A few weeks ago I wrote a short article entitled The moral argument for setting up an Underground Railroad for Central American Children. I festooned it with somewhat tongue-in-cheek disclaimers that I wasn't advocating that it really be done, because anyone would be stupid to openly write about breaking laws which potentially carry stiff penalties.
Tongue-in-cheek or not, protecting refugees who are showing up on our border, whether they are fleeing danger of violence, or grinding poverty, is something that a nation as rich as we are should take for granted. It's insane that the debate in a practical sense has become whether we deport them quickly or slowly. It's also insane that, in order to make the point in a compelling way, we have to focus on the children alone, and not on refugees of any age from violence and poverty.
Actually setting up such a network would be a mammoth undertaking, requiring careful planning and a great deal of risk. It would be much better to put pressure legally, within the political system. But for reasons of electoral politics, sanctuary doesn't even seem to be on the table in the mainstream discussion.
I have no intention of taking first practical steps on this in the immediate future. But the moral argument for bypassing the political gridlock altogether is a good one, and I think it needs to be articulated.