Immigration Reform: Extended Voluntary Departure and Other Avenues (1983-1988)

Letter to Moakley from Jamaica Plain constituents

“We would like to arrange a meeting with you…”

In December 1982, Congressman Moakley received a letter from a group of constituents from Boston’s Jamaica Plain neighborhood that changed the course of his involvement with Salvadoran issues. Members of several local religious and humanitarian organizations, including the Jamaica Plain Committee on Central America (JPCOCA), Citizens for Participation in Political Action (CPPAX), and the Catholic connection, wrote to Moakley and asked to arrange a meeting to discuss not just Salvadoran refugees, but a wide range of Central American issues. This group of activists, among them a priest, a nun, an anti-Vietnam activist, a former Peace Corps member, a Puerto Rican community leader, and a Cuban immigrant, expressed their concern for, among other things, President Reagan’s “support for the repressive governments of El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras.”²

Notes for Jamaica Plain meeting

“…you stand firmly opposed to the President’s certification…”

Before the meeting, scheduled for January 28, 1983, Moakley’s aide Jim McGovern prepared notes for him, outlining the most pressing issues in each of the three countries that the activists had mentioned in their letter. At the top of the list was President Reagan’s January 21, 1983, recertification that El Salvador “was not only making progress on human rights but was also laying the foundation for democratic government.”³ McGovern reminded Moakley that “you stand firmly opposed to the President’s certification and have joined, once again, as a co-sponsor of Gerry Studd’s [sic] legislation declaring the certification ‘null and void;’” apparently Reagan’s repeated certifications convinced neither Moakley nor Studds that El Salvador’s government was doing anything to indicate  that it was deserving of continued U.S. aid. 

Salvadoran policy mini brief

“The United States does not afford any special immigration benefits to undocumented Salvadorans in this country, and they are liable for deportation to El Salvador if apprehended.”

Moakley’s meeting with the group of Jamaica Plain constituents took place as planned on January 28. Of the numerous Central American issues that the activists raised during the meeting, Moakley latched onto one in particular, one that was new to him: that of Extended Voluntary Departure (EVD) status for Salvadoran refugees, which was essentially a stay of deportation granted in cases of “a generalized condition of violence, instability in the homeland, or a concern for human rights violations in the country.”⁴ At that time, the United States did not extend EVD to Salvadorans. Those who feared their repressive government often immigrated illegally. Once in the United States, these illegal immigrants faced deportation (this Congressional Research Service “mini brief” called “U.S. Policy towards Undocumented Salvadorans” sheds light on the circumstances surrounding Salvadoran immigration in the early 1980s).

According to members of JPCOCA and its affiliated organizations who attended the meeting, during the course of their discussion, Moakley called Jim McGovern to get more information on EVD. When when McGovern told him that no one else in Congress had addressed the issue for Salvadorans, “Moakley said he would take it up himself.”⁵ Moakley’s opposition to President Reagan’s certification just days before the meeting likely influenced his willingness to take on the cause of the innocent Salvadorans who just wanted to live peacefully. 

Letter to Moakley from Zanger

“Let me add how much our group has appreciated your concern.”

Moakley lived up to the promises he made to the Jamaica Plain activists. In a March 30, 1983, letter, JPCOCA member Virginia Zanger thanked Moakley for “raising public awareness about Salvadoran refugees who are caught between a rock and a hard place.” She referred to a “Dear Colleague” letter that Moakley sent to his fellow members of Congress asking for their support for EVD status for Salvadorans; the exact date of the letter to which Zanger refers is unclear, but as the next documents show, Moakley pursued EVD fervently.

Dear Colleague letter

“The vast majority of Salvadoran refugees are not economic aliens, but persons who have been displaced by violence.”

Moakley’s initial “Dear Colleague” letter regarding EVD was evidently successful in garnering support in Congress. In another “Dear Colleague” letter dated June 2, 1983, Moakley and his co-signor, Congressman Walter Leslie “Les” AuCoin (D-OR), indicated that on April 28, they, “along with 86 other members of Congress, sent a letter to Secretary of State George Shultz and Attorney General William French Smith asking that they adopt a policy of Extended Voluntary Departure for Salvadoran refugees.” They expressed their frustration that the State Department had refused their request based on its opinion that Salvadorans come to the United States primarily for economic reasons, but in an effort to avoid alienating their more conservative colleagues, they asserted that “this humanitarian issues does not have to be construed as criticism of the Administration policy in Central America. Whatever our policy there, we must not shirk our responsibility for those individuals seeking temporary shelter in the United States.” Referring to the immigrants as “individuals” emphasized Moakley and AuCoin’s view that these Salvadorans were real people who needed help, not greedy immigrants who only wanted to drain the United States’ resources. 

H.R. 4447

“To provide for the temporary suspension of deportation for certain aliens who are nationals of El Salvador…”

In November of 1983, Moakley took his actions a step further by officially introducing House Resolution 4447, “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.”  In a hearing on April 12, 1984, Moakley defended the bill, stating, “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.”⁶ Despite Moakley’s eloquent testimony, H.R. 4447 unfortunately did not pass the House Immigration Committee. 

Moakley news release on H.R. 822

H.R. 822

“We can turn our backs on this tragic situation or we can provide Salvadorans the same limited protection that we have granted other nationals from countries that were experiencing equally deplorable conditions.”

A new congressional session opened in January of 1985, and Moakley took the opportunity to make a new push for assistance for Salvadoran immigrants. Since his previous attempts to apply Extend Voluntary Departure status to Salvadorans had been unsuccessful, he did not use the term in his new bill, H.R. 822. According to a January 30 press release, the crux of the bill was to “temporarily halt the deportation of Salvadoran refugees in the United States;” the text of the bill itself indicated that it also called for “a General Accounting Office investigation and report on conditions of displaced Salvadorans.” Moakley continued to take issue with the U.S. government’s opinion that Salvadoran refugees only immigrated for economic reasons. He hoped that a thorough review of the actual circumstances surrounding Salvadoran immigration would reveal that the violent tactics of the military government caused civilians to fear for their lives; this fear, not simply a desire for an improved economic status, drove them to seek save haven in the United States. Again, he felt that it was the responsibility of the United States to help these victims of a brutal regime. Senator Dennis DeConcini (D-AZ) shared those sentiments and eventually signed on to support Moakley’s bill on the Senate side; the full package became known as the Moakley-DeConcini bill.⁷

Moakley-DeConcini Bill Q&A

“Asylum, Extended Voluntary Departure (EVD), and the Moakley DeConcini bill are all different remedies for people or groups who fear return to their homelands.”

As Moakley and his allies sought support for stays of deportation for Salvadorans, they relied upon the research of various aid organizations, including those with religious ties, such as the Church World Service. The 1980 churchwomen murders and the 1981 assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero were only part of a larger pattern of hostility towards the Catholic Church among El Salvador’s ruling parties, so by 1985, religious organizations had a vested interest in improving conditions. Their efforts extended to general humanitarian causes, including lobbying for immigration reform. The Washington, D.C.-based Church World Service issued this series of leaflets to clarify the issues surrounding Salvadoran immigration, although these documents are hardly neutral. The group expressed clear support for the Moakley-DeConcini bill and asserted that the legislation would not result in, as its opponents feared, mass immigration; it noted, “There is no historical evidence that any grants of EVD—a status very similar to this legislation have increased migration from a country.”

Letter to Moakley from Archbishop Rivera Damas

“The Moakley-DeConcini Bill…in some way will contribute to a temporary solution to the agony of my flock in search of refuge.”

One November 15, 1985, Moakley received a vote of confidence from the Catholic Church in El Salvador, which was not surprising, given his ties to the Church and previous expressions of solidarity. The Archbishop of San Salvador, Arturo Rivera y Damas, wrote a letter (shown here in English translation) to the United States Congress, urging them to support the Moakley-DeConcini Bill. He asked the “Honorable Members of Congress” to “open your arms, your hearts, and your Christian charity to my suffering people.” This letter strengthened the religious ties between Moakley and the people of El Salvador.

Moakley's remarks on H.R. 618

“If this bill fails—everyone loses.”

In an undated statement on H.R. 618, Moakley further outlined the importance of the bill in protecting innocent Salvadorans and Nicaraguans from the violence and instability in their home countries. He addressed recent criticisms that the bill “undermines” other recent refugee and immigration legislation. Reiterating a sentiment to which he referred frequently in recalling his involvement with Salvadoran issues, he stated, “I’m basically known as a bread and butter politician. But, I have been deeply moved by this issue.” Again, he asserted that the bill was not an attack on the Reagan administration; he called it “politically neutral.” He urged his colleagues “not to lose sight of” the “human face” of Salvadoran immigration and to “vote YES on H.R. 618.” By referencing the humanity of the victims of the civil war and the neutrality of efforts to help them, Moakley again hoped to appeal to a wide range of his congressional colleagues.

Statement on Moakley-DeConcini bill

“Mr. Speaker, I am left appalled…”

By the end of 1988, Moakley still had yet to see results on any of his bills on behalf of Salvadoran refugees, and he became increasingly upset at Congress’s failure to act. In October, he spoke before his House colleagues and expressed his immense disappointment that despite all the evidence that El Salvador remained a violent place (and despite passage in the House), his bills had continued to meet resistance in the Senate. His concluding statements were especially powerful: “I thought perhaps to continue this uphill battle into the next Congress might prove fruitless. However, as I thought of the many refugees who I have met with over the years; as I recalled the horror stories they told me; and as I thought of the hopes they have put into this bill—I could not, in good conscience, give up this fight…I will be back next Congress to fight for them.” Over the course of the mid-1980s, Moakley’s rhetoric in support of temporary stays of deportation took on a decidedly humanitarian tone. Just as he cared about the welfare of the regular, everyday people in his district, he cared about the people of El Salvador who feared for their lives in a country embroiled in civil war. The injustice of these circumstances informed Moakley’s work related to El Salvador for the rest of his career.