< back
NACARA REGULATIONS DEBATED IN CONGRESS
In 1997, Congress passed the Nicaraguan and Central American Relief Act, in part to mitigate the harshness of the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. The statute, in essence created an amnesty program by establishing a presumption that extreme hardship would exist if certain nationals of Nicaragua were deported. NACARA also allows other Central Americans to avoid deportation based on a showing of extreme hardship. But proving extreme hardship is difficult and expensive.
The Clinton administration is considering a proposal to bring uniformity to the treatment of all Central Americans by creating a presumption of extreme hardship upon the deportation of Salvadorans and Hondurans as well as Nicaraguans and Cubans. . The proposal is being supported by numerous congressmen, including Spencer Abraham (R-MI), the Chairman of the Senate Immigration Subcommittee and Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL), one of the architects of NACARA.
The proposal has, of course, also been met with opposition. Staunch anti-immigrant Congressman Lamar Smith (R-TX), Chairman of the House Immigration Subcommittee, led 29 House Republicans in writing a letter to the White House accusing them of "bowing to special interests" and attempting to grant "de facto amnesty to hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens." This comes at a time when the Republican Party has been trying to tone down its perceived anti-immigrant stance as the 2000 presidential election nears.
To be eligible for protection under NACARA, an applicant must have been in the U.S. before 1990. Consequently, most people eligible fled Central America during the civil wars of the 1980s. Advocates of a broader NACARA note that Nicaraguans, who do not have to prove extreme hardship, fled a Communist government, while Hondurans and Salvadorans, who face the difficult task of proving extreme hardship, fled right-wing dictatorships that had been supported by the Reagan administration.