Officials Move to Offer Relief on Deportations

Responding to pleas from foreign nations and immigrant communities from Los Angeles to Miami, the Clinton administration reversed itself Thursday and moved to avert the deportation of hundreds of thousands of longtime residents from Central America, perhaps half of them living in Southern California.

Atty. Gen. Janet Reno disclosed that officials are taking several steps--including proposing new legislation--aimed at alleviating the threat of mass deportations stemming from several “unduly harsh” provisions of last year’s landmark immigration policy overhaul.

While the president’s plan is likely to face stiff opposition in Congress, Reno stressed that she is prepared to impose administrative remedies--not subject to congressional approval--to guarantee that the immigrants can remain in this country.

“We want to ensure that the 1996 immigration law will not have an unduly harsh effect on those individuals who have made vital contributions to their local communities here in the United States, while putting down deep roots in our nation and abiding by our laws,” Reno said.

In essence, Reno now says certain key provisions of last year’s act should not be applied retroactively to Central Americans and others who had cases pending before April 1, when the pertinent sections of the new law took effect. Previously, the Justice Department had argued the exact opposite.

The administration’s reversal came as good news to Orlando Recino, who works at El Salvador Express in Santa Ana. The Main Street business helps Salvadorans, who number about 50,000 in Orange County, with immigration forms and other legal documents.

“This is the best news that our community could’ve heard,’ Recino said. “We have dozens of clients who have had this threat of deportation hanging over their heads for months. Some clients had already begun preparations to return to El Salvador.

“It doesn’t sound like an amnesty, but it will give Salvadorenos additional time to find a way to become permanent residents.”

As part of the plan, Reno vacated a controversial ruling by the Board of Immigration Appeals--a Justice Department review panel--that restricted the ability of tens of thousands of Central Americans and others to seek relief from deportation. The Clinton administration had previously backed the ruling.

The administration’s turnaround would allow multitudes of Central Americans who came here during that region’s civil wars to apply for “hardship” exemptions from deportation. Most of those affected--some say more than 500,000, including immediate relatives--have been in the United States since at least 1990 and have had temporary legal status.

“This is an important first step in restoring fairness and balance to the immigration laws,” said Judy London, staff attorney with the Central American Resource Center in Los Angeles, which represents a large population of El Salvadorans and Guatemalans.

Besides Central Americans, the administration move would provide additional defense against expulsion for thousands of people of other nationalities, including many illegal immigrants, who were in deportation proceedings before last April 1.

While immigrant advocates welcomed the move as a major breakthrough, critics assailed the proposal as a cave-in to ethnic pressure groups and the Central American governments that had strongly urged the White House to reverse course.

For months, Central American leaders had voiced fears that a chaotic return of huge numbers of deportees would further destabilize a region that is trying to recover from decades of Cold War conflicts. During his visit to Central America in May, Clinton assured the region’s presidents that he would seek a fair solution.

*

U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), who heads the House Immigration Subcommittee, said Reno’s plan reflected the “strong influence” of foreign governments in Washington, adding: “This decision is further proof that the Clinton administration is soft on illegal aliens.”

Federal officials rejected that charge, pointing out that the administration is now formally deporting record numbers of illegal immigrants, almost 2,000 a week. The Clinton plan does not grant legal residency to anyone but gives eligible applicants a chance to argue their case before immigration judges to remain in this country.

“This is not an amnesty program,” said Eric Andrus, spokesman for the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

To its critics, though, the move is a special deal for temporary refugees who should be required to go home now that warfare in their countries has ceased. Detractors complained of what they called another example of an immigration policy that has long catered to special interests and politically connected groups.

“Let’s hope that Congress stands firm against the administration’s new amnesty,” said Dan Stein, executive director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which seeks reductions in immigration levels.

The administration plan faces an uncertain future in Congress, where initiatives in recent years have focused on limiting immigration. But the cause of the Central Americans has generated substantial bipartisan support, even drawing sympathetic comments from Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.).

“Commendable,” is how Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-Fla), described the administration’s action. Reno “should have done more,” added the Cuban-born Diaz-Balart.

Last month, a federal judge in Miami blocked U.S. government efforts to deport as many as 40,000 Nicaraguans under terms of the new law. A similar action is pending in U.S. district court in San Francisco.

Under the administration plan, people in deportation proceedings as of April 1 could apply to block their removal under the more relaxed “suspension of deportation” standards--based on hardship--that prevailed before the new law took effect. Applicants must have resided in the United States for at least seven years, show “good moral character” and demonstrate that expulsion would result in “extreme hardship” to them or family members residing legally in the United States.

The new law upped the standards considerably: Applicants seeking to avert deportation must have 10 years of residency and prove that their departure would cause “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to a legal resident spouse, parent or child. Crucially, hardship to the applicants themselves no longer counts.

Moreover, the new law imposes the first-ever limit--4,000--on the number of hardship beneficiaries each year. That number is far too low to accommodate the legions of Central Americans and others in the deportation process.

Times staff writer H.G. Reza contributed to this story. McDonnell reported from Los Angeles and Bass from Washington.