TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF DEPORTATION OF &

CERTAIN ALIENS ^ C#£\

I

HEARING _ '

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON

IMMIGRATION, REFUGEES, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

OP THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIAKY

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NINETY-EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

H.R. 4447

TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF DEPORTATION OF CERTAIN ALIENS

APRIL 12, 1984

Serial No. 41

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

34-285 O WASHINGTON : 1984
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

PETER W. RODINO, JR., New Jersey, Chairman

\CK BROOKS, Texas

OBERT W. KASTENMEIER, Wisconsin

ON EDWARDS, California

5HN CONYERS, JR., Michigan

JHN F. SEIBERLING, Ohio

OMANO L. MAZZOLI, Kentucky

1LLIAM J. HUGHES, New Jersey

\M B. HALL, JR., Texas

IKE SYNAR, Oklahoma

ATRICIA SCHROEDER, Colorado

AN GLICKMAN, Kansas

AROLD WASHINGTON, Illinois

ARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts

EO. W. CROCKETT, JR., Michigan

KARLES E. SCHUMER, New York

RUCE A. MORRISON, Connecticut

DWARD F. FEIGHAN, Ohio

\WRENCE J. SMITH, Florida

OWARD L. BERMAN, California

REDERICK C. BOUCHER, Virginia

ALAN A. PARKER, General Counsel

GARNER J. CUNE, Staff Director

ALAN F. COPTBY, Jr., Associate Counsel

HAMILTON FISH, JR., New York

CARLOS J. MOORHEAD, California

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois

THOMAS N. KINDNESS, Ohio

HAROLD S. SAWYER, Michigan

DAN LUNGREN, California

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,

Wisconsin

BILL McCOLLUM, Florida

E. CLAY SHAW, JR., Florida

GEORGE W. GEKAS, Pennsylvania

MICHAEL DEWINE, Ohio

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, REFUGEES, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

ROMANO L. MAZZOLI, Kentucky, Chairman

VM B. HALL, JR., Texas DAN LUNGREN, California

ARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts BILL McCOLLUM, Florida

EO. W. CROCKETT, JR., Michigan HAMILTON FISH, JR., New York

AWRENCE J. SMITH, Florida

(II)

lW-601V\\
so

t

CONTENTS

1 TEXT OF BILL

N

Page

H.R. 4447 3

So WITNESSES

Abrams, Elliott, Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs 66

.^ Prepared statement 71

Gejdenson, Hon. Sam, a Representative in Congress from the State of Con-

\J\ necticut 32

Prepared statement 48

^ Lowry, Hon. Mike, a representative in Congress from the State of Washington 32

-. Prepared statement 42

-O Meissner, Doris M., Executive Associate Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service 66

Prepared statement 79

Moakley, Hon. Joe, a Representative in Congress from the State of Massachusetts 7

Prepared statement 11

Nelson, Alan, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service 66

Patterson, Hon. Jerry M., a Representative in Congress from the State of

California 32

Prepared statement 36

APPENDIX

American Civil Liberties Union, prepared statement 130

Amnesty International, U.S.A., prepared statement 135

de Haan, Dale S., director, Church World Service Immigration and Refugee

Program, prepared statement 139

Hammarberg, Thomas, Secretary General, Amnesty International, letter

dated July 31, 1981, to Hon. William French Smith, Attorney General of

the United States 136

Interpreter releases, American Council for Nationalities Services, January 30,

1982 118

Ottinger, Hon. Richard L., a Representative in Congress from the State of

New York, prepared statement 115

Pritchard, Hon. Joel, a Representative in Congress from the State of Washington•letter dated April 10, 1984, to Hon. Romano L. Mazzoli 116

Questions submitted by the Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees, and

International Law to the INS on the United States-Salvadoran situation 143

Walter, Ingrid, National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United

States, letter dated April 11, 1984, to Hon. Romano L. Mazzoli 137

(in)

R

TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF DEPORTATION OF

CERTAIN ALIENS

THURSDAY, APRIL 12, 1984

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, REFUGEES,

AND INTERNATIONAL LAW,

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9 a.m., in room 2237,

Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Romano L. Mazzoli (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Mazzoli, Hall, Frank, Crockett, Smith,

Lungren, McCollum, and Fish.

Staff present: Arthur P. Endres, Jr., counsel; Lynn Conway and

Eugene Pugliese, assistant counsel; Peter Regis and Bernadette

Maguire, legislative assistants; and Peter J. Levinson, associate

counsel.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Ladies and gentlemen, the subcommittee will come

to order.

I will make a short opening statement and then yield to our

friend from Massachusetts.

Today's hearing has been called to consider legislation which has

been introduced to provide for the temporary suspension of deportation for Salvadoran nationals now in the United States.

This legislation, H.R. 4447, has been introduced by our distinguished colleague from Massachusetts, Joe Moakley, along with

several cosponsors.

This subcommittee has closely monitored developments relating

to the return of Salvadorans to El Salvador over the past two Congresses. In this connection, on my part a letter was sent to the Secretary of State in January of this year, requesting information

from the Department with respect to a report on the status of

those people who have been returned to El Salvador. The letter

also requested an urgent submission of departmental reports on

this legislation.

I am obliged to report that to date I have not received any response to our letter and the departmental report has been submitted only late this week.

Many of our colleagues feel strongly that our Government should

grant extended-voluntary-departure status to Salvadorans in view

of the conditions in their home, and in view of the fact that such

status applies to Poles, Ethiopians, Afghans.

(1)
In today's hearing we will receive testimony from our friend

from Massachusetts and other colleagues on this point. We will

also today hear from administration witnesses with respect to why

the administration sees the extended voluntary departure as not

necessary or appropriate at this time.

[A copy of H.R. 4447 follows:]
98TH CONGRESS

1ST SE88ION H. R. 4447

To provide for the temporary suspension of deportation for certain aliens who are

nationals of El Salvador, and to provide for Presidential and congressional

review of conditions in El Salvador, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NOVEMBER 17, 1983

Mr. MOAKLEY (for himself, Mr. PBITCHARD, Mr. FRANK, Mr. WEISS, Mr. OTTINGER, Mr. JEFFORDS, Mr. TOWNS, AND Mr. LOWRY of Washington) introduced the following bill; which was referred jointly to the Committees on

Foreign Affairs, the Judiciary, and Rules

A BILL

To provide for the temporary suspension of deportation for

certain aliens who are nationals of El Salvador, and to

provide for Presidential and congressional review of conditions in El Salvador, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That (a) the President shall investigate and report to the

4 Congress, not later than eighteen months after the date of

5 the enactment of this Act, concerning•

6 (1) displaced persons in El Salvador, including•

7 (A) the number of such persons;
1 (B) the living conditions of such persons,

2 with particular attention to their personal safety

3 and the availability of food and medical assist4 ance;

5 (C) the resources available for humanitarian

6 assistance for them, including the methods and

7 policies respecting distribution of such assistance

8 and obstacles which may prevent the efficient and

9 equitable distribution of such assistance; and

10 (D) steps that can be taken to improve the

11 status of such persons;

12 (2) Salvadoran nationals who are displaced per13 sons outside El Salvador, including•

14 (A) the number of such nationals in Hondu15 ras, Guatemala, and Mexico, and

16 (B) the matters described in subparagraphs

17 (B) through (D) of paragraph (1) with respect to

18 such nationals; and

19 (3) the conditions and fates of aliens deported

20 from the United States to El Salvador, with particular

21 attention to those who have suffered violations of

22 fundamental human rights upon their return to El

23 Salvador.

24 SEC. 2. Upon Congress's receipt of the report described

25 in the first section of this Act but in no case later than two
1 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Com2 mittees of the Judiciary, of the House of Representatives,

3 and of the Senate, shall conduct hearings to consider•

4 (1) the availability of safe resettlement within El

5 Salvadoi or i"ughboring countries of displaced nation6 als of El Salvador, and

7 (2) treaty obligations of the United States, hu8 manitarian considerations, and previous practice of the

9 United States respecting the treatment of aliens in sim10 ilar circumstances,

11 in order to determine (A) the appropriate steps to be taken to

12 provide assurances of personal safety and adequate, efficient,

13 and equitable distribution of assistance with respect to Salva14 dorans who are displaced within El Salvador or who have

15 fled to other countries in Central America, and (B) whether it

16 is appropriate to extend, remove, or alter the restrictions

17 contained in section 3 of this Act.

18 SEC. 3. (a) The Attorney General shall not detain or

19 deport (to El Salvador) aliens described in subsection (b)

20 during the three-year period beginning on the date of the

21 enactment of this Act, except as may be provided by the

22 Congress after its consideration under section 2 of the Presi23 dential report submitted under the first section of this Act.
6

1 (b) The nationals referred to in subsection (a) are aliens

2 who are nationals of El Salvador who have been determined

3 to be deportable only under•

4 (1) paragraph (1) of section 241(a) of the Immi5 gration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1251(a)), but

6 only as such paragraph relates to a ground for exclu7 sion described in paragraph (14), (15), (20), (21), (25),

8 or (32) of section 212(a) of such Act (8 U.S.C.

9 1182(a)), or

10 (2) under paragraph (2), (9), or (10) of section

11 241(a) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1251(a)).

12 (c) With respect to an alien whose deportation is tempo13 rarily suspended under subsection (a) during a period, the

14 period of such suspension shall not be counted as a period of

15 physical presence in the United States for purposes of section

16 244(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.

17 1254(a)).
Mr. MAZZOLI. Without further ado, I welcome our friend from

Massachusetts, Congressman Joe Moakley, who is the main sponsor

of the bill, H.R. 4447. Joe, your statement, of course, will be made a

part of the record, and we welcome you.

TESTIMONY OF HON. JOE MOAKLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS

Mr. MOAKLEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I

would like to thank you for holding hearings on this legislation

today, and for giving me the opportunity to speak on behalf of H.R.

4447 and the Salvadoran refugees who face uncertain futures if

sent back to their homeland.

You may be asking yourself why I became so interested in this

issue, particularly because I am not a member of either the Judiciary or Foreign Affairs Committee.

This situation was first brought to my attention about 1 year ago

by a number of church and human rights organizations in my district, as well as other individuals in my district in Massachusetts,

who work with the Salvadoran refugee population in the Boston

area. They approached me with dozens of horror stories of murders, torture, and imprisonment of Salvadorans.

In fact, the concern was so great that many churches in and

around my district have put themselves in legal jeopardy by providing sanctuary to Salvadoran refugees rather than allow the Immigration and Naturalization Service to deport them.

These church and human rights groups had made numerous requests for extended-voluntary-departure status for these refugees.

This is a status, as you have explained, has in the past been granted to other nationals from countries experiencing civil war and

other dangerous conditions; countries including Ethiopia, Poland,

Afghanistan, Uganda, and Lebanon, just to mention some of them.

However, Mr. Chairman, the State Department repeatedly

denied these requests claiming that asylum procedures in this

country were adequate and that the offers of safe haven in countries closer to El Salvador, such as Honduras, Mexico, or Costa

Rica were sufficient to take care of the refugees needs.

Because of this lack of support by the administration and the absence of any congressional action on this refugee crisis, my constituents sought my assistance in bringing this matter to the attention of the Congress.

In April 1983, I received the support of 87 of my colleagues in

sending letters to both the Attorney General and the Secretary of

State urging that extended-voluntary-departure status be granted

to Salvadorans in the United States until such time that it is safe

for them to return to their homeland.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, the Department of Justice, in consultation with the Department of State, has the authority to temporarily halt deportation of refugees in very special circumstances;

thus, I felt this was the most appropriate procedure to take in attempting to rectify the present situation. Unfortunately, our request was denied by both the Attorney General and by the Secretary of State.
8

The arguments stated in their responses, however, did not address the conditions within El Salvador, which is generally the relevant standard for EVD.

Efforts in the House of Representatives to remedy this situation

continued with the passage of a sense-of-the-Congress clause in the

1983 State Department authorization bill which urged that Salvadorans be granted extended voluntary departure. The State Department, in spite of this urging, announced that EVD was not considered appropriate for Salvadorans at this time.

So because of the lack of action on the part of the State Deparfcment and the Justice Department to utilize the EVD provisions in

the current INS regulations and because the conditions in El Salvador have failed to improve, I felt compelled to introduce legislation

that would provide the necessary protection for these people.

As you know, H.R. 4447 calls for a temporary suspension of detention and deportation of Salvadoran nationals in the United

States, while the administration conducts a study of the Salvadoran refugee situation in El Salvador and the surrounding countries.

The study would include the fates of aliens deported from the

United States to El Salvador with particular attention to those who

have suffered violations of fundamental human rights upon their

return to El Salvador.

In addition, Mr. Chairman, a study of the conditions which face

Salvadoran nationals, who are displaced persons both inside and

outside of their homeland, would also be included.

The results of this assessment of conditions would be presented

to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees to determine the

best future course for immigration policy for this region. And also

built into this legislation is a maximum time period of 3 years for

the suspension of deportation, barring any actions that may result

from this study and the committee assessment of the situation.

Now, clearly, the risks to the Salvadoran people have not diminished, as was suggested in the July 19, 1983, letter to me and my

colleagues from the Attorney General. El Salvador remains in turmoil and civil war continues to tear apart the country both politically and economically; and there are serious shortages of food and

medical supplies at the present time.

Random shellings and bombings, by both the left and right factions, have caused death and terror in the civilian population.

Bridges and other infrastructure have been destroyed; the major

roads to villages are often blocked or controlled by Government soldiers or rebel guerrillas.

Since 1979, the Socorro Jurid•my Spanish isn't that good, Mr.

Chairman, so please forgive me.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Your English isn't all that good either, but that's

neither here nor there. [Laughter.]

Mr. MOAKLEY. Yes, I know. Well, we coming from Boston speak

awful funny.

Socorro Juridico Cristiano•which is not bad for

Mr. MAZZOLI. That is pretty good.

Mr. MOAKLEY [continuing]. A high school graduate•an independent human rights organization, and the Tutela Legal, the official

Human Rights Office of the Archdiocese of San Salvador, have tab-
9

ulated more than 38,000 murders of civilian, noncombatants, by

Government forces.

Rightwing death squads have murdered and tortured hundreds of

individuals who were believed to have so-called connections or sympathies with the rebel forces. And the rebel forces, in turn, have

sought out those civilians who were believed to support the right.

Destruction of villages has caused major displacement of civilians, fleeing because of fear and because their homes were being

destroyed.

A recent State Department report estimates that nearly one-half

million Salvadorans still in El Salvador have been driven from

their homes. Another one-quarter million people have fled to other

Central American countries, and an estimated 300,000 to 500,000

are in the United States.

Now, while a number of Salvadorans were in this country before

the onset of the civil war in 1980, at least half of them have arrived since that time.

Many of the individuals brought to my attention in the Boston

area are professionals, church people, teachers, businessmen, who

left promising careers and a good life in El Salvador. They fled to

the United States not for a better life and not for a better job, but

out of fear of their own lives and the lives of their families.

One man was a school principal, successful in that career. He

owned his own home; he was raising a family. He left El Salvador

to come to the United States for safety. He now opens clams for a

living. I am certain that this is not his idea of a better life in

America.

He wants to return to his country, as do the majority of the refugees in Boston and around the country who have sought assistance

from the various church and human rights groups trying to help

these people.

The primary conditions for granting extended voluntary departure or a temporary suspension of deportation as my bill calls for,

appear to be based on dangerous, unstable conditions in the aliens'

homeland; at least in the past of these criteria have always been

cited as the reason for the approval of EVD.

Mr. Chairman, attached to my testimony are INS statements

concerning previously granted extended voluntary departures to

countries such as Poland, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and Nicaragua,

all of which substantiate this claim.

Clearly the conditions in El Salvador, as documented by nearly

every major human rights organizations in the world, are extremely dangerous.

There are some in the administration who would have us believe

that asylum is a viable alternative for the Salvadoran refugees. I

disagree. Asylum provides an opportunity for readjustment to permanent residential status. It is applied for on an individual basis

and the person must be able to document actual, specific threats of

dangers that make it unsafe for this individual to return to his or

her country.

The number of asylum cases that have been granted are very low

for Salvadorans. In 1983, Mr. Chairman, under 3 percent of the

cases reviewed by INS district directors were approved.
10

Extended voluntary departure or a temporary suspension of deportation is not a permanent situation. It provides temporary safe

haven until it is determined that it is safe to return to the homeland. When the suspension is lifted, those aliens must leave the

country and INS will be able to enforce deportation procedures.

It does not confer any benefits on the people except the prevention of deportation and the opportunity to apply for permission to

work. And I stress the word "apply." It does not guarantee,

anyway, that they may work.

A temporary suspension of deportation as provided for in my bill,

or EVD will encourage these aliens to register with the INS, thus,

making it easier for this agency to estimate the number of aliens

as well as their locations, a situation which will be helpful when

the status is liftd and these people must leave the United States.

Mr. Chairman, this also frees the INS from dealing with these

refugees and allows them to pursue other immigration problems

that we face in our country.

Now, despite the fact that the Reagan administration is opposed

to granting any type of temporary status to Salvadorans, I, nonetheless, strongly believe that this should be a bipartisan effort. The

issue here is not administration foreign policy toward El Salvador.

I repeat: It is not administration foreign policy toward El Salvador.

I have my own feelings about that, and I am sure that members

of this subcommittee also have strong views on this issue. However,

that should be the subject of a different debate.

The issue today is a humanitarian one. Put simply, we are deciding, in light of all the documented human rights violations in El

Salvador, whether it is safe, humane, and just to deport Salvadoran

refugees back to their homeland. I don't think it is.

There can be no doubt that the people of this war-torn country

have suffered immensely, far more than most of us in this country

can understand.

I feel that this modest piece of legislation does the minimum possible to protect these people from an uncertain future in El Salvador. It is a temporary measure that requires no additional fiscal

burden to the budget.

It is a humanitarian gesture to these people, who through no

fault of their own, have been displaced from their homes and their

homeland, and have nowhere else to turn and who are afraid to go

back to El Salvador.

Mr. Chairman, for many of these people, this bill could make the

difference between life and death.

Thank you very much.

[The statement of Mr. Moakley follows:]
11

TESTIMONY BY CONG. JOE HOAKLEY (D-MA) ON HR 4447

MR. CHAIRMAN. MEMBERS OP THE COMMITTEE. I WOULD LIKE TO THANK

YOU FOR HOLDING HEARINGS ON THIS LEGISLATION TODAY AND FOR GIVING ME

THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF H.R. 4447 AND THE SALVADORAN

REFUGEES WHO FACE UNCERTAIN FUTURES IF SENT BACK TO THEIR HOMELAND.

YOU MAY BE ASKING YOURSELF WHY I BECAME SO INTERESTED IN THIS

ISSUE, PARTICULARLY BECAUSE I AM MOT A MEMBER OF EITHER THB JUDICIARY

OR FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE.

THIS SITUATION WAS FIRST BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION ABOUT A YEAR AGO

BY A NUMBER OF CHURCH AND HUMAN RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS, AS WELL AS

CONCERNED INDIVIDUALS IN MY DISTRICT IN MASSACHUSETTS• WHO WORK WITH

THE SALVADORAN REFUGEE POPULATION IN THE BOSTON AREA. THEY APPROACHED

ME WITH DOZENS OF HORROR STORIES OP MURDERS, TORTURE AND IMPRISONMENT

OF SALVADORANS. IN FACT, THE CONCERN WAS SO GREAT THAT MANY CHURCHES

IN AND AROUND MY DISTRICT HAVE PUT THEMSELVES IN LEGAL JEOPARDY BY

PROVIDING SANCTUARY TO SALVADORAN REFUGEES RATHER THAN ALLOW THE Iflfi

TO DEPORT THEM. THESE CHURCH AND HUMAN RIGHTS GROUPS HAD MADE

NUMEROUS REQUESTS FOR EXTENDED VOLUNTARY DEPARTURE STATUS FOR THESE

REFUGEES. THIS IS A STATUS THAT HAS, IN THE PAST, BEEN GRANTED TO
12

OTHER NATIONALS FROM COUNTRIES EXPERIENCING CIVIL WAR AND OTHER

DANGEROUS CONDITIONS: COUNTRIES INCLUDING ETHIOPIA, POLAND,

AFGHANISTAN, UGANDA AND LEBANON.

HOWEVER, THE STATE DEPARTMENT REPEATEDLY DENIED THESE REQUESTS

CLAIMING THAT ASYLUM PROCEDURES IN THIS COUNTRY WERE ADEQUATE AND THAT

OFFERS OF SAFE HAVEN IN COUNTRIES CLOSER TO EL SALVADOR, SUCH AS

HONDURAS, MEXICO OR COSTA RICA WERE SUFFICIENT TO TAKE CARE OF THE

REFUGEE NEEDS.

BECAUSE OF THIS LACK OF SUPPORT BY THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE

ABSENSE OF ANY CONGRESSIONAL ACTION ON THIS REFUGEE CRISIS, MY

CONSTITUENTS SOUGHT MY ASSISTANCE IN BRINGING THIS MATTER TO THE

ATTENTION OF THE CONGRESS.

IN APRIL OF 1983, I RECEIVED THE SUPPORT OF EIGHTY-SEVEN OF MY

COLLEAGUES IN SENDING LETTERS TO BOTH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THE

SECRETARY OF STATE URGING THAT EXTENDED VOLUNTARY DEPARTURE STATUS BE

GRANTED TO SALVADORANS IN THE UNITED STATES UNTIL SUCH TIME AS IT IS

SAFE KOR THEM TO RETURN TO THEIR HOMELAND.
13

AS YOU KNOW, THE DEPARTMENT OP JUSTICE, IN CONSULTATION WITH THE

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, HAS THE AUTHORITY TO TEMPORARILY HALT DEPORTATION

OF REFUGEES IN SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES) THUS I FELT THIS WAS THE MOST

.•PPROPRIATE PROCEDURE TO TAKE IN ATTEMPTING TO RECTIFY THIS SITUATION.

UNFORTUNATELY, OUR REQUEST WAS DENIED BY BOTH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND

THE SECRETARY OF STATE. THE ARGUMENTS STATED IN THEIR RESPONSES,

HOWEVER DID NOT ADDRESS THE CONDITIONS WITHIN EL SALVADOR, WHICH IS

GENERALLY THE RELEVANT STANDARD FOR EVD.

EFFORTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO REMEDY THIS SITUATION

CONTINUED WITH THE PASSAGE OF A SENSE OF THE CONGRESS CLAUSE IN THE

1983 STATE DEPARTMENT AUTHORIZATION BILL WHICH URGED THAT SALVADORANS

BE GRANTED EXTENDED VOLUNTARY DEPARTURE. THE STATE DEPARTMENT, IN

SPITE OF THIS URGING, ANNOUNCED THAT EVD WAS NOT CONSIDERED

APPROPRIATE FOR SALVADORANS AT THIS TIME.

BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF ACTION ON THE PART OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT

AND THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TO UTILIXE EVD PROVISIONS IN CURRENT ma

REGULATIONS AND BECAUSE THE CONDITIONS IN EL SALVADOR HAVE FAILED TO

IMPROVE, I FELT COMPELLED TO INTRODUCE LEGISLATION THAT WOULD PROVIDE

34-285 0-84-2
14

NECESSARY FROTECTION FOR THESE PEOPLE. AS YOU KNOW. H.R. 4447 CALLS

TOR A TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF DETENTION AND DEPORTATION OF SALVADORAN

NATIONALS IN THE UNITED STATES, WHILE THE ADMINISTRATION CONDUCTS A

STUDY OF THE SALVADORAN REFUGEE SITUATION IN EL SALVADOR AND THE

SURROUNDING COUNTRIES. THE STUDY WOULD INCLUDE THE FATES OF ALIENS

DEPORTED FROM THE US TO EL SALVADOR WITH PARTICULAR ATTENTION TO THOSE

WHO HAVE SUFFERED VIOLATIONS OF FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS UPON THEIR

RETURN TO EL SALVADOR. IN ADDITION, A STUDY OF THE CONDITIONS WHICH

FACE SALVADORAN NATIONALS WHO ARE DISPLACED PERSONS BOTH INSIDE

AND OUTSIDE OF THE THEIR HOMELAND WOULD ALSO BE INCLUDED.

THE RESULTS OF THIS ASSESSMENT OF CONDITIONS WOULD BE PRESENTED

TO THE HOUSE AND SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEES TO DETERMINE THE BEST

FUTURE COURSE FOR IMMIGRATION POLICY FOR THIS RBGION. BUILT INTO THIS

LEGISLATION IS A MAXIMUM TIME PERIOD OF THREE YEARS POR THIS

SUSPENSION OF DEPORTATION, BARRING ANY ACTIONS THAT MAY RESULT FROM

THIS STUDY AND THE COMMITTEE ASSESSMENT OF THE SITUATION.

CLEARLY, THE 'RISKS" TO THE SALVADORAN PEOPLE HAVE NOT DIMINISHED

AS WAS SUGGESTED IN THE JULY 19, 1983 LLTTER TO 'E AND MY COLLEAGUES
15

FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. EL SALVADOR REMAINS IN TURMOIL AND CIVIL

WAK CONTINUES TO TEAR APART THE COUNTRY BOTH POLITICALLY AND

ECONOMICALLY. THERE ARE SERIOUS SHORTAGES OP POOD AND MEDICAL

SUPPLIES. RANDOM SHELLINGS AND BOMBINGS, BY BOTH THE LEFT AND RIGHT

FACTIONS, HAVE CAUSED DEATH AND TERROR IN THE CIVILIAN POPULATION.

BRIDGES AND OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE HAVE BEEN DESTROYED, THE MAJOR ROADS

TO VILLAGES ARE OFTEN BLOCKED OR CONTROLLED BY GOVERNMENT SOLDIERS AND

OR REBEL GUERILLAS.

SINCE 1979, THE SOCORRO JURIDICO CRISTIANO, AN INDEPENDENT HUMAN

RIGHTS ORGANIZATION, AND TUTELA LEGAL, THE OFFICIAL HUMAN RIGHTS

OFFICE OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF SAN SALVADOR, HAVE TABULATED MORE THAN

38,000 MURDERS OF CIVILIAN, NON-COMBATANTS, BY GOVERNMENT FORCES.

RIGHT WING DEATH SQUADS HAVE MURDERED AND TORTURED HUNDREDS OF

INDIVIDUALS WHO HERE BELIEVED TO HAVE SO-CALLED CONNECTIONS OR

SYMPATHIES WITH THE REBEL FORCES. AND THE REBEL FORCES IN TURN HAVE

SOUGHT OUT THOSE CIVILIANS WHO WERE BELIEVED TO SUPPORT THE RIGHT.

DESTRUCTION OF VILLAGES HAS CAUSED MAJOR DISPLACEMENT OF CIVILIANS,

FLEEING BECAUSE OF FEAR AND BECAUSE THEIR HOMES WERE DESTROYED.
16

A RECENT STATE DEPARTMENT REPORT ESTIMATES THAT NEARLY A HALF A

ftlLLION SALVADORANS STILL IN EL SALVADOR HAVE BEEN DRIVEN PROM THEIR

HOMES. ANOTHER 1/4 MILLION HAVE PLED TO OTHER CENTRAL AMERICAN

COUNTRIES AND AN ESTIMATED 300,000 TO 500,000 ARE IN THE US. WHILE A

NUMBER OF SALVADORANS HERE IN THIS COUNTRY BEPORE THE ONSET OP THE

CIVIL WAR IN 1980, AT LEAST HALF HAVE ARRIVED SINCE THAT TIME.

MANY OF THE INDIVIDUALS BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION IN THE BOSTON

AUEA ARE PROFESSIONALS: CHURCH PEOPLE, TEACHERS, BUSINESSMEN, ETC. WHO

LEFT PROMISING CAREERS AND A GOOD LIFE IN EL SALVADOR. THEY FLED TO

THE U.S. NOT FOR A BETTER LIFE AND BETTER JOB, BUT OUT OF FEAR FOR THEIR

LIVES AND THE LIVES OF THEIR FAMILIES. ONE HAN WAS A SCHOOL

PRINCIPAL, SUCCESSFUL IN THAT CAREER. HE OWNED HIS OWN HOME AND WAS

RAISING A FAMILY. HE LEFT EL SALVADOR TO COME TO THE U.S. FOR SAFETY.

HE NOW OPENS CLAMS FOR A LIVING. I AM CERTAIN THAT THIS IS NOT HIS

IDEA OF A BETTER LIFE IN AMERICA. HE WANTS TO RETURN TO BIS COUNTRY

AS DO THE MAJORITY OF THE REFUGEES IN BOSTON AND AROUND THE COUNTRY

MIO HAVE SOUGHT ASSISTANCE FROM THE VARIOUS CHURCH AND HUMAN RIGHTS
17

AS DO THE MAJORITY OF THE REFUGEES IN BOSTON AND AROUND THE COUNTRY

WHO HAVE SOUGHT ASSISTANCE PROM THE VARIOUS CHURCH AND HUMAN RIGHTS

GROUPS HELPING THESE PEOPLE.

THE PRIMARY CONDITIONS FOR GRANTING E.V.D. OR A TEMPORARY

SUSPENSION OF DEPORTATION AS MY BILL CALLS POR APPEAR TO BE BASED

ON DANGEROUS, UNSTABLE CONDITIONS IN THE ALIENS' HOMELAND. AT LEAST,

IN THE PAST THESE CRITERIA HAVE ALWAYS BEEN CITED AS THE REASON FOR

APPROVAL OP E.V.D. ATTACHED TO MY TESTIMONY ARE I.N.S. STATEMENTS

CONCERNING PREVIOUSLY GRANTED E.V.D.'8 TO COUNTRIES SUCH AS POLAND,

AFGHANISTAN, LEBANON AND NICARAGUA, ALL OF WHICH SUBSTANTIATE THIS

CLAIM.

CLEARLY THE CONDITIONS IN EL SALVADOR, AS DOCUMENTED BY NEARLY

EVERY MAJOR HUMAN RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS IN THE WORLD, ARE EXTREMELY

DANGEROUS.

THERE ARE SOME IN THE ADMINISTRATION WHO WOULD HAVE US BELIEVE

THAT ASYLUM IS A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE FOR THE SALVADORAN REFUGEES. I

DISAGREE. ASYLUM PROVIDES AN OPPORTUNITY FOR READJUSTMENT TO
18

PERMANENT RESIDENTIAL STATUS. IT IS APPLIED FOR ON AN INDIVIDUAL

BASIS AND THE PERSON MUST BE ABLE TO DOCUMENT ACTUAL, SPECIFIC,

THREATS AND DANGERS THAT MAKE IT UNSAFE FOR THIS INDIVIDUAL TO RETURN

TO HIS OR HER COUNTRY.

THE NUMBER OF ASYLUM CASES THAT HAVE BEEN GRANTED ARE VERY LOW

FOR SALVADORANS. IN 1983, UNDER 3% OF CASES REVIEWED BY I.N.S.

DISTRICT DIRECTORS WERE APPROVED.

E.V.D. OR A TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF DEPORTATION IS NOT A

PERMANENT SITUATION. IT PROVIDES TEMPORARY SAFE HAVEN UNTIL IT IS

DETERMINED THAT IT IS SAFE TO RETURN TO THE HOMELAND. WHEN THE

SUSPENSION IS LIFTED, THOSE ALIENS MUST LEAVE THE COUNTRY AND I.N.S.

WILL BE ABLE TO ENFORCE DEPORTATION PROCEDURES. IT DOES NOT CONFER

ANY BENEFITS ON THESE PEOPLE EXCEPT THE PREVENTION OF DEPORTATION AND

THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPLY FOR PERMISSION TO WORK. AND I STRESS THE

WOPU APPLY. IT DOES NOT GUARANTEE THAT THEY MAY WORK.

A TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF DEPORTATION AS PROVIDED FOR IN MY BILL,

OR E.V.D WILL ENCOURAGE THESE ALIENS TO REGISTER WITH I.N.S., THUS
19

MAKING IT EASIER POR THIS AGENCY TO ESTIMATE THE NUMBER OF ALIENS AS

WELL AS THEIR LOCATIONS. A SITUATION WHICH WILL BE HELPFUL WHEN THE

STATUS IS LIFTED AND THESE PEOPLE MUST LEAVE THE UNITED STATES. THIS

ALSO FREES THE I.N.S. FROM DEALING WITH THESE REFUGEES AND ALLOWS THEM

TO PURSUE OTHER IMMIGRATION PROBLEMS IN THE COUNTRY.

DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION IS OPPOSED TO

GRANTING ANY TYPE OF TEMPORARY STATUS TO SALVADORANS•I, NONETHELESS,

STRONGLY BELIEVE THAT THIS SHOULD BE A BIPARTISAN EFFORT. THE ISSUE

HERE IS NOT ADMINISTRATION FOREIGN POLICY TOWARD EL SALVADOR.

I HAVE MY OWN FEELINGS ABOUT THAT•AND I'M SURE THAT MEMBERS OF

THIS SUBCOMMITTEE ALSO HAVE STRONG VIEWS ON THIS ISSUE. HOWEVER, THAT

SHOULD BE THE SUBJECT OF A DIFFERENT DEBATB. THE ISSUE TODAY IS A

HUMANITARIAN ONE. PUT SIMPLY, WE ARE DECIDING, IN LIGHT OP ALL THE

DOCUMENTED HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS IN EL SALVADOR, WHETHER IT IS SAFE,

HUMANE, AND JUST TO DEPORT SALVADORAN REFUGEES BACK TO THEIR HOMELAND.

I DON'T THINK IT IS.

THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT THE PEOPLE OF THIS WAR TORN COUNTRY

HAVE SUFFERED IMMENSELY. FAR MORE THAN MOST OF US IN THIS COUNTRY CAN
20

COMPREHEND. I FEEL THAT THIS MODEST PIECE OP LEGISLATION DOES THE

MINIMUM POSSIBLE TO PROTECT THESE PEOPLE PROM AN UNCERTAIN FUTURE IN

EL SALVADOR. IT IS A TEMPORARY MEASURE THAT REQUIRES NO ADDITIONAL

FISCAL BURDEN TO THE BUDGET.

IT IS A HUMANITARIAN GESTURE TO THESE PEOPLE, WHO THROUGH NO

FAULT OF THEIR OWN, HAVE BEEN DISPLACED FROM THEIR HOMES AND HOMELAND

AND HAVE NO WHERE ELSE TO TURN AND WHO ARE AFRAID TO RETURN TO EL

SALVADOR. FOR MANY OF THESE PEOPLE, THIS BILL COULD MAKE THE

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LIFE AND DEATH.

THANK YOU.

[See appendix for attachments.]

Mr. MAZZOLI. Joe, thank you very much. That was very well

stated and I appreciate your taking the time to join us.

Let me yield myself 5 minutes for questions and I will go around

the panel to the extent we have people here.

Yes, thank you, Dan, if you would.

Mr. LUNGREN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the

subcommittee permit coverage of this hearing in whole or in part

by television broadcast, radio broadcast, or still photography, in accordance with committee rule V.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Is there objection?

Hearing no objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. MOAKLEY. Is that ipso facto?

Mr. MAZZOLI. That is right.

Mr. LUNGREN. On this subcommittee.

Mr. MAZZOLI. All the good part is already in the can, Joe, you

don't have to worry, it is already there. We don't erase tape around

here, that is for sure. [Laughter.]

Joe, let me again yield myself 5 minutes, and ask my distinguished colleague just a couple of questions because, you know, this

thing is going to have to go through the subcommittee, full committee, the full process.

Mr. MOAKLEY. I understand, Mr. Chairman, and it is right on

your shoulders.

Mr. MAZZOLI. While you have put it very forcefully, and I think

in a way very poignantly, the situation that you have found, like
21

any question that reaches this table, there are different facets to it,

but let me ask you this question:

You say, Joe, that there would be no financial involvement here,

and I think in times, dollars ought not to be valued and balanced

against lives. But let me just get to that point because we just yesterday passed big tax bills, we will have budget reconciliations

coming up today.

If EVD were to be adopted for this group of people which might

amount to 300,000 to 500,000 in the United States, would not many,

many of them not be able to work either because they can't physically work, because they don't have a skill, because they would be

in the jobs where they would be below minimum wages; would they

not then turn to the State or to, for example, Boston, or to the

State of Massachusetts, for help, and would that not add to the

burden of the States?

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, the way that most of them have

fared up to now is they have been taking jobs that nobody else

wants, the dishwashing type, the pot scrubbers, the street cleaners.

And the difference, what they need to live on and what they are

making, has been provided by church and charitable groups. They

have not been on the backs of the city and State governments.

Mr. MAZZOLI. There has been some thought that the States, and

counties, and cities are right now gearing up legislation that would,

you know, provide•the same as it has been for refugee legislation•a Federal reimbursement or Federal support for any kind of

fiscal impact that these people would have on their welfare system.

Mr. MOAKLEY. This doesn t bestow upon them any rights to apply

for welfare, it just simply temporarily halts the deportation; then

they have got to fend for themselves. It gives them the right to

apply for permission to work, but it doesn't guarantee them actual

work.

Mr. MAZZOLI. YOU say that this would not permit the people to

get Federal or State benefits?

Mr. MOAKLEY. NO.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Your bill doesn't, but I wonder if your bill would

prevent them from getting this? It would probably not prevent

them from obtaining it if they qualified.

Mr. MOAKLEY. The civilization of this bill is to provide a safe

haven until the situation down in El Salvador subsides.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Joe, when you were consulting with your staff and

with legal counsel in drafting the bill, is there some reason that

the bill does not have a terminal date, a starter, or an end date to

it? Because as you referred in your testimony to the State Department authorization that has a cutoff date. All the Salvadorans in

before January 1, I think it was 1983. There is some point in not

having this kind of a rolling thing which doesn't cut or set up a

universe of people.

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, it doesn't allow any Salvadorans to

come into this country; they all came in illegally. So it really

doesn't open the gates or close the gates, it just deals with the

people who are currently in the country at the present time.

Mr. MAZZOLI. You don't think that their dates would fit into the

bill in any fashion?
22

Mr. MOAKLEY. If the committee in their wisdom feel that you

want open dates or closed dates, it is all right with me. But I just

felt that we are dealing with a population that is dispossessed because of fear of human rights if they return to their own country.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Joe, let me ask you another question, if I could,

please.

In reading your bill, I assume that first the President has to investigate and report to Congress

Mr. MOAKLEY. That is right.

Mr. MAZZOLI [continuing]. And then Congress conducts the sort

of hearings, or in any case the committees of Judiciary would conduct hearings to consider the bill

Mr. MOAKLEY. We put a constraint on time there, Mr. Chairman,

so that this thing doesn't drag on ad infiniturn.

Mr. MAZZOLI. I think that is a good idea.

Let me ask you this: Do you contemplate, or does your bill contemplate, in effect Congress deciding at some point when conditions have improved or abated enough to allow the people to safely

return?

Mr. MOAKLEY. The administration, through their investigation,

through their study. I mean, I would

Mr. MAZZOLI. Expect them to make it.

Mr. MOAKLEY [continuing]. I would love to be able to say the

State Department would take care of it by themselves and just

grant extended-voluntary departure as they have done in many

other cases, which I don't think were as serious as the condition we

see in El Salvador. But they haven't done it, so we have to force it

upon them somehow.

I don't enjoy my role in this situation.

Mr. MAZZOLI. DO you think in effect, as you view your bill, Congress, at some point, following receipt of this information from the

President would make a determination.

Mr. MOAKLEY. That is right.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Thank you. My time has expired.

The gentleman from California.

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This is obviously a controversial issue. It is one that, as you suggested, perhaps we wouldn't want to visit unless the circumstances

were such as some perceive it that we have to do something here.

I am concerned, as all of us are on this panel, about circumstances in El Salvador and elsewhere in Central and South America. The question here is, of course, are the circumstances so

unique in El Salvador relative to the rest of this hemisphere that

we are going to make a specific exception in this case?

I have, at virtually every townhall meeting I have in my district,

as we do have a not inconsiderable El Salvadoran population

throughout southern California, have people requesting that I support this legislation based on the premise that the people who are

returned are in fact being persecuted.

My question is this, Joe: Currently, Salvadorans in the United

States apply for asylum and the standard, of course, is that the applicant meet the refugee test of persecution or a well-founded fear

of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership

in a particular social group, or political opinion.
23

Now, that is done on an individual basis. Why, if in fact, these

individuals cannot meet that test, ought we to have extended-voluntary departure for these individuals which in essence allows

them to stay in the United States? And I assume we are doing that

based on the fact that they are in fact subject to this sort of persecution.

Mr. MOAKLEY. In your case, you are talking about a person being

able to say a specific organization is out to get him or her. In this

case it doesn't work that way. Many of these people are killed by

either the left or right as a general situation that exists down

there, and they can't specifically say what organization is going to

do what to them, at what time. It is not easy to substantiate.

But by looking at the paper, some 40,000 people have been killed

by Government forces down there in the last 5 years•and this is

not my figure, it is put out by the Tutela Legal down there.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Tutela Legal.

Mr. MOAKLEY. And this is after much substantiation and very

hard work in putting the figures together.

If you look at the records, there have only been 3 percentage

points of El Salvadorans given asylum because it is so hard to

make a case on individual torture, or incarceration, or murder.

But if you are talking about human rights, I mean, let's talk

about human rights. In today's paper, Thursday, April 12, a

column by Robert McCartney, page A37, and if I may, just take

these two paragraphs out:

But the United States help does not enable the Air Force to avoid hitting civilians

according to the human rights activists. The Roman Catholic Church's Legal Oversight Office, which monitors the civil war's impact on civilians, said the number of

civilians killed during military operations rose from 195 in February to more than

300 in March.

Now, how can a fellow go before the INS and make a case out

that he is going to be one of those people that are being killed?

Mr. LUNGREN. Let me just ask you this: I have asked organizations that have come to me to give me an example of where we

have deported an individual to El Salvador and where that person

has been abused or murdered.

According to Mr. Abrams testimony, the written testimony that

we are going to receive a little later, this quotation appears: "What

is remarkable is that we have not come across a single case of

abuse or murder of a deportee, nor has anyone contacted suggested

that he knew of such a case." I have asked every group that has

come to me to give me documented cases for the last year and a

half, and I have yet to receive one.

Mr. MOAKLEY. Here is a list of 61 people that have been killed

that has been documented•right there.

Mr. LUNGREN. May we have that?

Mr. MOAKLEY. YOU may have it.

Mr. LUNGREN. We will be happy to turn that

Mr. MOAKLEY. OK.

Mr. LUNGREN [continuing]. Over to the State Department and

ask for that information.

Mr. MOAKLEY. OK. I would like to make it part of the record so

that you people can look at it and check it out.
24

Mr. MOAKLEY. This has been done by an organization that is extremely cautious in substantiating

Mr. LUNGREN. I would be happy to look at it because that is the

first time I have gotten any evidence from any group despite the

fact that I have been asking for the last year and a half. I frankly

don't know what I am going to do on this legislation.

Let me just put it this way. We have been fighting for 6 years on

an immigration bill; at least I have since I have been in the Congress. And I know one of the toughest nuts we are going to have to

crack when we go to the floor, if in fact we go to the floor

Mr. MOAKLEY. I agree with you.

Mr. LUNGREN [continuing]. Is going to be legalization. We have

got people who, for very sincere reasons, don't believe we ought to

have legalization of those people who are here illegally.

Now we are confronted with a situation in which we are being

asked to have extended-voluntary departure. I admit there are

people being killed in El Salvador, but in my home State of California we have had 30,000 people murdered since we got rid of the

death penalty. There have been over 600,000 deaths in the United

States, I believe, by murder over the last two decades.

Mr. MOAKLEY. Well, I am sure the cause of their murders is far

different from the cause of the people who are in El Salvador, in

the midst of a political situation.

Mr. LUNGREN. The standard right now with asylum is persecution and

Mr. MAZZOLI. The gentleman's time has expired.

Joe, may I refer to that study? Have those people who have been

documented killed or was that that name matchup which said that

you couldn't find them thereafter?

Mr. MOAKLEY. What happened was, as I understand it•and I

stand to be corrected•this was a name matchup, address matchup,

and date-of-birth matchup whenever possible. If they just had similar names they couldn't do it.

They have two choices: they have the mother's name and the father's name which makes it a little easier. But also they had many

instances•witnesses, and they also had dates of birth, and addresses, I guess.

Mr. MAZZOLI. DO you know, just out of curiosity, or would your

staff know, whether this was ever presented to the State Department, do you know?

Mr. MOAKLEY. Five or six of the cases have been sent to the State

Department according to

Mr. MAZZOLI. And do you know who did this study, Joe?

Mr. MOAKLEY. The ACLU did it in concert with one of the church

groups down there.

Mr. MAZZOLI. OK, thank you very much.

Gentlemen, if you wouldn't mind my recognizing the gentleman

from Michigan, who was here earlier. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized.

Mr. CROCKETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Congressman, the only quarrel I have with your proposal is that

it doesn't go far enough.

Mr. MOAKLEY. I am glad to hear that.
25

Mr. CROCKETT. I am sympathetic to the plight of the Salvadorans

but I am also sympathetic to the plight of several other groups of

nationals who find themselves in the same position.

It is my understanding that we really don't have any general

policy on extended voluntary departures and, for the most part, it

is discretionary with the Attorney General and the Immigration

Service.

Mr. MOAKLKY. The gentleman is correct.

Mr. CROCKETT. I am wondering, then, if it wouldn't be better if

this committee recommended some general policy on extended voluntary departure and created statutory standards by which it

would be granted. In other words, it would be a separate class of

relief from asylum. Asylum has an element of permanency to it.

Extended voluntary departure would be more or less temporary;

the amount of time would be left to the discretion of the Attorney

General.

What do you think of that?

Mr. MOAKLEY. I think that is fine, and this could very well be

part of your immigration bill. But I think you have probably got

enough problems with the present bill without adding any more.

That is why I looked at this as an individual situation, of course,

the big difference between extended voluntary departure and

asylum is asylum gives you permanence and extended voluntary

departure is just a temporary thing that ceases to exist once the

human-rights violations disappear in the person's country.

In the past, the State Department, in concert with the Attorney

General, have done it for Uganda, Ethiopia, Lebanon, Poland, Iran,

and many other countries. It just seems to be a mental block when

it comes to somebody in Central America.

Mr. CROCKETT. Not just Central America, also the Caribbean.

Mr. MOAKLEY. Yes.

Mr. CROCKETT. I don't see any indication here that the extended

departure policy has been extended to anyone from Central America or from the Caribbean, for that matter.

Mr. MOAKLEY. I think they did it the one time

Mr. CROCKETT. It has been extended, I think, to the people in

Chile.

Mr. MOAKLEY [continuing]. In the Nicaraguan situation.

Mr. CROCKETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Thank you very much. The gentleman from New

York.

The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. FISH. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I regret I was not here at the opening of this

hearing and I would like to read a statement if I might.

Mr. Chairman, the Congress of the United States has been interested for some time in the need for humanitarian treatment of nationals of El Salvador involved in deportation proceedings.

In its markup last May of the Immigration Reform and Control

Act, the Judiciary Committee added a sense-of-Congress statement

supporting extended voluntary departure for nationals of El Salvador, "until such date as the Secretary of State determines that the

situation in El Salvador has changed sufficiently to permit their

safely returning to El Salvador."
26

The Department of State Authorization Act for fiscal years 1984

and 1985 also addressed the issue of extended voluntary departure

status. That legislation expressed the sense of the Congress that

nationals of El Salvador who arrived before January 1, 1983,

should be granted extended voluntary departure "until the situation in El Salvador has changed sufficiently to permit their safely

residing in that country."

Legislation mandating a moratorium on Salvadoran deportations

is the next logical step in view of administration reluctance to

carry out congressional wishes.

I personally attempted, prior to the introduction of H.R. 4447, to

persuade the State Department to undertake a study of: (1) Salvadorans displaced within their own country; (2) Salvadorans who

have fled to other countries in the region, and (3) Salvadorans sent

back by the United States. Pending completion of these studies, I

urged the administration to declare a moratorium on the deportation of Salvadorans.

Now, I took this tack in an effort to have the more expeditious

administrative remedies to the situation your measure addresses,

Joe. I realized, looking at your bill, that it would be months•and it

has been months•before we would have a hearing on it. It calls for

a report within 18 months. So I asked the Secretary of State last

November to simply initiate these reports himself.

Now, this effort has achieved limited success. The State Department did advise me early in February that it was organizing a program to monitor a limited number of Salvadoran returnees•and

we have with us this morning Assistant Secretary Abrams who will

give us an update on that matter.

The position of the Department of State on the study of the condition of displaced persons within El Salvador and the condition of

Salvadorans who have fled to Honduras, Guatemala, or Mexico is

not clear. The Department did state that it could not agree to a

moratorium on the deportation of Salvadorans pending completion

of the study.

So, against this background we consider the question of whether

a legislative statement is needed to accomplish the objectives we

seek. During our hearings and markup, the members of the subcommittee will have a chance to address the one significant difference between my recommendation to the administration and the

treatment of a moratorium in H.R. 4447.

I recommended a moratorium pending completion of the studies

in contrast to a 3-year moratorium in the pending legislation. This

bill, I understand, would require an act of Congress, again a cumbersome procedure at best, to end the moratorium earlier. This difference in approach, however, does not detract from the need for a

moratorium.

Joe, along with my colleagues, I welcome you here. From the

tone of the questions to this point, I hope you realize that we are

going to have to make a record of the danger to individuals in

order that they qualify for extended voluntary departure. We will

need good evidence of the violence and persecution that is likely to

free persons who return.

Now, I guess my first question is what your view might be of my

initiative to try to get an administrative response to the goals that
27

i

you seek in your legislation? And specifically, would you agree

with me, I am sure, that a moratorium would mean a faster result

on the writing of these reports by the administration?

Mr. MOAKLEY. I would love a moratorium, in fact, I wrote on

April 27, 1983, to George Shultz and the Attorney General William

French Smith just asking for extended voluntary departure at this

time. Legislation, of course, is the last resort. I mean, I would love

to see them do it on a voluntary basis.

Mr. FISH. But would you go this far: If the administration initiated the moratorium and they got out one of the three studies underway•and this would get them busy, you know, on the other two•

would you then leave it up to them to terminate the moratorium if

their studies tell them•not the Congress•that there is no wellfounded fear of persecution?

Mr. MOAKLEY. There have been reports out of the administration,

that I have disagreed with. And as long as we, the Congress, could

take a look at the information contained and agree with their findings, I wouldn't mind.

Mr. FISH. There is one other alternative here that will be discussed by other witnesses, but one of the problems here, of course,

is the displaced population. And when we do return somebody, one

of the problems is that they do become part of the displaced population. That is why it is so difficult to check on their whereabouts.

And you get these people who have to leave and are in neighboring

countries.

What do you think of our making it possible if somebody does

leave the country•and this is provided for in our basic immigration law anyway, as far as the country of reception to which a

person will go•for them to have an option of going back, or going

to a camp in a neighboring country run by the United Nations

High Commissioner for Refugees?

Mr. MOAKLEY. I just think it would be a black eye on this country, which professes to be so concerned with human rights, that

when somebody comes to this country because they feel their

human rights are being violated in their own country, that then we

have to find another country to send them to.

I mean, every time we talk about foreign bills or foreign budgets,

we always put a human rights amendment in it to make sure that

country is observing human rights. And now we find that a country may be violating the human rights of its people, we say, well,

OK, but they should take care of it there, and we don't want to be

bothered with it in our own country.

I just think that we should show by example what we mean by

human rights. And this is a great way to do it.

Mr. FISH. Joe, you realize that all of these people that are returned have extensive investigations and the determinations are

made on an individual basis that they are economic migrants and

that they would not fear persecution in the event they are returned.

I mean, I agree with you if it is a straight case of human rights,

but that is the issue.

Mr. MOAKLEY. I think what we have to do is look at the conditions in that country. Are the conditions in that country so that
28

they could be returned safely and without any violations of human

rights, without any fear of incarceration, torture, murder?

I think that is what we have to look at; not if X, Y, Z is going to

be murdered when he goes back there. What are the conditions of

the country? Does it afford a safe return if he is returned there?

And as far as people coming to this country for economic reasons, before they came here•I showed where we have lawyers

working as stockboys, principals of schools working opening clams

in this country, which you can't say is upward mobilization in any

form. So I just think that economic reasons aren't the reasons that

most of these people are here.

Mr. MAZZOLI. The gentleman's time has expired.

The gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. FRANK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I won't take too long. I

notice that several of our colleagues are also here.

I want to just congratulate my colleague, Mr. Moakley, for

taking this initiative. It is a very courageous one. I am in general

agreement with him. I think there will have to be some work in

the markup. There are obviously not a lot of votes in helping in

situations like this, so I want to thank the gentleman.

One thing occurred to me as we were talking which is the Attorney General might be at this point particularly sympathetic to the

notion of someone remaining on extended-voluntary-departure

status since, as I understand it, he is now, himself, in extended voluntary-departure status pending the confirmation of his successor.

[Laughter.]

So perhaps we will get a little more unHprct?.r.Jing.

Mr. MOAKLEY. At least when he leaves here, Mr. Frank, he is

going back Lo a safer haven. [Laughter.]

Mr. FRANK. Yes, I think that is probably true.

I just want to ask one point for the gentleman, because one thing

I think ought to be taken into account is what are the conditions in

the United States? It does seem to me that no harm is done. I understand that is not conclusive, there are a lot of people who would

like to come here. And we ought to remember that that is a fact to

be proud of, that America remains the kind of place where so

many people want to come.

Given the number of people that are here, where they are, the

willingness that they have to do the kind of jobs the gentleman is

talking about; it does seem to me that we are talking about people

who do no harm by their presence here.

Is there any allegation by anybody that these are people who

while here have been criminals or recipients of public assistance?

Are these people who, by their presence here, are in any way exacerbating any domestic problems?

Mr. MOAKLEY. Most of the people that have been brought to my

attention, Congressman, are people who are taking those jobs that

just go unfilled, the dishwashers, the lowest forms of employment;

living in organizations set up by churches and other charitable organizations; and they are not availing themselves of any public

money!

Mr. FRANK. I thank the gentleman. I yield back to the gentleman.
29

Mr. MAZZOLI. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5

minutes.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to congratulate my colleague, Mr. Moakley. This is obviously a bill which reflects a grave concern that many of us have

about the problems as they relate to the people from El Salvador

and as Judge Crockett indicated, from other areas.

Of course, my area has one of those places where there are large

numbers of Salvadorans besides the Washington area, which contains that many. The problem as my colleague knows, obviously, is

that there aren't that many other places around the United States

where the people are all that concerned about the problems. And

that makes it difficult to get going a coalition of a large number of

members who are sympathetic.

I have some concerns like Mr. Fish in terms of the problems as

they relate to the economic refugee rather than the political refugee. But I do think that you are right in the sense that there is so

much to be understood about the goings on in the countries whence

they came. Even if they were at one time economic refugees, there

is a problem when they go back. Because many of the people, and I

think this is important and I would like to hear from you on this,

many of the people who in fact have come here to the United

States have then started to do things when they were in the United

States•send money back to their relatives, try to get their relatives to come here•things which the governments in those countries tend to view on a negative basis.

Have you found any of that to be the case where once they come

here even for economic status, all of a sudden they become marked

in one way or another, or they go on a questionable list, or maybe,

as some of us, did they go on a list like the USIA says, well, we are

not too suspect of them but we are not going to let them go around

telling our story to the rest of the world?

What is your experience?

Mr. MOAKLEY. Most of the people I have been exposed to are

people who just want to go back. They are just here temporarily

they don't assimilate, they stay to themselves, they are just waiting

until the peace returns to their country, when they feel it is safe to

go back; and they want to return to that farm or that job, their

homes, their families.

I haven't met anybody that wants to stay here permanently.

Many of them really aren't crazy about being in Boston, you know,

in December.

Mr. MAZZOLI. I can understand that, Joe.

Mr. MOAKLEY. Yes.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Or even in July, take any month, I can understand

that.

Mr. SMITH. What about the fact that if they were to be refused

EVD and sent on their way at an earlier date before the problems

in the country are resolved? Do all of them feel that they have at

that point some fear for their safety?

Mr. MOAKLEY. Most of them do. See, what they do now, they

have mandatory voting. You have a voting card, you have a

number on that card. When you go to the poll they put that

34-285 0-84
30

number on the ballot and they stamp your card as being voted.

That identification card has to be with you at all times.

If you start walking the street and you haven't voted, you are in

big trouble. That is a crime and who knows what would happen to

you. That shows that you have been away from your town, your

community. And why were you away from your community, and

where were you? So there are all kinds of questions that arise. And

that is another way that these people are put in jeopardy.

Mr. SMITH. Last year at the Conference Committee on the State

Department authorization bill, on which I sat, we passed a sense of

the Congress resolution. Frankly, I was one of those that helped in

that; Congressman Frank was a help in getting it started at the

committee conference, which was to at least let the administration

know that we were concerned about it.

Would you have any information as to how sympathetic they

were after the law was adopted and the sense of Congress was

there?

Mr. MOAKLEY. All I can tell you, the chairman has written to the

administration, and he is still awaiting response. The response that

I received from the Attorney General and the Secretary of State,

they felt there was no need for extended voluntary departure at

this time.

Mr. SMITH. How many people would you say right now, today,

fall into the category of those who would in fact qualify if EVD

became a reality, and what are the breakdowns in terms of geographical area, do you know?

Mr. MOAKLEY. AS far as Salvadorans, depending upon which

figure you want to use, they range frmr 200,000, which I think the

State Department uses, to 500,000, which church groups all over

the country have made their own kind of census to see how many

people are in this country. So, anywhere from 300,000 to 500,000

people would be affected under this proposal.

Mr. SMITH. NOW, all of them at this time, or most of them, have

no actual legal right to be here?

Mr. MOAKLEY. Exactly.

Mr. SMITH. Most of them are here legally or illegally?

Mr. MOAKLEY. Illegally. And that is the reason for the extended

voluntary departure.

Mr. SMITH. Arrived here legally or illegally?

Mr. MOAKLEY. I think both, but probably the greater number illegally.

Mr. SMITH. DO you have any of the numbers in terms of concentration of population as to where they center the most?

Mr. MOAKLEY. It is a very difficult figure to get since they don't

come in and register with their local INS agent, you know, nobody

knows where they are for any degree of certainty. So these figures

that we put out are very hard to substantiate in many cases.

Mr. SMITH. There are communities springing up, however?

Mr. MOAKLEY. I think they are spread pretty well all over. There

are some areas in the Midwest; very conservative churches that are

providing sanctuary for these people, and very much in favor of

this type of legislation.

Mr. MAZZOLI. I am sorry, the gentleman's time has expired.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you.
31

Mr. MAZZOLI. Let me yield myself another couple of minutes, Joe,

and just ask a couple of wrap-up questions.

First, to be sure that the record is right, the people who would

qualify for EVD under your bill would have to be tested against

the exlcusions. You would not take in right wing death squad members or former members of anything; is that correct?

Mr. MOAKLEY. Yes, that is right.

Mr. MAZZOLI. SO you are not by the wave of a wand here, perhaps keeping people in the country who ought not to be here?

Mr. MOAKLEY. NO.

Mr. MAZZOLI. All right.

Second question: There is some objection to the fact that in the

last section of your bill you talk about prohibiting detention of any

Salvadoran, not just deportation, but detention, on the idea of

being that there is a lot of activity that the INS must engage in,

for example, at the border when the Salvadorans are coming in,

which could require their detention. And they would be put in a

class very different than any other people coming in from Nicaragua or anywhere else.

Mr. MOAKLEY. I understand that presents a problem.

Mr. MAZZOLI. All right.

Another thing would be, Joe, you mentioned about the doctor

who is shucking oysters, or something, opening clams; once that

person's status is legal, of course, I don t expect that doctor to

shuck clams, he then can get cars here, then can

Mr. MOAKLEY. Probably shuck people.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Shuck people, maybe, there you go, but for a good

fee.

The question is, because we wrestle with this with the immigration bill, Joe, and that is some people who are in the country illegally take jobs from U.S. citizens.

Mr. MOAKLEY. My bill allows them to apply but doesn't guarantee that they can get jobs.

Mr. MAZZOLI. I understand, I understand.

Mr. MOAKLEY. I don't think that hospitals are going to open

up

Mr. MAZZOLI. But what I am saying is do you think there ought

to be something like we tried to do in our bill to set up job certifications so to say that if a Salvadoran were to apply for a job, but

an American wants it and it is certified that the American wants

it, do you think that the Salvadoran should be given preference in

that sense?

Mr. MOAKLEY. NO, I am not looking for any preference, believe

me. If there are two people applying for a job, and one is an American citizen, give it to the American citizen. I have no problem with

that. I just don't want them to go back and

Mr. MAZZOLI. Sure, sure, I appreciate that.

Mr. MOAKLEY [continuing]. End up in some prison, be tortured or

killed, that's all.

Mr. FRANK. If the gentleman would yield, that means we won't

see many Salvadorans in the mailroom, I take it, from the gentleman? [Laughter.]

Mr. MAZZOLI. Whatever you said, I agree with, Barney. I couldn't

understand it, but whatever you said I agree with.
32

Mr. FRANK. That doesn't exclude the elevators.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Joe, let me ask you about this, too, you know, enforcement, because if you go down to the border, the INS has a lot

of people trying to gain entry into the country•many of them are

Mexican and many of them are other than Mexican, and many of

those are Salvadorans.

Do you think that the law ought to be enforced at the border if

the person identifies himself or herself as a Salvadoran, should

they be let in?

Mr. MOAKLEY. Since they are coming in illegally, I don't see why

they should be let in. I am just dealing with the people that are in

the country at the present time.

Mr. MAZZOLI. SO you would have no objection to stern enforcement at the border against the very people who might, if they got

to Boston, it would be OK?

Mr. MOAKLEY. NO.

Mr. MAZZOLI. I thank my friend. If there are no other questions,

I thank you very much.

Mr. MOAKLEY. I don't want anybody to perceive this as an opening up of all our borders to everybody from El Salvador. That is not

the purpose of it, just the people who are already here from El Salvador. I just don't want to deport them back to an area that violates their human rights and could be fatal.

Mr. MAZZOLI. I think that the testimony from the panel suggests

and salutes you for your sensitivity, Joe, and we thank you very

much, and we appreciate you coming.

Mr. MOAKLEY. I thank the committee.

Mr. MAZZOLI. I would like to then call forward three of our colleagues, Congressman Jerry Patterson, Congressman Sam Gejdenson, and Congressman Mike Lowry. If the gentlemen would come

forward, please.

Let me welcome all of you gentlemen, you are cosponsors of Joe's

bill, each of you has been strong in this regard. I might say for all

three of you, your statements are a part of the record.

TESTIMONY OF HON. JERRY M. PATTERSON, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA; HON. MIKE

LOWRY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE

OF WASHINGTON; AND HON. SAM GEJDENSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

Mr. PATTERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the

subcommittee.

I want to commend you for taking this matter up and certainly

our colleague, Joe Moakley, for taking up an issue that is not very

popular, does not bring one many votes from one's home district.

As a matter of fact, I, perhaps, would not be here if it were not for

a very strong belief in God and my church, in my country, and its

practice for human rights; and the fact that about 5 weeks ago I

personally visited El Salvador. Because of that I felt that I must be

here today.

I have submitted my testimony and I will comment from it, perhaps. In addition to that, Mr. Chairman, since I submitted the testimony I have received a copy of the Lawyers Committee for Inter-
33

national Human Rights, America's Watch, dated April 1984. It is

basically hot off the press. It is on El Salvador's other victims, the

war, and the displaced. I would like to offer that to the subcommittee as evidence in the record, if I may.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Certainly, without objection, we will receive it.

Thank you very much.

Mr. PATTERSON. Thank you.

Mr. PATTERSON. Mr. Chairman, at the outset, I also wish to make

it clear that I do not advocate that the United States permanently

resettle displaced persons from troubled nations in our hemisphere

or throughout the world, for that matter.

I am here to explain how I believe we can avert future emergency. This is possible if we act now to confirm significant human

rights progress and offer humanitarian protection through international relief programs.

Over the past few years, I joined a number of Members of the

House in urging the administration to lay the groundwork for

peace in Central America. We requested justice be sought in cases

where American clergy and journalists have been slain or have disappeared in El Salvador.

Finally, we have asked the administration to recognize the conditions of turmoil and civil war which have caused hundreds of thousands of Salvadorans to seek refuge in neighboring countries and

in the United States.

The administration seems to be sending mixed signals about

what it perceives a human rights situation in El Salvador to be.

The inconsistency is evident when, for example, during his December 1983 trip to El Salvador, Vice President Bush strongly lectured

senior Salvadoran officials about the need to eliminate death squad

terrorism.

The President himself has also said: "We cannot believe in

human rights and ignore the activities of death squads in some

Central American countries."•a clear reference to El Salvador.

As a cosponsor of H.R. 4447, I give my strongest support and

urge your strong support of the bill.

From February 15 to 20 of this year, I was in El Salvador. As

chairman of the International Development Institutions and Finance Subcommittee of the Banking Committee, I traveled with a

group of private citizens throughout the country.

In this 5-day period, I met with President Magana, U.S. Ambassador Pickering, government and military officials, American military advisers, central bank officials, and businessmen. And after

having done all that in the usual red carpet embassy tour, I took

several days, unescorted, and, as a matter of fact, in so doing was

required to sign a release for responsibility on my life. The Embassy didn't particularly like the fact that I went without their protection, but it was a way to get out in the country and observe and see

other people.

During that time I met with the Catholic University human

rights documentation section, Tutela Legal, the Mothers of the Disappeared, political prisoners at the women's prison at Ilopango,

and at the men's prison at Mariona, and U.S. AID refugee program

representatives.
34

I met also, out in the countryside, many displaced Salvadorans,

who fear for their lives and the lives of their families. I met with

people who have personally experienced torture and mutilation,

and I saw some of that mutilation.

In all, the most disturbing evidence of human rights violations in

the country of El Salvador is obvious through the Salvadorans

themselves. Surviving amidst unabated civil unrest, many Salvadoran people have simply lost hope.

The direction of U.S. policy in Central America and in El Salvador is crucial. The administration's current approach, I believe,

will yield no positive results. Changes must come in our ability to

confirm progress toward human rights, protection of individuals,

economic development, political stability, and peace.

In keeping with our national interest to establish a strong policy

in El Salvador, I think that we need to thoughtfully link the issues,

the efforts, and the results of U.S. decisions affecting Central

America, and Congress has an important role to play in that process.

The fiscal year 1984 Authorization Act included language urging

extended voluntary departure be granted for Salvadorans. Unfortunately, the congressional intent has not been followed by the administration.

Letters from the administration in July 1983 cite several reasons

for denying extended voluntary departure to Salvadorans in the

United States. First, the administration says that violence is not

sufficient to warrant Salvadorans coming to the United States and

that Salvadorans are economic refugees rather than persons fleeing

terror.

I can personally tell you from my experience that was not the

case. And you need only look in the testimony of Mr. Kissinger, the

President, and the Vice President to see a conflict of administration policy.

Mr. Kissinger's report says, and I quote:

* * * the war effort suffers most of all from the terrible violence engulfing El Salvador's civilian population. Since 1979, more than 30,000 noncombatants have been

killed. Government security forces and the rightwing death squads associated with

them are guilty of many thousands of murders. These enemies of nonviolent change,

above all, threaten hopes for social and democratic reform.

Another explanation that the administration gives is that Salvadorans can seek safe harbor in neighboring Central American

countries. No mention is made of the fact that these other countries have already absorbed tens of thousands of Salvadorans, Guatemalans, and others, and unless they receive further humanitarian assistance through the U.N. High Commissioner, they are incapable of providing further protection.

In July 1983, the UNHCR reported that of 244,000 displaced Salvadorans in Mexico and Central American countries, only 35,141

were receiving international assistance.

The administration expresses concern that extended voluntary

departure will send a signal which will promote extensive illegal

migration to the United States. The fact of the matter is that in

fleeing intolerable conditions in their homeland, many Salvadorans

have already entered illegally.
35

I believe it is in our best interest to grant security to Salvadorans through temporary legal protection against deportation, rather

than allowing their continued illegal presence in the United States.

I come before your subcommittee today to urge your support for

H.R. 4447 and thank you for your patience.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Thank you very much, Jerry.

Mike, please.

[The statement of Mr. Patterson follows:]
36

COMMtTTfE ON

BANKING. FINANCE AMO

UR0AN Af F A'RS

OtMWAA*. WnTJWWTlOltM. WMWQ

OB•W tWTWKW AM) MCw»Cwni>uiAXll

CongreM of tfje ttniteb States %S»5SS7

Jjoust of Hfprrsentatiue*

JERRY M. PATTERSON

38TH DtSTMCT or CALIFORNIA

April 12, 1984

subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and International Law

Congressman Jerry H. Patterson

Chairman Hazzoli, and Members of the Subcommittee, it is a

pleasure to be invited here today for what I hope is the first of

many hearings on the status of the displaced persons of El Salvador.

At the outset, I would like to make it clear that 1 do not

advocate that the United States permanently resettle displaced

persons from troubled nations in our hemisphere and throughout the

world. Representing a district which knows the consequences of a

refugee crisis, I am here only to explain how I believe we can avert

future emergency. This is possible if we act now to confirm

significant human rights progress and offer humanitarian protection

through international relief programs.

Over the past few years, I have joined a number of our House

colleagues in urging the Administration to lay the groundwork for

peace in Central America. We have requested justice be sought in

the cases of American clergy and journalists who have been slain or

have disappeared in El Salvador. Finally, we have asked the

Administration to recognize the conditions of turmoil and civil war

which have caused hundreds of thousands of Salvadorans to seek

refuge in neighboring countries and in the United States.

Unless the Administration has reconsidered its position, it

might appear that it is sending mixed signals about what it

perceives the human rights situation in El Salvador to be.

Inconsistency is evident when, for example, during his December 1983

trip to El Salvador, Vice-president Bush strongly lectured senior

Salvadoran officials about the need to eliminate "death squadterrorism. The President has also said: "We cannot believe in

human rights and ignore the activities of death squads in some

Central American countries', a clear reference to El Salvador.
37

The State Department Country Report issued in January. 1984,

also attests to the Administration's mixed signals on the human

rights situation in El Salvador. Prom this report, I quote: 'Abuse

of human rights remains a central problem, despite efforts of the

government to end violence from right-wing death squads, some of

which have links to the security forces, and from its own security

forces, as well as from the guerrilla left. The level of political

violence remains high, but noncombatant deaths have declined

steadily since a peak in 1980. The number of disappearances in 1983

remained at about the same level as in 1982. Elements within the

Government security forces are still believed to use torture as

arbitrary punishment or to extract information from suspected

leftists. Individuals can be and are arrested without warrants,

detained for investigation, sometimes for long periods before

charges are brought, and if charged with such crimes as sedition and

treason, rarely brought to trial.*

•All human rights conditions in El Salvador are strongly

affected by on-going civil strife. As is common during civil

strife, the achievement of a public order that would protect each

person's rights has been disrupted by military operations, partisan

hatreds, acts of revenge, the satisfaction of personal grudges,

pervasive fear, and a prevailing uncertainty dominated by

violence..."

As a cosponsor of H.R. 4447, I would like to discuss why I

believe this legislation deserves the strongest support of the

Congress and the Administration.

From February 15th to 20th, I was in El Salvador. As Chairman

of the International Development Institutions and Finance

Subcommittee of the House Banking Committee, I travelled with a

group of private citizens throughout the country. In this five-day

period, 1 met with President Hagana, U.S. Ambassador Pickering,

government and military officials, American military advisors,

central bank officials, businessmen, political prisoners,

agricultural cooperative workers and private citizens. The U.S.

Embassy actually demanded that I sign a release relieving the

Embassy of responsibility for my safety during major portions of my

trip.

My purpose for going to El Salvador involved the current and

future commitments of U.S. economic assistance. This trip permitted

me to gather information about the effects of our development

efforts and to establish evidence about human rights in El

Salvador. I came away believing that the United States can do more

to maintain a better balance between economic support and

development projects in El Salvador. I saw a policy that was all
38

carrot and no stick, with poor accountability for U.S. funds and

poor records on Salvadoran actions. In my view, granting the

Administration'8 request for a 182% increase in assistance to El

Salvador should not be permitted without some commitment to

humanitarian objectives. I believe that the Presidential report and

Congressional review required by U.R. 4447 will begin this process.

Clearly some new procedure of documenting the real situation in

the country is necessary as the Administration has subverted

Congressional intent behind the certification of human rights

requirement. The Department of State, in country after country, has

strained credibility by certifying that progress in human rights is

being made despite hundreds of murders and disappearances, while

torture and abuse by military units continues with unabated horror.

My experience leads me to conclude that these certifications were

wholly without merit.

The Administration's incorrect view of the human rights

situation prevailing in El Salvador leads it to deny EVD status to

Salvadorans. Yet, the level of violence is borne out in human terms

by the numbers of displaced Salvadorans. Figures indicate that over

468,000 are registered with the Salvadoran government as displaced

persons, and tens of thousands more who have fled to Nicaragua,

Hondouras, Costa Rica and Mexico are without assistance. The

inability of these countries to provide needed levels of assistance

is well known, and international aid agencies can provide only basic

sustenance. With compelling statistics like these, it is easy to

understand why hundreds of thousands have also fled to the United

States and very understandably do not wish to return until violence

in their homeland subsides.

During my trip to El Salvador, I met with the Catholic

University human rights documentation section, Tutela Legal, the

Mothers of the Disappeared, political prisoners at the women's

prison at Ilopango and at the men's prison at Mariona, and U.S. AID

refugee program representatives. I met many displaced Salvadorans,

who fear for their lives and the lives of their families. I met

with people who have experienced torture and mutilation, the

disappearance and murder of their loved ones. In all, the most

disturbing evidence of human rights violations in the country of El

Salvador is obvious through the Salvadorans themselves. Surviving

amidst unabated civil unrest, the Salvadoran people appear to have

lost hope.

The direction of U.S. policy in Central America is crucial to

the people of El Salvador. The Administration's current approach

will yield no positive results. Changes roust come in our ability to

confirm progress toward human rights protection, economic

development, political stabilty, and peace. It is in keeping with

our national interest to establish a strong policy
39

framework toward El Salvador, and the whole of Central America,

which thoughtfully links the Issues, the efforts, and the results of

U.S. decisions affecting Central America. Congress has an important

role to play in this process.

As a cosponsor of B.R. 4447, I favor fact-finding and analysis

of the conditions of persons who have been returned by the United

States to El Salvador and of refugee protection efforts in general.

I believe it is all too possible that deportation prior to

accountability and assurance of safety, could mean an early death

sentence to returned Salvadorans I understand there are a number

of documented cases to illustrate the truth of this point, but

little or no official accounts of the whereabouts of over 20,000

Salvadorans returned by the U.S. since 1980.

The PY84 State Department Authorization Act includes language

urging EVD be granted for Salvadorans. Unfortunately, Congressional

Intent has not been followed.

Letters from the Administration in July, 1983, cite several

reasons for denying EVD to Salvadorans in the U.S. First, the

Administration says that violence is not sufficient to warrant

Salvadorans coming to the U.S. and that Salvadorans are economic

refugees, rather than persons fleeing terror. This explanation is

presented in spite of Mr. Kissinger's Commission findings that

•...the war effort suffers most of all from the terrible violence

engulfing El Salvador's civilian population. Since 1979 more than

30,000 non-combatantss have been killed. Government security forces

and the right-wing death squads associated with them are guilty of

many thousands Of murders. These enemies of non-violent change

above all threaten hopes for social and democratic reform.*

Another explanation is that Salvadorans can seek safe harbor in

neighboring Central American countries. No mention is made to the

fact that these refuge countries have already absorbed tens of

thousands of Salvadorans, Guatemalans, and others, and are, without

further humanitarian assistance through the U.N. High Commissioner,

incapable of providing further protection. In July, 1983, the UNHCR

reported that of 244,000 displaced Salvadorans in Mexico and Central

American countries, only 35,141 were receiving international

assistance.

The Administration expresses concern that EVD will send a signal

which will promote extensive Illegal migration to the U.S. The fact

of the matter is that in fleeing intolerable conditions in their

homeland, many Salvadorans have already entered illegally. I

believe it is in our best interest to grant security to Salvadorans

through temporary legal protection against deportation, rather than

allowing their continued illegal presence in the U.S.
40

I come before the Subcommittee today to urge your support for

H.R. 4447 as a reasoned approach toward reviewing the humanitarian

conditions in El Salvador. I urge the Administration to apply

apolitical standards in determining whether "extended voluntary

departure status* is warranted, as in the cases of Ethiopians,

NicaraguanSf Poles, Afghans, Ugandans and Lebanese.

Incidently, I encourage the efforts of First Asylum

Commissioner, Diana Zanetti, to accelerate the adjudication of

asylum claims. As desirable a goal as this is, I do not believe it

will present a permanent solution to the problems inherent in the

asylum process. Asylum requires a case by case review of the

applicants' well founded fear of persecution, results in year-long

evaluations, and causes tremendous backlogs. I do not believe it

should be a substitute for granting temporary legal protection to

certain groups in the United States. By virtue of its case by case

determinations, asylum does not resolve the circumstances imposed on

displaced persons fearing generalized violence and persecution.

I thank the Subcommittee for your consideration of H.R. 4447. I

know you share my interest in promoting peace, security and

humanitarian relief for Salvadorans and all Central Americans who

have fled to our country for safety.

Mr. LOWRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you and

the committee for devoting this time to this important subject. I

think the attendance and participation by the subcommittee today

shows how concerned you are on this.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Mike, if I could in that sense, let me tell how proud

I am of our subcommittee. This is true in almost everything we do.

This is a very, very hard working panel. I am very proud of the

amount of time these people spend on a lot of things with a lot less

sort of panoply that this has.

Mr. FRANK. He is just trying to box us in so we can't walk out

when he starts. [Laughter.]

Mr. MAZZOLI. That is part of it.

Mr. LOWRY. It is excellent, and great for the subcommittee. Unfortunately, many other subcommittees of the entire Congress

don't have as great a participation.

Mr. MAZZOLI. I am very, very proud of it.

Mr. LOWRY. YOU are to be congratulated.

I am here also in support of H.R. 4447. I would like to point out

that Congressman Joel Pritchard, who shares the Seattle area in

representation with myself, is also a cosponsor of this bill before

us. And that is because in the Seattle area, as in other areas, we

have grave concern about this problem. There are a number of

churches in the Seattle area that have provided sanctuary, many

more on the way to providing sanctuary at this time for Salvadoran refugees because of the problem of the deportation.

I have a lengthy statement that, with your permission, I would

like to just submit for the record. I know you would like to hear me

read every word of it.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Oh, sure, I might forego that great pleasure once in

my life.

Mr. LOWRY. OK, thank you.

I would like to just read two paragraphs to make one point, Mr.

Chairman, and confine it to that.

Mr. MAZZOLI. NO problem.
41

Mr. LOWRY. A staff report prepared for the lesser body Subcommittee on Immigration and Refugee Policy, after a field investigation in El Salvador in 1983, September, said the following:

The 300 to 350 Salvadorans who are currently being returned by the U.S. to El

Salvador each month are subject to the same violence every resident of the country

faces, but there is clear evidence that no governmentally sanctioned program to

target or harass returning Salvadorans simply they have been in the U.S.

However, no official agency has conducted a follow-up study on individual Salvadorans returned by the U.S. Private, non-governmental groups cannot, without

great difficulty, undertake such an assessment on their own without the cooperation

of the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service and the United States

Embassy.

A point that the Moakley bill gets to to be able to get us some

real information.

It could be argued that the case for H.R. 4447 is weakened by the

lack of conclusive evidence that deportees are singled out for

attack on their return to El Salvador. I do not believe that that is

the case.

H.R. 4447 is not premised on any assumption that the deportees

are singled out for harassment. It is premised on the view that

there is an extraordinary level of violence in El Salvador to which

virtually everyone in the country is exposed. And as a result, our

current deportation policy appears to endanger individual lives.

Based on indications such as the Center for Immigration Studies

finding, we should suspend the deportations until we find out more

complete information about our policy's effect on the lives of individuals.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Thank you, Mike.

[The statement of Mr. Lowry follows:]
42

Congrrss of trjt tHniteb fttatnf

ZZIZZZZXZ: *

0UM »' Rtprtttntatibrt

PMM41-T1T0 _ ..

•asfiinaton. B.C 20515

•HACHANT MAMNf AMD FISHMES

AprU 12, 1984

Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my appreciation for this opportunity to

testify in support of H.R. 4447. This bill represents an important chance for

us to take a positive step toward maintaining our nation's great humanitarian

traditions. H.R. 1510, the Slmpson-Mazzoii bill, contains language expressing

the sense of the Congress that extended voluntary departure should be granted

to Salvaooran refugees, and the House amended the fiscal year 1964 State

Department Authorization act to include similar language. H.R. 4447 is a

thoughtful and moderate effort to folio* up on these expressions of concern.

I am particularly grateful for this chance to testify because the issues of

extended voluntary departure and "safe haven' for Salvadorans in one united

States are very important to the people I represent. H.R. 4447 has been

cosponsored by our colleague Joel Pritchard as well as myself, so it has

bipartisan support from both members of Congress who represent Seattle.

Many of my constituents, especially religious leaders of many faiths and

others in the church community, have expressed to me their deep concern about

the need for a change in current U.S. policy. In fact, some of these highly

respected community leaders have worked to provide safe haven, or sanctuary,

for individual refugees, even though the Immigration and Naturalization Service

views sanctuary as a violation of the law. As a member of this body, I take

with the utmost seriousness my oath to uphold our nation's laws. I am

therefore all the more moved and troubled when decent, honorable people In my

community find that their convictions lead them to take steps of this nature.

Members of Seattle's legal community are also actively working on behalf of

Salvaooran refugees.

Extended voluntary departure status, a temporary permission to remain In the

united States, is the most appropriate status for Salvadoran refugees, as it

is for other refugees who would face dangerous conditions on return to their

native countries. These people face generalized, random, or arbitrary

violence rather than individual persecution. Already, extended voluntary

departure is provided for nationals of Lebanon, Poland, Afghanistan, Uganda,

Ethiopia, and Nicaragua. There can be little doubt that the level of violence

in El Salvador is comparable to that in these countries, if not greater.

In contrast, asylum exists to aid individuals who can demonstrate that they

face a threat of persecution. Some Salvadoran refugees have been able to meet

this test and have been granted asylum. But for many Salvadoran refugees,

asylum is not the most appropriate remedy. Extended voluntary departure is.
Granting extended voluntary departure to these refugees kill also benefit our

country. It will give Individual refugees an Incentive to make themselves

known to the authorities. It will help reduce a logjam In requests for asylum.

It »ill only entitle refugees to seek authorisation to work here. It will not

enable refugees to apply for permanent resident status after one year In the

U.S. From talking to ay constituents, I can add that It will also reaffirm

for many Americans their faith in our system of government and our strength,

wisdom, and compassion.

My second point relates to the pervasive violence In El Salvador. Estimates

of fatalities over three years range from 30,000 to 40,000 people. In a nation

of about 5,000,000 people, that is somewhere under 1* of the population. It Is

as if 1.3 million to 1.8 million Americans were to die in civil conflict. As

many as one and a quarter million Salvadorans have fled their homes. A tenth

of the population are displaced persons in the country; 15% are refugees In

other countries. An estimated 300,000 to 300,000 are in the United States.

The violence extends to people in El Salvador who are not Salvadorans. The

case of the two muroered American advisors to the Salvadoran land reform

program Is of particular concern to me because one, Mark Pearlman, was from

Seattle. It is worth mentioning briefly because It illustrates how the

Salvadoran Judicial system functions even In a highly publicized case. On

January 3, 1981, Mark Pearlman, his colleague Michael Hammer, and Jose vlera,

the director of the land reform program, were murdered In the Sheraton Hotel

in San Salvador by two national guardsmen armed with a machine gun. The two

guardsmen have implicated others in the murder, but the cases against them

nave been dismissed or they have been released from custody. One, Captain

Eduardo Alfonso Avila, was released on March 22. A U.S. Embassy spokesman has

stated that "Me are convinced from early Interviews in which polygraphlc

examinations were used that Captain Avila knows a great deal about the

murders."

The case of the four American churchwomen is also well known and is also mired

in the Salvadoran juldldal system. Last week, the Senate agreed without

objection to provide $500,000 to the Government of El Salvador for the

protection of Jurors and other key participants in the criminal proceedings

against those charged with the murders of the churchwomen.

These are the results of two highly publicized cases Involving victims who are

not Salvadoran nationals. The dangers to Salvadoran nationals are also great.

I quote the January 1984 State Department Country Report: "Abuse of human

rights remains a central problem, despite efforts of the government to end

violence from right-wing death squads, some of which have links to the security

forces, and from its own security forces, as well as from the guerrilla left.

The level of political violence remains hlgn, but noncombatant deaths have

declined steadily since a peak in 1980. The number of disappearances in 1983

remained at about the same level as In 1982. Elements within the government

security forces are still believed to use torture as arbitrary punishment or

to extract Information from suspected leftists. Individuals can and are

arrested without warrants, detained for investigation, sometimes for long

periods before charges are brought, and, if charged with such crimes as

sedition and treason, rarely brought to trial.
44

•All human rltfits conditions In El Salvador arc strongly affected by the

ongoing civil strife. As is common during civil strife, the achievement of a

public order that voulo protect each person's rights has been disrupted by

Military operations, partisan hatreds, acts cf revenge, the satisfaction of

personal grudges, pervasive fear, and a prevailing uncertainty dominated by

violence. This situation contributed to, and Is ccapllcated by, the nearparalysis of the Judicial systea, anlch is caused in part by corruption and

Intimidation and which is most evident when criaes of a political nature are

being considered.*

Although the context of violence is Indisputable, it is difficult to obtain

full docuaentatlon of the degree of risk that our current policy presents to

deported Salvadoran refugees. However, the Center for Immigration Rights has

studied a list of 2500 deportees. The preliminary results indicate that 50

appeared on death lists coaplled by independent Salvadoran huaan rights

organizations. That is to say, about 2% of the deportees studied Here killed,

because the records are not alvays reliable, the total nueber of victims In

this group could be higher.

It seeas to ae that there is only one responsible and huaane way or reacting

to this rinding. That is to recognize that 2X is far too high a figure to be

acceptable to us, as Americans ariose government deported these individuals as

a natter of policy. 1 do not aean to suggest that those 50 individuals were

killed because they had been refugees. I do aean to suggest that their

chances of dying violent deaths irere far greater because »e sent then back to

El Salvador than If they had been allowed to stay in the united States,

temporarily, until conditions in their country laprove.

It was reported in one or the Seattle newspapers that a spokesman for the

Iaatlgratlon and daturallzatlon Service responded to this study with this

statement: "Just because those people »ere returned and aay have become

innocent victims of some level of random violence in El Salvador does not aean

the Judgnent on their asylum claims was inaccurate."

That is exactly the point. Asylum is appropriate for people who face threats

or Individual persecution. It aay Hell have not been appropriate for those 50

Salvaoorans. Yet they lost their lives in acts of violence. That Is why we

should grant extended voluntary departure status to those Salvaoorans who

remain in the Inlted States, rather than processing thea on a case-by-case

basis for an asylum status designed to help a category or people with different

problaas.

Siaply put, if »e have reason to believe that a policy or deporting refugees

from the united States aay lead to death for 2* of thea, it seeas to ae that a

study of this policy is not too much to ask, and that while the study is going

on, the policy should be suspended. That is what H.R. 4447 would do: It

could suspend the deportation of Salvadorans from the U.S. pending a study or

the conditions they face.
45

I would like to stress one point. It relates to an issue that can be Defined

by quoting a couple of sentences from the Staff Report prepared for the Senate

Subcommittee on Immigration and fferugee Policy after a field investigation in

Ell Salvador In September 1983. "The 300 to 350 Salvadorans wfio are currently

being returned by the U.S. to El Salvador each month are subject to the sane

violence every resident of trie country faces, but there is clear evidence that

no govexnmentally sanctioned program to target or harass returning Salvadorans

simply because they have been in the U.S. However, no official agency has

conducted a follow-up study on individual Salvadorans returned by the U.S.

Private, non-governmental groups cannot, without great difficulty, undertake

such an assessment on their own, without the cooperation of the united States

Immigration and Naturalization Service and the United States Embassy."

It could be argued that one case for H.R. 4447 Is weakened by the lack of

conclusive evidence that deportees are singled out for attack on their return

to El Salvador. But this is a false issue. H.R. 4447 is not premised on any

assumption that the deportees are singled out for harassment. It is premised

on the view that there is an extraordinary level of violence In El Salvador to

which virtually everyone in the country is exposed. As a result, our current

deportation policy appears to endanger individual lives. Based on indications

such as the Center for Immigration Studies finding, we should suspend the

deportations until we find out more complete information about our policy's

effect on these individuals.

Finally, I would add that I consider this issue to be distinct from the other

Central American issues which I know concern us all very much. I do not think

that anybody really questions the high level of violence in El Salvador, though

there may be disagreement on how to apportion the responsibility for this

violence among security forces, death squads, guerrillas, and other groups of

the left and right. Without the unrest and violence, there would be fewer

refugees. But the issue here is how we should deal with refugees in our own

country. In this regard, the sources of violence are less relevant than their

cumulative impact.

For that reason, I hope that we can deal with this legislation separately from

our other concerns about Central America. We are talking about people who

have escaped from the constant threat of random violence to walk the streets

of our great nation. Me should not turn our backs on them when we have the

chance to offer them temporary shelter from this threat.

34-285 0-84-4
46

Mr. MAZZOLI. Sam?

Mr. GEJDENSON. Thank you very much.

It is difficult to add to statements as eloquent as those made by

my two colleagues and Mr. Moakley, the sponsor of the bill. What I

would like to do is add to this discussion a personal note.

We are asked to take some risk by Mr. Moakley's bill, the bill

that we have all cosponsored. It certainly does represent a risk for

this society, but we ought to put that risk in perspective. My

father, in World War II, was saved by an old woman who had eight

children. The risk that she took was not simply that of risking her

own life, but also the lives of her eight children, had they found

this one Jew hiding in her attic. That woman took that risk, and

for that reason I am able to come here and testify today. She

risked not only her own life but the lives of her eight children.

At that same period of time, the United States was reviewing the

requests of many Jews to enter this country. Jews fleeing Germany

and elsewhere were denied entry to the United States at that time

as parolees because it was claimed they were only fleeing for economic reasons, that they were economic refugees.

The magnitude of what was happening in World War II is only

reflective, it was not assessable at the time that it was occurring.

Likewise, it is difficult to estimate the final civilian casualties in El

Salvador, the most densely populated country in this hemisphere.

It is difficult for us as Americans to assess the risk that we are

taking as Americans, displacing poor people and others seeking

entry level employment. But the risk of the El Salvadorans who

make a tremendous effort to reach these borders cannot be estimated by Americans, even those of us who are here only a generation.

I listened as a child to the stories of my parents and many of

their friends and tried to understand why they didn't leave earlier,

why they didn't flee when what Hitler offered was so obvious. I

think I gained a little perspective that maybe some of you don't

have. It is difficult, if not almost impossible, to leave family and

friends behind; it is almost impossible to leave as a family unit.

As we take a look at history, we need not simply look at the

Jews, we can look at Armenians, Iranians, and others, who in

recent history have faced annihilation and death and have stayed

behind.

Think of the incredible risk for someone to leave his home, his

family, and surroundings that he or she is comfortable with, and

come to this country as an illegal, facing deportation and return to

a country that offers oftentimes death for those who have fled.

They are taking an incredible risk.

What this bill asks us, as Americans, to do, is to take a small

risk, not to grant them permanent status, but simply to provide

them an opportunity, a safe harbor, until the horrors and the

battle of El Salvador is over.

We, as Americans, I think, can afford to take that risk, and I

suggest and hope that this committee take the leadership to provide the extended voluntary departure status for the Salvadorans.

We can't open our doors to the entire world, but when people take
47

the kind of risks that they do to get here, I think we ought to give

them the benefit of the doubt.

Thank you for your time, Mr. Chairman.

[The statement of Mr. Gejdenson follows:]
48

TESTIMONY OF

REPRESENTATIVE SAM GEJDENSON

April 12, 1984

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, REFUGEES AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

H.R. 4447

I SUPPOSE THAT I FEEL PARTICULARLY STRONGLY ABOUT THIS PIECE

OF LEGISLATION OFFERED BY REPRESENTATIVE MOAKLEY BECAUSE I MYSELF

COME FROM A BACKGROUND NOT WHOLLY DISSIMILAR TO THAT FACED BY THE

SALVADORAN REFUGEES NOW IN THIS COUNTRY.

I WAS, AS SOME OF YOU MAY KNOW, BORN IN A DISPLACED PERSONS

CAMP IN ESCHWEGE, GERMANY JUST AFTER THE WAR. MY PARENTS FLED THE

SOVIET UNION AND SURVIVED THE HOLOCAUST. I WAS VERY YOUNG WHEN MY

FAMILY ARRIVED IN THE UNITED STATES AND, IN MANY WAYS, DID NOT PERSONNALLY SUFFER THE INHUMANITY THAT TODAY'S SALVADORANS WHO TRAVEL THOUSANDS OF MILES IN PACKING CRATES IN THE BACK OF ENCLOSED TRUCKS DO.

AND YET, I FEEL VERY KEENLY THAT SAME NEED FOR SAFE REFUGE.

I HAVE A QUOTE FROM PASTOR NIEMOELLER HANGING IN MY OFFICE

THAT READS

'"IN GERMANY THEY CAME FIRST FOR THE COMMUNISTS,

AND I DIDN'T SPEAK UP BECAUSE I WASN'T A COMMUNIST.

THEN THEY CAME FOR THE JEWS, AND I DIDN'T SPEAK UP

BECAUSE I WASN'T A JEW. THEN THEY CAME FOR THE TRADE

UNIONIST, AND I WASN'T A TRADE UNIONIST. THEN THEY

CAME FOR THE CATHOLICS, AND I DIDN'T SPEAK UP BECAUSE

I WAS A PROTESTANT. THEN THEY CAME FOR ME, AND BY

THAT TIME NO ONE WAS LEFT TO SPEAK UP."
49

WE HAVE TO SPEAK UP. EXTENDED VOLUNTARY DEPARTURE - A

TEMPORARY STAY OF DEPORTATION - IS THE VERY LEAST THAT WE CAN

DO. TO ALLOW THE BELEAGUERED WHO HAVE SEEN FAMILY AND FRIENDS

HACKED TO DEATH A BRIEF RESPITE FROM THOSE HORRORS, AND HOPEFULLY

TO MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR THEM TO SURVIVE, IS TO DEMONSTRATE A

MINIMUM OF COMPASSION FOR THOSE WHO DID NOT ASK FOR A WAR THAT

HAS DESTROYED THEIR COUNTRY AND TAKEN 43,000 LIVES IN FOUR.YEARS.

THE GRANTING OF EXTENDED VOLUNTARY DEPARTURE STATUS TO THE

SALVADORAN REFUGEES NEED NOT CONFER A POLITICAL JUDGEMENT ON U.S.

POLICY IN EL SALVADOR. AS THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION HAS

POINTED OUT IN THEIR DECEMBER 1983 REPORT, EXTENDED VOLUNTARY

DEPARTURE "ENTAILS NO ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT POLITICAL, RELIGIOUS,

RACIAL, ETHNIC OR SOCIAL BASIS OF A FEAR OF RETURNING." THE

VIOLENCE THE SALVADORANS FLEE IS NOT CATEGORIZED BY THIS MEASURE

AS ORIGINATING FROM THE GOVERNMENT, THE DEATH SQUADS, OR THE

LEFTIST GUERRILLAS. EXTENDED VOLUNTARY DEPARTURE IS A HUMANITARIAN

DECISION, NOT A POLITICAL ONE. IT SIMPLY EXPRESSES THE CONCERN

ABOUT DANGER TO LIFE AND LIMB FROM ALL SOURCES. UNFORTUNATELY,

BY SO VEHEMENTLY OPPOSING THIS SIMPLE MEASURE, THE ADMINISTRATION

IS UNWISELY MAKING THE MOAKLEY BILL A POLITICAL BATTLE WHICH, THE

LONGER THEY FIGHT, THE MORE THEY PERCEIVE THEY HAVE TO LOSE.

ALTHOUGH MANY HAVE OPPOSED UNCONDITIONAL U.S. SUPPORT FOR THE

SALVADORAN GOVERNMENT AND WOULD ASCRIBE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THAT

VIOLENCE TO THE U.S.-BACKED GOVERNMENT IN THAT COUNTRY, THAT IS

NOT WHAT WE ARE HERE TO TALK ABOUT. TODAY WE ARE SIMPLY INTERESTED
50

IN TEMPORARILY RELIEVING THE VICTIMS OF THE CONFLICT OF THAT

TERROR, REGARDLESS OF WHO IS TO BLAME.

I FEEL VERY STRONGLY THAT EXTENDED VOLUNTARY DEPARTURE

SHOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO PARTISAN WRANGLING OVER UNITED STATES

POLICY IN CENTRAL AMERICA.

THIS SUBCOMMITTEE IS PROPERLY CONCERNED WITH IMMIGRATION

POLICY, NOT FOREIGN POLICY. YOUR WORK IN FORMING AND OVERSEEING

AMERICA'S IMMIGRATION POLICY IS AN EXTREMELY IMPORTANT ONE AND

EXTENDED VOLUNTARY DEPARTURE COINCIDES WITH YOUR EFFORTS TO SEE

THAT IMMIGRATION POLICY IS EFFECTIVE AND THAT I.N.S. RESOURCES

ARE WISELY ALLOCATED. EXTENDED VOLUNTARY DEPARTURE WOULD IN FACT

AID YOU IN THIS REGARD BY RELIEVING THE I.N.S. OF THE BURDEN OF

DEPORTING THE SALVADORANS AND ALLOWING THEM TO CONCENTRATE THEIR

SCARCE ENFORCEMENT RESOURCES ON THE UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS WHO

DO NOT HAVE THE COMPELLING HUMANITARIAN NEEDS THAT THE SALVADORANS

DO. I.N.S. IS OVEREXTENDED AS IT IS WITHOUT THE ADDITIONAL BURDEN

OF APPREHENDING AND RETURNING SALVADORANS TO MORTAL DANGER. MOREOVER,

BY ENCOURAGING THE UNDERGROUND POPULATION OF SALVADORANS IN THE U.S.

TO COME FORWARD AND REGISTER WITH I.N.S. AUTHORITIES WITHOUT FEAR

OF DEPORTMENT, WE FACILITATE THE I.N.S.'s ABILITY TO DOCUMENT THEIR

PRESENCE AND, IN FACT, TO DEPORT THEM AT THE END OF THEIR EXTENDED

VOLUNTARY DEPARTURE STAY.

PLEASE DON'T LET THE FATE OF THOUSANDS OF TERRIPIED SALVADORANS

WHOSE ONLY CRIME HAS BEEN TO LIVE IN A LAND AT WAR • BECOME ENTANGLED

IN THE POLITICAL MACHINATIONS OF U.S. FOREIGN POLICY. THESE PEOPLE

ARE SIMPLY ASKING US NOT TO SHIP THEM BACK TO A NATION AT WAR IN WhICH
51

THEV ARE THE CERTAIN VICTIMS UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE PRESIDENT

DETERMINES THAT IT IS SAFE TO DO SO.

IN SUM, WE HAVE UN OPPORTUNITY HERE TO PROVES TEMPORARY

PEACE OF MIND TO THE REFUGEES WHILE THE I.ARGER POLITICAL QUESTIONS

ABOUT U.S. POLICY ARE ADDRESSED ELSEWHERE.

H.R. 4447 IS IN KEf-.NG WITH INTERNATIONALLY ACCEPTED STANDARDS

EMBODIED IN INTERNATIONAL LAW THAT STATES THAT PEOPLE FLEEING CIVIL

STRIFE NOT BE REPATRIATED WITH UNDUE HASTE. EXTENDED VOLUNTARY

DEPARTURE HAS BEEN USED 14 TIMES IN THE PAST 16 YEARS, MOST RECENTLY

TO PROVIDE HAVEN FOR REFUGEES FROM POLAND, NICARAGUA, IRAN AND

AFGHANISTAN. CERTAINLY THE PRESENT SITUATION IN EL SALVADOR MERITS

THIS CONSIDERATION. CONGRESS ONCE BEFORE, IN LAST YEAR'S STATE

DEPARTMENT AUTHORIZATION, EXPRESSED ITS DESIRE TO SEE EXTENDED VOLUNTARY

DEPARTURE AUTHORITIES IMPLEMENTED. I WOULD URGE THE SUBCOMMITTEE

TO FOLLOW UP THAT ACTION BY FAVORABLY REPORTING OUT H.R. 4447.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Thank you very much, gentlemen, all three of you,

from three different perspectives, very excellent.

Let me just ask a couple of questions and yield myself 5 minutes.

Jerry, you made a couple of points, I think, in your opening paragraph and you wound up by saying that you are not asking for anything permanent, this is a temporary safe harbor, temporary help.

And I think Sam and Mike make the same point.

In the real world in which we live, is it going to be really temporary help, are we not in effect providing for these people because

after, say, 3 years, if this 3-year factor is built in to the bill, would

not equities and contacts and roots be developed so stern•that just

like Sam says•that the risk then would be such that you couldn't

send them back because their kids would know only English, their

investment would be here, they would own a house here, they

would have a job here.

Tell me, how can we make this temporary help work?

Mr. PATTERSON. I think we can make it temporary help through

human rights policy that is carried on in every country, including

El Salvador. For example, if we could make all of our aid, both

military and economic, contingent upon the government of the

country who receives that aid, practicing human rights, not killing

their own people, not terrorizing them, not having death squads,

we would do one of two things in El Salvador. Very specifically, the

Government would change and in fact then people wouldn't be fleeing El Salvador in the future, and those who are here now who

state to me they wish to go back, I believe would.

That is one of the inconsistencies in our foreign policy.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Getting to the root problem•the same as they say

about immigration reform•you can't reform until you solve the
52

root problems; we are trying to do that at the same point as we are

solving.

Mr. MAZZOLI. With regard to the time period on the bill, don't

you think in 3 years temporary would become permanent given the

state of American law and constitutional rights of people who are

here and so forth?

Mr. PATTERSON. I don't think so. We have a number of Vietnamese refugees in my district who would go back.

Mr. PATTERSON. If there was an anti-Communist government.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Let me just kind of put this scenario to you. Maybe

all three of you can take a shot at it because, Sam, you had experience; Mike, too.

What happens if you have this bill passed, 3 years down the

road, by some congressional certification or by some Presidential

edict or something, you say it is all over; your home is safe; certified nonviolent; we want you to go back?

They say, hey, just a second, my kids are in school, I bought a

house, I got a new little job. I am on this upward trail, you know, I

have got something going here. I am on a roll and I don't want to

go back home.

Now, tell me, what do you do at that point?

All three of you take a shot.

Mr. PATTERSON. The fact is, if they remain illegal, you won't be

able to find them in 3 years. If you pass this bill, they will have to

go through certain legal processes and you will be able to find

them, so there will be a difference there.

Mr. MAZZOLI. NOW, what do you do when you find them, Jerry?

Because I imagine if you have a house, you are on the record;

and if you get jobs, you get payroll certificates. But what do you do

at that point if the guy says I don't want to go back?

Mr. PATTERSON. I think the condition under which they were legalized is a temporary one which provides for departure, and I

think they would have to depart.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Sam?

Mr. GEJDENSON. I think that you have got a couple of things. One

is that if the situation stabilizes in El Salvador, you will find that a

large portion of people really want to return to their homeland.

For people with names like Mazzoli, and whatever Frank used to

be, and Smith used to be•I think we know how difficult it is to get

situated in a new country, and how there is a real tendency for

people to try to return home.

For those that stay here, there will be some problems. But I

think as a country, our conscience should rest easier if we send

people back to a safe country, one where war has ended, though

not necessarily economically prosperous; rather than not giving

them safe harbor at this time during this war.

Additionally, I think if we take a look at the demographic projections of the United States over the next 25 to 30 years, we find that

we are going to be a country that is going to need a population to

fulfill our basic work force. If you take a look•and I could provide

for this committee a chart that we just used in testifying before the

Democratic Platform Committee, showing basically that we start

having a shortage of bodies, never mind about qualified, trained, or

anything else•10 or 15 years down the road, if there is an econom-
53

ic recovery that is sustained over the long haul, forget ups and

downs

Mr. MAZZOLI. Where you need the people.

Mr. GEJDENSON [continuing]. In the immediate, our projections

are that we are going to need people.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Are you going to support the temporary worker

part of the immigration reform bill when it comes on the floor?

Mr. GEJDENSON. I am sorry to say that I am waiting to get a shot

at that on the floor and haven't taken a hard look at it.

Mr. MAZZOLI. I hope you do, because that is exactly the point we

make in our bill. We say that at some point America is going to

need, you know, a very controlled temporary worker program.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Absolutely.

I don't think this asks us to fool around with the present process,

either.

Mr. MAZZOLI. I hope a lot of people listen to what you say, it is

very important.

Michael, tell me, how do you think you handle a guy who says I

am on a roll, I don't want to go back?

Mr. LOWRY. Mr. Chairman, first, at that point, of course, they

would be illegal in this country at expiration of this time, and their

purpose for being here would be economic and not political.

So, I think our Government would be correct at that time to say

that you are not qualified to be a refugee in this country under the

laws of this land, which correctly distinguishes between political

and economic refugees or people who are in danger, and economic

refugees, and we would be on correct legal footing to then say at

that time because the violent situation had stopped, to then go

ahead with deportation.

Mr. MAZZOLI. OK, thank you, Mike.

My time is expired.

The gentleman from California.

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In 1980, when we passed the Refugee Act, one of the concerns we

had was the ad hoc basis upon which Congress seemed to respond

to refugee crises. At that time, we adopted and expanded a version

or determination of what, in fact, the refugee test should be. And

we extended it, as has been said, to persecution or well-founded

fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. Because

we wanted to replace the ad hoc legislative approach, we broadened that definition and tried to have in place a permanent statutory response to these situations as they would come up.

I just ask you, aren't we being asked to be somewhat inconsistent

here and say we ought to make a special case for a particular instance when evidently the worldwide accepted definition of the refugee test is not being met by these individuals on an individual

basis?

Mr. GEJDENSON. I would venture to say if we took a look at some

14 instances where the extended voluntary departure status has

been given to, it is my understanding, Poles, Afghans, Ethiopians,

Iranians, and Nicaraguans, you know, these are all difficult calls.

But I certainly could argue with you, if you would like, the instances of safety and danger to the individuals in the countries
54

that I have mentioned; with the situation the Salvadorans face, it

is not the kind of situation that you can put into neat little square

boxes. I think that is why the benefit of the wisdom of the Congress

on this issue is called for.

Mr. LUNGREN. Let me ask this: Last year we heard testimony in

support of a statutory safe haven remedy where we would create

this on sort of a regular basis. We didn't accept that, that hasn't

been established.

In the absence of a statutory remedy with specific articulated

standards, do you think it is appropriate for us to pass legislation

for a specific instance in a specific country? In other words, if this

is a case that can be made, ought it not to be made in terms of

permanent legislation that would affect similar circumstances similarly?

Mr. PATTERSON. Mr. Lungren, the administration has the authority to do this now without statute. They have chosen not to do it.

They have done it in other cases. I think what we are suggesting is

that we believe they should be directed to do so in El Salvador.

Mr. LUNGREN. Let me ask this question. If, in fact, these people

are refugees of a sort•that is, they cannot go back without fear of

the consequences•why does it follow that the United States should

be the country, the prime country, of safe haven?

In other words, we are being asked in this instance to be the

country of first asylum. Most of these people, I assume, have come

not by flight, I mean air flight, but have made it by land; they have

gone through a number of countries to get here. If, in fact, they

had a well-founded fear of persecution in their own country, would

not that have been satisfied by going to another country? Or, if, in

fact, we did not have available refugee camps, would it not be a

better response to have a greater commitment to the U.N. High

Commissioner for Refugees and establish a situation, if, in fact, this

is temporary, where these folks could live without fear of persecution during that period of time, be closer to their own home country•and, in fact, not develop those ties that the chairman talked

about that are inevitably going to develop?

Mr. GEJDENSON. I would say that all of the above. I am not arguing with any of those other options. But what I am saying is take a

look at that region of the world. It doesn't take anybody who has

spent a great deal of time looking at the economic situation of

those other countries trying to be hospitable much to figure out the

difficulties. Mexico's population problems and pressures are enormous. They are facing crises in the near future not only because of

their debt, but because of other internal problems. They have a

real hard time dealing with this.

What you have to consider is that these people have a realistic

fear for their lives. We are taking some risks, I said that at the beginning. There is some risk that these people are going to stay.

There are certainly advantages to some of the procedures that you

mentioned. But the reality of the situation is that we have got a

bunch of them here now, and that we have got to deal with that.

Mr. LUNGREN. I understand that, but my question is why is the

legislative alternative that they remain in this country•as opposed to us not deporting them to El Salvador but allowing them to

go to a place for refugees, a safe harbor area closer in that region
55

in which we take care of the problem of possible persecution, but

we also take care of the problem of

Mr. GEJDKNSON. Have you ever been to a refugee camp?

Mr. LUNGREN. Yes; I have been.

Mr. GEJDENSON. I tell you, it may be easy to make that kind of

decision sitting here in this room, but when you see kids who have

got infections, not because of anything wrong, but just because

there are just so many people living so close together. In the Honduran refugee camp, the Guatemalan refugee camp, the mosquito

bites have turned to infections and serious illnesses. You know,

there is a limit to what the U.N. High Commissioner can do.

We have got some space here and I think we have got a responsibility to respond.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Sorry, time has expired.

Mike, you had a quick rejoinder here, or something, very briefly.

Mr. LOWRY. Yes, and again, many of the suggestions our colleague is making might have some real merit. We need to get information that we do not have and we are exporting 300 to 400 people

a month, and deaths are occurring to those people, not necessarily

directly because of it. So we need to start to get the information

and perhaps other ideas or remedies like this that Dan suggests

makes sense.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Thank you. The gentleman from Massachusetts is

recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. FRANK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple of brief

comments, if I might.

As long as the issue was joined with regard to the H2 workers, I

think it is possible to agree with the gentleman from Connecticut

that the demographics are going to make us at some point later in

this century happy to have immigrants, but not to think that guest

workers are the way, there is an alternative which is to

Mr. MAZZOLI. We don't have a guest worker now, we have an H2

program.

Mr. FRANK. H2, yes. The alternative is

Mr. LUNGREN. I will give you the task to work on the guest

worker program

Mr. FRANK. The alternative is that if we need people to work

here: We can let them live here and be citizens. It does not seem to

me we have to allow temporary help into the country. But I will be

prepared and we can discuss that one a little bit later.

The only point I want to make with regard to people going to

other countries, as the gentleman from California suggested, and

obviously, it is not going to be helpful to people in America to get

the sense that we are taking on all of the burdens in the world.

On the other hand, it seems to me there are particular reasons

why that would be a problem in other Central American countries.

Honduras and El Salvador have recently fought a war. I notice

with the removal of the Honduran Chief of Staff friction with the

Salvadorans was cited as one of the reasons that was involved.

Guatemala has also got problems.

The relations among the different Central American countries

are not terrific right now as is, and I don't think it would be in the

interest of American foreign policy to be exacerbated in that. And I

think the presence of refugees in one of those other countries be-
56

comes a source of friction, a source of claims that they are being

subversive, that they are moving back and forth. I think that is one

reason why the more logical explanation that you might expect

that they could go there, in this case because of the political frictions and tensions would be there. And it is also the case, of course,

we might put the refugees down and then we might decide we are

going to have another base there, and trying to keep the refugees

out from under the Pentagon and its logistical teams could become

somewhat complicating; they are a lot more secure here.

I yield back.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Thank you very much.

The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. MCCOLLUM. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I particularly am pleased with the early portions of your legislative•those of you who support this legislation, in terms of being

concerned about the humanitarian conditions of the refugees in

these camps, as I think probably you all know that I had the pleasure early this year, last year now, I guess it was, of leading an expedition of some 150,000 of medical and medical supplies into the

so-called refugee or displaced persons camps in El Salvador.

I would be the first to say to you the conditions there are not

good and they need to be improved, they are some of the worst in

the world. But it bothers me in listening to the answers that were

given to the questions of my friend from California, my colleague,

that there is a suggestion that somehow we ought to bring those

folks up here because those conditions are so bad, or allow them to

be here.

I have recently been, as some of my other colleagues have been,

in parts of the world elsewhere besides down there, where refugee

camps exist, including Camp Echea and the camps in Thailand. I

am aware there are thousands of people over there in a very distressed condition who have legitimate claims to political asylum in

fear of persecution if they go back, maybe greater than the ones

down here in El Salvador on that point.

There are estimates that there are 15 million, or upward of 15

million Afghan refugees over in Pakistan today, who certainly are

in reasonable fear of persecution if they were to claim to come to

the United States from the Soviets. We don't particularly want, nor

can we take, all those kind of people in our country.

So what bothers me and why I am about to ask this question is:

Just how far can we go with this respect? You gentlemen are

asking extended voluntary departure but what bothers me is the

pull effect that this may have in encouraging a lot more to come

up here.

You have indicated your concern about the conditions in those

camps back there, they are bad. Just how many people can we

afford to take? Are you just talking about the ones that are here or

is there an implication that you feel that we ought to be taking in

a whole lot more people from El Salvador or from the Honduran

camps?

Mr. PATTERSON. Mr. McCollum, when Mr. Moakley was here he

responded to the question and I would respond the same way. We

are not talking about encouraging people to come here, and we are

suggesting that enforcement at the borders be continued and as
57

stringently as possible. But we are saying once they are here that

we should not send them back to either certain or generalized fear

of death.

Mr. GEJDENSON. I think we all support what Mr. Lungren was

talking about, working on all those other options. But I think he

ought to recognize there are some limits to those options.

I think that one of the things the other States have is a responsibility to States like Florida that have been particularly burdened

by the geographic location. I think it is going to be a benefit in the

long run. If we take a look at history, when every group came in

here we were a burden, we were isolated in particular parts of the

country, and we turned out to be tremendous assets.

But we are not talking about that at this point. What we are

talking about is as a country if we are willing to take the risk of

giving these people a chance while we try to end the turmoil in El

Salvador.

You know, you think about somebody who grew up in a small village in El Salvador or Guatemala, or wherever, and for that individual to make it the thousands of miles into this country shows

more than just a simple desire to make more money per hour.

There is some serious danger there

Mr. MCCOLLUM. There is no question there is serious danger to

anyone in El Salvador today and I wouldn't blame a soul for wanting to leave down there no matter his political affiliation, because

there is violence in that country

Mr. GEJDENSON. Even war there.

Mr. MCCOLLUM [continuing]. But the problem is we can't take all

of them in.

Mr. GEJDENSON. NO question about it.

Mr. MCCOLLUM. And even if we could, are we providing too much

of an incentive to do it, and that is a rhetorical question?

Let me ask one specific one before my time runs out. There is a

question of technical language that I would like to get to in the bill

which prohibits the Attorney General from detaining the Salvadorans.

Mr. GEJDENSON. I think that was addressed earlier. Maybe Chairman Mazzoli might

Mr. MAZZOLI. I asked the question of Mr. Moakley and he said he

is not wedded to that language and maybe it needs some changes.

Mr. MCCOLLUM. I think that is an important aspect. I am sorry I

was not here for that question.

Mr. MAZZOLI. It was not an extended discussion.

Mr. MCCOLLUM. But I am concerned about the stopping question

aspects and just what that word really means.

I yield back, I have no other questions.

Mr. MAZZOLI. I thank the gentleman.

The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. CROCKETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I was greatly moved, deeply moved, in fact, by the personal

appeal made by my colleague from Connecticut and his characterization of himself as a refugee. I wondered why in seeking additional company he referred to my colleague Smith from Florida and

my colleague Frank from Massachusetts but overlooked me.
58

Mr. GEJDENSON. I tell you, it was a historical guess that you got

here not on your own initiative but by somebody else's suggestion,

and wasn't quite sure how to put that as far as those of us who

tried to get here and others who were forced to come here.

Mr. CROCKETT. I appreciate that claimed difference but in many

respects our refugee status is much greater than that of anyone

else because we are refugees in our own country. Sometimes I

think there is a tendency to forget that.

I don't think I support the bill in its present form because I

think all it does is give statutory authority to preexisting discriminatory policy with respect to extended voluntary departure.

I would be only too happy to support a broadened bill that set

forth statutory standards by which extended voluntary departure

was to be given, so that it would no longer be a case of leaving it to

the Executive to pick out countries and situations that are to be

favored.

I see no reason, for example, why extended voluntary departure

shouldn't be given to refugees from Haiti, from South Africa, and

from the Philippines. But are we to consider individual legislation

for each of these countries when we feel that the State Department

or the Department of Justice has overlooked them? I think not.

So, I would ask each of you to comment on your reaction to a

request that Congress enact legislation clearly establishing a statutory basis for EVD.

Mr. GEJDENSON. I wouldn't argue with the gentleman's statement on its merit without any question. I think you are absolutely

right.

I think that what we have here is a situation where this administration and previous administrations have used this category in

about 14 instances over the last 16 years. This and other administrations have done so in the case of Uganda and other countries,

Afghanistan, Poland, with, I think, the proper balance, recognizing

the problems that we have with the immigration issue in this country.

I think that what we have here is a particular problem and a

practical problem of the moment. It is a large number, and it is an

issue in which we are in direct disagreement with the Adminstration's assessment of the danger; I think it is something that we can

get through this body•and we must as there are people dying

every day.

I guess that is why I choose Mr. Moakley's bill for this one specific instance. There are other people dying, there are other people

with problems. I guess it is the magnitude of this one that draws

me to act now on this and certainly be supportive of the concept

that you present: Better language, better opportunities for a broader piece of legislation in the future.

Mr. CROCKETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MAZZOLI. I thank the gentleman very much for that line of

questioning.

Mr. CROCKETT. One further comment.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Certainly.

Mr. CROCKETT. The next time you speak about refugees, remember that I am a refugee from Florida. [Laughter.]

Mr. GEJDENSON. Thank you, Judge.
59

Mr. MAZZOLI. We will recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mr.

Smith, for 5 minutes.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We don't get too many refugees going away from Florida.

[Laughter.]

Mr. GEJDENSON. That may change.

Mr. SMITH. I also want, for the benefit of the gentleman from

Connecticut, my former name was Hartpence. [Laughter.]

Mr. SMITH. I am curious•all of you support this bill, and I tend

to take a different view than my colleague Judge Crockett, in the

sense that there is in fact a very narrow problem with reference to

this particular country at this particular time clearly defined, obviously a major conflagration; a country which may be in fact fighting for its really very existence.

As a result, I would want to tend to view this legislation solely

on its merits without all of the ramifications that have been discussed here, and that have merit.

But I also have a problem with this legislation. I didn't raise this

with Mr. Moakley but I do want to raise it with you as people who

support the bill, and I think you are in a way even more appropriate than the original sponsor of the legislation.

This bill is totally open ended. This bill provides no date for

cutoff of those who would be eligible nor a cutoff of the date when

they would have tc go back, when they would be considered to have

been in this country.

And picking up from some of my other colleagues, the question

is: If we do not put in some kind of inside and outside dates, even

as we have in the Mazzoli bill, with reference to the legalization

process, is it in fact this is really going to become a magnet of

much more pulling power than anything we have done to date in

this Congress for over a very long period of time?

I have major concerns and I am curious about what you think

about that. There is no cutoff as to when you would have had to

been here to qualify or when you are going to have to leave, or, et

cetera, and I am just very nervous about that.

Mr. PATTERSON. I think perhaps the expertise of your panel

should be applied in terms of putting a date or a condition. The

condition might be that the conditions within the country at the

time are determined that there is no longer is a need to do it.

You know, in El Salvador now, 20 percent of the population are

displaced persons, out of 5 million people you have got tremendous

displacement. Many of them, 300,000 to 500,000, are in this country. What we are suggesting is that they should not be sent back

there as long as they fear harm will come to them. I can assure

you that there are many who have a real fear of the generalized

violence in El Salvador.

I suspect that your subcommittee could come up with a date, you

know, you could just pull it out of the air•3 years, or some such

factor. I am not sure that does anything because it may have to be

extended or it may not be needed that long

Mr. SMITH. What about an inside date?

Mr. PATTERSON. Pardon?

Mr. SMITH. The inside date. Suppose we pass this and all of a

sudden we find that people, and they are going to be informed that
60

there is going to be a chance to come here and have an extended

voluntary departure, even if you are illegal you can stay. And even

after you come outside the time when people•we passed a law,

that is after the date of the enactment of the law, you still can

come and stay.

Mr. PATTERSON. I keep going back to the fact that if our country's policy were consistent if we were to take the position that

human rights have to be followed by any government we assist, the

situation would be different. Massive military aid to the Salvadoran makes no sense at all. And as long as we do that, civil unrest

will continue and people will be driven from their homes and from

their homeland. This is the real push-pull.

You are talking about it in terms of with drawing people in because we give them EVD. I am

Mr. SMITH. While the push still exists in El Salvador, let's not

give them back.

Mr. PATTERSON. I am saying we are shoving them out by sending

money down there which is usd by the military to suppress human

rights, and it probably costs us a lot less to do it any other way.

OK. I have been advised that the bill sunsets after 3 years if

there is no congressional actionMr. GEJDENSON. Then you go back toMr. PATTERSON [continuing]. Which may answer your question.

Mr. GEJDENSON [continuing]. The present status.

Mr. MAZZOLI. That is the one date. Now, there is a second date.

The gentleman asked for really the inside as well as the outside.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Let me try a crack at that. One is that you have

the outside with the statement we have just gotten. What you have

is a situation that you have anywhere else•the State Department

should reassess the situation; if there is a problem they extend it; if

there is not a problem they don't extend it.

On the inside, I don't think it is that big a magnet. It is not as

big an obstacle as we here in this room really think. What you

have is 300,000 to 400,000 Salvadorans in this country, who came

here without any status at all. Why did they come here? Not because of the status; they don't want to be hassled by American Immigration people. They are scared for the lives of themselves and

their children and their other family members. That is what got

them out of there and made them crawl and swim to get to the borders of this country.

So I think what you do when you provide this particular status is

that you take some of the fear out of their lives•and these are

people who have had enough fear. I am not sure you are going to

make a major difference for the number of people that get here.

If the killings in El Salvador go up, and these people have bounties on their heads, they are still going to leave that country and

head for the United States. If the killings, if the death squads slow

down, if the turmoil is reduced, then you are going to find less

people coming here; because people don't like to leave, most people

like to say where they were born.

So I think that the outside date is answered and the inside date,

I think that having an inside date make less a difference than we

think.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Mike?
61

Mr. LOWRY. I would think if the panel decided, after studying

this inside date was desirable, I, myself, wouldn't find that objectionable. Remember, what we are talking about here is the difference between, they be registered or not registered.

Mr. MAZZOLI. That's right, yes.

Mr. LOWRY. And the inside date would not stop the illegal situation that now goes on. And the real answer is what you are working on in another bill, which is the proper Immigration Service

support and status and that, of course, is the only real answer to

this kind of question.

Mr. SMITH. I am glad you

Mr. MAZZOLI. Please, go ahead.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, allow me to finish.

I am glad you brought that up because there is one factor that

needs to be taken into consideration when we review these kinds of

proposals.

There is a major constituency in the United States all over this

country that is extremely disturbed by the whole process of immigration, or lack of process of immigration. And while we can pass

many laws, we are not going to get the ability to motivate people

in this country to welcome, to help, to be sympathetic to ways of

immigration if, in fact, people feel that we are just allowing the

door to stay open all the time, at all the places, whenever and whoever they want, they come, and they are in.

Let me tell you, there is a major concern, and I hope you don't

misread the fact that there is not only within that element some

decent, hard-working, average people who are concerned, but a lot

of fringe people who cause great problems in this country because

of that.

We need to be sensitized to that as well. That is why I think an

inside date is extremely important.

Mr. MAZZOLI. The gentleman's time has expired.

We must go on but I would like to mention that what the gentleman brings out has a very important line of inquiry because we do

want this thing to be a good bill, but we don't want it to be some

kind of a magnet. And while I say we may well be right, it may not

be nearly the thing. But if it is the thing•we may have to put on

some controls.

And I might say that one of the real problems of going into extended voluntary departure against what the gentleman from California talked about, which is a statutory safe haven, is the fact

that there is Ethiopia, which is more than 2 or 3 miles away from

the United States; you have Afghanistan, which is more than 2 or

3 miles away; you have Iran, which is more than 2 or 3 miles

away•so there is a very big difference where the EVD has been

used in many, many cases.

It doesn't constitute clearly any kind of a magnet because they

are thousands, tens of thousands of miles away. Here they are a

few hundred miles, so it is a problem.

The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. FISH. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I just have one question,

and if it has been fairly explored by the subcommittee in my absence, why, please tell me.

34-7R1; ft - CM _ «
62

We have a communication from the Department of State dated

April 9, signed by the Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Governmental Affairs, with the Department's comments on H.R. 4447.

The letter says that the bill "would create a class of Salvadorans

who could enter the United States and, regardless of the merits of

an individual's status in El Salvador, enjoy an indefinite safe

haven. This is an open invitation to all El Salvadorans to come to

the United States and remain."

If you will recall, the Department of State authorization bill that

we passed for 2 fiscal years did have a cutoff date of January 1,

1983.

I understand that the bill before us does not have one, and this

creates a problem if we are talking about Salvadorans who may

come in the next year or 2 years from now. The prime sponsor, Mr.

Moakley, commented on this. And I would like the observation of

the cosponsors.

Mr. GEJDENSON. I think Mr. Moakley, in addressing that particular issue, said that people who were connected with death squads

or otherwise associated, people we didn't want in this country,

clearly could be removed from the country. The sunsetting provision takes care of the outside, and I think there is some reasonable

debate to have an inside consideration. So I think that in that

sense those two have been covered.

The only thing I would like to close with from my perspective

Mr. FISH. Well, sorry, I don't think it has been covered.

Am I correct that the legislation before us does not, forgetting

the admissibility issue

Mr. MAZZOLI. The gentleman is correct. It would provide no dates

whatsoever. It is a rolling program.

Mr. FISH. What is the comment of the panel on that of our injecting a date and saying the Salvadorans here prior to a certain date

are covered?

Mr. GEJDENSON. I think the argument is that what you want to

do is you want to know who these people are. The argument

against an inside date is that then you develop a second class of

people who are here illegally, that you don't know who they are.

But you have got to make a roll of the dice on that. You have got

to make a guess as to whether this is too strong a magnet. I don't

think it is too strong a magnet. I think that it takes an incredible

amount to have people flee their own homes and villages. So you

are not going to see massive waves of people picking up and leaving El Salvador.

Mr. SMITH. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. FISH. Yes.

Mr. SMITH. And this is the point that I was trying to make

Mr. GEJDENSON. It is a long haul

Mr. SMITH. I urge you to be very careful about this. It is going to

take a lot of public support over the next years to continue to enforce a strong immigration policy.

We are trying to put extra money into bills to support that and

people don't want to spend the money these days.

If we don't have the kind of date that Mr. Fish is talking about,

which I just raised as well, you are going to have a consideration
63

where you may have no ability to keep other people out, so that

you will have a stronger second class who will have no status

again, which will be hard to find.

But with a stronger enforcement procedure, which might come

from having these kinds of bills show that they are for a limited

purpose, then you would be able to keep that second class out.

I mean, we are trying to deal with a problem as it exists now, not

to allow a further perpetuation of an additional problem afterwards. And I think Mr. Fish and I both agree on that.

Mr. FISH. Mr. Patterson

Mr. PATTERSON. If I may, I think we are trying to address a very

specific question and we are not trying to overhaul the immigration law with this; we are trying to address what we feel is an inconsistency in the way the administration has been handling

EVD's. For example, they have used it in this hemisphere with respect to Nicaragua and Cuba and in Chile. They are not using it in

El Salvador.

And they could, the administration could apply a date. In other

words, they have the power to do it now, and I think the intent of

the bill is just to add this country to your list and use your procedures.

And I suggest that the administration could say that those who

enter after a certain date are not entitled to extended voluntary

departure. It is not in the bill, that is correct. Or this subcommittee

may choose to pick a date if one is necessary.

I personally would not put a date in, but I understand that concern. And I understand why it is raised, that we don't want the

pull effect that Mr. McCollum and Mr. Smith raised; in terms of

drawing people here in the future.

One way to get at that, I suppose, is to put it in the statute; the

other is to let the administration do what they have in other EVD

cases.

Mr. MAZZOLI. The gentleman's time is expired.

The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I didn't hear all of this but I heard enough of it to want to ask

one question.

As I understand, any of the gentlemen who are at the desk, the

analysis of this H.R. 4447 indicates that the prohibition would restrict the Attorney General from detaining or deporting to El Salvador those Salvadorans who have been found to be deportable

under section 241(a)(2) "Entry Without Inspection." Now, that section reads as follows:

"Any alien in the United States, including an alien crewman,

shall, upon the order of the Attorney General, be deported, who"•

and this is a pertinent section•"entered the United States without

inspection, or at any time or place, other than as designated by the

Attorney General, or, is in the United States in violation of this

act,"•and this to me is the crucial part•"or, in violation of any

other law of the United States."

Now, that is 241(aX2).

If I understand what you ask this committee to do, you are telling the Attorney General that they cannot deport any Salvadoran

who has violated not only the way in which he or she may have
64

entered the United States, but who has violated any other law of

the United States, either at the time they came, or after they were

admitted to the United States.

Is that your position?

Mr. GEJDENSON. NO; I don't think anybody here, nor Mr. Moakley, supports that. I think there is a provision in the bill•if there

isn't, there ought to be that anybody who has violated criminal

statutes in this country or in El Salvador, ought not be able to take

advantage of the extended voluntary departure.

This administration and other administrations have used this

process to deal with people whose lives have been in danger from

other countries. It is an area that is always difficult to assess who

ought to get extended voluntary departure and who ought not to.

In this instance we think the Salvadoran refugees are in the same

situation as the people from Poland, Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Iran,

Nicaragua, who have used this same provision, a provision that the

Attorney General normally initiates.

Apparently, on page 4 of the bill, line 4, paragraph 1, section 241,

Immigration and Naturalization Act, only show two grounds of exclusion•I think it does say that. If we read the last page of the

bill, starting on line 4, ending on line 9.

Mr. HALL. But it is not your position, then

Mr. GEJDENSON. NO.

Mr. HALL [continuing]. That anyone who has violated a law of

the United States would be free from exclusion, or free from deportation?

Mr. GEJDENSON. NO.

Mr. LOWRY. We would certainly welcome the committee's perfecting any problem that might be contained in this, if it isn't addressed in this legislation.

Mr. HALL. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MAZZOLI. I think it is an important point just to make the

record. I asked Mr. Moakley that same question because I don't

think it is the intention of the sponsors of the bill, and certainly

not the desire of this committee, to report any sort of a bill which

would permit the people who are, for instance, members of rightwing death squads, or members who are trying to secret themselves in the United States for fear of being found for the kind of

outrageous acts they performed at home.

It isn't also to be able to keep people in the country who while

here have become highway robbers and various forms of thiefs, or

other lawbreakers. This is what I would ask our staff to look at

very carefully. It is meant to permit the Immigration Service, if

this EVD were to pass, to still deport, and notwithstanding EVD,

those people who don't measure up to the general form of the exclusion, which is currently in the Immigration Act.

So I tell that to my friend, we can work on the details.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question

Mr. MAZZOLI. Certainly.

Mr. SMITH. Just as a clarification?

It also provides for 3 years, a period under which no deportations

may be made. Now, suppose by May 1985, the problems in El Salvador have been to a large degree cured or ameliorated, et cetera.

There is no provision in this bill that would allow the administra-
65

tion to, on their own, do that, or they would be in violation of this

statute if we passed it.

It seems to me, then, that the Congress would have to come back

and act, and that is rather a

Mr. MAZZOLI. That is a very good point.

Mr. SMITH [continuing]. Foolish way of doing this.

Mr. MAZZOLI. I had a question. This mandates 3 years in this

country, without regard to possible activities in which someone

may have been engaged.

Mr. SMITH. That is right.

Mr. GEJDENSON. We wanted to leave some work for the committee.

Mr. MAZZOLI. It needs more more work, you are right.

Mr. SMITH. I don't know that that is the smartest thing to do.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Thank you very much, gentlemen.

Mr. GEJDENSON. If I could just add one thing to my colleague's

general statement from Florida, Mr. Smith, on there has never

been a popular immigration to this country. I am not sure how the

Indians actually felt about this

Mr. MAZZOLI. YOU are not talking about this immigration bill,

are you?

Mr. GEJDENSON. NO, I understand that. No, no, he was making a

general

Mr. MAZZOLI. This is not an immigration bill.

Mr. GEJDENSON. I understand that. He was talking about a general problem with immigration issues and I just wanted to respond

to that.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Well, I appreciate that.

Mr. SMITH. I am taking about enforcement.

Mr. LOWRY. Gentlemen, this is an immigration

Mr. MAZZOLI. Well, we have an immigration bill but this ain't it

right here.

Mr. PATTERSON. Mr. Chairman, if I could. The bill calls for study.

We have talked about a lot of other things and not the study. I

think that is very important because when questions were asked

earlier and it was asked of me, but there was a question asked in

terms, I think by Mr. Lungren, that have there been any

Mr. MAZZOLI. Right.

Mr. PATTERSON [continuing]. Actual cases.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Right, yes.

Mr. PATTERSON. And he didn't know of any. I know of 61, and we

can supply

Mr. MAZZOLI. I looked at those•61, Jerry, let me be quite honest

with you. This is a big raft of papers and it is a pretty sketchy. You

know and I know that asylum and EVD are two different things.

Mr. MAZZOLI. This name matchup and date matchup, and all

that stuff, seem to be possibles, likely, most likely, not so likely.

This is not exactly the thing that Joe said, 61 people died. This is

not exactly what this study shows.

But what we are saying is we do need data and that is where we

are going to get it from.

Mr. PATTERSON. We do need data, we do need a study, and I did a

little body count down there.
66

Mr. MAZZOLI. Good. I appreciate it very much, gentlemen, you

have been very helpful to us. Thank you, have a good day.

Mr. PATTERSON. Thank you.

Mr. MAZZOLI. We will now call forth the administration witnesses, Secretary Abrams and I think Ms. Meissner, and any associates that you all care to have up with you or around you. If you

both would identify yourself for the reporter and then your statements will be made a part of our record.

Mr. ABRAMS. I am Elliott Abrams.

Ms. MEISSNER. Doris Meissner.

TESTIMONY OF ELLIOTT ABRAMS, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF

STATE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND HUMANITARIAN AFFAIRS;

DORIS M. MEISSNER, EXECUTIVE ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER,

IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE; AND ALAN

NELSON, COMMISSIONER, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Mr. MAZZOLI. Mr. Abrams.

Mr. ABRAMS. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I

am grateful for the opportunity to be here with you today.

I think every American, not just members of the subcommittee,

is now well aware that El Salvador is troubled by poverty and violence, and overpopulation, and oppression. And for a number of

years, Salvadorans have taken advantage of economic opportunity

elsewhere. This is a point which it seems to me was left out of the

discussion by the three panelists who have just appeared.

The notion that it is an enormously risky and unheard of thing

to do for a Salvadoran to leave his town or village and come to the

United States is just simply wrong. There is a long history of Salvadoran migration to the United States as there is of Mexican,

Honduran, Dominican, and other migration to the United States.

Prior to the war between El Salvador and Honduras in 1969, a

large number of Salvadorans were living in Honduras. Through the

seventies, hundreds of thousands of Salvadorans came here to the

United States.

The increased violence in El Salvador since 1980 no doubt increased the incentives to leave that country, as have the economic

difficulties which the war has only worsened.

This country is, therefore, confronted with a number of significant issues, immigration issues, regarding El Salvador. It is difficult for Salvadorans to get visitors' visas or immigration visas. We

face a very large amount of illegal immigration from El Salvador;

we face a large number of asylum applications.

So the question is how do we deal with the asylum applications?

And for those not entitled to asylum, how do we respond to their

desire to live in the United States?

In a sense, the asylum question is an easy one. U.S. law and the

convention and protocol relating to the status of refugees set forth

the standards by which we judge an asylum application. We apply

these standards and a limited number of aliens, irrespective of nationality, can meet them. This is true of applications from El Salvador as well.
67

Now, we have had a lot of criticism of our asylum policy toward

El Salvador but we do not have an asylum policy toward El Salvador or toward any country. We apply the same standards to each.

In the last few months, recommendations for the approval of applications from Salvadorans and Nicaraguans have been running

at roughly the same rate, and although, of course, there are variations for both countries, 10 to 15 percent of applications can meet

the legal standards.

Now, that does not reflect a policy decision, nor does it reflect,

obviously, the state of our bilateral relations with either government. It just reflects the fact that asylum applicants must meet the

legal standards in order to be granted asylum.

We are well aware that much criticism could be ended were the

number of asylum applications for Salvadorans that are approved

higher. But to approve asylum applications for partisan political

reasons would ignore the law. We recommend in favor of applications that meet the standards and against those that do not.

The argument is then made that no Salvadorans, even those who

do not qualify for asylum, no Salvadorans, should be deported to El

Salvador, rather, they should all be allowed to remain here. As you

know, the administration does not share that view.

All EVD decisions, extended voluntary departure decisions, require a balancing of judgments about their foreign policy, humanitarian, and immigration policy implications.

In the case of El Salvador, and I think the chairman has brought

this out very well, the immigration policy implications of EVD are

enormous. This is a country with a history of large-scale illegal immigration to the United States. I don't really see how anyone can

doubt that a grant of EVD would increase the amount of illegal immigration from El Salvador to the United States.

An intelligent and industrious Salvadoran weighing a decision to

try illegal immigration to the United States knows that one of the

risks is deportation, which might occur before he has had a chance

to earn back the cost of the journey. If we remove the possibility of

deportation, it is simple logic to suggest that the illegal entry becomes a more attractive investment.

Of course, not all Salvadoran migrants to the United States are

solely or even primarily economic migrants; some are refugees who

may be, and have been, granted asylum, but they don't need EVD

to be protected.

So by definition, when we are talking about EVD for the group

which is not eligible for asylum, we are discussing generally whether people who emigrate from El Salvador to the United States illegally should be permitted to reside here.

If you say yes to that question, then we do not have an immigration policy with regard to El Salvador. We have abdicated the responsibility to have one.

The chairman also brought out a point that I would like to emphasize, and that is the question of the temporary nature of EVD.

My question to the subcommittee would be: Who is kidding whom?

If anyone thinks that 5 years down the road, with the equities that

have been built up in this country, by hundreds and hundreds and

thousands of Salvadorans, we are going to round them up and send

them home, he is fooling himself.
68

The members of the panel that just appeared said that at the

end of the 3 years time that is called for in the bill, why, we just

inform people that they should go home. And then what? Does

anyone really think they are all going to come down to the immigration headquarters here in Washington and get on buses to go

home? That is not going to happen.

This is not a temporary measure. It is in the real world something very close to an immigration bill for Salvadorans.

Now, the argument was raised, and I think Mr. Patterson made

it most forcefully, that illegal aliens who were sent back to El Salvador, there meet persecution and often death. Obviously, we do

not believe these claims or we would not be deporting these people.

Three times in recent years, the U.S. Embassy in El Salvador has

made attempts to track deportees and see if they were being persecuted. We concluded that they were not.

Last summer, we asked some officials of Tutela Legal, the

Human Rights Office of the Archdiocese of San Salvador, whether

they believed there was a pattern of persecution. They replied that

they did not.

It is very noteworthy, I think, that these accusations which were

lodged by some American activist groups critical of U.S. policy in

El Salvador, find no echo, nor did they find their source in complaints from Salvadoran human rights groups, which have never

made that claim.

And that, I would argue, stands to reason. El Salvador, as I have

said, is a country in which emigration abroad is common, and it is

a respected means of self-improvement. It would be very odd to

think that this action engaged in by hundreds and thousands of

Salvadorans, maybe a quarter of the population, was viewed by

anyone as proof of Communist association.

I submit that the notion that the people being deported are

easily identifiable when they get back is false, and the notion that

they are automatically suspect is equally false.

It is just silly to make the argument that in a country such as El

Salvador or Mexico, for that matter, or Honduras or Guatemala,

the fact of having gone to the United States to find a better job

makes you suspect, there is just no basis for that.

I think the panel also mistook the situation on the Mexican

border. It was suggested that we must deal here with people who

are in the country but not with people who are outside the country.

Well, the fact is that our entire discussion today is about people

who are in the country. We don't have this kind of fence at the

border where you sort of push people back over the line.

We are talking about people who have already arrived physically

in the United States and, therefore, have, immediately, the right to

ask for asylum now, and would under this bill have the right to

stay in the United States indefinitely.

We are not talking about a situation that can be closed off at the

border, even though we might wish that that were the case.

The subcommittee will be interested to learn that in part in response to the great interest expressed by the chairman, by Mr.

Fish, by Senator Simpson, and others, we have again, for a fourth

time, attempted to study the question of the treatment of deport-
69

The embassy in San Salvador was sent the names of nearly 500

deportees, selected at random. Efforts have been underway to contact every one of them in order to see what happened to them after

their return.

To date, we have been able to locate or find out about roughly 35

percent of them, using Salvadoran employees so as to draw as little

attention as possible to the survey.

Of course, a substantial proportion, perhaps a third, of the addresses Salvadorans had given the Immigration Service turned out

to be fictitious, making it impossible to locate the individuals.

Mr. HALL. The rest of them are not dead, are they?

Mr. ABRAMS. No, sir, we have no reason to believe that any of

them in this survey are dead. What we found is that a large proportion give the INS fictitious addresses as a matter of practice, because they don't believe in giving government officials of their government, or ours, information which can be used to track them

down. If I could just

Mr. MAZZOLI. Proceed with that because I think you make the

point in your statement what happens to them.

Mr. ABRAMS. A substantial proportion, about a third, are in cities

separated from San Salvador by zones of conflict and we have not

yet sent investigators out there; this is the next step.

In a few cases, individuals were reported by neighbors, I should

say or relatives, as having once again returned to the United

States illegally.

What is remarkable is that we have not come across a single

case of abuse or murder of a deportee. Nor has anyone contacted or

suggested that he knew of such a case.

We have not interviewed anybody who said to us, well, I have

heard about that individual you are asking about, he was picked

up, he disappeared one night, something like that•not a single instance of that.

Now, I don't want to suggest to the subcommittee that we have

completed here the definitive scientific study and that no further

efforts are needed, indeed, our own efforts are continuing. But,

surely, there must come a time when any fairminded observer concludes that this alleged pattern of wide-scale abuse of deportees is

just a fiction unsupported by evidence.

I would like to turn to one further point and that is the question

why we don't do anything to solve the humanitarian problem of

poverty and displaced persons and violence in El Salvador.

That is a startling question when you consider the enormous

amount of diplomatic and political effort we aim at bringing democracy and peace to El Salvador, and the extraordinary amount

of economic aid which we give and the increased amounts which

the administration has urged on Congress.

We propose $341 million in economic assistance for the next

fiscal year. I don't believe that the appropriate response to the

problems of poverty or violence in El Salvador is simply to allow

any Salvadoran who wishes to, to live here instead, any more than

I think this is true for Guatemala, or Haiti, or Nicaragua, or Sri

Lanka, or Afghanistan, or Iran, or Uganda, or Ethiopia, or Lebanon, or Vietnam, or Zimbabwe.
70

My point is that in a very large number of countries, millions of

people, in fact, tens of millions, face lives which any American can

only view as desperate. How do we respond?

We respond with our willingness to allow hundreds of thousands

to emigrate to the United States.

We respond with our asylum and refugee programs, which are

the most generous in the world.

We respond with our foreign aid program, now totalling nearly

$9 billion, including the pending supplemental request.

And we respond with various political and diplomatic efforts to

resolve disputes and to reduce violence.

It does not seem to me that a sensible response can be to say to

all these people, if you can make it to the United States, you can

stay.

We can and we must do very many things to address the urgent

and the desperate humanitarian needs of tens of millions of people

throughout the world, but one thing we really cannot do for them

all is to tell them to move to America.

I, therefore, respectfully suggest that the current policy is an appropriate one, combining large amounts of economic assistance, energetic diplomatic efforts, and the grant of asylum to those with a

well-founded fear of persecution.

Thank you.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

[The statement of Mr. Abrams follows:]
71

STATEMENT BY

HONORABLE ELLIOTT ABRAMS

ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE

FOR

HUMAN RIGHTS AND HUMANITARIAN AFFAIRS

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee:

I am grateful for this opportunity to appear before you

today. As every member of the Subcommittee knows, and indeed

as every American must by now be well aware. El Salvador is a

country troubled by poverty, violence, overpopulation, and a

history of oppression. For a number of years, Salvadorans have

taken advantage of economic opportunity elsewhere. Prior to

the wax between El Salvador and Honduras in 1969, a large number

were living in Honduras. Through the 1970s, hundreds of thousands

of Salvadorans came to the US. The increased violence in El

Salvador prevalent since 1980 no doubt increased the incentives

to leave the country, as have the economic difficulties which the

war has only worsened.

The US is thus confronted with a number of significant

immigration issues regarding El Salvador. It is difficult for

Salvadorans to get visitors' visas to the US and difficult for

them to get immigrant visas as well. We face a very significant

amount of illegal immigration from El Salvador, and a large

quantity of asylum applications. How do we deal with the asylum

applications? To those not entitled to asylum, how do we

respond to their desire to live in the United States?

The asylum issue is in a sense an easy one. US law, in

incorporating the definition of a refugee contained in the

Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees set

forth the standards by which an asylum application must be

judged. We apply these standards and a limited number of aliens.
72

irrespective of their nationality, can meet them. This is

also true of asylum applicants from El Salvador. This has

occasioned much criticism of the Administration's asylum policy

toward El Salvador, but in fact we have no "asylum policy"

toward El Salvador or any other country; we apply the same

standards to each. In the last few months recommendations for

the approval of applications from Salvadorans and Nicaraguans

have been running at roughly the same rate, and though of course

there are variations for both countries, about 15 percent of

applications can meet legal standards. This reflects no policy

decision, nor does it reflect the state of our bilateral relations

with either government; it simply reflects the fact that asylum

applicants must meet the legal standards in order to be granted

asylum. We are well aware that much criticism could be ended

were the number of Salvadoran asylum applications that are approved

higher. But, to approve asylum applications for partisan political

reasons would ignore the law. In fact, we recommended in favor of

applications that meet the standards and against those that do

not.

The argument is then made that all Salvadorans, even those

who do not qualify for asylum, should not be deported to El

Salvador but rather allowed to remain here. As you know,

the Administration does not concur with this view. All EVD

decisions require a balancing of judgments about their foreign

policy, humanitarian, and immigration policy implications.
73

In the case of El Salvador, the immigration policy implications

of EVD are enormous. Here we have a country with a history

of large-scale illegal immigration to the OS. Can anyone doubt

that a grant of EVD would increase the amount of illegal immigration from El Salvador to the OS? An intelligent and industrious Salvadoran weighing a decision to try illegal immigration

to the OS knows that one of the risks is deportation, which might

occur before he has had a chance to earn back the costs of the

journey. If we remove that possibility of deportation, it is

simple logic to suggest that the illegal entry becomes a more

attractive investment.

Of course, not all Salvadoran migrants to the OS are solely

or primarily economic migrants; some are refugees who may be and

and

have been granted asylum,/they do not need EVD to be protected.

So by definition, when we discuss EVD for the group which is not

eligible for asylum, what we are discussing is generally whether

people who emigrate from El Salvador to the Onited States

illegally should be permitted to reside here. If one says yes

to this question then we do not have an immigration policy with

regard to El Salvador. We have abdicated the responsibility

to have one.

Some groups argue that illegal aliens who are sent back

to El Salvador there meet persecution and often death. Obviously,

we do not believe these claims or we would not deport these

people. Twice in recent years the OS Embassy in San Salvador
74

has made attempts to track deportees and see if they were

being persecuted; we concluded that they were not. Last

summer we asked some officials of Tutela Legal, which is

the human rights office of the Archdiocese of El Salvador,

whether they believed there was a pattern of persecution

of deportees. They replied that they did not. It is noteworthy that these accusations which are lodged by some

American activist groups critical of the US policy in El

Salvador, find no echo nor did they find their source in

complaints from Salvadoran human rights groups, which have

never made this claim. And that stands to reason. El

Salvador is a country, as noted above, in which emigration

abroad is a common and respected means of self-improvement,

and it would be odd to think that this action engaged in by

hundreds and thousands of Salvadorans, by perhaps a quarter

of the population, was viewed by anyone as proof of communist

association. I submit that the notion that the people being

deported are easily identifiable when they return to El

Salvador is false, and the notion that they are automatically

suspect is equally false.

The Subcommittee will be interested to learn that, in

part in response to the great interest expressed by

Chairman Mazzoli, Senator Simpson and others, we have once
75

again attempted to study this question of the treatment

of deportees. The Embassy in San Salvador was sent the

names of nearly 500 deportees, selected at random. Efforts

have been underway to contact every one of them in order to

see what happened to them after their return. As of now,

we have been able to locate or find out about roughly 35

percent of them, using Salvadoran employees so as to draw

as little attention as possible to this whole survey. Of

course, a substantial proportion of • perhaps a third •

of the addresses Salvadorans had given the Immigration Service

turned out to be fictitious making it hard to find some of

them. In other cases, we have not yet sent investigators into

zones of greater conflict, although we plan to do so. In a

few cases, individuals were reported by neighbors as having

once again returned to the United States illegally. What is

remarkable is that we have not come across a single case of

abuse or murder of a deportee, nor has anyone contacted

suggested that he knew of such a case. I would not suggest to

this Subcommittee that we have completed here the definitive

scientific study and that no further efforts are needed, and

indeed our own efforts are continuing. But surely there

must come a time when any fair-minded observer concludes

that this alleged pattern of wide-scale abuse of deportees

is just a fiction unsupported by evidence.
76

I an sometimes asked why the US does not do anything

to solve the humanitarian problem of poverty and displaced

persons and violence in El Salvador. This is a startling

question, when you consider the enormous amount of American

diplomatic and political effort aimed at bringing democracy

and peace to El Salvador, and the extraordinary amounts of

economic aid which we give and increased amounts which the

Administration has urged upon Congress.

Our proposal of 341 million dollars in economic assistance

for FT 85 to El Salvador is certainly a valuable response to

the humanitarian problem there. I do not believe that the

appropriate response to the problems of poverty or violence

in El Salvador is to allow any Salvadoran who wishes to, simply to

live in America instead • any more than I think this is true

for Guatemala, or Haiti, or Nicaragua, or Sri Lanka, or.

Afghanistan, or Iran, or Uganda, or Ethiopia, or Lebanon, or

Vietnam, or Zimbabwe. My point, of course, is that in a very

large number of countries millions of people, and indeed, tens

of millions, face lives which any American can only view as

desperate. How do we respond? He respond with our willingness

to allow hundreds of thousands to immigrate to the United States.

We respond with our asylum and refugee programs, which are

the most generous in the world. He respond with our foreign

aid program, now totaling 8.89 billion dollars including the

pending supplemental request. And we respond with various
77

political and diplomatic efforts to resolve disputes and reduce

violence. It does not seem to me that a sensible response can

be to say that all these people, if they can make it to the

US, can stay. We can and we must do very many things to address

the urgent and desperate humanitarian needs of tens of millions

of people throughout the world, but one thing we really cannot

do for them all is tell them to move to America.

I therefore respectfully suggest that the current policy

is an appropriate one, combining large amounts of economic

assistance, energetic diplomatic efforts, and the grant of asylum

to those with a well-founded fear of persecution.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

Ms. Meissner, welcome.

Ms. MEISSNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Commissioner Nelson regrets that he is not able to be here

today.

Mr. MAZZOLI. I fully understand.

Ms. MEISSNER. He is en route and may be able to join us for questioning.

Mr. MAZZOLI. I appreciate his even making the effort.

Ms. MEISSNER. I would ask permission to enter testimony into

the record and I will summarize.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Both of your statements will be made a part of the

record.

Ms. MEISSNER. The bill before us today, H.R. 4447, prohibits the

Attorney General from detaining or deporting Salvadorans who are

in, or who are entering, the United States, in whatever manner, for

a period of 3 years.

The Immigration Service has two fundamental objections to this

piece of legislation. First of all, as Elliott Abrams has mentioned,

El Salvador is a country of traditionally heavy illegal migration

into the United States. That migration has increased steadily over

the last decade. So that we believe, even though our estimates, of

course, are soft, that there are about 300,000 to 500,000 Salvadorans who are illegally in the United States at this time.

Of our non-Mexican apprehensions, Salvadorans account for

about 20 to 25 percent of the people that we apprehend, so they are

a significant illegal alien portion of the illegal immigration problem that this country faces.

Extended voluntary departure would definitely function as a

magnet to that traditional migration. We cannot help but believe

that the general direction of U.S. policy, which we hope the Congress will reaffirm this spring with passage of the Immigration

Reform legislation, is to bring about greater control of illegal immigration into the country, and extended voluntary departure for Sal34-285 0-84
78

vadorans would certainly work in the opposite direction from that

fundamental thrust.

Second, this legislation would function to single out El Salvador

for separate and special treatment in a way that would be very inconsistent with the Refugee Act of 1980.

It is now 4 years ago this month that the Congress passed the

Refugee Act, and the Refugee Act, we believe, does offer a sensible

and workable framework for dealing with refugee problems and for

the meeting of refugee needs as they appear around the world.

As Elliott mentioned, we do have a substantial portion of Salvadorans in our asylum caseload. Salvadorans apply for asylum.

Their asylum applications are adjudicated and that is a vehicle

that is available to them to apply for relief.

In addition to that, it has been little noticed but important, that

we have had a small overseas admission of refugees from El Salvador. There was an amnesty in El Salvador within the last year and

the United States, along with several other countries, has interviewed and admitted political prisoners from within El Salvador as

part of the normal administration of the Refugee Act and as provided for in the consultation numbers that the Congress did set for

Central American admissions.

Extended voluntary departure, in our view, is, and continues to

be, an extraordinary action that the executive branch can take. It

is never taken without the agreement between the State Department and the Justice Department to move in that direction. Past

extended voluntary departure actions have always been brought

about by a formal request from the Secretary of State to the Attorney General and they are based on a combination of factors. The

factors are foreign policy factors, humanitarian factors, and the

factor of overall immigration impact of that action.

The Justice Department and the Immigration Service have been

in constant consultation with the State Department with regard to

El Salvador. We have worked closely with the monitoring effort.

We continue to watch the situation and be involved in monitoring

which will be an ongoing activity that we believe is appropriate.

However, we continue to believe that the immigration and negative immigration implications of an extended voluntary departure

for Salvadorans outweighs the other factors that are before us and,

therefore, we would recommend against enacting this legislation.

[The statement of Ms. Meissner follows:]
79

gipartomttoflnsiwf

STATSS?'

DOSIS «. MEISSNER

KEO.TIVE ASSOCIATE COmiSSIONEP

I»MIGRAT10i; AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE

BEFORE

THE

COKITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

SUK»KITTEE «: IMMIGRATION, REFUGEES AND

INTERNATIONAL LAW

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

CONCERNING

H.R. 4«7

OK

APRIL 12, 1984
80

Mr. Chair/nan, and Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to have

the opportunity to comment on H.R. 4447, which you are considering today.

The Department of State has already testified as to the circumstances in

El Salvador, and I will confine my remarks to sections 2 and 3 of the

bill.

This oil! would establish extraordinary and unique procedures for

handling nationals of El Salvador in the United States without regard f'

their reasons for and manners of entry into the United States, and contrast to existing law and policy which are intended to treat aliens of

all nationalities in a similar fashion. Congress passed the Refugee Act

of 19S0 to supplant the piecemeal and nation-specific legislation and parole programs under wbic.i refugees had been admitted to the United

States. The stated objective of the Refugee Act was "to provide a pertinent and systematic procedure for the admission to this country of refugees of special humanitarian concern to the United States...." It set

up a system under which any person•regardless of origin•can apply for

and receive individual consideration of the merits of his or her claim to

asylum or refugee status.
81

However, H.P. 444" proposes to circumvent this system set up by the

Refugee Act only three years ago and return to the ad hoc and discriminatory approach of the past. Section 3 of this bill would prohibit the

Attorney General from detaining or deporting virtually all nationals of El

Salvador who are present in or who enter the United States during the next

three years. In essence, it would create a class of virtually every

Salvadoran who can manage to enter the United States and regardless of

whether the individual has a legitimate claim of persecution, would provide an indefinite saf= haven here in the United States. The bill specifically stages that Congress may extend this period after considering

the Presidential report called for under section 1 of the bill. This

raises the prospect of a stream of Salvadorans illicitly entering the

United States under the effective sanction of this legislation. In

effect, Congress would be encouraging Salvadorans to enter the Unite:"

States in any manner possible to take advantage of the provisions of this

bill.

Problems are not unique to El Salvador, which is why the 96th Congress concluded that the case-by-case approach of the Refugee Act is a

fairer system than the nation-specific approach it abandoned. In any

case, there is no reason to lack confidence in the Attorney General's

decisions on asylum applications. No credible evidence has been

presented that any Salvadoran or other national deserving of asylum has

been deported fron the United States. Denials of asylum can be processed

through several levels of administrative courts and are appealable to the

federal courts.
82

Finally, H.R. 444" provides for an astonishing and apparently absolute prohibition on the detention of all deportable Salvadorans. Because

of judicial interpretations of the terra "detain", which as you know, can

mean anything froit "stop and question" to physical custody, the provisions

of this section could prevent the Immigration Service from taking an individual into custody in order to verify status or nationality or even

persisting in questioning an individual who claimed to be a deportable

Salvadora-i. In practical tens, this would mean that any person clainiin;

to be fror. El Salvador would be irnnune from the operation of the iirmigrstion laws. At a time when Congress is pressing for better enforcement

this type of provision hampers effective INS operations.

In conclusion, the Department of Justice and the Administration

oppose th-' fjnda-,:-ti' pre-ise of '-:.P. 4447 which would Mta a- excep-.; ••

for Salvadorans t. the orde:ly pr redures called for by the Refugee fc" t

determine whether or not M uriividia: has suffered persecution or v.-x.

be subject to persecution in his or her homeland. The Attorney General

has concluded upon consultation with the Secretary of State that a blanket grant of extended voluntary departure for Salvadorans would not be in

the interests of the United States. Attached hereto and made part of this

testimony are letters signed by the Attorney General dated July 19, 1983,

and by t}W Secretary of State dated June 23, 1983. The comments and conclusions therein renain in effect currently.
83

Passage of H.R. 4447 would clearly result in thousands more Salvadorans

being added to the floodtide of illegal migrants who are coming to this

country outside the legal channels established under the Immigration and

Nationality Act. Note that many estimate that up bo 1/2 million Salvadorarir

are already in the United States illegally. Based on available 1982 information, this constitutes approximately 10% of the entire population of

El Salvador. The Refugee Act provides a system within which to accomodate

refugees fro- all lands. Salvadoran nationals whc fear individual persecution may file for and secure asylum in the United States along with

persons fro- all other countries. The nation-specific approach of H.F'.

4447 has been and should continue to be rejected by Oongress.

This completes ny prepared testimony. I would be glad to respond to

any questions you may have.
84

©flirt nf ti\t Attorney (general

ttnflhmgtDn,13.<C. 20530

July 19. 1983

The Honorable

House of Representatives

Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman

This is In response to your letter of April 28. 1983.

concerning £1 Salvador and requesting that Salvadoran nationals

be provided temporary sanctuary In the United States. The delay

In this response has been due to our taking a close look at the

situation. I share your concern about the disturbances In areas

of £1 Salvador, and the unfortunate plight of the Salvadoran

nationals who have been displaced froca their homeland. However,

after careful consideration and review, I have concluded that the

present clrcucstances do net warrant a granting of "extended

voluntary departure" tc £1 Salvacorans presently In the L'mted

States Illegally.
85

• 11 foreign iitlcmli vhoic homelanda arc experiencing political

or ecor.ocic misfortune. The decisions made aa to "extended

voluntary departure" are reached on a altuatlon by altuatlon

baala and ara not readily auacaptlbla to comparlaon or ganeralIntlon. Each da t a rmlnac Ion la bated on examination of a variety

of factors unique to each country'* altuatlon.

Because of our shared concern regarding the citizens of El

Salvador, I requested new and additional advice of the Secretary

of State on this natter. By,.recent latter. Secretary Shultz has

responded that lo his Judgment our present U.S. efforts to assist

the Salvadoran people constitute the most constructive course of

action In light of our (oralgn policy Interests, and that the

Department of State doea not recommend that "extended voluntary

departure" be granted to Salvadoran nationals In the United

States.

have c

know ,

lllega

but on

experi

" e x t e n

vould

of the

In oth

States

consld

Influx

mess m

States

mat ter

and ao

notvlt

unempl

action

compet

n ad

aref

It 1

1 Sa

f

enc 1

dcd

enco

pre

ere

an

ered

es o

igra

hav

a fo

clal

hits

oyme

vhl

lng

dltl

ully

a ea

lvad

cat

ng a

vo lu

urag

sent

oun t

y *r

In

f 11

t Ion

e un

r th

sup

nd in

nt

ch v

for

I h

alternat

For exam

apeclf1c

to enter

for aayl

of lndlv

to augge

aaylum a

however,

Imalgrat

for vhlc

the numb

lvee b

pla

proce

and r

uo whe

ldual

at tha

re baa

I do

Ion an

h al'.e

er of

on t

con

t lma

oran

of t

flo

ntar

th

and

rles

ants

llgh

legs

s of

dcrs

f 1

port

g ou

nd b

ou Id

emp 1

so c

y vh

a yo

dure

emal

re t

pars

t gr

ad u

vlev

d Na

ns m

Salv

0 the

alder

ted t

alle

he cu

odtld

y dep

e mlg

po t e

In c

of c

t of

1 lmo

Cuba

cored

nlte

ayst

Imp

udge t

lncr

oymen

cou

ed a

hat

na a

rren

a of

artu

rat 1

nt la

lose

ondl

Its

lgra

n an

the

capa

CDS

rovl

def

ease

t an

nsel pro

'numbc r

there ar

lready 1

t crisis

Illegal

ra" to t

on of ma

1 pollci

geograp

tlonal 1

potent la

nts. Ou

d Haltla

need fo

city of

It la

ng acono

lclta ca

aubatan

d aoclal

vlded

of ot

hun

n the

In v

lmml

he Sa

ny

cal a

hlc p

mmlgr

1 lnd

r rac

n nat

r pro

our

also

y.

n onl

tlsll

aerv

by

her

dred

urn

hloh

gran

lvad

re a

nd e

roxi

atlo

ucem

cnt

lona

par

ount

clea

he c

y be

y th

Icea

Seer

fact

a of

ted

our

ts.

oran

uch

cono

mlty

n be

int

expe

Is t

cone

ry's

r th

ontl

exa

a nu

etar

ore

tho

Stat

cou

A g

un

alle

1c

to

nef 1

to f

r len

o th

ern

law

at

nuln

ccrb

mbe r

y Shu

Aa

usand

ea.

n t ry

rant

doubt

ns .

lnsts

the U

t s mu

ur th

ces w

e In:

In su

enf o

Its. I

you

of

This Is

Is

of

edly

Because

blllty

nlted

se be

r

lth the

ted

ch

rceaenc

g problems of

ated by any

of people

onalde

lch th

u know

a wher

n In t

hare 1

ecutlo

anta o

pon th

It aa

t lonal

y »PP

adoran

red th

e Salv

our,

aby al

he Onl

a a pr

n In t

f " e x t

e aama

algnl

lty Ac

ly to

alien

fe

ador

lmml

lens

tad

oper

he a

enda

con

flea

t CO

nu

s an

c t

an n

grat

y

Stat

ly d

lien

d vo

aide

nt t

ntal

In 1

d pa

hat the

atlonal

Ion law

lawful

as. lnc

emonstr

s home

luntary

ratlona

hat the

n numcr

n the U

at expe

ra ar

y

a pro

ly M

ludin

ated

land

dtpi

and

prov

ous f

nlted

rlenc

e adequat a

icck relief.

vlde various

cure che right

g app1lcat ion

clala of fear

This is not

ture" and

criteria;

lalona of the

oraa of relief

Statea. Both

a suggest the
86

possibility that tiny auch aliens say seek to retain la the

United State* for economic improvement ae veil as the fact that

•any auch allena passed through third countries vhlch would

afford sanctuary were that the aole objective of the migrants.

Thua. I believe It appropriate to address the Salvadorans*

request for relief on an individual by Individual basis, aa is

the normal courae under our immigration lawa.

Finally, as you know, .the Department of State has made

periodic reporta on the conditions In El Salvador and has concluded that, while serious problems remain, the risk to the

general citizenry from civil disturbance ia not prevalent

throughout the country and. in aome areas, the risk has diminished.

Although It is my Judgment under the present c1rcumatances

not to institute a discretionary grant of relief from enforcement

of our immigration laws td'ali Salvadoran nationals now in the

United States, I have attempted to convey the acrloua attention

that has been given to the mattera ralacd in your letter. Please

be assured that we ahall continue to monl-ror the situation

carefully, and will make every effort to ensure the fair and

humane administration of our immigration laws and policies with

respect to the many Salvadoran and other aliens now in our

country.

Sincerely,

' William French Smith

Attorney General
87

s*+* rj

THE SECRETARY OF STATE

WASHINGTON jA^V35JTh*jj

June 23, 1983

Dear Bill:

This is in response to your letter of June 13; 1983

concerning extended voluntary departure (EVD) for Salvadoran

nationals in the United States. I, too, have received a

letter from 89 members of the House of Representatives

recommending that EVD status be granted to Salvadoran nationals

in the United States, and I am aware of the sense of the

Congress resolution and the pending litigation to which you

refer.

The letter from the Congressmen and the litigation you

have cited compare the level of civil disturbance and strife

in El Salvador to those in other countries at .times during

which the Department of State recommended that EVD be granted

for the nationals of those countries. However, such

considerations in this or past cases can not be so readily

generalized for comparative purposes. Tor example, it should

.be noted that civil strife is not prevalent throughout all

regions of El Salvador. Ir. any event, the extent of civil

unrest alone dees not decerr.ir.e the Department's view toward

the granting of EVD to naticnals of a particular country. The

Department invariably considers a number of factors in

deciding whether to recorcr.er.d the granting of EVD in any

particular case, and the granting of EVD may meet different

objectives in different cases. Moreover, a recommendation to

grant EVD in a particular case is but one of a number of

possible responses that the Department may consider useful and

appropriate.

The Department shares the humanitarian concerns of the B9

Congressmen and others about the continued civil strife in El

Salvador. As you know, the Administration has taken a number

of steps to help the Salvadoran people in their efforts to

establish a democratic society in which the richts of all are

recognized and protected. These include: bilateral and

The Honorable

William French Smith

Attorney General.
88

regional efforts (in which you personally have participated) to

foster legal reforn in £1 Salvador and several other nations in

Central America; U.S. support of hur.an rights initiatives,

includinq creation of the Human Rights and Peace Commissions,

and the recent amnesty; the medical assistance recently dispatched

to El Salvador; and support of agrarian and other economic reforms.

Through our efforts and those of others like the International

Committee of the Red Cross, progness has been made in the taking

and treatment of prisoners and the visitation of those detained,

while, over the long term, violence outside of combat has been

reduced. The Department believes that such measures, coupled

with U.S. assistance and training programs in El Salvador,

constitute a concerted political and humanitarian response to

the situation in El Salvador, and that our present course of

action is the most constructive in light of U.S. foreign policy

interests with respect to El Salvador and other countries in

the region. '

In addition, based on past experience, the Department has

concluded that a grant of EVD is, if not a magnet, at least an

inducement to members of the beneficiary nationality to seek to

enter the United States by any means, since they can avoid

deportation. While, as you know, accurate statistics concerning

illegal migration generally are not available, it is our best

estimate that the 1979 grant of EVD to Nicaraguans was followed

by a significant increase in illegal Xicaracuan entry into the

United States. This phenomenon is, of course, facilitated by

the proximity of Central America to the United States and the

relative ease of travel to the U.S. from that area. We have

examined this factor in licht of our general understanding that

for some years now Salvadorans have been migrating illecally to

the United States, and in light of this Administration's stror.o

commitment to deter illegal migration to the United States.

Because of the foregoino, the Department of State does not

recommend at this time a grant of EVD to Salvadoran nationals

in the United States. Please let me know if you require any

further information.

Sincerely,

Ceoroe P. Shultz

DOJ-i«««
89

Mr. MAZZOLI. Thank you very much, Ms. Meissner.

I yield myself 5 minutes to begin the questions, and just a few,

quick questions.

I believe I heard one of the statements earlier today from one of

our colleagues to the effect that 3 percent of Salvadorans who

apply for asylum are granted it. Then I heard, I think, in terms of

15 percent. Is there some agreed-upon figure to show the percentage of those who are granted asylum?

Mr. Abrams?

Mr. ABRAMS. The last, I guess I could say, officially compiled

figure is that for fiscal year 1983, which is 3.7 percent. The trouble

with using that figure is we are halfway through 1984•those figures are 6 months old, plus the fact that there are delays in INS

processing once they have the State Department's recommendation. So those figures are really a year old. Current figures are running at about 10 percent.

Mr. MAZZOLI. At about what?

Mr. ABRAMS. Ten to twelve percent.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Ten to twelve percent current figures.

Let me ask you this: Of course, you all sat here through all of

the testimony this morning and you have heard a lot of our colleagues refer to the situation•Ethiopia, the Ugandan situation,

Polish, Afghan, Iranian, Nicaraguan, and I even heard someone

say Chile and Cuba. And I didn't realize there were ever EVD programs for them.

But to make a long story short, a lot of them refer to the fact,

look, you have done it so often, why not do it one more time for a

deserving group of people?

Ms. Meissner, let me ask you this, you make a very strong point

in your statement that we in 1980 diverted away from the Nation

specific, from the ad hoc, and the helter-skelter of paroles and

whatever, and we went to a very clear-cut decision in our act based

on a 1951 definition of the U.N. protocols and treaties.

So it makes a lot of sense. Why go back to the way we used to be,

except, and I would ask you your response, there are so many existing programs for EVD that maybe in effect the law is honored

more in the breach than in the observance.

Can you give me some ideas on that?

Ms. MEISSNER. I would say that EVD always remains an option, a

discretionary option, for the Attorney General, on the recommendation of the Secretary of State in extraordinary circumstances.

But I think, too, that within the executive branch we have the general view that we should be evolving in a direction away from

those kinds of special actions.

Several of them do exist presently. Afghanistan is an extended

voluntary departure country; Ethiopia for people that came for a

certain time: there are various characteristics to these EVD programs.

But you pointed out earlier something that I would reiterate,

which is that we have never had an extended voluntary departure

for a country that has had the kind of illegal migration tradition

into the United States that El Salvador does.
90

The closest country geographically that has an extended voluntary departure has been Nicaragua, and that EVD lasted for about

15 months, from 1979 to fall of 1980. Nicaragua has never been a

country of high illegal migration to the United States. So that the

notion of the immigration impact is a critical one for us.

Mr. MAZZOU. Two questions allied to your bringing that situation of Nicaragua up. One, have you got any kind of results as to

what happened when you terminated the program? What happened when you found a guy that was on a roll and he didn't want

to go back?

Second, what happened to them, how you handled that, and

whether or not during the course of the program it became a

magnet of any kind?

Ms. MEISSNER. Well, of course, that is very difficult to know. We

do know that when the extended voluntary departure for Nicaragua was lifted that our asylum caseload rose dramatically.

Mr. MAZZOU. In other words, people that got here just chose another avenue then?

Ms. MEISSNER. Filed for asylum. And that is perfectly proper and

appropriate. And when we lift an extended voluntary departure we

always advise people that they have an avenue of relief in asylum

and they certainly may avail themselves of a case-by-case review.

So there is that effect. Nicaragua now represents, apart from the

Cubans, which is a whole different situation•Nicaragua and El

Salvador, the two major caseloads that we have

Mr. MAZZOU. Of your pending asylum cases?

Ms. MEISSNER [continuing]. Of the larger portion of the pending

asylum cases. So there has been adequate

Mr. MAZZOU. SO that you expect naturally that if this program

were adopted, that whenever it ended, you would have quite a few

thousand people, tens of thousands, maybe 100, just moving from

one category over to another, from EVD over into an asylum program.

Ms. MEISSNER. I think that is a very natural and predictable

effect.

Mr. MAZZOU. OK, how about the magnet effect? Did you see anything during the course of the program that would indicate people

were coming in?

Ms. MEISSNER. AS far as Nicaragua is concerned?

Mr. MAZZOU. Yes.

Ms. MEISSNER. I can't say that we felt that there was a strong

migration effect. But we believe that that is because there was not

a strong tradition for that kind of migration.

Mr. MAZZOU. NOW let me ask you about that tradition. Now, you

have mentioned it, Mr. Abrams mentioned it•tell me, how do you

establish a tradition? Can you go back to a village or to a state or,

say, a region in El Salvador to the effect that really the people

make it a practice to come out?

I understand certain states of Mexico are traditionally providers

of people who wind up in our country. And I understand that is

sort of traceable. Is there anything like that that has ever been empirically proven with regard to El Salvador?
91

Ms. MEISSNER. There are certain parts of El Salvador from which

people are more likely to come than other parts. I am not familiar

with the names of the states in order to be able to tell you that.

Illegal migration from El Salvador is widespread. It has been

happening for a long time. It comes from really all parts of the

country, and it is a function of the poverty and lack of overall economic opportunity that people in that country face.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Let me, for the record, welcome Mr. Nelson, after

he had a little briefing of what has been going on today, we welcome Alan Nelson, Commissioner of the Immigration Service. And

to bring you up to date, Mr. Nelson, your colleague, Ms. Meissner,

has delivered the statement and reiterated the position of your

agency and of the administration as Mr. Abrams has, and we are

now in the questions.

Mr. Abrams, may I ask you that question before I yield to my

friend from Texas, have you got any data, because you use the term

"tradition," and El Salvador is one of the ones of the central

American countries that engage heavily in this•do you have any

data to back that up?

Mr. ABRAMS. We don't have the kind of detailed studies that

have been done for the states of northern Mexico where we actually have data on villages, for generation after generation.

But we do have estimates•one can find estimates going back to

the early seventies, and at that time it was thought that there

were more than a quarter of a million Salvadorans in the United

States. That was the usual estimate which is now, I guess, more or

less double. We do have only, I would have to say, impressionistic

evidence. But the evidence that our•for example, Embassy people

who have been living in the country have, is that America is an

enormous presence in El Salvador. It is an enormous cultural presence, every presence•everyone knows about it, and everyone

seems to know that it is an option, if your economic option seems

to be foreclosed.

I would just make one further point and that is that the population of El Salvador, which is now about 5V4 million, is predicted to

rise to 9 million by the year 2000. It is a very fast growing population. It is already the most densely populated country in the hemisphere. So pressures for further illegal immigration to the United

States will no doubt increase.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Fine, thank you very much. I have many questions

but I want to yield to my friends so that they can get theirs in too.

The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

How many•estimated, of course•Salvadorans are in the United

States today?

Mr. ABRAMS. I guess the usual estimate is somewhere between

250,000 and 500,000, probably most people tending toward the

higher figure.

Mr. HALL. NOW, those people have come to the United States

within the past 5 years?

Mr. ABRAMS. It varies, and we really don't have a good study.

But I would say, let's see, that is 1979•the larger portion of them,

yes.

Mr. HALL. Where are they primarily entering the United States?
92

Ms. MEISSNER. Across the southern border, more on the Texas

side

Mr. HALL. I was going to ask you whether or not it was

Ms. MEISSNER [continuing]. Than on the California side.

Mr. HALL. Texas or the California side.

Ms. MEISSNER. Although it is both, and it is a traffic that is heavily involved with smuggling.

Mr. HALL. Do you have any evidence that the Salvadorans who

come into the United States get involved in the business of crime?

Ms. MEISSNER. Not in any extraordinary fashion that would distinguish them from the general.

Mr. HALL. If this bill would pass, H.R. 4447, and all of these restrictions were placed upon the Attorney General, do you have any

estimate as to how many people might enter the United States

from El Salvador in the next 18 months to 2 years?

Ms. MEISSNER. No, we don't. We simply believe that it would be

considerable. We know that the flow has been steadily increasing

over the last 4 or 5 years and we can't help but conclude that with

this kind of open ended safe haven situation that the word would

get back very, very quickly and that it wouldn't generate migration.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Abrams, you said that the population of El Salvador at this time is about 5% million people.

Mr. ABRAMS. Yes, sir.

Mr. HALL. And that within a period of time, which I did not get,

it will increase to 9 million?

Mr. ABRAMS. By the year 2000.

Mr. HALL. By the year 2000. All right.

Is that based upon people moving to El Salvador?

Mr. ABRAMS. Natural increase.

Mr. HALL. Natural increase.

Mr. ABRAMS. It is a high birth rate.

Mr. HALL. All right.

What kind of survey has been made by you, or those under

whom you are responsible, to determine whether or not these Salvadorans who have gone back to that country have met with any

undue problems in that country?

Now, I realize that it is difficult to go into the recesses of a country and find out everything about these people, but has a concerted

effort been made to try to make this determination?

Mr. ABRAMS. Yes, sir. The most recent study, which is really just

now underway

Mr. MAZZOLI. Would the gentleman suspend for a second?

You said there were four studies and this is the fourth one, there

have been three earlier ones?

Mr. ABRAMS. Three earlier ones which were less, how shall I

say?•well organized.

Mr. MAZZOLI. All right. So this one, as you will tell my friend

from Texas, is more organized, and I think you also said that interviews are being conducted by Salvadorans, not by U.S. personnel.

Mr. ABRAMS. Yes.

Mr. MAZZOU [continuing]. People?

Mr. ABRAMS. That's right. We thought that you might get a

skewed result of you sent U.S. officials out to look into some neigh-
borhood and start looking for Salvadorans, people might get suspicious. We hired Salvadoran Nationals to go out and ask•and they

were supplied with the names and addresses as the Salvadorans

had given them to the Immigration Service•and had a questionnaire designed to disguise the purpose of asking the questions. That

is, we didn't want people to know precisely what it was we were

looking for because that might have skewed the result, too. So we

asked questions about their treatment in the United States as well

as their treatment in El Salvador.

Now, we had 482 names on that list, of which we have found a

third of the people at the addresses that they gave when we went

to look for them. And another third of the people were not at those

addresses. Another third, we have yet to go to those addresses because they are in distant parts of the country.

Mr. HALL. HOW long has that survey been in progress?

Mr. ABRAMS. The survey has been in progress about

Ms. MEISSNER. The middle of March.

Mr. ABRAMS [continuing]. The middle of March•a month.

Mr. HALL. And prior to this survey that is in progress now, when

was the last survey completed, and how long did it take place?

Mr. ABRAMS. It happened within the last 3 or 4 years. The information is mostly•and I supplied this to the subcommittee•there

was testimony in a lawsuit against the Government on the question of asylum for Salvadorans by Mr. Todd Greentree, who had

been on the political staff of the U.S. Embassy in El Salvador, and

testified about the three prior attempts when a smaller number of

names were collected, 50 or 60, on that order, and investigators

were sent out to try to find the Salvadorans at the addresses they

had given. And once again, they came up with no evidence whatsoever of persecution. So this is round 4 for us and no evidence of

persecution has turned up.

Mr. HALL. The survey prior to the one that is in progress now,

you were looking for 50 names?

Mr. ABRAMS. Right.

Mr. HALL. And you found no evidence of anyone who had been

hurt or bothered in anyway, of that group. How many of the 50 did

you contact?

Mr. ABRAMS. I don't have that number with me.

Mr. HALL. Was your percentage any higher or was it lower than

the one that you are working on now, when you say you have got

about a third to be contacted?

Mr. ABRAMS. My guess would be that it would end up about half

in those surveys, too.

Mr. HALL. These surveys are not proving a great deal, are they?

Mr. ABRAMS. I think they are, Congressman.

Mr. HALL. YOU are not getting in contact with enough people.

Mr. ABRAMS. It would seem to me there is no reason to assume

that people who give fictitious addresses are any more likely to be

killed than people who don't. What we are finding is that not only

do we not find out about a death, we don't even hear anything

about it. When we ask the Salvadoran human rights groups which

are critical of the government, do you hear about this? We asked

the Red Cross, do you hear about this? The answer is always no.

There is just no evidence of it. Then we get

34-285 0-84
94

Mr. HALL. IS that just the usual response that you are going to

get from somebody that is in a country like El Salvador that they

are not going to want to get involved where somebody else has

been killed?

That is not the best evidence in the world that it has not happened.

Now, I am in agreement with what you said in your statement

here, I don't think we can just open the door, and I don't think we

can just tell the world, you just do whatever you want to, come

over here because you are not going to be sent back. But I don't

believe that the statement that you make about the surveys have

really been as much in depth as they should be to convince me that

maybe something is not happening to those people when they go

back.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MAZZOLI. The gentleman s time is expired. But it is on a very

important area so maybe I could just sort of using the chairman's

prerogative explore with the gentleman for another minute or so.

In this connection, earlier in the day I had handed to me by the

gentleman from Massachusetts this stack of papers which I think

was sort of prefaced by the fact that, you know, this is proof that

60 people have been killed who went back. I don't know if" it was or

not, but this material here is labeled possibles, most likely victims,

less likely victims. It doesn't seem to be a definitive study.

But, first, are you familiar with this at all? Have you ever seen

this material?

Mr. ABRAMS. I have not seen that material. I have read press reports about it.

Mr. MAZZOLI. YOU have. Do you have any few seconds comment

about the nature of the way this study was conducted compared to

the way you have conducted the earlier ones and whether this material is to be relied upon by this committee as a definitive study?

Mr. ABRAMS. The press reports indicated that a name matching

had been done

Mr. MAZZOLI. Yes.

Mr. ABRAMS [continuing]. Which we thought bordered on the ludicrous, given the fact that some of the names involved probably

are the names of 100,000 people in El Salvador.

Mr. MAZZOLI. I think that Mr. Moakley said that beyond that

they went to identification of birth dates, and identification of

mothers' names and fathers' names and things like that to sort of

boil it down. But your general opinion is that this is not always

perhaps that reliable.

The second question that I would ask in line with the gentleman

is bringing up, and that is when you and I talked some several

months ago, you mentioned that the Bureau of Refugee Programs

was sending 200 names to the ICRC, the International Commission

of the Committee of Red Cross, and that they were going to check

on the whereabouts of these 200 people, presumably those who

have been sent back to El Salvador.

Do you have any idea what happened to that, were there studies?

Mr. ABRAMS. Yes; the ICRC concluded that it was not within

their mandate to conduct a study such as this, which was really a
95

U.S. Government study to determine what happened to our deportees, and they did not do it.

Mr. MAZZOLI. All right, the third and last question, then I am

going to yield to my other friends here on the panel. It occurs to

me that one thing that is attractive about this study that is underway now is that you are trying to use Nationals to make the interview so that you don't sully the data by the implication of the

United States being involved. And you are even trying to tailor the

questions so that the interviewee might not be quickly alerted to

just exactly the nature of the interview.

Is there any way to use international, if the ICRC is ruled out, I

mean, the UNHCR, will they help. Will Caritas help, will any of

the international agencies that haven't maybe taken a strong position. Some of these people here have indicated their own feelings

and they will be iust as unreliable as something that the State Department might do?

So, is there any international help for us to try to get the thing

the gentleman from Texas is looking for, and that is a clear statement of are these people hurt when they go back or are they not?

Mr. ABRAMS. We realize that, in our discussions, that a survey

conducted by an international organization would have more credibility than one we conducted. But we have not yet found the international organization willing to do it, in part, frankly, they don't

want to get caught up in a squabble within Congress or between

the administration and Congress, which has implications for

United States-El Salvador policy.

The ones we have talked to have, generally speaking, shied away

from it. So we decided that we would go ahead and do the best job

we could at it.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Try to insulate it by using Nationals.

I thank the gentleman for getting at that line of inquiry.

I yield to my friend from Florida for 5 minutes.

Mr. MCCOLLUM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The point of the authors of this legislation this morning in part

seems to be that they really don't care whether or not the refugee

¥3litical asylum definitions are met with regard to these folks,

hey seem to distinguish the fact that they are here already, that

they are not coming in, and that they are in fact here in large

numbers, therefore, they present a unique problem of sorts, and

one which we should address on the basis of the danger to them

going back there generally in the war. I got that flavor running

throughout that.

I am sure that you probably examined the American Civil Liberties Union analysis of the situation of the extended voluntary departure of Salvadorans. In that text they make the statement on

page 63, particular danger has never been a consideration in past

grants of extended voluntary departure. Indeed, the general conditions in a particular country are precisely the central consideration

in such grants, and they go on to say extended voluntary departure

is granted to persons whose safety is in jeopardy because of the

breakdown of social order. Salvadorans would upon return face extreme danger•this is sufficient.

I think the consensus would have to be if anybody has ever been

down there, of course, anybody going back there faces danger. I
96

don't care which side of the fence you are on, that would be true of

many countries around the world.

Is the assessment that is being made by the American Civil Liberties Union with regard to the general versus particular danger

and the statement being made that general conditions in a particular country are the criteria? Is that an accurate statement of the

history of extended voluntary departure?

Mr. ABRAMS. Say they are among the criteria. There are other

criteria for EVD decisions. Let's face the fact that Poles are not

being killed. The EVD decision with respect to Poland was not

based on the notion that there was large-scale killing going on in

Poland, then or now. So, that is one of the questions that one asks

in making an extended voluntary departure but it is not the only

question one asks.

One then must ask about El Salvador, whether the ACLU's description of the conditions in the country is entirely accurate•I remember on a commercial flight that I took to El Salvador, sitting

next to a Salvadoran who was returning from Miami for a vacation. He had been working as a waiter in Miami. And I said, aren't

you afraid to go back? He said, you know, there is violence but I

am not involved in politics, he said, I am not afraid to go back.

There is also a voluntary return to El Salvador of a certain

number of Salvadorans who were illegally here. It is not true that

the entire country is caught up in constant killings and bombings.

There are areas which are highly conflictive and areas which are

less conflictive.

Mr. MCCOLLUM. So you would not agree with the statement that

if extended voluntary departure is granted to persons whose safety

is in jeopardy because of the breakdown of social order, that that is

the bottom line reason for granting EVD?

Mr. ABRAMS. NO, that is sometimes the reason. There are sometimes other reasons. Nor does everyone whose safety is in danger

in the world get EVDs. So I think that is too simplistic a statement

by the ACLU.

Mr. MCCOLLUM. OK.

In general, what do you think of this ACLU report?

Mr. ABRAMS. I think it overstates the case. I think we are all

aware of the humanitarian side of the problem in El Salvador

which is enormous. But I think that the conditions in El Salvador

are exaggerated in the ACLU report.

Mr. MCCOLLUM. I understand that the deportations in the past

year, 1983, fiscal year 1983, from the United States were 3,175 and

there were voluntary departures that have been verified of 1,627.

Now, those figures may be inaccurate but that is what I have been

given.

Has this come about, have these departures, both the verification

and the deportation, from an extensive effort to round up Salvadorans or is this just incidental? Maybe I should ask this of Mr.

Nelson, I suppose.

Is this just incidental to the normal workings of the INS and

these folks happen to be rounded up as part of the normal, everyday stuff?
97

Mr. NELSON. That is correct, Mr. McCollum, the latter. There are

no special efforts targeted at Salvadorans or any nationality. They

are apprehended when we catch up with them just as anybody else.

Mr. MCCOLLUM. Are a lot of these border apprehensions?

Mr. NELSON. Many were, yes.

Mr. MCCOLLUM. With respect to Salvadorans, do you know if any

of the Salvadorans have requested to go to countries other than

back home who you have been deporting? Have they made a request for not necessarily asylum here, but to go to Honduras or

some other country?

Mr. NELSON. I know some have expressed an interest to go to

Canada, and some have. In fact, I apologize, Mr. Chairman, for

being late, I just returned from a meeting with Canadian Immigration officials in Ottawa and that is the reason for my delay in arrival.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Fine.

Mr. NELSON. SO there has been some there. I am not sure, maybe

Ms. Meissner knows, or others, as to requests to go to other countries in Central America. I am not aware that this is much of an

issue. There might be some individuals, but certainly that is not a

large trend.

Mr. MCCOLLUM. If we pass the current Immigration Reform bill

with legalization in it with a January 1, 1982, date in it, would

most of the Salvadorans present in the country today that would be

subject to EVD be eligible for legalization?

Mr. NELSON. I believe they would. As Mr. Abrams answered earlier, the estimates range from 250,000 to 500,000 illegal Salvadorans in the United States. Clearly, most of those, or a good number

of those, no one knows exactly the time of arrival•of course, that

is difficult to know when they are illegal.

But this has been going on for many, many, many years. The

United States has been a place of work for Salvadorans. So a tremendous number of those would have been here the requisite

period of time. Of course, that would depend on the legalization

dates in the Act.

Mr. MCCOLLUM. Am I correct that your past testimony on occasion when you have been up here for more general testimony is to

the effect that the Salvadoran flow across the border, that apprehensions has slowed in the last few months compared to what it

was a year ago; or am I incorrect, has it increased?

Mr. NELSON. No, it has increased. I know of some of the figures,

maybe the first few months of this fiscal year, they might have

been a little lower. But the last 2 to 3 months, calendar year 1984,

we are seeing a 60 to 70 percent increase in apprehensions of Salvadorans at the border. So it is clear that more are coming.

If I might, Mr. McCollum, one addition to what Mr. Abrams

said•I think appended to our testimony that Ms. Meissner gave

were two letters, one from the Secretary of State, the other from

the Attorney General•that the one from the Attorney General of

July 19, 1983, went to some 80-odd Congressmen, I think quite

clearly sets forth the administration policy on extended voluntary

departure. And as Mr. Abrams indicates, there are a number of

factors, and this being a discretionary program, there is no one

single criteria. It is a discretionary program that has been used•
98

and certainly the immigration impact is one thing that obviously

interests the Immigration Service as well as you, is a very significant factor in doing something of a discretionary nature. And with

a number of Salvadorans that we know that are here already, and

the indication of the past and current flows, that we would expect

a very serious immigration impact should there be extended voluntary departure.

And that is clearly one of the reasons why we don't think it is

appropriate here in addition to the other factors mentioned.

Mr. MAZZOLI. The gentleman's time is expired.

The gentleman from New York.

Mr. FISH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I am going to have to leave right after my questions and not have a chance for a second round, and I would appreciate it if I might run a few minutes over my time.

Mr. MAZZOLI. That will be fine.

Mr. FISH. I welcome friends from years of involvement in these

matters. I am reminded that from the vantage point of this subcommittee that acted so quickly and responsibly at the fall of

Saigon on refugee matters, that it has always been a very strong

interest of this subcommittee to enlarge the number of countries,

third country resettlement countries. Several of us have been in

Geneva under the auspices of the U.N. High Commissioner or the

Secretary General to urge other countries to take refugees in different parts of the world as generously as we do.

I am reminded also of State Department documents. Just a few

years ago, a former ambassador and neighbor of mine returned

from a study of 1 month in Southeast Asia. He credited the stability of the ASEAN nations and their receptivity to become countries

of first asylum to the guarantee of this Nation and a few others

that we would be the country of resettlement, or that France would

be the country of resettlement.

I think these are very important things to keep in mind, because

what we do is important•but how our actions are perceived is also

critically important. And together, our actions and how they are

perceived could possibly compromise our moral authority in this

area of humanitarian concern.

So my question to you, Elliott, is do you believe there is any basis

for a concern that an American precedent of forcibly returning Salvadorans may be used by other countries to forcibly return persons

that we consider to be refugees?

Mr. ABRAMS. I would think not. I understand the danger. We believe we are meeting our treaty obligations and the obligations of

American law by looking at every case individually to determine

which individuals are in fact refugees, and allowing them to stay in

the United States.

We also have to acknowledge that we have perhaps a half million Salvadorans living here. No organized effort is under way, nor

is anybody in Congress really suggesting one, to round up and

deport those people. So if the countries of Central America were

going to be following our practice, the fact is that they would be

housing a very large number of Salvadorans and making no particular effort to deport them.
99

Mr. FISH. YOU don't see that we could find this being used

against us in our efforts in refugee work, not just today, but efforts

that might occur in the future?

Could I ask you if you could explain any differences that there

may be in the approach of the State Department and the approach

of the UNHCR to the problem of undocumented Salvadoran nationals in the United States?

Mr. ABRAMS. The UNHCR has used the phase, I think, of presumptive refugees, if I remember it correctly, to describe people

coming from El Salvador. There is no such term in American law,

nor would we be in favor of having one. Our refugee and asylum

laws call for the inspection of each case on its own merits.

I would think that if it is the U.N. High Commissioner's position

that everybody who leaves El Salvador is a refugee, or presumptively a refugee, we would simply disagree on the grounds that we

have experienced Salvadoran emigration to this country for years

and years before there was any particular political violence in El

Salvador, and it just does not stand to reason that everybody

coming from El Salvador should be presumed to be a refugee.

Furthermore, we have now had the chance in the past, say, 5

years, to look at thousands and thousands of Salvadoran cases and

we have determined by doing so that the vast majority of those

who are coming, whose cases we see, are not refugees. That is, we

have looked at the cases, we have read the applications, we have

interviewed the people•"we" meaning the Department of State

and/or the Department of Justice Immigration Service•and they

are not refugees.

So I would say that to the extent that that is the position of the

UNH•I always get confused with the Human Rights Commission•HCR, that we would disagree with it.

Mr. FISH. Thank you.

Commissioner Nelson, one argument advanced against extended

voluntary departure for Salvadorans has consistently been the

magnet effect that such policy would have on future flows from El

Salvador. At the present time, however, I understand that an extremely small percentage of Salvadorans illegally in this country

are being sent back to El Salvador pursuant to orders of deportation.

Isn't our current inability to identify and initiate action against

the vast majority of Salvadorans illegally in the United States already a powerful magnet to those still in that country? And in

view of the reality of the present situation, which presumably is

well-known in El Salvador, isn't a formal policy of extended voluntary departure really likely to make very, very little difference?

Mr. NEI^SON. I would not think it would make little difference.

We do think it would be a very much increased magnet, no question. We have problems with Salvadorans having come to the

United States, other illegal aliens having come to the United

States. One of the things we have been trying to do administratively, in trying to do together with the Congress legislatively, is to improve our procedures and our laws so that we can better deal with

the problems. And to grant extended voluntary departure under

the circumstances would clearly greatly enlarge the magnet.
100

Now, we apprehended in fiscal year 1983 close to 17,000 Salvadorans and actually sent back, either by deportation or voluntary

return, somewhat nearly 5,000. So that is a substantial number.

Had we had EVD, the 5,000 would not have gone back, clearly, and

that is a significant number. And many, many more would come

when they know that they would have a free ride in getting here,

once they got here.

Mr. FISH. Could I interrupt a second?

Mr. NELSON. Sure.

Mr. FISH. YOU might have heard this earlier in a question by the

committee, but should we establish an entry cutoff date for eligibility for extended voluntary departure? Wouldn't that eliminate the

magnet problem?

Mr. NELSON. NO; first of all, we don't think it is merited in terms

of the use of that program as a discretionary program of the Executive for all of the reasons stated, so we strongly believe there

should not be such a program. So putting a cutoff date is really not

something we need to deal with, because we just don't think it is

appropriate.

Mr. FISH. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Thank you.

The time of the gentleman has expired.

Mr. FISH. Thank you, I appreciate it.

Mr. MAZZOLI. It went a little long but it was very nice.

Let me, while the gentleman from California is getting up, let

me yield myself 5 minutes to ask a few more questions in this area.

The gentleman from New York has hit on a point that we talked

about earlier and that is that many people on the panel before you

came in, Mr. Nelson, and your colleagues were here, expressed

some concern about an open-ended program that keeps rolling on.

Could you, if this thing were properly structured, live with some

sort of a measure which would have a cutoff date•in effect, as Mr.

Smith said, an inside date and an outside date?

Does anybody care to take a shot at that?

Mr. NELSON. I would say, Mr. Chairman, the answer would be no.

The administration feels strongly that it is not appropriate, that it

should not be granted; and to talk about dates is really not a very

relevant consideration.

Mr. MAZZOLI. OK, thank you.

Let me ask this question of the INS people. Would, if the final

section of the bill, this fourth section which deals with detention,

prohibiting, detaining any of the people. Would that hamper your

law enforcement efforts at the border or anywhere else in the country, interior or elsewhere, by the fact that you could not detain

people even for the purpose, I assume•if I read your statement

correctly•even for the purpose of interrogating them, or just getting information from them?

Ms. MEISSNER. Certainly it would hamper our operation. We

detain people presently primarily for the purpose of assuring their

presence at hearings. And if they cannot make bond, do not have

any community ties, then they are detained.

Now, under an EVD, there would be no hearings going forward

so some of the reason for detention would dissolve. Nonetheless
101

Mr. MAZZOLI. But where there is a need for detention you

couldn't detain them?

Ms. MEISSNER. Nonetheless, where there is a need for detention,

clearly under the language

Mr. MAZZOLI. For example, those Salvadorans coming across the

border•and all of the panel ahead of us said no, no, they wanted

the law enforced, you know, part of this thing was to enforce the

law.

But, in any event, it is going to be hard to enforce the law at the

border if you can't detain the people and say, hey, look, I am a Salvadoran, I want to come in.

Ms. MEISSNER. AS a practical matter

Mr. MAZZOLI. Isn't that correct?

Ms. MEISSNER. AS a practical matter that is virtually impossible.

Mr. MAZZOLI. MS. Meissner, you, I think, talked in terms of the

smuggling, or maybe perhaps Mr. Abrams•but there seems to be a

lot of smuggling activity with those Salvadorans. Now, just to clear

the record, are they the smugglers or the smugglee?

Ms. MEISSNER. Both.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Both? In both ways?

Ms. MEISSNER. Both. Ultimately, obviously, they are more the

victim than the book trader, but certainly Salvadorans are involved

in the smuggling trade as well.

Mr. MAZZOLI. SO,

Mr. ABRAMS. Mr. Chairman?

Mr. MAZZOLI. Yes, please.

Mr. ABRAMS. I would just like to add a point, if I could, which

arises somewhat in context with detention but more broadly as

well•and that is, if EVD is granted to Salvadorans, this means

that there is an enormous advantage in being a Salvadoran over

being a Honduran, Guatemalan, Nicaraguan, or anything else. And

there is an enormous incentive for people to misstate their nationality. If they are apprehended at the Texas-Mexican border and the

INS says we are going to deport you, you are a Honduran. The

fellow or woman then says you can't deport me, I am not, I am a

Salvadoran.

There will be, I think it is fair to say for those who are interested

in venture capital investments, a new industry in false I.D. cards

for Salvadorans.

Mr. MAZZOLI. If I understand correctly, they couldn't even detain

the person until you check the veracity of the ticket. Isn't that correct?

Ms. MEISSNER. That is correct.

Mr. MAZZOLI. I mean, if that part of the bill stays together, you

couldn't detain that person whose real nationality is in some question until the verification could comes in. Would not this section, if

it remains in the bill, distinguish these EVD from every other.

Ms. MEISSNER. That is correct.

We have never written•we have never put a detention prohibition into any of the EVD kinds of debate. And there is, of course, a

broader meaning to detain than simply to put somebody in a facility. It is the whole process of questioning and how
102

Mr. MAZZOLI. And I want to bring that out because, you know,

when we hear detention, we think of Khrome north, and that is

not what detention is.

Ms. MEISSNER. NO, we are talking about detention broadly

Mr. MAZZOLI. Detention is putting a person in a room and holding them for 5 minutes or ask them to sit down while you make a

phone call, that is detention of a sort, and they could object to that.

I think that lawyers could spring them, and they are in the country before you could do anything about even checking who they are

or where they come from, or whatever.

May I ask, Mr. Abrams, a question on this whole thing of smuggling and internationalization of the problem, do we have any cooperation from, for example, the Government of Mexico, in the sense

of trying to help us in learning who the smuggling rings are

manned by, and staffed by? Do they help us to keep other than

Mexicans, for example, away from the border? Do we have any

data on that?

Mr. ABRAMS. I would like to refer that, if I could, to the Commissioner.

Mr. MAZZOLI. All right, fine.

Mr. NELSON. Thanks, Elliott.

I guess the answer, Mr. Chairman, is yes and no. There certainly

has been cooperation by the Mexican officials in a number of antismuggling cases and we have had a very good working relationship

with them. We have seen some increases in that.

On the other hand•that is the good news•the bad news is we

clearly have indicated a very substantial increase in the number of

Salvadorans and other Central Americans coming through. We are

concerned about the Mexican officials and what they are doing or

not doing in that regard. And that is certainly an area that we

expect to have some further discussions. We have met with the

people in the State Department, the Mexican desk, had conversations with the Ambassador, Ambassador Gavin, and there will be

some upcoming meetings with the Mexican Government, because

we want to express our concerns.

Now, obviously, it is a delicate and difficult problem for both of

us.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Yes, we are trying to internationalize lots of

things.

One last question, then I will yield to my friend from California

and maybe come back.

This would be perhaps Mr. Abrams, maybe Ms. Meissner, perhaps it takes legal opinions that will be supplied later, but is there

any way that you could think of legally, constitutionally, to limit

the opportunities available to those who would be declared to be

allowed to stay in the country through extended voluntary departure ?

If you were in the room, I asked Mr. Moakley the question about

food stamps, welfare programs, about disabling the States from getting reimbursement from the Government from costs, limiting

their ability; for example, to get the roots and develop the equities,

which then at the end of a 3-year period or a 2-year period means

that they would then say, look, I can't go back, I am more American now than I am Salvadoran, and so forth.
103

Is there anything that can be done to limit the ability of the

people to make the contact with this country, and this community,

during this temporary period, everybody says it is a temporary bill,

that would be legal and constitutional?

Ms. MEISSNER. I would invite everybody to share in, but I think

that it is not any different from the situation that we all have debated for years with regard to the illegal alien who is in the country and the situation that we face with that population. Certainly,

any legislation could say that people would be ineligible for this,

that, or whatever else, and certainly that would be an important

policy statement to make if that would, you know, if the Congress

would choose to do so.

But as a practical matter, we do know that Salvadorans, along

with all other illegal aliens, are able to manage to sink roots, and

that time is the greatest enemy of the Government in terms of its

ability to effectively enforce departure and an orderly immigration

Mr. MAZZOLI. And the other side of that, too, is even if you disable the Federal assistance programs, States can start their own

programs and say, look, we didn t create the situation, you are the

ones that said that these people are allowed to stay illegally, so you

ought to reimburse us for the programs that we must start in order

to do humane treatment to these people.

I can see that being as a development here too.

Ms. MEISSNER. Sure, and it is generally not so much the problem

of the formal programs such as food stamps and welfare. It is, as

you mentioned earlier, it is having children in the country

Mr. MAZZOLI. Hospital and emergency assistance also.

Ms. MEISSNER [continuing]. It is establishing jobs, professional

ties, and so on.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Thank you very much.

The gentleman from California.

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry I missed

some of the testimony here. I had another meeting which I had to

attend.

I do understand that we visited the question of the 60 individuals

that Mr. Moakley submitted to us. What I would like to know, Mr.

Abrams, is whether the State Department has specifically gone

through those names and could you supply for the committee some

written analysis of the names on that list of 60?

Mr. ABRAMS. We don't have the list of 60.

Mr. LUNGREN. I will be happy to give it to you.

Mr. ABRAMS. We will send those names and the information supplied down to the Embassy in El Salvador and ask them to look.

I have to say, though, that we have had contacts with human

rights groups on the question of El Salvador. I personally have for

years now been asking for names for years, and I would have

thought that they could have supplied us the names directly if they

were interested in information rather than in just publicity.

I find this an unfortunate procedure for them to have followed.

Mr. LUNGREN. I understand, but my only problem is that I have

asked for it for years. This is the first time I have ever gotten it

and I feel I have an obligation to follow through on it now that

somebody has finally given me a list.
104

Mr. ABRAMS. We would be happy to do that.

[Supplemental material to be furnished for the committee files.]

Mr. LUNGREN. Second, in appendix III of the publication put out

by the the ACLU, "Salvadorans in the Upited States, the Case for

Extended Voluntary Departure," there is an assertion that there

are five individuals who were returned from the United States and

subsequently killed or disappeared in El Salvador.

Has the Department specifically reviewed those five cases?

Mr. ABRAMS. We have.

Mr. LUNGREN. Can you tell us what your response is to the assertion that they subsequently were killed or disappeared? Disappeared means, I guess, in some way you can't find them, which

may or may not prove anything, but the allegation I think basically is that these people have been killed. Can you give me the response that you have to those five individuals?

Mr. ABRAMS. In four of the cases we can confirm that the individuals in question are dead. In the fifth case, we cannot. In the fifth

case, the individual's grandmother published an open letter in a

Salvadoran newspaper, this is Mrs. Santacruz Elias. His grandmother published an open letter in a newspaper asking about his

whereabouts and we investigated and we cannot locate the grandmother. She gave, in this open advertisement an identification

number, which does not exist.

We have elicited the ministry of defense to check their military

records to investigate whether maybe he was inducted into the

military and he was not located there. So that one is one that we

just don't know if there is anything there or not.

The other four we can confirm that the individual in question is

dead but the reasons vary. In the case, for example, of Mr. Osegueda, a Salvadoran newspaper reported that he was killed with

his brother as a result of a robbery, with the accused murderers

now being held in prison. That is to say, a robbery rather than persecution.

In another case, the case of Mr. Jose Hernandez, he was deported

and was killed in 1982. But the Tutela Legal, the human rights

office of the Catholic Church, has been unable to investigate the

case because not enough information has been supplied by any

human rights group.

They do not list this case as one of human rights violations. We

have been in contact with the attorney in Brownsville representing

Mr. Hernandez, who brought this case to our attention to provide

further information so that we and the Tutela and others could go

further investigating this case, and she has not provided any more

information.

In two other cases, Mr. Chirino Amaya and Garcia Ortiz, we find

that in both cases they were killed. They were killed in the presence of another person who had never visited the United States,

but there is no evidence really either way about the death. That is,

I think you would have to call these cases of unexplained death,

possible persecution, possibly not.
105

So I guess that would be two out of five that look more possible

as deaths relating to persecution, but not confirmed.

Mr. LUNGREN. Could you give me written responses on all five of

those, please?

Mr. ABRAMS. Yes.

[The information follows:]
106

ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE

WASMI NGTON

April 30, 1984

jtfYl!

\^ ci

The Honorable Romano L. Mazzoli

Chairman

Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees,

and International Law

Committee on the Judiciary

House of Representatives

Washington, D. C. 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

During my testimony before your Subcommittee on

April 12, I agreed to provide further information on the

five cases which the ACLU has charged constitute instances

of killings or disappearances of persons deported from

the United States despite their claims of a well-founded

fear of persecution.

As I stated during the hearing, we are continuing

our survey in El Salvador, and are now sending representatives to outlying cities in an effort to check on

deportees. Needless to say, we will supply you with the

detailed results as soon as they are available.

The information on the cases is attached. Please

let me know if we can provide further information or be

of assistance in any way.

erely,

Elliott Abrams

Bureau of Human Rights and

Humanitarian Affairs

Enclosure: As stated.

cc: Congressman Dan Lungren
107

Santana Chirino Amaya was deported in June, 1981.

He was killed, in an unexplained murder in September,

1981. Another man was killed at the same time,

though the other person had never visited the

United States.

Walter Garcia Ortiz was inducted into the Salvadoran

military, but was released with the help of his family,

He then came to the United States in order to avoid

further military service. He was deported in 1980.

In November of 1981, Garcia was killed, along with

another youth, while at his grandfather's house.

The other youth had never visited the United States.

No evidence linking the killing to the U.S. visit has

been brought to date.

Jose Hernandez was a member of the Salvadoran military,

who was wounded and sent home to recuperate. Fearing

that left-wing death squads were looking for him, he

left for the United States. He was deported in October,

1982. In November, 1982 he was killed in an unexplained

murder. Tutela Legal, the human rights organization of

the Catholic Church in El Salvador, refuses to list this

case of one of human rights violation, without more

specific evidence.

Octavio Osegueda was deported in July, 1983. He was

killed, along with his brother in July, 1983. The

local paper has reported the killings as a result of

a robbery, with three suspects being held in the Mariona

Prison. The brother had nevter visited the United States.

Jose Humberto Santacruz Elias was deported in January

1981. His grandmother published an open letter in

"El Diario de Hoy" which requested information on

Santacruz's whereabouts. The U.S. Embassy investigated

and cannot locate the grandmother, as her I.D. published

in the open letter does not exist. The Embassy also

enlisted the Ministry of Defense to check military records

to investigate possible induction into the military. An

extensive search did not locate any record on Santacruz.
108

Mr. LUNGREN. The Immigration and Nationality Act permits an

alien facing deportation to designate the country to which he will

be sent. He will then be sent there if that country is willing to

accept him into its territory unless the Attorney General, in his

discretion, concludes that deportation to such country would be

prejudicial to the interests of the United States.

Mr. Commissioner, do any Salvadorans deported from the United

States successfully attempt to go to countries other than El Salvador?

Mr. NELSON. That was asked earlier, Mr. Lungren, and I do not

have that information. Certainly, if many do, or any do, it is very

few. As I said earlier, some have gone to Canada, although not necessarily on a deportation arrangement but possibly some. But we

do not have evidence unless Ms. Meissner or anybody else•that

many would have availed themselves of this.

Mr. LUNGREN. I am not sure whether this has been asked before

but I would like to have a response to it. Have worked with the

Mr. NELSON. We can check our records. To the extent we have it,

and I would presume it would

Mr. LUNGREN. OK.

Mr. NELSON [continuing]. It might be difficult to•I am sure

there are not many, if any, that are so requested.

Ms. MEISSNER. That is correct.

Mr. LUNGREN. Have we had any contact with the United Nations

High Commissioner for Refugees about the possibility of either expanding the camps that we have or some new type of camps or territory in that region of the world to encourage the deportation of

the individuals to those areas as opposed to deporting them necessarily to El Salvador itself?

Mr. ABRAMS. We have not. I might say, I find that an awfully

interesting suggestion, that is, offering an individual if he really is

scared to return to El Salvador, the opportunity to go to protection

by the UNHCR in Costa Rica or Honduras where there are about

20,000 Salvadorans in each country. We have not yet done that.

Mr. LUNGREN. Does the administration have a position for or

against, or have you thought it out at all?

Mr. ABRAMS. I guess if is fair to say we haven't thought it out

but the people I have talked to thus far share with me the view

that it is a very promising suggestion which you are now, I guess,

the second or third member of the subcommittee has made, and we

do intend to follow it up.

Mr. LUNGREN. I don t know where the entire truth lies in all of

this. I think it is very difficult for all of us sitting here to try and

specifically make the determinations that by law you are required

to make and we are required to review. But it seems to me if there

is a question about being economic immigrants•illegal immigrants

to this country•or refugees, one way of handling that is to respond

to their allegation that they are suffering from possibilities of persecution, although it may not be defined or refined as it is required

under our determination, by giving them that opportunity; whereas, if they are truly economic immigrants, they may not want to do

that and be willing to go to their own country, and do what they

can to come back here or go somewhere else, or be in their own

country for their own economic staisfaction and advancement.
109

So I would hope that we would look at that seriously and I would

hope that it would be something that the administration looks at

seriously in the very near future.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Thank you very much. I have a few more questions

and we will send a few more downtown.

Let me ask you this? Perhaps while both of you are in the room,

I think it was our friend from perhaps Michigan brought up the

question of should the Congress write into the law extended voluntary departure to various criteria that would be applied, because if

I understand it correctly, it is now discretionary?

Staff tells me that different times and places the following factors have been considered: the extent of the civil strife in the sending country; the degree of the breakdown of services and public

order in that country; the level of political instability there; the

dangers faced by returnees as opposed to the risks confronting

those who have never left their country. And to some extent the

impact as we talked today on the magnet effect, the potential

magent effect, of extended voluntary departure.

Do you think there would be something wrong with our writing

into the law some of these things which have developed over the

years and say specifically they have to be consulted and specifically

they have to be reported on by the Attorney General and the Secretary of State of making or not making the decision of whether

these people should be accorded extended voluntary departure?

Mr. ABRAMS. I would start by saying that I think there is an important consideration left out on that list and that is foreign policy.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Excuse me?

Mr. ABRAMS. Foreign policy.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Foreign policy.

Mr. ABRAMS. I would not hesitate to say that one of the considerations and the question of EVD for Poles is the issue of how other

NATO are reacting toward the political situation in Poland, and

our effort to maintain a common attitude toward the Government

of Poland on a variety of political and economic and immigration

questions with the other NATO countries.

I guess my feeling would be that though one can look at the

standards in very general terms, you get down to the question of

information and judgments and that it seems to me the whole question would not be very substantially advanced by reciting what we

all agree, really, are the criteria.

I would be a little bit concerned, I guess, more about, as you

know, this is a preoccupation, at the moment, of the executive

branch, of further limiting such discretion as we have.

Mr. MAZZOLI. This is not your province. Mr. Nelson, maybe?

Mr. NELSON. I will stick my head out

Mr. MAZZOLI. Take a shot at it.

Mr. NELSON, [continuing] Also, Mr. Chairman. Since it is two

points•one, of course, it is a discretionary program, and I think

when you try to write statutory language getting into that area, it

often might create more problems, and also solidifies it, really, as a

program. And that really leads to my next point, is that I think

this administration has generally recognized that probably exooc r\ _ ft A
110

tended voluntary departure overall is not a good idea as a concept

and should be very much limited.

I am not saying it won't be used in the future, but certainly our

position has generally been that it should be greatly restricted and

very likely will be a declined use program.

I think that fits into what I believe is probably your and the

committee's feeling in immigration laws generally. We have had

special admission programs for this group or that group and we

have all seen the chaos that that has developed. And getting the

immigration law back on a firmer footing, we think is a good philosophy and we think, therefore, the EVD is better not to legislate

on it at all. And I think, again, we ought to be looking at it continually in a very restrictive way.

Mr. MAZZOLI. YOU were not here, Mr. Nelson, but your colleagues

were and, of course, they got the distinct strain as we all did from

sitting on the panel that some of our friends who support the bill

here, who sponsored it, suggest that there is kind of unevenness,

you know, this gets back to the reason they switched in 1980 from

the country specific where it gave an administration an option to

help friends and hurt enemies to a situation post-1980 in which

anyone, from whatever country, is entitled to make the claim of

asylum, and using the very same definition applied to that person

the decision is made. It is not country specific, it isn't biased, it is

objective.

Here if you were to have some criteria•several criterion, I guess

some series of criteria•to discuss and to be discussed when the decision is made. Would this not help to alleviate this feeling and

this, some call it poison, that is in the minds of some, that the

State Department just uses this mechanism to reward friends and

to hurt enemies, and to advance foreign policy standards as the

preeminent reason rather than the strife that exists in the country,

the lack of opportunity, the danger?

Mr. ABRAMS. I am disinclined to believe that because even if you

set the standards, it would be up to us to apply them. And if one of

the standards was a question of a magnet effect, then we would

still be extremely reluctant to use EVD for countries of traditional

large-scale illegal migration, such as the countries in Central

America and the Caribbean.

So the result in the end would be the same and there would be

the same objection. I think you are never going to find the kind of

evenness that the panel is looking for. What they really ask, I

thought, the panel of Congressmen, was for you to ask the question: Would these Salvadorans be better off in the United States? If

they would be better off in the United States, they should be allowed to say.

If that is the question we are going to ask, then we don't have an

immigration policy at all, because everybody would be better off,

maybe not Canadians, or something, but, you know, basically everybody in the world would be better off in the United States.

You have got to ask another question, which is, is it in our interest to admit them all? And once we start judging who to admit and

who not to, I think it is inevitable that we are going to have disagreements as to whether the policy is correctly conducted, whether it is fair for people far away in Afghanistan to be treated differ-
Ill

ently from the people from El Salvador who have a long history of

illegal migration.

So I tend to doubt that putting that in the statute would, in fact,

lead to a situation of sweetness and light.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Is there any advantage of having a system comparable to our system on refugees in which there is a consultation between the administration and the various committees, but the ultimate decision is the administration's, that it is the President's decision to make?

This would be on questions of EVD•because, you know, in the

case of Ethiopia, Uganda, Poland, Afghanistan, Iran, and Nicaragua, and some day Chile, Cuba•this was done by the then administrations or the current administration.

Do you think there is any advantage in order to overcome of

what appears to be maybe some unevenness or there is a consultation on the questions of where EVD would be granted in a blanket

way, now there can be individual determinations. And INS, I am

sure, makes an effort to ferret out those cases and then with the

help of the State Department, individually people are given a grant

of delay of deportation.

But where a blanket situation would come in, should that be capable or qualified for a congressional consultation similar to that of

the Refugee Act?

Mr. NELSON. That is a good constitutional question, Mr. Chairman. I think, again, from the executive branch point of view, we

would think not. First of all, again, as to the earlier testimony, we

reiterate we don't think extended voluntary departure is a concept

that ought to be expanded and we would be expected to utilize it

now, if at all. And that clearly it should remain, if used in this discretionary category•and I think as Mr. Abrams indicated, there

are so many factors and imponderables that it would be tough to

structure it, and I think that would also make it tough in a consultation, a formal consultation basis.

I could say this, I would think it is fair and as it has probably

been in many of these kind of areas, and informal kind of consultation; and certainly, although sometimes after-the-fact consultations

such as a hearing like this. I would have no problem, although

Mr. MAZZOLI. Yes.

Mr. NELSON [continuing]. Others might, if we are seriously considering it for some country of very likely having informal consultations.

Mr. MAZZOLI. It occurs to me that there might be some merit in

that. I mean, I know that it was a suggestion I make so, therefore,

I am being immodest in saying that it has some merit to it. But it

does appear to me that consultation might be useful in a blanket

case; individually, that is a different story. But we are only talking

really about blanket here, this is the real problem. There may be

some possibility that Congress would have an opportunity to give

you some ideas of how this thing rides and give you some feeling,

because you see how the panel and the people who appeared

before, some feel very strongly that this is an absolute need to

show America's continuing humanitarian response to travail and

woe in the world. So, in any event, it might be something that is

useful.
112

Let me ask just a couple of other questions. Do you think, Mr.

Nelson, you already said that the administration could not live

without a cutoff date•or earlier, is what Mr. Smith calls the inside

date.

Do you think that if you had some sort of a process for accelerated handling of the asylum cases, you have like a cutoff date for

the purpose of extended voluntary departure to kind of cope with

this crowd, and you try to keep it temporary and hope that there

might be some legal constitutional way to limit the ability to put

down the roots; but then have a very targeted program to quickly

handle the asylum, because you heard what they said, people advocating the bill•that it takes years to handle asylum cases and this

forces the churches to respond to their moral imperative to set up

havens and to break the law temporarily, at least, in providing

sanctuary.

Is there some way, if you had a cutoff date, to make this whole

thing a little more manageable, get rid of section 4, do a lot of

trimming up in the bill, and then try to target for a quick handling

on the question of asylum so that the people don't just languish?

Mr. NELSON. You know, Mr. Chairman, since we very seriously

feel extended voluntary departure on a blanket basis is not a wise

policy and would not believe it appropriate, we can't really say

that a cutoff date is something to consider; we just think the whole

concept is just not meritorious and, therefore, should not be considered, so a cutoff date really is something we can't comment on.

The part of your question, though, I think, of course, is the key,

and that is the asylum processing. Of course, we are hopeful that

that you will move quickly so that we can address that issue.

If I can take a second, the meeting in Canada that we just held

was very informative in many areas, and including the asylum

problems there. They face the exact same problems we do. They

have a backlog of 10,000 asylum cases in Canada, which, considering the size of their population, is a bigger percentage impact than

ours. They said that the person who arrives in Canada and claims

asylum can almost automatically assume he has 3 to 4 years with

all of their legal processing such as ours. And the practical result is

once a person is in Canada or the United States makes an asylum

claim, whether absolutely without merit or not, they can drag it on

so long. So in many ways, you have a de factor extended voluntary

departure and I think this has been very unfortunate because all of

these things do break down our system of law, and respect for

them, serves as a magnet, and so forth.

So we need to definitely move in all directions to improve that

process so that people do get their fair hearing. And I don't think

there can be any question in Canada or the United States that

there is so much due process in this procedure that there really is

no argument on that. We really need to have due process for the

Government and the citizens also to be sure these cases are processed promptly.

Mr. MAZZOLI. One last question and then I will yield to my friend

from California for any wrap-up questions he might have.

Mr. Abrams, when will this study be finished. Do you have some

idea of the timing of it to give us some handle on that?
113

Mr. ABRAMS. I would think that we should be able to wrap it up

in another 6 or 8 weeks. We have just got to identify the funding

source and send people out to other cities in El Salvador.

Mr. MAZZOLI. AS you know, that is going to be a key element as

just what happens to those who are sent back home.

My time is up. The gentleman?

Mr. LUNGREN. No questions.

Mr. MAZZOLI. There are many questions, as you know, there

might be some of them we have already answered, but if not we

will send them on downtown and maybe you could help us with

them in writing. But certainly your testimony has been very

useful.

I thank you very much, Mr. Nelson. I know how weary you have

to be from just getting off the plane, but we thank you for coming

over. Have a nice day.

The subcommittee stands adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned.]

APPENDIX

HON. RICHARD L. OTTINGER; TESTIMONY BEFORE THE HOUSE JUDICIARY SUBCOMMITTEE

ON IMMIGRATION, REFUGEES AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be able to testify today about H.R. 4447, of which I

am an original co-sponsor, and the very pressing problems facing Salvadoran refugees seeking safety from the life-threatening conditions in their homeland.

Compelling evidence exists for the necessity of this legislation to stay the deportation of Salvadoran nationals. Citizens in El Salvador are the first to be victims of

violence. Forty thousand civilians have been murdered in the last four years of Salvador's civil war. Countless others remain "disappeared," assumed to have been victims of the death squads. In the first six months of this year, approximately 325

people "disappeared and close to 3,000 were executed.

Despite the overwhelming evidence of the dangers in El Salvador, the Reagan administration has maintained a policy of deporting Salvadoran nationals who have

sought refuge in the United States. Roughly 10,000 Salvadorans faced deportation

proceedings in 1981. In the first three months of 1983, almost 1,500 Salvadorans

sought asylum here, and only thirty, or 2%, received it. This figure is in stark contrast to our response to refugees from Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan: 71% and

92%, respectively, of their refugees have been granted asylum here. District directors of INS have testified that they are following orders on Salvadorans "set for us

at the top." In several cases, documented by international rights groups, Salvadorans have been deported and subsequently "disappeared" or were found murdered.

Preliminary results from a study now being conducted indicate that one of every 50

Salvadorans forcibly deported from the United States in the last two years may

have been killed.

Furthermore, it has been shown that other Central American countries do not

constitute viable alternatives for displaced Salvadorans. International agency workers in refugee settlements in Honduras, Mexico and Guatemala state that none of

those countries provide safe haven for Salvadorans. Refugees are harrassed, exploited, and often killed in military raids of camps. Mexico does not even recognize Guatemalans and Salvadorans as refugees, requiring them to enter on 90-day visitors'

visas.

The evidence showing jeopardy to citizens of El Salvador who seek asylum demands a humanitarian response from the United States. As Secretary of State

George Shultz declared before the Foreign Affairs Committee in February, "when

people are dying, common decency compels us to respond."

H.R. 4447 would not grant asylum or any permanent residence to Salvadorans

within the United States. These people do not ask for a new home here; they need

temporary protection. This bill grants that protection by delaying deportation until

such time as the Congress, based on reports from the Administration, determines

that conditions in El Salvador would allow the safe return of its citizens. This legislation reflects only a concern about significant danger to innocent individuals,

danger that the administration has admitted might be tied to the right-wing leadership and particularly to Roberto D'Aubuisson, the most likely candidate to win El

Salvador's coming presidential election.

Allowing Salvadorans to stay temporarily would be comletely consistent with past

U.S. policy regarding refugees from civil conflict. The Immigration and Naturalization Service can extend voluntary departure to those who are "temporarily unable

to return to [their] country on account of civil war or catastrophic circumstances."

This status has been extended to refugees from Lebanon, Poland, Afghanistan,

Uganda, Ethiopia, and Chile. What's more, the United Nations Convention on the

Status of Refuges, to which the United States is a signatory, requires admission to

any person who has fled his country due to "a well-founded fear of being persecuted

(115)
116

for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or

political opinion."

A good example of the situation requiring this legislation is that of a man from

my district who fled El Salvador in 1981. His is a compelling and disturbing story,

one that I know is similar to many others. His name is Jose Dominguez.

Dr. Dominguez was a professor of philosophy at the University of El Salvador

until April of 1981. He had a position of authority on the University's administration and collected a good salary. His political affiliation, however, made him and his

family the targets of harrassment and death threats. In 1981, Dr. Dominguez made

the extremely difficult choice to leave El Salvador, choosing to protect his own life

and those of his family rather than stay in his highly visible position.

Dr. Dominguez applied for political asylum. His asylum claim was denied, despite

the threats to his life facing him on his return. For two weeks in 1981, Dr. Dominguez received numerous threatening letters and a barrage of phone calls warning

him that unless he stopped his criticism of the government's human rights record

and economic programs in his lectures at the university, he would be killed. Several

of his colleagues at the university who had spoken against the government had already been murdered.

He is still waiting for a chance to plead his case at a deportation hearing. Dr.

Dominguez has stated repeatedly that he "did not consider putting in an application

for immigration because [he] had no reason to do that;" he has always intended

someday to return to El Salvador. In the meantime, Dr. Dominguez has found work

as a sexton at St. Matthews Lutheran Church in White Plains. This is not the life

he worked for, nor is it commensurate with his education and previous level of prestige in El Salvador. It is, however, a life free of daily fear. The only threat he now

lives with is that he will be sent back to face the death squads once again.

Without adequate attempts to verify the conditions in El Salvador, it is unconscionable that the United States should systematically send people like Jose Dominguez home to die. Elliot Abrams, assistant Secretary of State for human rights, has

been quoted as saying that the embassy made only half-hearted attempts to discover

the fates of deported Salvadorans. "It is a question," said Abrams in the Washington Monthly, "of how much time [we] should spend on something we think is ridiculous."

Salvadorans facing deportation are asked to "substantiate" their claim of lifethreatening situation. "What kind of substantiation would be required of me?" Dr.

Dominguez has asked. "I cannot bring you a letter from the death squad taking responsibility for my persecution. To prove [to the United States] that my life was in

serious danger, I would have to go back to my country and be killed."

Our legislation mandates the study that would document the danger to civilians

living under the threats of the death squads in El Salvador. While that study is

being conducted and considered, we would allow those Salvadorans already in the

United States to remain. We do not suggest blanket amnesty, nor permanent political asylum. In humanitarian terms, this is the least we can do for the people like

Dr. Dominguez who have sacrificed everything in order to save their lives.

I believe the Administration policy with respect to refugees from both El Salvador

and Haiti is unconstitutional, violates international law and repudiates the fundamental humanitarian tenets of this nation. I strongly urge the adoption of this

measure and that the subcommittee also address the matter of Haitian refugees as

a top priority.

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

Washington, D.C., April 10, 1984-

Hon. ROMANO MAZZOU,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees, and International Law, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: My staff informs me that time will not allow my testimony

at your hearing on the Salvadoran Refugee bill (H.R. 4447) Thursday morning.

While I can appreciate the time pressures you are facing in connection with the Immigration Reform Act, I do want you to be aware of my keen interest in the objectives of H.R. 4447.

There are an estimated 5,000 Salvadoran refugees in the State of Washington,

many of whom live in my district in Seattle. As you know, there are credible reports

that refugees forcibly repatriated to El Salvador have been imprisoned or killed.

Under these circumstances, it is understandable that many Salvadoran refugees are

reluctant to return until their safety can be assured. It is equally understandable

why normally law-abiding citizens with humanitarian instincts have taken an inter-
117

est in the plight of the refugees. In many cases, refugees have been taken into the

homes and churches of these citizens in order to hide them from the Immigration

Service. It is most unfortunate when such well-meaning actions result in violation of

the law, thus putting our citizens at odds with their government.

H.R. 4447 would correct this regretable anomaly by granting "extended voluntary

departure" status to Salvadoran refugees. This would permit them to remain in this

country until conditions permit their return to El Salvador. In the name of common

sense, the well-being of the refugees, and the good citizens of my district•and other

parts of the U.S.•I urge passage of this legislation.

Sincerely,

JOEL PRITCHARD,

Member of Congress.
118

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY HON. JOSEPH MOAKLEY

INTERPRETER RELEASES An information service on Immigration, naluraliiation and related matters

c.m»vnyv*e« Asa Eons

Vol. 59. Ho. 5

American Council

For Nationalities Service

KWM140UlSL.NwTort.NT 10011

January 30, 1982

RECENT SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENTS

1. INS Implements Instructions on Deportation to Poland

2. INS Supplies Answers to Refugee and Asylum Questions

3. District Court Enjoins INS Investigatory Practice*

*. District Court Orders Open Deportation Hearings at El Centro

5. President Redelegstes Authority oo Asslstsnce to Cuban/Haitian Entrants

6. Rules for Proof of SSI Eligibility Published

7. INS Disavows Attorney Pee Liability Under Equal Access to Justice Act

8. Recent Publication

9. Immigration Seminars Announced

1. INS implements Instructions on Deportation to Poland

In an Interpreter Releases Bulletin dated December 29, 1981, p. 697a, we quoted

the INS wire of December 23, 1981, concerning enforced departure to Poland. On

January 21. 1982, the INS Central Office wired the following Implementing Instructions to Its field offices (File CO 2A3.10-P):

EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, THE FOLLOWINC POLICY SHALL IE IMPLEMENTED RELATIVE TO

POLISH NATIONALS AMENABLE TO DEPORTATION OR EXCLUSION PROCEEDINGS, MHO WERE

IN THE UNITED STATES AS OF DECEMBER 23, 1981. SERVICE ACTION SHALL NOT BE

TAKEN TO ENFORCE DEPARTURE TO POLAND, PRIOR TO MARCH 31, 1982, OF POLISH

NATIONALS WO ARE RESIDENTS OR FORMER RESIDENTS OF POLAND AND MHO INDICATE

AN UHWILUNCCTSS TO RETURN TO POLAND AT THE PRESENT TIME UNDER THE UNSTABLE

CONDITIONS CURRENTLY EXJSTIJJC•WERE. EXTENSIONS OF TEMPORARY STAY MAT BE

GRANTED TO THOSE rTOII-lWICRAirTS WHO QUALIFY FOR SUCH EXTENSIONS. IP AN APPLICATION IS DENIED, THE POLISH NATIONAL'S DEPARTURE SHALL ROT BE ENFORCED

PRIOR TO MARCH 31. 1982. POLISH NATIONALS WHO ARE LOCATED AS DEPOETABLE

ALIENS WILL BE PERMITTED TO REMAIN UNTIL MARCH 31, 1982. DEPORTATION HEARINGS WILL BE POSTPONED UNTIL AFTER MARCH 31, 1982. FOR THOSE POLISH NATIONALS FOR WHOM OSC'S HAVE BEEN ISSUED AND HEARINGS HAVE NOT COMMENCED. THOSE

HEARINGS FOR POLISH NATIONALS WHICH HAVE OOMMENCED SHALL CO FORWARD; HOWEVER. DEPARTURE SHALL NOT BE ENFORCED PRIOR TO MARCH 31, 1982. IN THOSE CASES

WHERE A FINAL ORDER OP DEPORTATION HAS KEN ENTERED, DEPARTURE SHALL NOT BE

ENFORCED PRIOR TO MARCH 31. 1982.

THE PORECOINC PROVISIONS SHALL NOT APPLY TO THOSE POLISH NATIONALS WHO HAVE

NOT EVIDENCED AN UNWILLINGNESS TO RETURN TO POLAND; TO POLISH NATIONALS WHO

WERE RESIDENTS OP A THIRD COUNTRY; OR HAVE BEEN CONVICTED OF CRIMINAL ACTS

IN THE UNITED STATES. IN SUCH CASES, WHERE A DISTRICT DIRECTOR PROPOSES TO

ERTORCE THE DEPARTURE OF A POLISH NATIONAL TO POLAND, PRIOR TO MARCH 31,

• as •

r

»Sf5 * Due*****; 50i~« a v*» a"d ••onm o

i . a*v v* *>• s» s« »• »•» rv"*

r- . • - •»..»• .« •> tz* * v* --«.*. -,.-. < . •.-* a
y OL.IIU , Wo.

119

tsrzmix i

A*o

.,.,/

Department of State

Washington

Deceaber 18, 1982

Dear Mr. Attorney C«o

As you are MBta, since laat Deceaber It has been Adalnlatration policy not to

enforct the departure of Polish Nationals to Poland. In vlev of the policy of the

United States toward the Government of Poland, reiterated by the President oo Deceaber 10, the Department of Stats believes the "non-enforceeent of departure" policy for Polish nationals should be maintained for a further six months, to June 30,

1983. In a letter of November 22 to Secretary Shults, Senator Charlca Percy stated

hla support for such an extension. X underatand that Senator Percy has also written to you on this subject.

There have been signs that the Polish martial law authorities Bay eventually

permit the Polish people to enjoy some of the human rights denied them since last

Deceaber. However, the Pollen Government's announcement of Deceaber 13 Indicated

that when aartlal law la officially suspended on December 31, other "emergency meeauree" will be put In place that will continue official deprivation of certain human rlghte and facilitate rapid ralapoaltlon of aartlal law should the Polish

people seek to exercise their rlghta fully.

As you know, concern for human rights forma a significant component of overall

U.S. foreign policy. In particular, with raapect to the altuatlon In Poland, the

U.S. and Its Alllee have taken a number of concerted steps to convey to the Polish

authorities the serlouaness with which we view their continued denlalof rlghta to

the Polish people and our Inalatence that thaae rights be restoreo. imce tne declaratlon of aartlal law laat December, Polish nationals la the United States and

In Western Europe have not been deported to Poland. It Is estimated that some

200,000 Poles have been permitted to remain in Ueetero European countries. It may

be at leaet another six montha before the United Statea and other Western countries

will be able to aecertalo whether the Polish Coverament Is truly prepared to allow

the Polish people the exercise of their human rights.

For these reasons the Department requests that the preaent policy of not enforcing the departure of Polish nationals from the United States, which Is scheduled to

lapse on December 31, be extended for a six month period. I would be grateful If

thla request could receive your early attention.

Sincerely,

Kenneth W. Dam

Acting Secretary
120

ifi 0*1.si fr/s~

oonlaalgrant classification froa F-l to K-l retroactively authorized the alien's

Intervening eaployaent by the H-l eaployer, for purpoaes of INA S 2 <• li {c > - The INS

thereafter cautioned Ita field offices that the Tan decision was baaed on Its own

unique facta and set no precedent. See Interpreter Releases. Vol. 58, No. 32, August U, 1981, pp. 419-420; Vol. 58, No. 40, October 17, 1981, pp. 525-526.

Although requested to reconsider Ita position, the INS Central Office has adhered to Its prior view. In a vlre to all field offlcea dated Kirch 29, 19B2, file GO

245-P and 248-P, Associate Commissioner Andrew J. Caralchael, Jr. stated:

THIS REAFFIRMS SERVICE POLICY STATED IN CO TELEX OF 8/5/81 RE INS POSITION ON MATTER OF TAN (BIA 6-24-80). IT REMAINS SERVICE POLICY THAT EMPLOYMENT UNDERTAKEN PRIOR TO DECISION ON AN APPLICATION FOR CHANCE OF NONIMMICRANT STATUS UNDER SECTION 248 IS UNAUTHORIZED AND WOULD FALL UNDER

THE "UNAUTHORIZED EMPLOYMENT" PROVISION OF SECTION 245(C). SERVICE OFFICES ARE REMINDED THAT 8 CFR 248.1 DOES NOT ALLOW A DISTRICT DIRECTOR ;N ADJUDICATING A CHANCE OF NONIMMIGRANT STATUS APPLICATION TO EXCUSE ANY FAILURE TO MAINTAIN STATUS OTHER THAN OVERSTAY. EMPLOYMENT AUTHORIZATION FOR

THE BENEFICIARY OF AN H OR L PETITION WHO IS IN THE UNITED STATES TAKES

EFFECT ONLY ON THE DATE AW 1-506 APPLICATION IS APPROVED. REPEAT, EMPLOYMENT UNDERTAKEN PRIOR TO ACQUISITION OF THE APPROPRIATE NONIMMIGRANT CLASSIFICATION IS UNAUTHORIZED AND THE SERVICE HAS NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO APPLY

THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF SEC. 245(C) IN A SUBSEQUENT APPLICATION FOR

PERMANENT RESIDENCE.

3. INS Defers Enforced Departure of Polish Nationals to June 30, 1982

In an Interpreter Releases Bulletin dated December 29, 1981, p. 697a, we noted

that the INS had notified Its field offices not to enforce the departure of Polish

nationals in the U.S. until the situation In Poland is clarified. Implementing instructions were later Issued on January 21, 1982, precluding enforced departure before March 31, 1982. See Interpreter Releases, Vol. 59, No. 5, January 30, 1982,

pp. 85-86. The deadline has now been extended to June 30, 1982. A Department of

Justice press release dated March 26, 1982 states:

The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) announced today that

it has extended until June 30 Its policy of deferring enforced departure

of Polish nationals frost the United States.

Commissioner Alan C. Nelson said the action was based on a request froa

the Department of State that took into account current conditions In Poland. "~~ ~ " ' "

"We have extended the policy for a three-aonth period, at which tlae we

will request a further appralaal of the situation froa the Department of

State," Nelson said.

Under this policy, INS will not take action to enforce departure to

Poland of Polish nationals who Indicate an unwillingness to return there*

However, these provisions do not apply to Polish nationals willing to return to Poland; to Polish nationals who were residents of a third country;

or to those who have been convicted of crlalnal acts in the united

States.

INS field offlcea were Initially directed on Deceaber 23 not to enforce

•emarture to Poland because aartl il law was declared In that countrv. TW

pol / was due to expire on MAT<- V
121

/li'cAS^Z uO-r\

v.w«vA Rotw'ts CAIOT American Council

For Nationalities Service

20 Wesl 40th Si New York. NY. 10018

Vol. 56, No. 16 September 12. 1979

RECENT SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENTS

Enforced Departure of Reluctant Nicaraguans Stayed Regardless of Arrival Dace

Court Restores Haitian Refugees' Employment Authorization

Proposed Rule Would Require H-l Nurses to Pass CGFNS Exam

Extensions Authorized for Out-of-Status H-l Nurses

INS Designates Pilots as Immigration Officers

Regulations Amended on Translations and Fees from Abroad

Details on New Immigration Seminars

Enforced Departure of Reluctant Nlcaraguans Stayed Regardless of Arrival Date

In a wire to all field offices dated August 29, 1979, the INS has clarified Its

prior Instructions dated July 3, 1979 concerning the enforced departure of Nlcaraguan

nationals. The July 3 Instructions, with certain exceptions, stayed until December

31, 1979 the enforced departure of Nlcaraguans unwilling to return to Nicaragua "who

are In the United States as of June 27. 1979." (Underscoring in original)* This lmmedlately raised the question as to what should be done with respect to such Nlcaraguans who arrived here after June 27, 1979. That question is now answered in the

wire of August 29, 1979, which makes the stay applicable to reluctant Nlcaraguans

Irrespective of the date of arrival In the United States. The text of the August 29

wire la as follows:

BEJEK CO 243.109-P OF JULY 3, 1979 RE DEFERRED DEPARTURE FOR NICARAGUA.';

NATIONALS. THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE HAS RECOMMENDED AGAINST THE FORCIBLE

RETURN TO NICARAGUA OF ANY NICARAGUAN NATIONALS FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE

CALENDAR YEAR, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE DATE OF ARRIVAL IN THE UNITED STATES.

DUE TO THE UNSETTLED CONDITIONS IN NICARAGUA. ACCORDINGLY, THE INSTRUCTIONS

IN CO 243.109-P OF 7/3/79 WILL APPLY TO ALL NICARAGUAN NATIONALS IN THE

UNITED STATES RATHER THAN ONLY THOSE HERE AS OF JUNE 27, 1979. HOWEVER,

AS STATED IN CO 243.109-P OF 7/3/79 THE POLICY AGAINST FORCIBLE RETURN

SHALL NOT APPLY TO THOSE NICARAGUAN NATIONALS WHO HAVE NOT EVIDENCED AN UNWILLINGNESS TO RETURN TO NICARAGUA; TO NICARAGUANS WHO WERE RESIDENTS OF A

THIRD COUNTRY, OR HAVE BEEN CONVICTED OF CRIMINAL ACTS IN THE UNITED STATES.

AS PREVIOUSLY STATED, EMPLOYMENT AUTHORIZATION SHOULD BE CONDITIONED SOLELY

UPON ESTABLISHMENT OF APPROPRIATE NEED BY INDIVIDUAL ALIENS OF THIS CLASS.

* For the text of the July 3, 1979 Instructions, see Interpreter Releases Bulletin

dated July 5, 1979, pp. 325a-325b.

irjtfopRfTEB RELEASES * BwBHnsfl 50 t"»«e» a »w •nfwpOrtl on LCQ4lai-vt aam^s'-ai've antjmaoai 0*ve»otyflen<5 tJaMmgaJMni

S..D*,-'>C»<'V> "xh»w*fc AC-NS ?0 W *flm S> *e* *cf» N * lOO'S

EotO'.* woo-"** INTERPRETER RELEASES ioicv-* O'l.re 8'5 I5*r> Siref NW Sw-t* 509 W«h">Q<on OC

RIO»K til trp'oourt.an a"d 'cusii'tM-c <n&*tQ CWPVIM flW rt u S A t*> Amer-cat Cou^ci ttv Hauonthi-ei Service
122

g INTERPRETER RELEASES

"An lnform.it Ion Service on Immlgrat ion, Naturalization and Related Matters

American Council for Nationalities Service

20 Uest 60th Street, New York, N.Y. 10018

BULLETIN

Maurice A. Roberts July 5, 1979

Editor

Enforced Departure of Reluctant NlcaraRuans Stayed to December 31. 1979

In a wire to all field offices dated/July 3, 1979/(flle CO 243.109-P).

the INS has issued instructions that the enforced departure of Nlcaraguans

in the U.S. on June 27, 1979 and who indicate an unwillingness to return

to Nicaragua shall be stayed until December 31, 1979. An exception la made

(or those who were resldents of a third country or h*v» b»'»" cop"|ctftd of

criminal acts In the U.S. Wgrk_permlsslon Is authorizedfor those who establish^ appropriate need, the text of the instructions follows:

EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, THE FOLLOWING POLICY SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED

RELATIVE TO NICARAGUAN NATIONALS AMENABLE TO DEPORTATION OR EXCLUSION PROCEEDINGS, WHO ARE IN THE UNITED STATES AS OF JUNE 27,

1979. SERVICE ACTION SHALL NOT BE TAKEN TO ENFORCE DEPARTURE TO

NICARAGUA, PRIOR TO DECEMBER 31._L9.Z9.. OF NICARAGUAN NATIONALS WHO

ARE RESIDENTS OR FORMER RESIDENTS OF NICARACUA AND WHO INDICATE AN

UNWILLINGNESS TO RETURN TO THAT COUNTRY AT THE PRESENT TIME UNDER

THE j'NSTABLE CONDITIONS CURRENT1 V HqSTT'"' «"' EXTENSIONS OF

TEMPORARY STAY MAY BE GRANTED TO THOSE NON-IMMIGRANTS WHO QUALIFY

FOR SUCH EXTENSIONS. IF AN APPLICATION IS DENIED, THE NICARAGUAN

NATIONAL'S DEPARTURE SHALL NOT BE ENFORCED PRIOR TO DECEMBER 31, 1979.

NICARAGUAN NATIONALS WHO ARE LOCATED AS DEPORTABLE ALIENS WILL BE

CRANTED VOLUNTARY DEPARTURE UNTIL DECEMBER 31, 1979. nFPQRTATTOH

HEARINGS WILL BE PQSTPftNPl •""" ^FT• DECEMBER 31. 1979. FOR THOSE

WCARAGl'ANS FOB. WHOM OSC'S HAVE BEEN ISSUED AND HEARINCS HAVE

MOT COMMENCED. THOSE HEARING F0» NTCARAGI-AS NATTON*! SJJMlfTH HAVE

•^^rrn__;jTM_£nFnllUARn- HOWT.Vr.R. DEPARTURE SHAM. ffflT RF FUmRfED

PPT"° Tnnrrmnrn Tj j 1979. m THOSE CASES WHERE A FINAL ORDER OF

DEPORtATToiJ HAS BEEN ENTERED. DEPARTURE SHALL NOT BE ENFORCED PRIOR

TO DECEMBER 31. 1979.

THE FORECOINC PROVISIONS SHALL NOT APPLY TO THOSE NICARAGUAN NATIONALS WHO HAVE NOT EVIDENCED AN UNWILLINGNESS TO RETURN TO NICARACUA;

TO NICARACUANS WHO WERE RESIDENTS OF A THIRD COUNTRY; OR HAVE BEEN

CONVICTED OF CRIMINAL ACTS IN THE UNITED STATES. IN SUCH CASES, WHERE
123

-I • """WASHINGTON. V•' 2(1536 n<lt»:i 11

V Z?/^*'12 {jtC 1380

j -. '(JJ) FILE: CO 243.56-P

;; rrr-:.^-.--Hum j_ BRIEN. DETENTION AND EXPORTATION 633-3.135

x

secir uoooe) (P.OEXN). KE. s-tnHI:FJI PcrAKiojt roi! $AJQIAI£

MI<*iVXS. AS RrCCSIXnOl !"•' Til CLPARTTTNT CF STATE AflO

C.;:t:i:ru* in HI H«, MI AFCHAK NATIONALS CKiKLPTLY u: Tin. ur-'iTED

rrAi: tr PERSECUTION, SHOULD HE CHANTED EXTENDED VOLUNTARY

rf?APTllRK WD WORK AUTHORIZATION IN INCREMENTS Of ONE YEAP.. A

ALL R

ALL D

r

T

'T'.< EXCEPT THOSE HIO ty.vr ENCAGED ir: SLRIOUS CRIKINU. (X FORE

.•';!• IT!'. ?, SHOULD (T FOkT.ED TO P.rTUCt! TO AFGHANISTAN. THOSE

L ALL F

•M-!.-..::, '..110 APPLY TOR ASYLHK AND CAN ESTABLISH A '.TLI-rOUIiPFD FEAR (XFOREI

• i •;. V,-IION riiOHLi' r.i /-rawim ASYI n: T>:NM AI.ICHS WHO DO HOT

,'1'ItY i;:: A5YLIK PUT RESIST PETI'T.ING TO AmtAMSTAN r.rCAIISE OF

T.1 H;.!PIL PREVAILING IK THAT CCU.TSY RATHCP THAU El CAUSE (IF A

(*~> CUP* IJ" THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICY kEHO WILL FOLLOW. CENEO ALL

'.EC10N.S. HET1L ALL DISTRICTS (X FOREIGN), ALL FCO'S (X FOREIGN). ' V/t S"

C'IE''F
124

IMMIGRATION 1 NATURALIZATION

SERVICE

MSHUKTIM, D.C. 20536

FILE: CO 242.1-P

PRIORITY

12/4/78

'-•NCLASSIFIO

« DEC 87.

HUSH J. ERIC.". DOTATION I DEPORTATION 376-8457

EE^K CO 242.1-P of 7-1-76. THERE STILL IS NO BLANKET POLICY

TO GRANT EXTENDED VOLUNTARY DEPARTURE TO NATIONALS OF LEBANON

IN THE UNITED STATES WHO HAVL OVERSTATED. HOWEVER, THE CIVIL

STRIFE IN THAT COUNTRY CONTINUES AND THIS IS TO REAFFIRM THAT

ALL REGIONS

OFFICERS SHOULD, ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS. VIEW SYMPATHETICALLY

REQUESTS FOR EXTENDED VOLUNTARY DEPARTURE WHERE SUCH REQUESTS

ARE EASED UPON COMPaLING HUMANITARIAN NEED.

CODDP

. CC: Official file

\ rn 2/a M

\ Division log

C3?D=:JGTurnanc:s-1f 1N4-7?
125

». i^c. 't IC "«

. frr.*.J«ill1«'*'

A new provision not previously contained In the Interim rules Is the amendment

to 8 CFH 223.2, effective October 7, 1982, which permits the holder of an expired

reentry permit to retain It If it contains valid visas, entry stamps, or documents

necessary for entry into another country.

2. Change in Policy on Ethiopians Explained

In Interpreter Releases, Vol. 59, No. 26, July 9, 1982, p. 445, we noted that

there had been a change of position on the part of the State Department with respect to extended voluntary departure for Ethiopians. In Vol. 59, No. 27, July

U, 1982, pp. 456-457, we published the relating INS instructions wired to Its

field offices on July 12, 1982. One of our readers has sent us copies of relevant

rorrespondence between the Departments of State and Justice which help to explain

the factors underlying the change In position. We reprint pertinent excerpts.

In a letter to the Attorney Ceneral dated June 29, 1982, Deputy Secretary of

State Walter J. Stoessel, Jr. states:

This letter concerns the status of Ethiopians presently In the U.S. In

recent days the State Department has been monitoring the situation in

F.thlopla as it might possibly affect Che fate of persons forcibly returned

there from the U.S. There have been conflicting statements about returnee; bv Ethloplan_jif f UlnU whlrh pr^f^nT'T ~'« th»r * policy of caution is

advisable with respect to those who arrived prior to December 31, 19f9.

After careful consideration of this natter, we have cone to the conclusion that Ethiopians present in the U.S. on December 31, 1979, should not

be forcibly deported to Ethiopia. This date reflects the fact that by

late 1979 the Government of Ethiopia had Instituted a series of exit controls which made it likely that those who received passports and legally

left Ethiopia after December 31, 1979 were not under suspicion by the government. Those Individuals arriving after December 31, 1979, will, of

course, be entitled to apply for asylum, and these cases will always be

carefully reviewed. We have discussed this with Commissioner Nelson and

members of your immediate staff who agree with this change In policy.

I would, therefore, appreciate It If you would Instruct INS to implement this policy.

On August 16, 1982, the Attorney Ceneral responded:

Thank you for your letter of June 29, 1982, concerning the status of

Ethiopian nationals presently In the United States.

As you know, In view of your statements regarding the uncertain fate of

Ethiopian nationals returned to Ethiopia who arrived in the United States

prior co 1960, Commissioner Nelson of the Immigration and Naturalization

Service has notified his Regional Commissioners that action should not be

taken co enforce departure Co Ethiopia of Ethiopian nationals who Indicate

an unwillingness to return there at present. Those Ethiopian nationals

arriving after June 30, 1980 will be processed on a case-by-case basis under current procedures*

34-285 0-84-9
126

INTERPRETER RELEASES An information se'v.ce on immigration, naturalization and rotated matters

American Council

For Nationalities Service

20 WMt «0n> Sl. N«« Tbrk. N Y 10011

Vol. 59, Ho. 27 July 14, 1982

RECENT SIGNIFICANT DEVILOPMENTS

1. tNS Issues Instruction! on Extended Voluntary Departure for Ethlopl*.is

2. INS Publishes lnterla Rule on Detention of Applicants for Admission

3. Proposed Rule on Aliens Accompanying Entertainers Published

a. Few Changes In Visa Numbers for August

5. Correction Notices

1. INS Issues Instructions on Extended Voluntary Depart .» for Ethiopians

In Interpreter Releaaes. Vol. 59. No. 26, July 9, 1982, p. 4*5, ue noted that

the State Department has reconsidered Its position on conditions In Ethiopia. Ue

stated that the State Department wrote the Department of Justice that Ethiopians

here since before January 1, 1980 should be allowed to remain. On July 12, 1982,

the IKS Central Office wired Instructions to Its field offices which we quote Immediately below (reference CO 20.79-p). It should be noted that the January 1, 1980

date has been changed and the Instructions refer to Ethiopian nationals who were in

the U.S. as of June JO. 1980.

EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, TOE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UPON RECOMMENDATION 0T

THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WILL IMPLEMENT THE FOLLOWING POLICY RELATIVE TO

ETHIOPIAN NATIONALS AMENABLE TO DEPORTATION OR EXCLUSION PROCEEDINGS, WHO

WERE IN THE UNITED STATES AS OF JUKE >0, 1980.

SERVICE ACTION SMALL NOT BE TAKEN TO ENFORCE DEPARTURE TO ETHIOPIA OF

ETHIOPIAN NATIONALS WHO ARE RESIDENTS OR FORMER RESIDENTS OF ETHIOPIA AND

WHO INDICATE AN UNWILLINGNESS TO RETURN TO ETHIOPIA AT TOE PRESENT TIME

UNJER THE ClRCfMSTANCt-S CimRENTLY PREVAILING THERE. EXTENSIONS OF TEMPORARY STAY MAY 8E GRANTED TO THOSE NONIMMIGRANTS WHO QUALIFY FOR SUCH EXTENSIONS. IF AN APPLICATION IS DENIED, THE ETHIOPIAN NATIONAL'S DEPARTURE

SHALL NOT 8E ENFORCED. ETHIOPIAN NATIONALS WHO ARE LOCATED AS OEPORTABU'

ALIENS WILL BE PERMITTED TO REMAIN. VOLUNTARY DEPARTURE MAY BE GRANTED IN

INCREMENTS OF ONE YEAR. SUBJECT TO REVOCATION.

DEPORTATION HEARINGS WILL 8E POSTPONED FOR THOSE ETHIOPIAN NATIONALS FOR

WHOM OSC'S HAVE BEEN ISSUED AND HEARINGS HAVE NOT COMMENCED. THOSE HEARINGS FOR ETHIOPIAN NATIONALS WHICH HAVE COMMENCED SHALL GO FORWARD: HOWEVER, DEPARTURE SHALL NOT BE ENFORCED. IN THOSE CASES WHERE A FINAL ORDER

OF DEPORTATION HAS BEEN ENTERED, DEPARTURE SHALL NOT BE ENFORCED. APPLICATIONS FOR ASYLUM UNDER 8 CFR 108 SHALL BE PROCESSED ROUTINELY.
127

APPENDIX III , . ,_ (I

Blanket voluntary departure for Ethiopians 2 6AUG 1981

00 243.79-p

Regional Cconlssloner (POEHF) i Doris M. Melssner

Western Region Southern Region Acting Oovnissloner

Northern Region Eastern Region

The attached latter fron the Deputy Secretary of State Indicates that the

automatic grant of voluntary departure to nationals of Ethiopia can no

longer be justified. Accordingly, all previous policy statements concerning

blanket grant of voluntary departure to natlonala of Ethiopia axe rescinded.

The attached letter and a copy of this memorandum should be dlaaealnated

to all field offlcee and ehall be utilized as guidance In handling requeats

for voluntary departure on a caae-by-case basis.

The Department of State* has further advised me that a decision concerning

blanket grants of voluntary departure for nationals of Uganda la still

pending. I will advlae you of Department of State's racoonsndatIon In

this natter when received.

Attachment faM?"**0

sat********************************* ....,..<

"ffl o*|;;,t0sA9=tf»'!» or STATE

WASHINGTON

August 6, 1981

Deer Ks. Niissner:

Since Ethiopia's revolution took p]»ce in 1974 the

Department of State has been recommending to the INS that

Ethiopians in the U.S. vho can demonstrate a veil-founded

fear of persecution be granted political asylum, and that

because of unsettled conditions_in_Ethiopia, Ethiopians whose

asy^i:^ »pp1?,rflt IP"' u>r> t)Q» ..ppi-nvfd nhnnld not., be deported

to Ethiopia >ut should be allowed to remain here temporarily

tp voluntarvdcpai ture status ana should be pefj«'tt.fi to wnrk".

This positTolni'rf-- iPArrirmfrd to the INS most recently in a "

July 18. 19B0 letter froa the Coordinator for Refugee Affairs

(attached).
12£

6Ar*

26ALS E»i

x,.mes+~. ftmr*. vf vy-zt^KSj AmpmrtMZm to smt-Tm' m of rti^^Ix K* nr1 ••*•*.

«w «I»L«I»< UKVmr aad • oooy of t>-l« •ot^cAa a?<o--ls mm i

c« «Ji ftaif o;;wn «r«: ax*:i o» V.::TK mm T~'-

tm mmlmmtmrf *i«rT »'• •» • •• lij •• mmmtm.

m !»lkl aeVioof mm Uxt * Torfiij* ••a

fcaajsfcof ff•f of wlwStfy aaeartcx* for ojt'ffr*'» of "i7«*i

J

a la rtili

t*-x.u*i I «i:i •*»:»» »«. of teoutae: of SUM't m a••lm la

T>01 otgj\C iffr-iS*-** or n«t

Aogost f. l»ll

Desr Kz. Ksi*%nez:

Since Ethiopia1* revolution took place in 1974 the

Department of State has been recore».-i<!ir>g to the IMS that

Ethiopian* in the U.f. who can deaonstrate a veil-founded

fear of persecution be granted political asyltn, and that

becaute of unsettled condition* in Ethiopia, Ethi'o-iar.s vhose

'zll\-- *pr'l>F»'•&•*•* v"

e

.

r

"?* ajjESSsl '^'-•llii riTV fa? dtasrtcd

•Ji. ii^v.^iiA- X- •" ?.'->Jld be allowed to rezeir. here teaporarily

in vojjmta rv_dtpa11ure status arid s?.ould be Bn^iTiff! m wn-jr"

T>.,\ fo-.it ion u-^T-rrsrrnnpa To the IMS siost recently in a

July la. 1»»0 letter frost the Coordinator for Refugee Affairs

(attached).
129

AS indicated by the Department's most recent report on

human rights conditions in Ethiopia (attached), we continue

to believe that there may be Ethiopian asylum applicants in

the U.S.--as well as Ethiopian applicants elsewhere in the

wor!d--who can demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution

if they were to return home. These applicants should continue

to be granted asylum or refugee status, as the case may be.

However, conditions in Ethiopia ha.-e stabilized to the

point that the automatic giant of voluntary departure status

to unsuccessful asylum applicants can no longer be justified.

Moreover, no Ethiopian today is allowed to leave Ethiopia

without political clearance from the government, and in-

' creasing numbers of Ethiopians are taxing advantage of automatic voluntary departure to remain and work indefinitely in

)thc United States without having met the criteria either for

immigration or for asylum.

Doris Keissncr

Acting Commissioner,

Irjt,igiation and Natur/il i7ation Service,

425 "1" Street, N. w.,

Washington, D. C.

- 2 -

The Department therefore recommends that the IMS continue

to grant asylum to Ethiopians in the U.S. who can demonstrate

• well-founded fear of persecution, but to cease granting

voluntary departure status to asylum applicants'whose applications are not accepted--that is, to treat Ethiopian asylum

applicants the same as those from almost all other countries

in the world. For those Ethiopians who are currently in

voluntary departure status, we suggest that such designations

be allowed to expire on their own.

We are, of couise, r.till pii-paicd to offer our views

with respect to *ny individual flrylua application.

Sincerely,

Attachments: William P. Clark

1. Palmieri/Crosland Letter dated July IB, 1980

2. tinman Rights Report - Eth<np;i»
130

STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION

Mr. Chairman, HR 4447 is a modest device for accomplishing a limited but essential humanitarian purpose. The American Civil Liberties Union urges that the bill

be promptly reported with a favorable recommendation.

The American Civil Liberties Union is a nonpartisan organization of over 250,000

members dedicated to defending the Bill of Rights. Its concern with the undocumented Salvadoran population in the United States is threefold. An "underground"

population of persons, which is above all else afraid of apprehension and deportation and is consequently docile and exploitable, poses significant obstacles to the

rule of law and the rights and liberties which that guarantees. A victim population

in our midst does not augur well for the liberties of denizens who transact with or

share communities with the undocumented aliens. The ACLU is also concerned

about the discriminatory application of legal standards on the basis of extraneous

considerations. This, we fear, breeds contempt for the rule of law and violates the

humanitarian traditions of our nation. Finally, we remain concerned about the consequences for the right to life of persons who might be deported to El Salvador.

El Salvador is, by all accounts, wracked by a civil war characterized by a startling

degree of danger and brutality. The principal victims of this civil war are innocent

civilians. Estimates of the numbers of civilians killed in this war range from 30,000

to 40,000. The significance of this figure can only be appreciated if one recalls that

the total population of El Salvador numbers fewer than 5 million, and that the geographical size of El Salvador is roughly equivalent to that of the state of Maryland.

One and a quarter million Salvadorans, a quarter of that country's population,

have been compelled to flee their homes. 300,000 to 500,000 are in the United States.

The vast majority of these have entered without inspection. The figures on the disposition of the asylum applications of Salvadorans suggest that, whether for reasons

of discrimination or sheer ineligiblity for asylum, most will not qualify for relief

from deportation on a case by case basis. Nevertheless, the extreme dangers and

hardships faced by these people if they are returned to El Salvador, induce in them

an intense fear of deportation. They therefore manifest the same characteristics of

docility, exploitability and unwillingness to cooperate with legal authority as the

undocumented population in general, but to a greater degree, as would be expected

given the particularly extreme nature of the hardship faced by them upon their

return.

Without an increase in the enforcement activities of the I.N.S. against Salvadoran

nationals in particular, the vast majority of this population will remain in the

United States. The return to El Salvador of those who are accidentally caught up in

I.N.S. enforcement has not had and will not have a significant effect on the size of

this population. However, the in terrorem effect of such selective deportation has

extended and will extend to the entire deportable population. This will produce precisely the "underclass" which U.S. immigration policy seeks to avoid.

Furthermore, although a policy of continuing deportations has had a neglible

effect on the extent and composition of the undocumented Salvadoran population, it

does of course constitute an extreme danger to the lives of those few who are caught

up in I.N.S. enforcement and subsequently deported.

It is for this reason that the American Civil Liberties Union believes that a temporary moratorium on the deportation of Salvadorans to El Salvador will in fact significantly advance some of the fundamental purposes of U.S. immigration policy.

Such a moratorium would also maintain the reputation of the United States for

flexible humanitarian policies.

It has been a customary practise of successive U.S. administrations, under similar

circumstances involving other nationalities, to temporarily cease enforcing the departure of otherwise deportable aliens. Such protection is presently enjoyed by nationals of Lebanon, Afghanistan, Ethiopia and Poland. "Extended voluntary departure", as it is known, is a temporary humanitarian device which confers no permanent benefits. It does not vitiate the deportability of particular aliens. It has, in the

past, been terminated when conditions in the country at issue permit a safe return.

It is not difficult to surmise the rationale for such a humanitarian practise. The

United States clearly has the sovereign power to determine what aliens may remain

in the United States. This power carries with it the corollary power to remove persons who do not qualify to remain. However, we are also, as a society, deeply attached to the value of the individual human life. We therefore temporarily decline

to deport even concededly deportable persons to circumstances where their deportation is highly likely to result in death or severe injury.

This is consistent with the limited resources available for enforcement of the immigration laws and with the reality that these resources, unequal as they are to the
131

total task, must be targeted so as to reflect proper national priorities. The Imigration and Naturalization Service has enough work on its hands without the additional burden of apprehending and returning aliens to such mortal danger.

It must be emphasized at the outset that both the fundamental purposes and the

operation of a policy of temporary relief from deportation are quite distinct from

the purposes and operation of the Refugee Act of 1980. That Act has as its fundamental purpose the determination of who will qualify to reside in the United States

on account of a fear of persecution in their countries. Temporary relief from deportation, by contrast, assumes the absence of such eligibility and entails no assumptions about the political, religious, racial, ethnic or social bases of a fear of returning.

Curiously, the administration has seen fit to deny the viability of this approach in

the context of a policy towards putatively depot-table Salvadorans. The United

States is now the only country in North or Central America which has a policy of

systematically deporting Salvadorans. This policy has been articulated and vigorously adhered to in the face of an impressive degree of consensus that Salvadorans in

the United States merit temporary protection from deportation.

In Public Law 98-164, the current State Department Authorization legislation

[Section 1012 (a)], the Congress finds that "ongoing fighting between the military

forces of the Government of El Salvador and opposition forces is creating potentially

life threatening situations for innocent nationals of El Salvador", and that "currently the United States government is detaining these nationals of El Salvador for the

purpose of deporting or otherwise returning then to El Salvador, thereby irreparably harming the foreign policy image of the United States." Earlier expressions of

Congressional concern include the passage by the House in late 1981 of HJ Res 126,

expressing the sense of the House that the Secretary of State should recommend

that Salvadorans be accorded the protection of extended voluntary departure.

The unequivocal language of the State Department Authorization is the capstone

of a sustained series of public and Congressional expressions of support for extended

voluntary departure.

HR 4447 is necessitated by the continuing refusal of the administration to acknowledge that compelling humanitarian factors militate in favor of such action.

Congress must act in order to uphold our fundamental national commitment to the

sanctity of human life.

It is axiomatic that the power of Congress over immigration matters is plenary.

There can therefore be no doubt that Congress has the power to act in this matter.

Indeed, the administration's exercise of its discretion to grant extended voluntary

departure to certain nationalities in the United States has clearly been the exercise

of powers delegated by Congress in the Immigration and Nationality Act. In approving HR 4447 Congress would indicate its disapproval of the discriminatory exercise

of those delegated powers.

We append to this statement a carefully documented report which we request be

made a part of the record. This report presents a copious body of information which

suggests that conditions in El Salvador are such as to render the return of Salvadorans to that country unconscionable. The report also addresses in detail the arguments advanced by the administration in declining to grant Salvadorans this protection. We believe that this presents a compelling case in favor of a temporary moratorium on the deportation of Salvadorans to El Salvador such as is provided by HR

4447.

There can be no doubt that conditions in El Salvador pose a high degree of danger

to civilians. We believe that this conclusion is inevitable regardless of how one ascribes responsibility for the violence in El Salvador. Whether the "death squads"

are or are not the only problem, whether they are or are not controlled by the government, whether or not the government has the capacity or willingness to control

them, and whether the violence is predominantly perpetrated by leftists, rightists or

the government, it is indisputable that civilians are in serious danger in El Salvador

regardless of their political sympathies.

We emphasize that the relief accorded by this legislation is temporary in nature.

The bill provides expressly for studies to establish whether such relief is indeed necessary. It also provides for Congressional reconsideration of such relief in light of

the information which is produced by such studies. This is an extremely modest approach. Without implying a permanent judgment, it calls in substance for immediate action to curtail an injury which is highly likely to occur.

Information is available on the conditions of displaced persons in El Salvador and

on the conditions of Salvadorans in other countries. A copious amount of such information is documented in the report appended hereto. However, the nature and significance of such information is subject to serious disagreement between the admin-
132

istration and those, including Congress, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Council of Churches, the U.S. Catholic Conference and many others, who

have considered it appropriate that Salvadorans be temporarily protected from deportation. The studies of these questions called for by HR 4447 will encourage the

administration to synthesize and systematically provide presently available information to Congress. They will also encourage the investigation of relevant factual matters which are unknown or unclear. This will ensure that both Congressional and

administrative decisions are informed by a consistent body of information.

HR 4447 also calls for a study of the fates of persons returned to El Salvador. We

do not believe that it is germane to the decision at hand whether, under the extremely difficult conditions for investigation in El Salvador, specific instances can

be identified of the death or disappearance of persons returned to El Salvador. Certainly, this degree of proof has never formed the basis of past decisions to temporarily suspend the deportation of members of other nationalities. When conditions in a

particular country are such as to severely endanger all civilians, it is reasonable to

conclude that persons returned to that country will be equally endangered. This is a

sufficient basis for temporarily suspending the deportation of persons to that country.

Statements accompanying the grant of extended voluntary departure to other nationalities in the past indicate quite clearly that the relevant consideration in these

kinds of situations has been the fear arising from general conditions of war and disorder. In view of the temporary nature of the relief at issue, it is not reasonable to

expect information about particular cases, which can only be gathered with the expenditure of considerable time and effort. Indeed, given the premise of civil war and

social breakdown which lies behind such relief, it seems inherently unlikely that

such information can be gathered.

However, despite these difficulties, cases of this kind have been identified through

random monitoring of the public record. These are documented at Appendix III of

the report which is appended to this statement. The American Civil Liberties Union

is now engaged in as methodologically precise a study as possible of exactly this

issue.

Nevertheless, it is clear that a private group such as ours has neither the resources nor the access to sources of information to promptly arrive at reliable conclusions. Since the administration has made an issue of this question, and since the

U.S. government is, through the embassy in San Salvador, best suited to such a

task, it is only fair that the administration be asked to conduct such a study. It is

worth noting that such a study is precisely what is recommended in a September

1983 staff report of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Refugee

Policy entitled Refugee Problems in Central America.

The administration's approach to the necessity for such a study has been inconsistent, as has its approach to the requirements of a reliable study. It is frequently

alleged that the Department of State has provided the I.N.S. with information that

no individual has been returned to subsequently suffer death or other extreme

harm. This conclusion has been arrived at by way of a half hearted investigation of

an extremely small number of arbitrarily chosen cases. Clearly the likelihood of

finding evidence of something depends on how carefully one is willing to look for it.

While continuing to make an issue of the fate of persons returned to El Salvador,

and while continuing to allege that no evidence has been found of danger to returned Salvadorans, the administration seems also to believe that a truly reliable

study is infeasible. Assistant Secretary of State Elliot Abrams stated recently in an

interview with the Washington Monthly (February 1984) that, "Given the pressures

on the embassy, all the things it has to do, it's a question of how much time they

should spend on something we think is ridiculous."

If the administration is to continue to make an issue of the lack of proof of danger

to individual Salvadorans who have been returned, it is fitting that it should reach

conclusions on the basis of a sufficient investigation. HR 4447 does no more than to

ask that such information be presented to Congress so that it may make an assesment of whether this reason of the administration's for declining to temporarily

protect Salvadorans from deportation to El Salvador is either meritorious or relevant.

A careful reading of the administration's conclusions about the danger faced by

persons returned from the U.S. to El Salvador indicates that these conclusions

relate to a narrower issue than that posed by HR 4447. The Department of State

concludes only that there is no evidence that returned individuals have been persecuted specifically because they left the country and then returned. That a person

has not been persecuted specifically for the act of leaving El Salvador suggests nothing about whether these persons are, as a group, subject to danger for other reasons.
133

Indeed, if a study were to indicate that these persons have, as a group, been subject to exceptional dangers of persecution over and above the general danger of violence faced by all civilians in El Salvador, they would then qualify for asylum. That

in turn is, as we argue above and below, a quite distinct issue from that of whether

all persons who are returned face an intolerable degree of danger. This last is all

that is relevant to determining the propriety of the relief provided by HR 4447.

The conditions to which Salvadorans would be returned if they were deported to

El Salvador are, as is suggested by the figures on non-combatant deaths, quite appalling. The legal aid office of the Archdiocese of San Salvador, Tutela Legal, reports an increase in willful violence in the last six months of 1983 over the first six

months of the same year. Such willful violence is frequently also random and arbitrary, and as such reflects what the Commander of the U.S. military group in El

Salvador has called an "ambience" of violence. Salvadorans in the United States

who are afraid of such generalized violence are routinely denied asylum by the

I.N.S. and by immigration judges on the grounds that their fear of returning is not

specifically related to personal political factors.

The pervasive violence which characterizes life in El Salvador today may be appreciated by reference to selected statistics. According to the latest estimates provided by the Department of State in its Country Reports on the World Refugee Situation for Fiscal Year 1984, approximately 10 percent of the total population of El Salvador has been displaced within the country. A further 15 percent has left El Salvador.

Persons who return to El Salvador from the United States have a higher likelihood than average of spending some time as members of the displaced population,

since they will at least have to make the difficult and dangerous way back to their

home villages or towns. They will generally have to do so without benefit of current

identification documents, a factor which frequently gives rise to a suspicion by the

Salvadoran security forces of subversive intent.

The information presented in the report which is appended hereto suggests that

displaced persons in El Salvador are extremely vulnerable to violence, even when

they are fortunate enough to belong to the small group which is able to shelter in

facilities run by churches and voluntary agencies. No more than a half of the displaced population of El Salvador is cared for in this manner. The public record is

also replete with instances of the harrassment and even imprisonment of religious

and other humanitarian workers who attempt to care for them. Recent cases in

point are the abduction and torture of Lutheran workers Dr. Ibarra, Rev. Gomez

and Ramon Grande Garcia, and of Catholic workers Dinora Rodriquez de Coto,

Roxana Guadalupe Funes and Marcos Antonio Coto Vega. Public record information

also suggests that the nutritional and health conditions of displaced persons in El

Salvador are appalling.

Those who are able to accomplish the difficult task of successfully running the

gauntlet of civil war to escape to contiguous countries continue to experience hardship and danger in those countries. The Honduran security forces presume their

sympathy with the Salvadoran insurgents across the border, and act accordingly.

These continue to be reports of abduction by Salvadoran military or paramilitary

forces of Salvadorans in Honduras. Some instances have been documented of collusion between Salvadoran forces and Honduran forces. Since the Honduran military

guards the refugee camps in which Salvadorans are restricted, this pattern suggests

extreme cause for concern.

Its preliminary discussions of the relevant immigration policy considerations indicate that the administration has misconceived the purposes and rationale of the

temporary relief provided by HR 4447. The administration has repeatedly pointed to

the availability of case by case review of asylum claims. It has suggested that a nationality specific device such as is provided by HR 4447 was rejected by Congress

when it adopted the comprehensive approach of the Refugee Act.

As we have noted, the purposes of the Refugee Act and those of a temporary

device such as this are quite distinct. The Refugee Act provides for the admission of

persons who have a well founded fear of peisecution on account of certain specified

factors. When Congress passed the Refugee Act it was aware of the simultaneous

and parallel existence of the practise of extended voluntary departure. While the

legislative history of the Refugee Act indicates that Congress did wish to end the

use of the parole power to permanently admit refugees from outside the United

States, it indicates no intent to discontinue the practice of temporary suspension of

deportation of specific nationalities for exigent humanitarian purposes. This is corroborated by the administration's own continued use, since passage of the Refugee

Act, of "extended voluntary departure" to benefit, among others, nationals of Lebanon, Afghanistan, Ethiopia and Poland. Of course, such a practice must by defini-
134

tion be nationality specific, since it depends upon an assessment of the advisability

of returning persons to a particular national situation of civil war.

Furthermore, it is clear that not all Salvadorans will qualify for asylum under the

narrower grounds of eligibility for that relief. This does not detract from the very

real dangers which will nevertheless await them upon their return to El Salvador.

Nor is it desirable that they be encouraged to apply for asylum in order to protect

themselves from deportation. The asylum adjudications system is seriously backlogged. It is practical to remove inducements to ineligible persons to use the asylum

process to protect themselves from deportation, particularly when the compelling

nature of their fear of deportation suggests that they will use any available device.

It should also be noted that asylum, which can lead to permanent residence one

year after it is granted, is a less flexible expedient than is the temporary relief from

deportation provided by HR 4447. Not only do many Salvadorans not qualify for

asylum, but many have no interest in remaining in the United States except for

temporary protection. Indeed, the enjoyment of such temporary protection would encourage persons to make themselves known to the authorities, thereby facilitating

the enforcement of their departure when conditions in their country improve sufficiently to make that appropriate.

That the administration presently has the authority to grant Salvadorans the

temporary relief provided by HR 4447 is indicated by its own use of this authority to

benefit deportable aliens of other nationalities. Such authority is derived from Sections 103, 242 and 244 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended. Congress is called upon to act in this instance only because it is clear that the administration has refused to exercise its authority to benefit the Salvadorans. Congressional intervention is necessary to rectify discrimination in the administration of our

immigration laws and to ensure that the national honor is not disgraced by the

plainly inhumane practice of sending people back to the kind of terror and danger

which characterize life in El Salvador today.

We have witnessed in the last few years the spectacle of respectable, law abiding

U.S. citizens violating the law because of their perception of duty to a higher moral

and humanitarian imperative. The existence of "sanctuary" churches for the benefit

of Salvadorans seeking safe haven indicates the extent to which failure to act on

compelling humanitarian claims will continue to breed disrespect for the laws. The

combined effect of this and of the deleterious consequences of the existence of a

large "underclass" of Salvadorans in our midst suggests that HR 4447 offers an opportunity to do well by doing good; to serve the national interest while maintaining

our proud humanitarian traditions.

HR 4447 accomplishes its essential humanitarian and pragmatic purposes in the

most modest manner. It requires no longer term commitments. It contains a sunset

provision. It requires that the already substantial premises upon which it is based

be studied and corroborated in a joint effort of the administration and the Congress.

The three year period of protection from deportation constitutes a maximum. The

administration is at liberty to act sooner than absolutely required in submitting its

studies. The Congress may choose to hold hearings earlier than the outside limit of

two years which is provided, and it may at that time reconsider the issue in the

light of new information. The terms of the legislation would allow for reconsideration as soon as the administration completes its studies and the Congress decides to

act again.

The American Civil Liberties Union urges prompt favorable action on HR 4447.

Selected statistics on Salvadorans in the United States, Salvadorans returned to El

Salvador

(Compiled from figures released by the US. Immigration and Naturalization Service]

Fiscal year 1983:

Persons returned under final orders of deportation 3,175

Persons otherwise required to depart 1,627

Total for fiscal year 1983 4,802

Fiscal year 1982:

Persons returned under final orders of deportation 2,118

Persons otherwise required to depart 3,454

Total for fiscal year 1982 5,572
135

Asylum applications ofSalvadorans

Fiscal year 1984 as of January 1984:

Asylum applications denied 2,951

Asylum applications granted 83

Fiscal year 1983:

Asylum applications denied 2,914

Asylum applications granted 71

Salvadoran asylum applications pending as of January 1984: 11,965.

[Base estimate of total Salvadoran population in the U.S.: between 300,000 and

500,000.]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL, USA

The United States section of Amnesty International appreciates this opportunity

to present written testimony before the Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees

and International Law of the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives on the question of immigration policy towards Salvadoran refugees.

This statement addresses the question of U.S. refugee policy towards Salvadoran

nationals and more specifically provides support for the principles embodied in

House Resolution 4447 which would allow for the temporary suspension of deportation of Salvadoran refugees from the United States.

Amnesty International is a worldwide human rights movement which works impartially for the release of prisoners of conscience, men and women detained anywhere for their beliefs, color, ethnic origin, sex, religion or language, provided they

have neither used nor advocated violence. Amnesty International opposes torture

and the death penalty in all cases without reservation and advocates fair and

prompt trials for all political prisoners. Amnesty International is independent of all

governments, political factions, ideologies, economic interests and religious creeds. It

has consultative status with the United Nations (ECOSOC), UNESCO and the Council of Europe, has cooperative relations with the Organization of African Unity

(Bureau for the Placement and Education of African Refugees). Amnesty International was the recipient of the 1977 Nobel Prize for Peace.

Since its inception in 1961, Amnesty International has repeatedly expressed concern for the plight of refugees. This concern stems from the provision in its Statute

requiring it to assist persons "who might reasonably be expected to become Prisoners of Conscience ... if they were to return to their own countries." Amnesty International believes that refugee status and asylum should be granted to such persons

and that "in no circumstances" should any persons be expelled or extradited to any

country "if there are reasonable grounds to fear that they would be executed or

summarily killed or tortured and imprisoned for reasons of conscience, or face other

cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

It was within this restricted mandate of concern for actual and potential prisoners

of conscience that Amnesty International testified in hearings preparatory to passage of the U.S. Refugee Act of 1980.

Amnesty International maintains that the following principles should guide refugee law and asylum practice. First, no one should be returned to a country where he

or she faces the risk of persecution. Second, refugees from all different countries are

essentially equal; thus, all refugees should be accepted on the basis of humanitarian

need and not political expediency. In this regard, each person requesting refugee

status, regardless of country of origin, should be given equal opportunity to present

his or her own case and a fair hearing of that case. This requires that refugees have

access to attorneys and or community groups who can assist them in understanding

the legal and social situation and the rights and expectations which are legitimately

theirs, and who may assist them in presenting their case in the most favorable

manner. And third, that U.S. law with regard to refugees and asylum should be consistent with international standards for the protection of refugees.

Amnesty International has a continuing concern that guidelines and procedures

implementing the 1980 legislation do not contradict or undermine these principles.

Further, we are concerned that there be no erosion of acceptance of the international definition of refugee as incorporated into the Refugee Act of 1980.

In recent years, Amnesty International has expressed concern regarding recent

practices and proposals by the U.S. Government which call into question the continuing acceptance and implementation of these principles.

In addition to monitoring the formulations of U.S. Government policies and the

implementation of existing policies that relate to Amnesty International's refugee
128

APPENDIX III e I ,1 01

•op

Blanket voluntary departure for Ethiopian! 26AUG 1981

OO 243.79-p

ftegional CcarJ as loner (ROENF) i Doris H. Helesner

Weatern fiogion Southern Region Acting Ocanlsaloner

Northern Region Eastern Region

The attachad letter from the Deputy Secretary of State Indiaatee that the

automatic grant of voluntary departure to national* of Ethiopia can no

longer be justified. Accordingly, all prevloua policy statement* concerning

blanXet grant of voluntary departure to national* of Ethiopia are rescinded.

The attached letter and a copy of this memorandum ehould be dlaaemlnated

to all field office* and ahall be utilised aa guidance In handling request*

for voluntary departure on a caae-by-caae baela.

The Department of State ha* further edvlsed me that a decision concerning

blanXet grant* of voluntary departure for national* of Uganda la •till

pending. I will advise you of Department of State's reocosaendatlon 1A

thle natter when received.

Attachaent

ft*M**********************************************

ISA °M&10sft9iO*nr OF STAT£

WASHING'. ON

August 8, 1981

Desr K=. Ksissner:

Since Ethiopia's revolution took place in 1974 the

Department of State has been recommending to the INS that

Ethiopians in the U.S. who can demonstrate a well-founded

fear of persecution be granted political asylum, and that

because of unsettled conditions in Ethiopia. EthrSpTanT"whose

asylum ^nnlirations u»r> i)Pf Aprr^•.< rhnnld not be deported

S EOljjoFift. but shqu_ldbe_al lowed to rercain here temporarily

tn^oluntarvdcpai ture status and sf.ould" be peep'"p-il tn ""_rfr"

T*11* positTorTTMs rratlirmed to the INs most recently in a

July la. 1980 letter from the Coordinator for Refugee Affairs

(attached).
129

As indicated by the Department's most recent report on

human rights conditions in Ethiopia (attached), we continue

to believe that there may be Ethiopian asylum applicants in

the U.S.--as well as Ethiopian applicants elsewhere ir. the

world--who can demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution

if they were to return home. These applicants should continue

to be granted asylum or refugee status, as the case nay be.

However, conditions in Ethiopia ha*c stabilized to the

point that the automatic giant of voluntary departure status

to unsuccessful asylum applicants can no longer be justified.

Moreover, no Ethiopian today is allowed to le«ve Ethiopia

, without political clearance from the government, and inv£ /" creasing numbers of Ethiopians arc taking advantage of auto-

* Somatic voluntary departure to remain and work indefinitely in

>6 ythe United States without having met the criteria cither for

•\ (immigration or for asylum.

Ms. Doris Keissner

Acting Commissioner.

imfliigictinn and Naturalization Service,

425 "1" Street, N. w.,

Washington, D. C.

The Department therefore recommends that the INS continue

to grant asylum to Ethiopians in the U.S. who can demonstrate

• well-founded fear of persecution, but to cease granting

voluntary departure status to asylum applicants-whose applications are not accepted--that is, to treat Ethiopian asylum

applicants the same as those from almost all other countries

in the world. For those Ethiopians who are currently in

voluntary departure status, we suggest that such designations

be allowed to expire on their own.

We are. of couisc, still pu-pucd to offer our views

with respect to any individual o-ylua application.

Sincerely,

Attachments: William p. clarX

1. Palmieri/Crosland Letter dated July 18. 1980

2. Human Rights Report - Ethiop-'?
138

their home country and elsewhere in the hemisphere. Importantly, pending the outcome of this White House study, the bill temporarily suspends the deportation of

Salvadorans currently in the United States, an action which has been advocated by

our churches for many months.

There are few aspects of the turmoil and violence in Central America which

evoke more concern among churches than what is happening to the people of that

region. An estimated twenty percent of the Salvadoran population alone has been

displaced in the past few years, both inside and outside the country. Recent reports

by churches, human rights groups, and the State Department have indicated that

the conditions which the displaced face•both with respect to their physical needs

and their safety•are among the most compelling in the world. These conditions

must be examined and appropriate responses devised.

It is in this light that our religious commitment to the care of the homeless and

the protection of the needy leads us to ask for your support for H.R. 4447 as an

imperative first step in dealing with the situation of Salvadorans here and elsewhere in the hemisphere.

Thank you for the consideration of our concerns.

Sincerely,

BISHOP PHILIP R. COUSIN,

Ninth Episcopal District, African Methodist Episcopal Church,

President, National Council of Churches.

THE MOST REV. JOHN M. ALLIN.

Presiding Bishop, The Episcopal Church, USA, Chairman,

The Presiding Bishops Fund for World Relief.

BISHOP ANTHONY BEVILAOQUA,

Bishop, Diocese of Pittsburgh, Chairman, Ad Hoc Committee on

Migration and Tourism, United States Catholic Conference.

REV. DR. CHARLES W. BUTLER,

President, Progressive National Baptist Convention.

REV. DR. ROBERT C. CAMPBELL,

General Secretary, American Baptist Churches U.S-A,.

REV. DR. JAMES R. CRUMLEY, JR.,

Bishop. Lutheran Church in America.

WALTER FARRELL, SJ.,

President of the Jesuit Conference.

REV. DR. WILLIAM H. KOHN,

President, The Association ofEvangelical Lutheran Churches.

REV. DR. EDWIN G. MULDER,

General Secretary, Reformed Church in America.

ROBERT W. NEFP,

General Secretary, Church of the Brethren.

FATHER JAMES P. NOONAN,

Superior General, Maryknoll Fathers and Brothers.

REV. DR. RANDOLPH NUGENT,

General Secretary, United Methodist General Board of Global Ministries.

H.A. PENNER,

Director, U.S. Mennonite Central Committee.

REV. AVERY D. POST,

President, United Church ofChrist

DR. DAVID W. PREUS,

Bishop, American Luthern Church.

ALBERT VORSPAN,

Vice President, Director of Commission on Social Action.

RABBI DAVID SAPERSTEIN,

Director and Counsel, Religious Action Center,

Union ofAmerican Hebrew Congregations.

REV. J. RANDOLPH TAYLOR,

Moderator of the 195th General Assembly, Presbyterian Church (U.S.AJ.

KENNETH L. TEEGARDEN,

General Minister and President, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ).

REV. DR. PAUL WEE,

General Secretary, Lutheran World Ministries.
139

STATEMENT OF DALE S. DE HAAN, DIRECTOR, CHURCH WORLD SERVICE IMMIGRATION

AND REFUGEE PROGRAM AND INGRID WALTER, DIRECTOR, LUTHERAN IMMIGRATION

AND REFUGEE SERVICE

Thank you for this opportunity to express the views of many within the religious

communities in the United States on H.R. 4447. The bill would require a White

House study on security and humanitarian conditions as they pertain to Salvadorans who might be returned to El Salvador from the United States. The bill temporarily suspends, in the interim, for up to three years, the detention and deportation

of Salvadorans here. Church World Service and the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service and their 36 member protestant communions are much in favor of passage of this bill.

Together we have a longstanding and profound concern with the situation faced

by El Salvadorans fleeing violence and civil warfare in their homeland. We have

become increasingly concerned with the plight of Guatemalans, Hondurans and

Nicaraguans fleeing rising levels of violence and civil conflict in their countries. Our

interest and involvement in this issue stem from the Christian Biblical and humanitarian mandate to aid the hurt and hungry and "to speak up for those who cannot

speak for themselves." (Proverbs 31:8)

Since 1946, CWS, LIRS and their member communions have resettled over

430,000 refugees, primarily through the efforts and contributions of our local congregations throughout the country. Our many years of aiding and resettling refugees

have given our churches much experience in refugee ministry, out of which has

grown a deep commitment to refugees themselves. Our experience here and our

relief and development work in many countries around the world have made it possible to understand and even live the experience of oppression and persecution

under repressive governments.

As conditions in El Salvador deteriorated in 1979 and 1980, increasing numbers of

El Salvadorans began arriving in our communities in this country, especially in the

Southwest. Frequently they came to our churches seeking assistance and protection,

telling horrifying stories of military battles in their communities, brutal murders of

family members or neighbors, or attempts on their own lives. The clergy and laity

of our local congregations perceived that these new undocumenteds were not simply

persons seeking jobs or economic betterment. Rather, by their own stories, by their

behavior, by what is known of the situation in El Salvador, and by what the

common understanding is of the definition of a refugee, our people in local churches

recognized and responded to these Salvadorans much as they have to Indochinese,

Africans, Afghans, and others who have come in recent decades.

Our congregations have heard the stories told by these people of the killing of

parents in front of children, and of decapitated, mutilated bodies a common sight on

city streets and country roads. The consequences of military operations and combat

in much of the county have been described to us. We have read the newspaper reports and seen the vivid television images of violence and civil warfare. We have

read the statistics of violent death in El Salvador, numbers which exceed those of

virtually any other situation of conflict in the world today.

As a natural Christian and humanitarian response to the cries and perceived

needs of these suffering people, our churches have reached out to provide material,

emotional, and spiritual aid. Since early 1980, when the tragic death of seven Salvadorans in the Arizona desert shocked the consciences of many Americans, increasing numbers of church members and entire congregations have become involved in

aiding and ministering to Salvadorans, Guatemalans, and other Central American

refugees arriving in their communities. Literally thousands of church congregations

are today involved in gathering foodstuffs, clothing, and other items and in providing temporary shelter for those seeking refuge.

In response to overwhelming needs, over 30 local service and legal-assistance

projects with full-time staffs have been organized through ecumenical church efforts

in communities from Los Angeles and Texas to Boston and Seattle. With apprehensions and deportations of Salvadorans numbering in the thousands, most of the

projects have concentrated efforts on informing refugees of their right to apply for

asylum, assisting them to do so, and securing release of detained refugees. Despite

extremely limited resources, projects have helped prevent or delay deportation of

many refugees: three of these projects each have assisted over 2,000 Salvadorans to

apply for asylum. While saving people from deportation is top a priority, these
140

projects do not ignore the overwhelming basic survival, medical and mental-health

needs of the thousands of refugees in their communities. Salvadorans have arrived

with bullets still in their bodies, or other untreated injuries suffered in the warfare

or during their escape, and many bear deep emotional traumas. These refugees

must live "underground" in fear of apprehension by authorities and have little or

no recourse to established services.

Recognizing the magnitude of this refugee tragedy in our own country, national

Protestant churches have provided over SI million in support funds in the last 18

months to aid these local projects in providing their desperately needed services. We

estimate that as many as 300,000 Salvadorans have arrived in the United States

since early 1980, most without documents.

Our churches have become increasingly confounded by the unchanging response

of the United States government to these people who so clearly seem to be seeking

safe haven from warfare and persecution. We are well aware that 300 or 400 Salvadorans continue to be returned each month to El Salvador from the U.S. We have

also just learned that Salvadorans now constitute the majority of all detained aliens

held in INS detention facilities nationwide.

We firmly believe in the ideals and traditions of this nation as a haven for the

persecuted and oppressed. The religious community has always most adamantly

upheld the notion of the sanctity of human life. In this context, the continuation of

the policy of apprehending and returning Salvadorans to their homeland at this

time appears inexplicable. It has become all the more so as reports and documentation have circulated on the fate of several persons returned from the U.S.•individuals who were subsequently killed.

The consternation of the religious community has deepened as a consequence of

statements made by officials of the office of the United Nations High Commissioner

on Refugees (UNHCR) and by the conclusions of an internal UNHCR study on treatment of Salvadorans in the U.S. The response of the governments of Canada and

other countries in the region to these refugees, and the involvement of the government of the United States itself in programs aiding Salvadoran refugees in Central

America has severely stretched our credibility regarding our own government's policies.

Officials of the UNHCR have said as far back as mid-1982 that all El Salvadorans

who fled their country following the outbreak of civil war in early 1980 were in a

"refugee-like situation" and that they should not be involuntarily returned to their

homeland. An internal UNHCR mission study of treatment of Salvadorans arriving

in the U.S. published in the Congressional Record on February 11, 1982 recommended that:

UNHCR should continue to express its concern to the U.S. government that its

apparent failure to grant asylum to any significant number of Salvadorans, coupled

with continuing large-scale forcible and voluntary return to El Salvador, would

appear to represent a negation of its responsibilities assumed upon its adherence to

the (United Nations') Protocol.

Canada has officially recognized that a substantial number of El Salvadorans outside their homeland are refugees eligible for admission under its refugee resettlement program. Well over 2,000 were admitted last year. Canada's policy treats the

U.S. as a country of first asylum for Salvadoran and Guatemalan refugees and implicitly recognizes that there are protection problems for Salvadorans in this country. Over 900 Salvadorans, persons judged by the Canadian government to fit the

United Nations' definition of refugee, were admitted to Canada for resettlement

from the U.S. in 1983. Many of these were facing imminent deportation by U.S. authorities. No other country in this region systematically deports or otherwise involuntarily returns Salvadorans to their homeland at this time. Salvadorans are recognized as refugees and aided by the UNHCR in Mexico, Belize, Honduras, Nicaragua,

Costa Rica and Panama. Guatemalans also are recognized as refugees in Mexico,

Honduras, Nicaragua, and Costa Rica, and Nicaraguans in Honduras and Costa

Rica.

Church World Service and the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service and

our member denominations are very aware of all of these response because we cooperate with the UNHCR both here and in Central America and are involved in assisting Salvadoran refugees to go to Canada and are likewise actively supporting

and participating in the relief efforts for refugees in Central America.

Our agencies are cognizant of the United States government's own statements on

the situation in Central America. Indeed, the State Department has explicitly recognized that conditions in El Salvador have displaced or made refugees of huge numbers of people. A recent Bureau of Refugee Programs briefing paper. Current Refugee Situation in Central America begins by stating:
141

Substantial numbers of refugees and persons displaced by fighting and civil strife

in Central America have received refuge in neighboring countries. We estimate the

overall number of displaced persons in El Salvador and Guatemala may be as high

as 800,000.

The State Department Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1983 (published February, 1984) states in its section on El Salvador (page 551):

All human rights conditions in El Salvador are strongly affected by the ongoing

civil strife. As is common during civil strife, the achievement of a public order that

would protect each person's rights has been disrupted by military operations, partisan hatreds, acts of revenge, the satisfaction of personal grudges, pervasive fear, and

a prevailing uncertainly dominated by violence.

The United States government currently provides over 25 percent of the UNHCR

budget for assistance to Salvadoran and other Central American refugees in the

region.

That most Salvadorans fleeing their homeland can be recognized as refugees even

by U.S. policy in nearly every country in the region except the United States itself

appears inexplicable in our communities.

To us, it is clear why many Salvadorans fleeing their war torn land come to this

country to seek refuge. Conditions, both economic and political, in other countries of

first asylum in the region are notably precarious. High unemployment and hostility

characterize the conditions faced by Salvadorans in other countries. Those other

countries, including Mexico, simply cannot offer available and appropriate safe

haven to all who need it. UNHCR estimates that there are already some 300,000

Salvadoran refugees spread throughout the region, 120,000 in Mexico alone. In fact,

UNHCR itself currently is only able to provide assistance to about 14 percent of the

Salvadoran refugees estimated to be in Mexico and Central America. Some Salvadorans fleeing their homeland make their way here because they have relatives or

friends already in this country. And finally, we understand that some Salvadorans

come to seek haven here because the United States is the United States, a nation

which has long been promoted around the world as a land of freedom from persecution and a place of opportunity to live and work in safety.

While it has been said that the existing political asylum procedure provides the

mechanism to identify and protect any persons with a legitimate fear of political

persecution if returned, our experience tells us that this is simply not the case.

Members of our churches have assisted literally hundreds of Salvadorans in applying for asylum. These are persons whose stories of persecution and whose fears we

know to be as real as refugees from anywhere. We see application after application

rejected as without merit, while official statistics say less than three percent of Salvadoran applicants have been granted asylum over the last three years.

In the face of this response by our government to the plight of these homeless

refugees amongst us, some churches have become increasingly politicized. More and

more church congregations have felt that the sanctity of human life is violated by

the policy of returning Salvadorans to possible death or persecution in their homeland. Some from among those churches providing "sanctuary" have decided that

they must publicly and dramatically protest and challenge current policy by engaging in what appears to be public civil disobedience. Over 100 churches have now

publicly announced that they are providing "sanctuary" to undocumented Salvadoran refugees in the face of laws which characterize harboring of undocumented

aliens as a felonious act. Some of these sanctuary churches and others have also

begun ot perceive connections between foreign and military policies with military

policies with respect to El Salvador and the arrival of increasing numbers and the

official non-recognition of refugees in the United States.

Our national church bodies, along with many Roman Catholic leaders have, been

calling for a halt of the deportation of Salvadorans with increasing urgency over the

last three years. In June, 1983, member refugee resettlement agencies of the American Council of Voluntary Agencies issued a Statement on Safe Haven for Central

American Refugees asking that "extended voluntary departure be granted on a comprehensive basis to Salvadoran and Guatemalan nationals seeking safe haven in the

United States." The document, affirmed by fifteen member agencies including the

Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS); the International Rescue Committee; the

Presiding Bishop's Fund for World Relief; The Episcopal Church; World Relief of

the National Association of Evangelicals; and the Migration and Refugee Services of

the United States Catholic Conference, noted that:

The situations of El Salvador and Guatemala, like so many others in the world,

are precisely those which motivate refugee flight. That flight is a natural and predictable response by people to escape crossfire and the danger of pervasive random

violence. These are situations from which refugees must be protected.
142

These concerns have been communicated frequently to the Administration, along

with the recommendation that extended voluntary departure status be utilized for

Salvadorans. In the absence of any other response, we have concluded that such a

legislative remedy as H.R. 4447 is the most appropriate measure that can be taken

at this time.

We support this legislation not only because of our deep humanitarian concern

for the needy and frightened Salvadorans that we find in our midst, but also because H.R. 4447 so well addresses the plight of the Salvadorans. The bill has three

sections: (1) a study of Salvadoran displaced persons and returnees, (2) Congressional

review of the study, and (3) a three-year suspension of detention and deportation.

We believe that the study is important as it will put the issue of displaced Salvadorans into its national and regional context. In the study, the President must

report on the situation of Salvadoran refugees that are currently in Honduras,

Mexico, and Guatemala, and the displaced persons that are within El Salvador. It

must review the status of food and medical assistance and the protection of those

displaced, and make recomendations on ways to improve the overall situation. The

study would also report on the fate of Salvadorans who have been deported from the

U.S., focusing on human rights violations that may occur upon their being returned.

We do recognize, however, the difficulty of conduting the specific component of the

study on the fate of returnees under the current conditions of civil warfare. It is not

clear that this study alone could produce either sufficiently reliable or credible data

unless the general conditions themselves improve substantially.

There is reason to be concerned about the availability of safe haven in Central

America. The recent killings of 12 Salvadoran refugees in Honduras seeking protection in that country, reports of the abduction of refugees from UNHCR camps, and

assaults on international refugee protection officials have raised considerable concern among our churches. Some of our churches have actually sent personnel to

Central America to act as a protective presence in areas of the region where there

are large concentrations of refugees. Thus, there is every reason to believe that

much greater measures must be taken before the region can be considered "safe"

haven for refugees. Hopefully, the President's study will provide some directions on

this matter.

This information is very important to the next stage of the process, Congressional

review. The House and Senate Judiciary Committees will review the report upon

receipt from the President. With the perspective of the report, the committees

should be able to formulate policy recommendations that take into consideration

relevant domestic and international factors.

The third section of the bill suspends the detention and deportation of Salvadoran

nationals in the U.S. for a three-year period. We feel that this temporary stay of

deportation while reviewing the Presidential study is the most appropriate action

that can be taken at this time. The decision of whether or not to deport Salvadorans

should be based upon the conditions in the country to which they are being returned, and the situation confronting refugees in the region.

This stay of deportation is a temporary suspension. It is not an open-ended invitation for Salvadorans to stay in the U.S. indefinitely. It confers upon those benefiting

from the stay no privileges other than protection from deportation while the Congress reviews the merits of their case.

As the situation currently stands, many Salvadorans find their only protection

against deportation is to apply for asylum. But to receive asylum, the applicant

must establish a well-founded fear of persecution upon his or her return and provide extensive documentation of his/her individual case•documentation which few

refugees fleeing their homeland are likely to carry with them. In FY '83, only 71

Salvadoran political asylum cases were granted by INS District Directors, and 2,914

cases were denied. Less than three percent of the cases reviewed were granted. Between October and January of FY '84, 83 cases have been granted, while 2,951 have

been denied, still less than three percent. Even an in-house INS study admits that

for a Salvadoran to be granted asylum, he or she must present a classic textbook

political asylum case. Even though it is said that the asylum procedure should protect Salvadorans who fear persecution if returned, it clearly is not now doing so.

Asylum is not the most appropriate remedy for Salvadorans in the U.S. who are

seeking haven from the war. Many of the Salvadorans our churches have aided

have told us their only wish is to go home as soon as they can•when it is safe. Our

experience has been that many Salvadorans simply are not interested in seeking

long-term political asylum here, or any other permanent status. Yet, under the current system, they are forced to apply for asylum if apprehended by the INS because

this is the only remedy available to them.
143

For these reasons it would be much more appropriate for Salvadorans to be granted a provisional stay of deportation. In the past, extended voluntary departure has

been used to provide a temporary remedy for certain nationalities who, due to conditions in their homeland, fear immediate return. It usually has been granted by

the Attorney General upon the recommendation of the Secretary of State. Although

the criteria for granting extended voluntary departure is not well-defined in immigration law, a review of past grants of extended voluntary departure would appear

to based upon civil strife or unsettled conditions in the homeland, as in the cases of

Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Lebanon, and Ethiopia or human rights violations, as in

the case of Poland.

When considered under this type of criteria, El Salvadorans would clearly be eligible for a stay of deportation. The situation in El Salvador is well-documented, with

at least 38,000 civilian non-combatant deaths since the coup in 1979. The human

rights situation continues to be horrendous. The House Subcommittee on Western

Hemisphere Affairs has called for the restructuring of the judicial system and a

breakdown of general civil order continues to plague the country.

One of the most telling comparisons is that of the grant of extended voluntary

departure to Polish nationals in the U.S. with the situation of Salvadorans. The

Poles are certainly deserving of a stay of deportation, and their stay was recently

extended until the end of 1984. However, we are compelled to acknowledge that the

conditions of violence faced by the Salvadoran population are more severe even

than those endured by the people of Poland.

We do not see H.R. 4447 in any way attempting to circumvent the provisions of

the Refugee Act of 1980. The refugee act by definition provides protection to refugees and asylees. As we noted earlier, many Salvadorans are not asking for refugee

status, nor are we asking it for them. Yet, we know they still fear return to their

homeland with valid reason. This bill is only trying to deal with a group of people

who unfortunately fall into a category that is not covered by the Refugee Act, or

any other existing U.S. law: those who seek safe haven temporarily.

It is clear that this type of remedy outside of the Refugee Act has been seen as

necessary in the past. Extended voluntary departure status has been granted 15

times in the past 24 years. Also, this procedure has been used twice since the passage of the Refugee Act in 1980, and at those times the administrative procedure

was not seen as an "end-run" around the Refugee Act.

From our understanding of the plight of the Salvadorans and their inability to

find protection under the current provisions of immigration law, we find it important to address the broader issues of temporary safe haven. We hope that H.R. 4447

will be a step toward the consideration of this issue. The situation of the Salvadorans forces us to deal with this matter. A stay of deportation has never been quite so

necessary for a group of people whose homeland was in such close proximity to the

U.S. But while the plight of the Salvadorans requires an urgent and immediate

remedy, we do not wish to see an ad hoc nation-by-nation policy begin that has no

clear definition in immigration law. For a coherent and consistent and fair policy to

exist, clearly delineated criteria and procedures around providing temporary security to persons fearing return to their homeland must be developed.

In conclusion, we wish to reiterate the fact that Church World Service, Lutheran

Immigration and Refugee Service, and our member denominations have become

heavily involved in assisting the Salvadoran community in the U.S. because of our

history of working with refugees and immigrants. We have had the privilege of

working on a personal level with many Salvadorans and have come to the conclusion that what we are facing is truly "a crisis of people." Over the past few years we

have expressed dismay at the continued policy of deporting Salvadorans. We come

in strong support of H.R. 4447. This bill is a modest, and appropriate response to the

plight of the Salvadorans in our midst.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SUBCOMMITTEE IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE

U.S.-SALVADORAN SITUATION

1. Question. Does INS have any general profile of Salvadorans in the U.S.?

A. From what geographic area of El Salvador do they come?

B. What particular class of people are fleeing (peasants, businessmen, draft-age

men, elderly)?

C. How long have most been in the U.S.?

Response. El Salvadorans who have fled to the United States appear to be predominantly (peasants) compesinos who left that country's northern and eastern
144

provinces. Most had migrated into El Salvador's cities, seeking protection from rural

violence. In this sense, they became "urbanized" peasants. Although there are some

businessmen in the illegal flow to the U.S. (leaving bankrupted/failed business endeavors), there has not been any large-scale or pronounced migration of El Salvador's management strata. INS has noticed that some young El Salvadorans are

trying to escape their draft law. A very recent phenomenon is that entire families

have been apprehended, seeking to enter the United States.

As to how long most have been in the United States, we might say of 16,667 deportable Salvadoran aliens located by INS in 1983, the largest portion, 29% were

found at entry. These statistics characterize the length of time depot-table Salvadoran aliens spent illegally in this country in 1983.

Located at entry 4,872

Within 72 hours 4,387

4 to 30 months 1,210

1 to 6 months 1,310

7 months to 1 year 1,006

Over 1 year 3,882

Total 16,667

2. Question. Have illegal entries from El Salvador increased or decreased in the

years 1980, 1981, 1982, or 1983?

Response. They have increased each year, with the exception of 1982. The following table shows apprehensions of El Salvadorans since 1977, when a separate count

for that nationality was begun.

Fiscal year: El Salvadonvu

1977 7,887

1978 8,938

1979 11,414

1980 11,762

1981 15,903

1982 14,054

1983 16,667

3. Question. How many Salvadorans are removed from the U.S. annually?

Response. The following figures reflect total Salvadoran removals for fiscal years

1980-1983 and for the first quarter of fiscal year 1984:

Fiscal year:

1980 8,868

1981 10,688

1982 5,131

1983 4,802

1984 0ct-Dec 897

These figures are unofficial figures derived from manual counts of transportation

itineraries. The official agency statistics include only those Salvadorans removed

after being placed under docket control while the figures above include immediate

voluntary returns as well.

4. Question. How many Salvadorans have been admitted to the U.S. under the FY

84 Refugee Admissions Program for Latin America? What types of persons have

been admitted?

Response. 96 Salvadorans were approved for refugee status between October 1983

and March 1984; however, 3 of that group chose not to be resettled in the United

States. Of the 175 visa numbers allocated, 93 had been used through March and 82

remained available. All were identified by the UNHCR as amnestied under the El

Salvador amnesty program. Our Mexico City office reported in December 1983 that

47 cases involving 90 of these persons had been processed. The following is a breakdown of the cases:

Ages: 17 were between 18 and 25 years of age; 12 were between 26 and 35 years of

age; 9 were between 36 and 45 years of age; 9 were between 46 and 55 years of age;

Occupations: 11 were teachers and members of ANDES teacher's union (Assn.

Natl. de Educatores, Salvadorans); 11 were students (not otherwise defined); 6 were

"obreros" or workers; 3 were drivers; 2 were masons; 6 were "professionals" (a mixture of all professions); 8 were listed as miscellaneous.

Time in prison: 9 were in prison less than 1 month; 4 were in prison between 1-6

months; 20 were in prison between 7-12 months; 11 were in prison between 1 and 2

years. 3 were in prison more than 2 years.

Principal options of country for resettlement:
145

1st. 9 Canada•with another 11 who would accept going to Canada.

2nd. 8 Canada.

1st. 4 USA.

2nd. 6 USA.

1st. 1 Australia.

2nd. 1 Australia.

2nd. 1 Belgium.

2nd. 3 Sweden.

1st. 6 Mexico.

16 persons expressed no options.

Political militancy: 11 were teachers and member of ANDES teachers union; 9

were from trade unions; 6 claimed to be labor leaders (not otherwise explained); 2

claimed to be from "other organizations" (not otherwise explained); 19 claimed no

militancy.

All of the above was based on verbal claims of each person. No claims were supported by any kind of documentation.

5. Question. What is INS policy with respect to the "Sanctuary Movement"?

Response. The Immigration and Nationality Act, section 274 (U.S.C. 1324) makes

it a felony to willfully or knowingly conceal, harbor or shield from detection any

alien not lawfully admitted to the United States. We feel it is unfortunate that

these people have chosen to violate the law when three are legal avenues available

for the aliens to pursue, such as filing asylum claims, if they feel they will be persecuted if returned. The Sevice has a long standing policy that we will not seek illegal

aliens in churches. However, we legally could under the color of a warrant if we

decided to do so. The Service has additionally stated it does not have a special enforcement program targeted against individuals involved in the sanctuary movement, but would treat any persons so involved who are apprehended during enforcement efforts similarly to any person in violation of immigration law.

6. Question. Is INS aware of any "networks" or "Underground Railroad" operations involving the smuggling of El Salvadorans to the U.S.? Do most come illegally through Mexico and other Central American countries or do large numbers come

with visas and overstay? What if anything is done in the transit countries to either

prevent or facilitate their onward movement? How is our government combatting

this problem? Are any church groups or other organizations involved in smuggling

activities?

Response. Intelligence information from apprehended aliens and independent investigative efforts indicates that many El Salvadorans are utilizing the services of

professional alien smuggling organizations. These organizations do not limit their

activities to the movement of El Salvadorans, who form only a portion of their overall smuggling activities.

INS is aware of the "Underground Railroad" whose activities extend at least from

the Southern border of the United States to various cities and destination locations

within the United States. At this time, however, INS does not have probative evidence of church leadership involvement in alien smuggling, although several church

members have been arrested in Texas and Arizona, and one lay worker has been

convicted of transporting illegal Salvadorans.

Most of the El Salvadorans who are smuggled into the United States have transited illegally through Guatemala and Mexico. There are those, however, who try to

enter with visas and other counterfeit documentation. Through liaison efforts, the

INS is working with government authorities in Guatemala, Mexico and other transit nations to prevent the illegal migration of El Salvadorans.

The INS has initiated investigative activities both in Texas and Arizona to establish any criminal involvement by known smuggling organizations and the underground railroad/Church groups.

7. Question. In previous testimony, you cite as a reason for not granting EVD for

Salvadorans the fact that when such status was granted to Nicaraguans it increased

illegal entries. Do you have any statistics or other information to support your conclusions?

Response. In previous testimony (April 12, 1984), INS indicated that Nicaragua

has not traditionally been a country of high illegal immigration to the United

States. Thus, the impact of the 1979-1980 EVD program for Nicaraguans was minimized and somewhat difficult to define statistically. Salvadorans, on the other hand,

have historically been apprehended in much larger numbers. If an EVD policy were

to be instituted, significant increases in Salvadoran apprehensions could be anticipated as a result of this magnet effect.

Apprehension statistics for Nicaraguans are captured under the heading of

"Other North Americans" which includes the Caribbean countries, Costa Rica, Hon-
146

duras, and Panama as well as Nicaragua. As indicated below, average monthly apprehension figures of "Other North Americans" did increase during the period of

EVD for Nicaraguans; however, we cannot state with certainty that a casual relationship existed or that the increase was due solely to Nicaraguans.

Average monthly apprehensions "other North Americans"

October 1978-June 1979 _ 575

July 1979-September 1980 (EVD) 1,230

Fiscal year 1981 •• 1,211

Fiscal year 1982 690

Fiscal year 1983 • 513

8. Question. There have been reports of Salvadoran exiles in the U.S. "who may

be linked to death squad activities in El Salvador" (New York Times, January 27,

1984). What efforts has INS made to identify such exiles?

Response. INS is aware of the New York Times article and the allegations contained therein. However, INS has not initiated any action to identify such exiles.

9. Question. What is the situation regarding Salvadorans being apprehended along

the US./Mexican Border?

Response. Through January 1984, the Border Patrol had apprehended 3,769 El

Salvadorans, an increase of 36% over the same period in Fiscal Year 1983. Overall

Border Patrol apprehensions were up 11% during this period. The majority of the

El Salvadorans are apprehended at McAllen, Texas and Chula Vista, California.

These sectors lie at the extreme east and west ends of the border.

A randomly selected sample of 119 El Salvadorans were questioned as part of a

general survey of illegal crossers. Those questioned were about evenly divided between rural and urban areas in El Salvador, and the majority had traveled to the

border by bus. Asked how often they cross, 85 percent said this was the first time,

85 percent also responded that they intended to say over a year, or until caught.

Twenty-five percent said they were told where to cross by s smuggler, and an additional 35 percent were told by friends or relatives waiting in the U!S.

10. Question. What percentage of apprehended Salvadorans claim asylum? What

percentage of such claims are granted?

Response. The Service does not maintain such information. However, approximately 4% of the Salvadoran asylum applications completed in FY 84 were approved.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE,

Washington, DC, June 1, 1984.

Hon. ROMANO L. MAZZOU,

House ofRepresentatives,

Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. MAZZOU: As you know, there is a hot controversy about how many Salvadorans are political refugees to the United States and how many are economic

migrants. The Administration has taken the position that there is a very large flow

of economically motivated migration from El Salvador to the U.S. which helps explain why most Salvadoran applicants in recent years have been denied asylum.

I enclose a very interesting piece of evidence which I wanted to be sure reached

you. It is an exit poll taken on the day of the Salvadoran presidential election. May

6, 1984 by the Spanish television network SIN. Please note that question six asks

the voter, "If you had the opportunity, would you emigrate to work in the United

States?" Seventy percent replied, "Yes."

While this may not be a perfect poll and no doubt the margin for error needs to

be investigated, I would nevertheless maintain that this is a most interesting result

and one that needs to be kept in mind as we discuss the motivation of Salvadorans

who travel to the United States.

Sincerely,

ELLIOTT ABRAMS,

Assistant Secretary for Human Rights

and Humanitarian Affairs.

Enclosure: As stated.

SECRET EXIT POLL, EL SALVADOR PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS, MAY 6,1984

In eight provinces and 17 cities, SIN's secret Exit Poll was conducted throughout

the day. A sample count of 3,810 ballots were filled out according to procedures de-
147

signed for this election, chiefly by the elector himself. The Secret Poll Ballots were

placed in boxes and transported to SIN's headquarters in San Salvador.

By 6 p.m. on election day, John Lasseville, SIN's political analyst, and an SIN

team, were able to announce the results of this poll: D'Aubisson (ARENA), 46 percent; Duarte (PDC), 54 percent.

What follows is:

(a) An explanation of the statitistical material gathered in this poll and how the

principal conclusions were drawn.

(b) Some implications from the above material.

(c) The findings of the remainder of the poll which may prove useful to interested

parties.

A. Statistical materials:

In reviewing the March 25, 1984 Presidential election one could see the voting differed in turnout and in choices by the various provinces and cities. Based on this,

the sample was divided into two sections, the larger, more metropolitan areas and

the smaller, more rural provinces.

The larger Departments, comprising 70 pecent of the voting age population:

_, o i J Voting age

ban Salvador: Population

San Salvador 385,000

Apopa 40,500

Aguilares 16,000

Sonsonate:

Sonsonate 72,500

Izalco 25,500

La Libertad:

NuevoSan Salvador 95,500

Colon 16,000

San Miguel:

San Miguel 124,000

San Rafael 9,500

Santa Ana:

Santa Ana 168,000

Chalchuapa 3,300

The second group, three rural Departments, was taken to represent all eight such

areas comprising 30 percent of the voting age population national total.

IT it Voting age USUlOtan: population

Usulotan 43,000

Santiago 10,500

Berlin '

Ahuachapan:

Ahuachapan 72,000

Itiquizaya 15,500

San Vicente:

San Vicente 84,000

San Sebastian 9,500

' Although scheduled for Exit Poll, El Salvador security forces did not permit entry.

By using this method, the percentage of vote gained by ARENA and PDC was calculated in two sections; averaging these percentages gave the final, announced percentage: ARENA, 46 percent; PDC, 54 percent.

This, of course, was very reflective of the official results of 46.4 percent for

ARENA and 53.6 percent for PDC.

B. Some implications of closer study of results:

1. It appears that the more rural areas of El Salvador reversed the final total results. The Exit Poll shows that in this group, the smaller Departments gave ARENA

55.5 percent to PDC 44.5 percent.

As a matter of fact, the poll as reviewed in the smaller cities (less than 20,000)

showed the same tilt toward ARENA.

Santiago (Usulotan), ARENA, 55 percent.

San Sebastian (San Vicente), ARENA, 52 percent.

Itiquizaya (Ahuachapan), ARENA, 59 percent.

2. Of great interest in the studies on the March 25 election in relation to May 6,

was the question of where would go the voters of PCN. In their hands rested the
148

outcome of May 6th. Although their candidate refused to endorse either D'Aubisson

or Durate, it was generally felt his followers' votes would go to ARENA.

To examine the reality of this shift the voting pattern as seen in the two smaller

cities was examined. These had given the edge in March to the third party. San

Rafael gave PCN 56.5 percent in March while Aguilares gave PCN 38 percent.

However, ARENA failed to capture the lion's share in May. This inference can be

applied to the remainder of the country's PCN followers and may well have been

the reason PDC won.

c. The remainder of the Exit Poll:

(2) Sex of respondents: Female and Male.

(3) Age profile.

(4) Educational level was judged to be intrinsically unreliable.

(5) Occupation•again unreliable.

The following are of particular interest:

(6) Emigration to U.S.?

Yes, 70 percent.

(7) Income?

55 percent earn less than $2,600 yearly.

(8) Why your choice of candidate"?

More employment, 12 percent.

Peace, 51 percent.

Strong leader, 11 percent.

Ability to negotiate, 11 percent.

Relationship to U.S., 14 percent.

(9) What is the government of Nicaragua?

Democratic, 19 percent.

Totalitarian, 81 percent.

(10) Solution to guerrilla problem?

Erradication, 54 percent.

Participation in election, 44 percent.

Guerrilla government, 2 percent.

(11) El Salvador's friends?

Cuba, 1 percent.

U.S.A., 96 percent.

Mexico, 3 percent.

Nicaragua, 0.3 percent.

U.S.S.R., 0.3 percent.

(12) Type of Aid from U.S.A.?

Economic and Military, 63 percent.

Economic only, 33 percent.

Military only, 3 percent.

No aid at all, 1 percent.

(13) Voters of March?

8 percent did not vote for anyone.

This is the analysis report of the exit polling conducted by SIN during the El Salvador Presidential election (5-6-84). The values are percentages representing the

different answers to the poll questions.

Total provinces, 8.

Total cities, 17.

Total exit polling sample, 3,810.

(1) For whom did you vote for president?

Daubuisson (ARENA), 46 percent.

Duarte (PDC), 54 percent.

(2) Your sex is?

Female, 40 percent.

Male, 60 percent.

(3) The group that includes your age is?

18-24, 34 percent.

25-34, 28 percent.

35-49, 24 percent.

50-64, 12 percent.

65 or over, 2 percent.

(4) What was the last grade of school you completed?

Some elementary school. 19 percent.

Elementary school graduate, 11 percent.

Some high school, 15 percent.

High school graduate, 33 percent.
149

College graduate, 14 percent.

None, 8 percent.

(5) You describe yourself as?

Housewife, 15 percent.

Farmer, 7 percent.

Student, 19 percent.

Blue collar, 16 percent.

White collar, 8 percent.

Self-employed, 11 percent.

Professional, ERR.

Unemployed, ERR.

Retired, 1 percent.

(6) If you had the opportunity, would you emigrate to work in the United States?

Yes, 70 percent.

No, 30 percent.

(7) Into which group does your annual household income fall?

Under 400 dollars, 15 percent.

400 to 1,299 dollars, 20 percent.

1,300 to 2,599 dollars, 21 percent.

2,600 to 5,199 dollars, 16 percent.

5,200 to 10,399 dollars, 14 percent.

10,400 to 25,999 dollars, 9 percent.

26,000 dollars and over, 5 percent.

(8) Which one of the statements below best describes why you voted for the candidate of your choice?

More employment opportunities, 12 percent.

Would bring peace, 51 percent.

Is a strong leader, 11 percent.

His ability to negotiate, 11 percent.

His relationship with the U.S., 14 percent.

(9) How would you describe the Government of Nicaragua?

Democratic, 19 percent.

Totalitarian, 81 percent.

(10) What solution would you prefer to the guerrilla problem?

Eradication, 54 percent.

Participation in the elections, 44 percent.

A guerrilla government, 2 percent.

(11) Which of the following countries do you consider friendlier toward El Salvador?

Cuba, 1 percent.

United States, 96 percent.

Mexico, 3 percent.

Nicaragua, 0 percent.

Soviet Union, 0 percent.

(12) What type of aid should El Salvador receive from the United States?

Economic and military, 63 percent.

Economic only, 33 percent.

Military only, 3 percent.

No aid at all, 1 percent.

(13) In the Presidential election that took place on March 25th, what party did

you vote for?

ARENA, 34 percent.

P.D.C., 48 percent.

P.C.N., 5 percent.

PAISA, 1 percent.

P.P.S., 1 percent.

A.D., 3 percent.

None, 8 percent.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE,

Washington, DC, June 20, 1981

Hon. ROMANO L. MAZZOLI,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees, and International Law, Committee on the Judiciary, House ofRepresentatives, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In my testimony before the subcommittee on April 12, I reported the Department was completing a survey on the status of deported citizens of
150

El Salvador. The survey has now been completed and I would like, for the record, to

share the results with you. The results are:

Total number in survey 482

Non conflict zones:

Fictitious or incomplete addresses 215

Personally interviewed, no mistreatment reported 81

Family reports returned to U.S 79

Welfare*established by interview with family/friend 1

Conflict zones:

Ficitious or incomplete address 34

Attempted to visit, could not for security reasons 57

Personally interviewed, no mistreatment 39

Welfare established by interview with family/friend 10

Family reports returned to U.S 28

Special notes: One person was interviewed who said he had never been in the U.S. The widow

of one person said her husband was lulled by insurgents because of previous associations with

government security elements. One letter was returned with addressee marked deceased. The

embassy was unable to obtain any details or verification of the deaths.

We believe the survey has been conducted in a thorough manner. It represents

the first major effort at sampling a specific group of deportees. Three results strike

me: first, the high number of ficitious addresses made it impossible to find a very

large percentage of the Salvadorans. Second, of those located, not a single one recounted a story of persecution. Third, of those located, more than half appear to

have already returned to the U.S.

I will be happy to discuss the results with you, at your convenience.

Sincerely,

ELLIOTT ABRAMS,

Assistant Secretary for Human Rights

and Humanitarian Affairs.

o