Speech #1000080336

Mr. Chairman. throughout its history. this country has provided a safe haven for people fleeing war and political persecution. In H.R. 618. we have the opportunity to continue that tradition by offering temporary sanctuary to refugees from El Salvador and Nicaragua. The Salvadorans are especially in need of our help. The Reagan administration has not been responsive to their cries for justice. Because our Government officially supports the Government of El Salvador. we refuse to acknowledge their need for political shelter. On the other hand. our administration is quick to point out the hardships caused by the civil war in Nicaragua. and is more receptive to refugees from that country. I submit to you that the effects of war are neither capitalist nor Marxist. neither authoritarian nor democratic. Poverty. disease. devastation of crops. loss of home. injury and death of loved ones are the consequences of war for Salvadorans as well as Nicaraguans. and we can recognize that fact by passing this legislation. Opponents of the bill argue that conditions are improving in El Salvador. and refugees should have no fear of returning. I answer that political killings and disappearances are still common in El Salvador. totaling over 1.700 last year. The civil war in that country has left. by some accounts. 1 million Salvadorans homeless. and last years earthquake displaced an additional 300.000. Even President Duarte has asked the United States to suspend deportations to El Salvador. Opponents of this bill say we would be creating a new layer of immigrants. and somehow circumventing the new immigration law. This is untrue. Refugees affected by this bill would not be given resident alien status. Their departure would simply be postponed until the General Accounting Office can complete its study of the situation. It also does not prevent the deportation of Salvadorans or Nicaraguans convicted of criminal activity or who normally would be excluded from this country by our immigration laws. Refugees who are granted the extended stay under this bill would have to sign a document agreeing to return to their home country by the end of the suspension period. Opponents argue that this legislation would make our immigration policies countryspecific. something which Congress sought to do away with in the Refugee Act of 1980. It is certainly not our intention to do away with immigration reform. and I do not believe this action would undermine either the Refugee Act or the new immigration law. This legislation is countryspecific because the problem it attempts to address is countryspecific. In addition. suspending deportations to certain national groups is neither unique nor unusual. 15 such groups have received this status over the past 25 years. including Poles. Afghans. and Ethiopians. The Salvadorans and Nicaraguans we are tyring to help with this bill face dangers every bit as great as those who have previously received such aid. Finally. this bill would remove the double standard used by the Justice Department when deciding immigration cases involving Nicaraguans and Salvadorans. Refugees from Nicaragua are being invited to reapply if their earlier applications for asylum or deportation deferral had been denied. Salvadorans. however. are being systematically deported. Let us not play politics with lives. This bill would put refugees from both countries on an equal footing until the General Accounting Office and the Congress can more closely examine the issue and work with the administration to develop a more permanent. and let us hope wiser. policy.