Rule Now on Immigrants

As President Clinton tours four countries in the storm-devastated Central American isthmus this week, he will be pressed to help solve the region’s problems, and there is none more pressing than the fate of almost a quarter-million immigrants driven out not by storms but by war. They have lived in the United States since the 1980s and deserve a resolution of their status. Yes or no, stay or go.

Clinton should seize the occasion to state clearly, and immediately, that he intends to resolve the situation of the 190,000 Salvadorans and 50,000 Guatemalans who fled the Central American wars of the 1980s, most of them to Southern California.

At issue are the heads of families now living in the United States mainly under a disputed residence status. When they arrived, they were denied asylum by U.S. officials, despite the fact that most of them met the asylum requirement of being refugees fleeing from repressive regimes. The refugees sued and reluctantly Washington agreed to provide some relief, granting them permission to work in this country while their status was examined.

Then came the Nicaraguan and Central American Relief Act of 1997, which provided blanket amnesty to fleeing Nicaraguans and Cubans. The bill stipulated that Salvadorans and Guatemalans would have to apply on a case-by-case basis.

According to Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.), one of the authors of the so-called NACARA bill, the law intended that Guatemalans and Salvadorans “be provided with a fair and equitable opportunity to demonstrate that they should be permitted to remain in the United States and pursue permanent residency.” But that is not the message coming from the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which has adopted an unnecessarily restrictive interpretation of the law.

Instead of presuming that these immigrants would suffer in their native countries if they were deported, the Immigration Service insists they present proof to an immigration official that deportation would mean “extreme hardship” for them and their family members. Supporters estimate that requirement will cost each immigrant between $2,000 and $6,000 in lawyers’ fees. And it will be up to an INS official to decide what constitutes extreme hardship.

Here, Clinton has an opportunity to redress a wrong. He can and should make a fair decision on this group of Central Americans who got caught up in wars in which Washington had a significant hand.

The president should consider that these immigrants have grown roots in America, borne children here and made a life and a living. That they became victims of war was largely a matter of chance. Clinton should eliminate that element in this situation and give a fair hearing and then amnesty to all deemed worthy of it. And he should hesitate no longer.