passive and (again) innocent. Interestingly, given these dynamics, the government would often accuse sanctuary givers of acting politically and not for humanitarian reasons, as if the two spheres could and should be split. In contrast to the past, quite a lot of the faith leaders offering sanctuary are Latinx and there is more Latinx participation in this movement, the broader similarity between the movement of the and the current one is again the contradictory expectation that the refugee ‘80s system is simultaneously (with incredible burdens on the petitioner to prove that their “political” flight was account of” political reasons) and yet which is somehow not “on “humanitarian,” political. This double bind is proof of the hierarchical binaries that often structure our political assumptions regarding refugees and the stateless—refugees file their petitions based on a fear of persecution and yet the public, some sanctuary providers and the government also seem to want them to be innocent and apolitical in the purest senses. More broadly, this also signifies a problematic split between humanitarianism or human rights and political agency and action. Despite the drawbacks of the 1980s, sanctuary was often very effective in the short-term, to aid people fleeing war and political repression, and in the long-run, to effect long-term policy change towards Central Americans during this era. A key debate of the 1980s was if providing sanctuary for refugees was sufficient or if the movement should seek legislative “illegitimate” reform and/or adjustment of this group’s status. In the end, activists did both but they could not stop policymakers from stalling for years. When they finally regularized individuals’ status, it was over a decade later and in many ways, it may have been too little, too late. People were able to flee to Canada or to remain in the United States until their status was eventually “illegally” adjusted first in 1989, when the government finally agreed to allow them Temporary Protected
passive and (again) innocent. Interestingly, given these dynamics, the government would often accuse sanctuary givers of acting politically and not for humanitarian reasons, as if the two spheres could and should be split. In contrast to the past, quite a lot of the faith leaders offering sanctuary are Latinx and there is more Latinx participation in this movement, the broader similarity between the movement of the ‘80s and the current one is again the contradictory expectation that the refugee system is simultaneously “political” (with incredible burdens on the petitioner to prove that their flight was “on account of” political reasons) and yet “humanitarian,” which is somehow not political. This double bind is proof of the hierarchical binaries that often structure our political assumptions regarding refugees and the stateless—refugees file their petitions based on a fear of persecution and yet the public, some sanctuary providers and the government also seem to want them to be innocent and apolitical in the purest senses. More broadly, this also signifies a problematic split between humanitarianism or human rights and political agency and action. Despite the drawbacks of the 1980s, sanctuary was often very effective in the short-term, to aid people fleeing war and political repression, and in the long-run, to effect long-term policy change towards Central Americans during this era. A key debate of the 1980s was if providing sanctuary for “illegitimate” refugees was sufficient or if the movement should seek legislative reform and/or adjustment of this group’s status. In the end, activists did both but they could not stop policymakers from stalling for years. When they finally regularized individuals’ status, it was over a decade later and in many ways, it may have been too little, too late. People were able to flee to Canada or to remain in the United States “illegally” until their status was eventually adjusted first in 1989, when the government finally agreed to allow them Temporary Protected