The cases of Aguilar and Merkt involved volunteers who aided political refugees from El Salvador to enter Texas from Mexico and to obtain transportation in Texas. The two women appealed their convictions on several grounds, including the Salvadoranas' status as refugees rather than illegal aliens and the offenders' right to the free exercise of religion in helping the refugees. The appellate courts declined to reverse the convictions on any of the arguments. The analysis concludes that the Sanctuary movement, which aided the Salvadorans, represents a distinct activity that does not threaten the statutory provisions regarding the harboring or transportation of illegal aliens. In addition, the courts' reasoning regarding religious beliefs is unnecessarily convoluted. Thus, it is clear that the courts acted in a narrow and shortsighted manner that is counter to the growing recognition and respect for human rights worldwide. 173 footnotes