict resulted in what was known as the ABC Settlement Agreement in 1991. The settlement allowed for over 150,000 Guatemalans and Salvadorans, who had been discriminated against to, if eligible, receive a stay of deportation and a new (that is, fairer) asylum interview and decision.

Dr. González: Now, to be clear, this pertained to Salvadorans who had been present in the United States since September 1, 1990 and Guatemalans who had been in the country since October 1, 1990. From this resulted stays of deportation and renewed asylum interviews. Legal success at the federal level, along with a decrease in migrations from Central America, with the commencement of peace processes in El Salvador and Guatemala, brought the national sanctuary movement to a measured end in the early 1990s.

Dr. Barba: Sanctuary co-founder John Fife shared that the main goal since the outset of the sanctuary movement of the 1980s was to win by reversing the course of US policy and action towards Central American asylum seekers. To this, he told me very simply back in 2018, "we won." For countless sanctuary seekers, workers, protesters and legal counsel this all amounted to a significant victory. Darlene Nicgorski, meanwhile, saw big movement wins in the public education work sanctuary activists and Central Americans had engaged in for over a decade.

Media Clip (Nicgorski): I don't think it was ever meant to be a massive refugee resettlement program. I think it helped to raise the issues that were trying to be kept quiet in border areas. I think for many churches, it also became a way to raise the issues that were of grave concern about the conditions in Central America. In other words, what causes these refugees to flee?

Dr. González: So by the early 1990s, sanctuary participants believed they'd fulfilled the gospel mandate to welcome the stranger, and in the process, had helped shift the moral consciousness of the nation. They thought, to borrow from Pastor Fife, that they'd won. But the underlying question regarding the nation's obligation to be their brother's keeper, to be a place of refuge, was far from resolved. So too was the issue of how to address the growing number of people arriving from Latin America, many undocumented, through the turn of the 21st century.

Dr. Barba: Join us in our next episode as we discuss the 21st century rebirth and adaptation of the sanctuary movement, or what movement organizers called "The New Sanctuary Movement." That's it for this episode of sanctuary. Thank you so much for listening. I'm Dr. Lloyd Barba

Dr. González: and I'm Dr. Sergio González.

Dr. Barba: Remember sanctuary saves lives

Dr. González: and strangers are neighbors you just haven't met yet.