Scholarlink

<p>In the 1980s and early 1990s, civil wars contributed to significant waves of migration from Central American countries such as El Salvador and Guatemala. The United States federal government, specifically the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), systematically denied Central American immigrants’ asylum claims and deported them back to war zones. In response, over 70,000 American citizens defied United States immigration laws in order to shelter Central American immigrants, transport them across the country, and provide them with sanctuary. This Sanctuary movement was largely led by people of faith, but it involved coordination across a wide variety of religious denominations. The size and heterogeneity of the movement, combined with the fact that their goals largely constituted a public good from the standpoint of supporters, presents a puzzle. How did participants in the Sanctuary movement successfully engage in collective action without succumbing to free riding and other social dilemmas? To answer this question, we analyze the polycentric networks and nested governance arrangements within the Sanctuary movement.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Collective action in the sanctuary movement: polycentric protection of central American asylum seekers

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年11月25日

查看全文
  • Karla Segovia,
  • Nathan Goodman,
  • Molly Rovinski

摘要

In the 1980s and early 1990s, civil wars contributed to significant waves of migration from Central American countries such as El Salvador and Guatemala. The United States federal government, specifically the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), systematically denied Central American immigrants’ asylum claims and deported them back to war zones. In response, over 70,000 American citizens defied United States immigration laws in order to shelter Central American immigrants, transport them across the country, and provide them with sanctuary. This Sanctuary movement was largely led by people of faith, but it involved coordination across a wide variety of religious denominations. The size and heterogeneity of the movement, combined with the fact that their goals largely constituted a public good from the standpoint of supporters, presents a puzzle. How did participants in the Sanctuary movement successfully engage in collective action without succumbing to free riding and other social dilemmas? To answer this question, we analyze the polycentric networks and nested governance arrangements within the Sanctuary movement.