Skip to main content

Sanctuary

By Susan Bibler Coutin
University of California, Irvine
Flickr
 As campuses, restaurants, churches, and cities nationwide have adopted sanctuary policies to protect students, employees, customers, and residents from President Trump’s ramped up efforts to deport members of immigrant communities, it is worthwhile to consider how the lessons of the 1980s sanctuary movement might apply to today’s advocacy work.  Between 1986 and 1988, I conducted participant observation within sanctuary communities in Tucson, Arizona and the San Francisco East Bay in California. At that time, sanctuary focused on obtaining refuge for asylum seekers who were fleeing U.S-funded wars in Central America.  I attended sanctuary events, volunteered with the movement, and interviewed over 100 participants, leading to publication of my 1993 book, The Culture of Protest:  Religious Activism and the U.S. Sanctuary Movement. 
            Congregations that declared themselves sanctuaries during the 1980s were motivated by a sense of emergency. Civil wars in El Salvador and Guatemala had led to death squad activity, assassinations, disappearances, torture, and widespread displacement, yet the United States, which was funding Salvadoran and Guatemalan governments, denied Central Americans’ asylum applications at a rate of 97-99%.  Religious activists who met Central Americans felt compelled to take action.  One participant told me, “When I met Central American refugees face-to-face, it was transforming.  When I heard their stories, when I saw them cry, it was gut-wrenching for me.  I knew I had to do something.”  Though the movement took its name from the prototypical practice of housing an asylum seeker within a congregation, sanctuary workers also organized vigils and demonstrations, publicized human rights violations, prepared asylum applications, assisted border crossers, lobbied Congress, raised bail bond money, and provided social services. The movement was also transnational in that U.S. activists traveled to Central America to accompany at-risk communities, while Central Americans also took on leadership roles within the movement.  
Sanctuary work challenged existing power structures.  U.S. movement members were prosecuted for alien smuggling and conspiracy and some Central American participants were placed in deportation proceedings. Though sanctuary has sometimes been characterized as civil disobedience, movement members argued that they were practicing civil initiative, that is, taking actions to enforce international and U.S. refugee laws that their government was violating.  Their legal efforts had long-term impacts.  In 1997, Congress passed the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act, which, in the long run, allowed Salvadorans and Guatemalans who had sought asylum during the 1980s to become lawful permanent residents.
The fact that communities are once again resorting to declaring themselves sanctuaries is a sign of the dire sense of emergency experienced by many noncitizens. As was the case in the 1980s, sanctuary today takes multiple forms, ranging from efforts to integrate immigrant populations to policies that limit local police agencies’ collaboration with federal immigration enforcement.  These practices also challenge power structures, as evidenced by the Trump administration’s threat to prevent sanctuary jurisdictions from receiving federal funding.  As was the case in the 1980s, sanctuary today transcends borders through both international collaborations and the leadership of immigrant-activists. And, just as sanctuary practices in the 1980s led to unforeseen outcomes in the 1990s, so too are today’s actions likely to shape the course of law and policy in ways that cannot now be predicted.

Popular posts from this blog

Comment: Making valid claims in social science research: A comment on Jenness and Calavita

By Tom Tyler, Yale Law School

I am writing to comment on several methodological issues raised by the article by Valerie Jenness and Kitty Calavita, entitled “It depends on the outcome”: Prisoners, grievances, and perceptions of justice”. I am pleased that the methodology blog for Law and Society Review has been created and provides a forum to discuss research design issues. I will address three aspects of the study: operationalization of the variables; statistical analysis; and inclusiveness of the literature review.

The Jenness/Calavita paper studies California prisons using data collected through interviews with prisoners. The paper says that it tests the perceptual procedural justice model, in particular there are frequent references to the Tyler model, in a prison setting. The study concludes that “prisoners privilege the actual outcome of disputes as their barometer of justice” showing “the dominance of substantive outcomes” (from the abstract)”.

I agree with Jenness and Cala…

The Roots of Life Without Parole Sentencing

By Christopher Seeds, New York University



Since the early 1970s, life imprisonment without the possibility of parole (LWOP)—an extreme prison sentence offering no reasonable possibility of release—has emerged as a routine legal sanction and penal practice in the United States. A century, even several decades ago, this would have been unexpected. Yet today, with more than 50,000 prisoners so sentenced and hundreds of laws authorizing it, LWOP is firmly entrenched in American penal policy, in judicial and prosecutorial decisionmaking, and in public discourse. Two general theses—one depicting LWOP as a replacement penalty for capital crimes; another linking LWOP with tough-on-crime sentencing policy of the mass incarceration era—have served as working explanations for this phenomenon. In the absence of in-depth studies, however, there has been little evidence with which to carefully evaluate these narratives.

My article, “Disaggregating LWOP: Life Without Parole, Capital Punishment, and …

Europeanization or National Specificity? Legal Approaches to Sexual Harassment in France, 2002–2012

By Abigail Saguy, UCLA

Sexual harassment represents a massive problem for working women worldwide. A recent social media campaign has brought increased awareness to this fact. In late 2017—after three-dozen women accused Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein of sexual harassment, assault, or rape—millions of women posted “Me Too” on Twitter, Snapchat, Facebook, and other social media platforms. Taking inspiration from African American activist Tarana Burke—who, in 2007, started an offline “Me Too” campaign to let sex abuse survivors know that they were not alone—actress Alyssa Milano launched this online Me Too campaign to shift the focus from Weinstein to victims. She hoped this would “give people a sense of the magnitude of the problem.”[1] While some posted simply, “Me Too,” others provided wrenching detail about abuse they had sometimes never before shared publicly. In France, a similar social media campaign flourished, under the hashtag “balance ton porc,” loosely translated as “sq…