Speech #1050082982

I will not raise a point of order against Senator MACKS amendment. Though I continue to have numerous concerns about the proposed measure. it has been improved since the original Clinton administration proposal was offered. I am supportive of allowing those Central Americans who came to this country during the 1980s in order to flee persecution. and other forms of danger. to have the opportunity to apply for relief from deportation under the suspension of deportation application rules that existed prior to the passage of last years immigration reform bill. During the 1980s thousands of our neighbors from El Salvador. Guatemala. and Nicaragua came to this country to escape civil war. These individuals were granted temporary protected status [TPS]. and were allowed to stay In the United States and work because of the foreign policy issues at hand. During such time. these Central Americans should have been afforded a proper opportunity to have asylum applications processed. but some were denied this opportunity. As a result. these individuals. made up of Salvadorans and Guatemalans who are sometimes referred to as the American Baptist Churches (ABC] case group. were given another opportunity to have their asylum cases heard. This group is also comprised of Nicaraguans who participated in the Nicaraguan Review Program. If such asylum applications were denied. the Central Americans were to be afforded the opportunity to apply for what is known as suspension of deportation. That means that. even if they were denied asylum. but could prove that they were persons of good moral character. had been living in the United States for 7 years. and could prove that deportation would cause extreme hardship to either the immigrant or a U.S. citizen or legal immigrant. the Attorney General could suspend the aliens deportation. However. in the ensuing years. the U.S. asylum system has become so backedup that upward of 240.000 Central Americans asylum cases have not been resolved. As a result. the process for applying for suspension of deportation has been delayed as well. Many of us argue that these Central Americans should be allowed to go through the suspension of deportation process that existed prior to the passage of the Immigraton Act of 1996 because most have lived here since the 1980s and were led to believe that their claims to asylum. or that their pleas to adjust to legal status. would be processed under pre1996 rules. The Mack amendment will afford these Central Americans who fled here amid civil war and chaos in the 1970s and 1980s a fair chance to show that their deportation would cause extreme hardship. The Mack amendment has been improved substantially in one critical area. Initially. the proposal allowed any individual. not just Central Americans. in deportation proceedings as of April 1. 1997. to apply for suspension of deportation under the old rules--7 years in U.S.. good moral character. extreme hardshipinstead of the new tougher rules under the Immigration Act of 1996. The revised Mack amendment will allow those Central Americans. who came here to flee civil strife and war in the 1980s. to apply for suspension of deportation under the old rules. Individuals who have simply come here illegally will be required to apply for suspension of deportation under the new Immigration Act of 1996 rules. The new rules require such illegal immigrants to prove. like the old law. that they are of good moral character. But. in addition. they must prove that they have been in the United States continuously for 10 years and demonstrate that removal would cause extreme and unusual hardship to a U.S. citizen or legal immigrant. but not to the illegal immigrant himself. The fact that this amendment has been revised to include only Central Americans is importantduring all of the meetings I have had on this issue. and of all of the correspondence I have received. none have suggested that any individuals other than those Central Americans who fled to the United States in the 1980s should be processed under old Immigration Act suspension standards. I am pleased that the Mack proposal limits the scope in this area. A provision of the Mack amendment that I continue to be concerned about concerns a numerical cap included in last years Immigration Act. The Immigration Act of 1996 imposed a cap of 4.000 on the number of suspension of deportation cases that can be adjudicated in a given year. The Mack proposal removes the numerical cap of 4.000. Even though the necessary adjustments have been made to ensure that only a specific group of individuals will be allowed to have their suspension of deportation cases heard under the old rules. the fact is. according to the Immigration and Naturalization Service. approximately 150.000 Central Americans will actually be adjusting their status to permanent legal resident. These additional permanent resident numbers should be offset in other areas of legal immigration. During the negotiation on this amendment. many of us suggested that we increase the number of individuals who will be adjudicated per year from 4.000 to 14.000. but include these numbers in our annual count of legal immigration and ensure. as a result of the addition. that legal immigration does not increase. The Mack proposal should be modified to reinstate the cap. but at 14.000 annually. with an offset in legal immigration that ensures that legal immigration does not increase. Another concern I have about the Mack proposal is its silence about whether thousands of individuals who entered the country illegally. with no connection to any of these formerly wartorn countries. should be exempted from one of the new tougher standards against illegal immigration in the Immigration Act of 1996. Specifically. the Mack amendment is silent on the issue of the NJB case. The NJB case determined that section 309(C)5 of the Immigration Act of 1996 means that period of continuous residence stopped when an alien was served with an order to show cause before enactment of the Immigration Act of 1996. and that such time stops when an alien is. or was. served a notice to appear after enactment of the Immigration Act of 1996. In other words. the Bureau of Immigration Appeals has interpreted the provision to mean that those aliens applying for suspension of deportation cannot count as time spent here in the United States that time spent here after having received an order. If congressional intent is not clarifed in this area. it has been made clear that the Clinton administration will seek to administratively overturn the NJB decision. Legislation introduced by Representative LAMAR SMITH would clarify congressional intent.