America Can’t Afford the March of the ‘Feet People’ : Refugees: Immigration leniency shouldn’t be used to fix political and economic problems in Central America.

Does the American public want Congress to pass legislation that would bring hundreds of thousands of Salvadorans and Nicaraguans to the United States?

Does the public want this at a time when there is renewed hope that Central America may at last make economic and political progress?

Most definitely not, most would agree. Yet, this scenario of countless more immigrants is working its way through Congress in the form of a proposal for “extended voluntary departure” contained in bills by Rep. Joe Moakley (D-Mass.) and Sen. Dennis DeConcini (D-Ariz.)

This misguided legislation had languished in Congress for years. But recently, the House passed it by a vote of 258-162. To assure its passage, the House leadership attached a superfluous provision protecting Chinese students in the United States. Then, late last month, the Senate Judiciary Committee moved the legislation to the Senate floor for action.

What is “extended voluntary departure”? In a word, a “magnet.” Under the concept, hundreds of thousands of Central Americans could come here tomorrow. Many more would arrive in the future. Also, it would undercut our nation’s efforts to reduce illegal immigration and regain control of our borders.

The idea originated years ago and was immediately supported by groups opposing U.S. foreign policy and by the moderate governments in El Salvador and Guatemala. It would have allowed any person from those countries to stay in the United States for two years or until conditions back home improve. Since what would constitute “improved conditions” is eminently debatable, these people would likely become permanent residents of the United States.

Initially, only El Salvador and Guatemala were covered in the proposals. Later on, Guatemala was dropped and Nicaragua substituted, an obvious attempt to recruit conservative support with visions of Nicaraguans fleeing the oppressive Sandinista regime.

President Ronald Reagan frequently warned of the danger of a flood of “feet people” from Central America if steps were not taken to develop democracy and economic growth in the region. To some extent, the “feet people” are already trying to come. Strong enforcement actions by the Reagan and Bush Administrations, particularly in south Texas, have slowed the illegal flow, though. These actions must continue.

Unfortunately, if the extended-voluntary-departure proposal becomes law, the march of the “feet people” will become an overwhelming reality, one that will not be easily reversed.

Even more dramatic would be the proposal’s impact on U.S. foreign policy and stability in Central America. “Emptying out” Central America is no solution, especially since the Reagan-Bush approach--supporting democracy, providing economic aid, encouraging the people to stay put, etc.--is beginning to work.

Persons truly fleeing persecution in Central America already have refugee status under United Nations auspices. For those who can legitimately claim persecution, asylum in the United States is available under existing American law. In short, there is no need for a new law that would greatly increase immigration to the United States.

Extended voluntary departure was never a good idea. The positive changes in Central America, partly if not largely the result of U.S. policy, should go forward. Passage of the proposal would signify a major retreat not only in Central America but throughout the world. America would be saying to all that it will always allow unrestricted immigration as a “quick fix” to political and economic issues.