Defend Democracy In Central America By Giving Fair Treatment To Those Who Fled Its Enemies During The 1980’s

(Washington, D.C.): In recent months,
a groundswell of opposition has developed
to a miscarriage of justice that could
have profoundly deleterious effects on
the transition to democracy now underway
in Central America. Yesterday, however,
this opposition may have reached critical
mass: Five of Freedom’s most
influential champions have taken
up the cause of the estimated 300,000
people who, in the 1980s, fled communist
totalitarianism in Nicaragua and the
civil wars it spawned and supported in El
Salvador and Guatemala and who now face
deportation.

These refugees are in the United
States legally by virtue of their
registration in Immigration and
Naturalization Service programs created
during the Reagan Administration in
recognition of the special circumstances
that precipitated their flight to
America. They pay taxes and are
contributing both to their growth and
stability of their communities in the
United States and to the
economies of their native lands.

The Best and the Brightest

In a letter sent yesterday to Senate
Majority Leader Trent Lott, former UN
Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick,
former HUD Secretary Jack Kemp,
former Drug Czar William Bennett
and once-and-future presidential
candidates Steve Forbes
and Lamar Alexander
joined forces under the banner of Empower
America to urge passage of S.1076,
the Immigration Reform Transition Act.

This legislation, sponsored by Sen.
Connie Mack (R-FL) in the
Senate, and its counterpart, H.R. 2302,
sponsored by Rep. Lincoln
Diaz-Balart (R-FL), would
correct a serious defect in the 1996
Immigration Reform Act. In the words of a
Dear Colleague letter circulated by Reps.
Diaz-Balart, Ileana
Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) and Chris
Smith (R-NJ) on 24 September,
this Act, which went into effect on 1
April 1997:

“…Retroactively imposed a
yearly cap of 4,000 on
suspensions of deportation,
including those that were filed
in the 1980s. Thus, even if they
meet all requirements to be able
to stay in the U.S., thousands of
Central American immigrants would
not be able to stay here. This ex
post facto effect violates
due process and penalizes
immigrants who received formal
assurances from the Reagan, Bush
and Clinton Administrations that
they could stay while their
applications were backlogged at
the Immigration and
Naturalization Service.”

The Representatives also note that House
Speaker Newt Gingrich
“expressed his support for a
legislative solution to correct the
retroactive effects of the 1996
Act.” The Empower America letter
pinpoints that these effects include
“rules and understandings that have
now been changed retroactively and
unfairly.”

The Bottom Line

Immigration law is a complex subject
on which the Center for Security Policy
would not ordinarily be inclined to
comment. To the extent, however, that
existing statutes could have far-reaching
repercussions for U.S. interests in Latin
America — the scene of some of the most
tangible foreign policy successes of the
Reagan era and an area of increasingly
acute relevance to America’s economy, law
enforcement and national defense —
correcting such defects must be
a priority for the security-minded.

As the five Empower America directors
eloquently put it:

“In the 1980s, we stood in
solidarity with the people and
governments of Central America
who struggled for democracy and
peace when threatened by
expanding communist violence and
influence. We stand in solidarity
with them today, as they work to
consolidate democracy and free
market economies….Central
America will not be able to
simultaneously absorb influxes of
large numbers of people being
forcibly deported and the
deprivation of family remittances
that have bolstered these
struggling economies.”⁽¹⁾

The Center for Security Policy commends
the legislators and other national
leaders who are seeking to ensure that
those who have made a significant
contribution to this Nation’s economy and
to the rebuilding of those of their
native lands are assured a fair hearing
and due process — not the capricious and
potentially highly counterproductive
treatment currently in prospect under the
existing law.

– 30 –

1. By some
estimates, these remittances total as
much as $1 billion in El Salvador’s case
and $200 million in that of Nicaragua. By
way of reference, the latter amount is
approximately eight-times the sum
provided in U.S. foreign aid to Managua
and represents some 10 percent of the
Nicaraguan GDP. The economic impact
caused by the loss of such revenue would
be compounded by the reintroduction of
the skilled and semi-skilled laborers now
in the United States into nations
experiencing high levels of unemployment.
In Nicaragua, for example, approximately
50% of the workforce is un- or
underemployed.