THE MOAKLEY BILL: PROTECTION FOR SALVADORAN REFUGEES By Michael Daley and Peggy Lindquist Recent discussion in Congress of the now-failed Simpson-Mazzoli Immigration Reform bill has been a great waste of time from the viewpoint of Salvadoran refugees fearing for their lives. While the ill-fated and controversial bill labored through Congress, the Moakley Bill, which would prevent the continuing deportation of hundreds of Salvadoran refugees, could only make slow progress toward the floor of the House and expired with the adjournment of Congress. Representative John Moakley of Massachusetts, who authored this legislation a year ago, will reintroduce the bill once Congress reconvenes in January. The bill as it was presented calls for a three- year suspension of deportations of Salvadorans currently in the United States and mandates a White House study of security and humanitarian conditions in El Salvador and other countries as they might pertain to El Salvador. Co-sponsored by 123 of his colleagues, its chances of passing the House are very good. Meanwhile, Salvadorans who are illegal aliens continue to be hounded and deported to El Salvador (where many face possible gruesome deaths) until protection can be given. The Moakley Bill may be the best solution to an urgent problem, but it is unusual for Congress to be compelled to provide such a solution. Historically, Extended Voluntary Departure (EVD), as the protective status conferred on refugees is called, has been given by the executive branch and not as a legislative act. Previous administrations have offered Extended Voluntary Departure to refugees from a number of countries, including Cuba (1960-66), Chile (1971-77), Czechoslovakia (1968- 70), Cambodia (1975-77), Vietnam clothing for women, men & children • scarves & accessories new market village *54 s.w. 2nd ave. • 228-1693 Although Salvadoran President Duarte's overture to the guerilla forces may signal the possibility of a negotiated settlement, the death squads and capricious violence are far from gone. (1975-77), Lebanon (1976-present), Uganda (1978-present), Iran (1979) and Nicaragua (1979-80). The Reagan Administration, however, has consistently opposed granting EVD status to Salvadorans, although it has offered this status to refugees fleeing the communist regime in Poland, a government we are pleased to discredit. We also protect refugees from Afghanistan and have since 1980. The Reagan Administration, which favored the Simpson-Mazzoli Bill,, has offered the Salvadorans only the inaccessible, difficult and rarely useful process of seeking political asylum through the Immigration and Naturalilization Service (INS). Under this procedure, 145 Salvadorans have been granted asylum out of 3,100 applicants processed since 1.980—a .denial rate of 94.5 percent. There are 20,000 or more applications still pending and well over 500,000 Salvadorans in the United States. Seeking political asylum entails not only submitting oneself to scrutiny by the very agency which is likely to throw you back to the country you are fleeing; it also means having to come up with real proof that you would be singled out in your homeland for persecution because of your race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. Very few of the Salvadoran refugees here have the necessary proof, such as newspaper articles naming them, that would convince INS that their lives are in danger as a result of the political situation in El Salvador. The State Department consistently maintains that most Salvadorans do not fall into the category of political refugee. Their spokespeople have claimed that the vast number of refugees in the United States are here more for economic than political reasons. “Proof” of this is offered by the State Department’s Elliot Abrams who says that these refugees would seek safe haven in Central American nations rather than the United States, if they were legitimate political refugees. He says their coming here shows that they seek economic advantages they can not find in Honduras, Guatemala, Costa Rica or elsewhere in Central America. Many Salvadorans have fled to neighboring countries. There, they have been attacked in refugee camps by the Salvadoran Army, which conducts raids across borders to wipe out resistance support. The conditions of these camps are less than inviting—many of the camps are overcrowded, unsanitary and the refugees are undernourished. Of the 300,000 or so refugees in Central America, the United Nations High Commission of Refugees has been able to assist only 35,000. The current treatment of Salvadoran refugees is consistent with the Reagan Administration’s foreign policy, while Extended Voluntary Departure, if instituted, would call that policy into question. If the 20,000 applications pending were granted, or if, as would be the case with the Moakley Bill, the 500,000 or more Salvadorans in the country were protected temporarily, the United States would appear to be supporting a government which has become incapable of protecting its citizens, or worse, which has engaged in active persecution of its own people. Duke Austin, INS spokesperson, has claimed that the Salvadoran government shows “very little interest in the returnees.” Yet an ACLU study indicates some 170 returnees may have been persecuted, killed or have disappeared. There have been reports of the bodies of deportees being found along the road that leads from the airport. And, although Salvadoran Duarte’s overture to the guerilla forces may signal the possibility of a negotiated settlement, the death squads and capricious violence are far from gone. Supporters of the Moakley Bill are careful to point out that specific deaths or threats of death are not the issue; it is the generalized condition of violence in war-torn El Salvador from which refugees seek relief. Senator DeConcini (D-Arizona) has indicated that he will introduce legislation in the Senate along the same lines as the Moakley Bill, although it is not clear now whether such a bill would stand on its own or be attached as an amendment to a Central American aid bill. Moakley’s office, meanwhile, is petitioning the President to suspend deportations at least until the bill can be considered by the House. Michael Daley, of Port Townsend, wrote a previous feature on Salvadoran refugees in a recent CSQ. Peggy Lindquist’s last story was “The Lutenist.” Clinton St. Quarterly 31
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz