Relief Plan for Refugees Seen as Unfair to Some Groups

Republican congressional leaders have taken legislation intended to provide relief to Central American refugees and rewritten it to favor “victims of communism,” angering some Democrats and immigrant advocates.

The new proposal would allow thousands of immigrants from various countries to stave off deportation without meeting strict guidelines passed last year, but critics say that it would create an unfair hierarchy tinged with politics in favoring certain ethnic groups.

At the top of the heap would be refugees from Nicaragua who fled when the United States was backing a brutal war against the leftist Sandinista regime. The new proposal would grant permanent residency to any Nicaraguan who entered the United States before December 1995 and who applies for residency by 2000.

Without providing similar amnesty, the deal would allow immigrants from Guatemala, Salvador, the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe to apply for a suspension of deportation if they have been in the country for seven years--rather than 10--and can prove that leaving would be an “extreme hardship.”

Refugees from Haiti and other countries are not included in the deal, which would also slash in half the number of visas available to low-skilled workers, to 5,000 per year.

Critics plan to object loudly this week with a series of protests, news conferences and lobbying aimed at the White House.

“We shouldn’t have to hurt some immigrants to help others, or rob Peter to pay Paul,” said Frank Sharry of the National Immigration Forum. “We don’t object if the congressional leadership wants to give more help to more immigrants. But it doesn’t have to be done in a way that sacrifices fairness at the altar of political expediency.”

Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Los Angeles), chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, said Sunday that he would vigorously oppose the legislation because the benefits for about 500,000 Guatemalans and Salvadorans--most of whom live in Southern California--would be different than those for about 50,000 Nicaraguans concentrated in South Florida.

“It’s porking, it’s pork-barreling on immigration--which constituencies will help you the most,” Becerra said. “If you’re going to provide relief for those in one situation and someone else is similarly situated, provide the same relief. That’s basic fairness.”

The legislation, which was re-dubbed the “Victims of Communism Relief Act” after a meeting of Republicans last week, will probably be attached to a pending appropriations bill this week. Both houses must still vote on it.

This is the latest version of a Clinton administration plan intended to undo some provisions of last year’s immigration reform legislation, which dealt retroactively with Nicaraguan, Salvadoran and Guatemalan refugees who had applied to have their deportations suspended.

Most of these immigrants never obtained legal status, in part because of bureaucratic backlogs.

The original bill, which treated members of all three groups equally, was opposed by Texas Republicans Lamar Smith, who chairs the House subcommittee on immigration, and Sen. Phil Gramm. The new proposal garnered Smith’s support but triggered opposition from Democrats, who complained about inequity.

Meanwhile, Sen. Spencer Abraham (R-Mich.), who chairs an immigration subcommittee, suggested that Eastern European and Soviet refugees deserved treatment similar to the Central Americans; in the new deal, those who arrived by 1990 and applied for asylum by 1991 would be grandfathered in under the pre-1996 rules.

Others officials, including members of the Congressional Black Caucus, suggested that Haitians be granted relief; they are not included in the new deal, however, in part because most came less than seven years ago, so even the older standard would not help their situation.

Although some Democrats, Catholic leaders and other immigration advocates denounced the deal, those who crafted it celebrated it for granting special recognition to the plight of the Nicaraguans, among other things.

“This is an historic breakthrough for justice for immigrants. It is reflective of the greatest American tradition of generosity,” Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.) said in a written statement.

“This . . . is a significant victory for everyone who believes that America should remain a nation of immigrants and refuge for those fleeing war and persecution,” agreed Abraham.

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), a Cuban refugee, acknowledged that the plan was “not perfect” but called it “a step in the right direction because it recognizes the special place that Nicaraguans deserve.”

Among Republicans, there is consensus to aid the Nicaraguans. But there is less support for the much larger number of Guatemalans and Salvadorans who left when the United States was providing military and political aid to help their countries fight off insurgencies by left-wing guerrillas.

“For us, it’s like, OK, because we were fighting against the United States intervention in Central America, this is a kind of payback,” said Carlos Ardon of the Salvadoran Assn. of Los Angeles, a legal resident who has been in the United States since 1982. “It sends a message like, ‘You didn’t support the administration back in the ‘80s, now this is what you’re getting.’ ”

John McCalla of the New York-based National Coalition for Haitian Rights agreed that it is unfair to play favorites for those who fled communism.

“We’re in favor of people being equally treated. We don’t think it’s only people who were victims of Communist regimes who were victims of persecution and abuse,” McCalla said. “If the United States is going to be doing right by the Nicaraguans, they should be doing right by the Haitians. We’re going to cry hell and scream our head off. We’re not going to let this die.”