By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer

Just two months ago, Salvadorans, Guatemalans and other refugees from Central America were ecstatic: President Clinton had threatened to veto a final budget deal
unless more than a million immigrants -- including them -- were allowed a chance at becoming legal residents.

But in the wake of elections that favored Republicans, and facing fierce GOP opposition to broader proposals, Clinton dropped his threat and agreed to an
immigration package last month that helps just over half as many people. Most come from Mexico, India and other populous countries with long lines of immigrants
waiting for green cards.

Those from Central America, however, are largely out of luck, victims of an ideological struggle dating to the Cold War and played out in a political showdown over
the federal budget.

In the end, about 400,000 immigrants from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, plus 50,000 or so from Haiti and Liberia, find themselves with little reasonable
chance at becoming legal U.S. residents, let alone citizens. And many, including tens of thousands in the Washington area, are likely to face new threats of
deportation after more than a decade of living here.

The outcome has enraged immigrant advocates, who were as disappointed by the White House's retreat as they were by opposition from Republicans. Some
members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus accused Clinton of using them to curry Democratic favor among Latino voters, only to abandon them after Election
Day.

"Most of these people came here at a time of extraordinary strife in Central America that we had a big hand in," said Angela Kelley, deputy director of the National
Immigration Forum, a pro-immigration group. "The Central Americans have the strongest case for relief, and yet they got absolutely nothing. The politics in this just
stink."

Those who favor more stringent immigration rules, however, praised the final package, arguing that the measures are properly tailored to help only those who truly
need it.

"It always becomes, 'Let's just make a special rule for this small group,' and then it gets larger and larger until you include everyone," said David Ray, spokesman for
the Federation for American Immigration Reform. "When you start granting pocket amnesties, giving amnesty to one group or another, then everyone else starts
crying foul. The other 6 million people who are in this country illegally say, 'What about me?' "

The dispute over Central American refugees has its roots in the 1980s, when several waves of immigrants came to the United States fleeing the region's civil wars and
political strife. Most, but not all, have been trapped in political and legal limbo over their immigrant status ever since.

The exceptions are those arriving from Nicaragua before 1995, who along with Cuban refugees were given special amnesty under a 1997 law. Some had fought for
guerrillas supported by the Reagan administration.

But the same has never been granted to other Central American illegals, most of whom fled right-wing military regimes backed by Washington in wars with Marxist
rebels. The 1997 law allowed some Salvadorans and Guatemalans to fight deportation under more lenient rules than before but stopped well short of the amnesty
afforded Nicaraguans.

Hondurans were left out of that package altogether; many are still in the United States only because of temporary protection given to them after Hurricane Mitch
devastated their homeland.

This year, after Clinton proposed a bill easing the way to legal residency for more than a million immigrants, GOP congressional leaders stood firm against bringing
Central Americans, Haitians and Liberians into parity with Nicaraguans and Cubans. Those involved in the negotiations said that dropping the issue emerged as a key
to breaking the budget deadlock, which threatened to shut down the federal government.

"The Republicans were dead set against anything for Central Americans, it's that simple," said Maria Echaveste, White House deputy chief of staff.

The final package largely mirrors a proposal by Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Tex.) called the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act, focusing primarily on relatives of legal
U.S. residents trapped in the immigration process. Gramm spokesman Larry Neal said the senator opposed Clinton's bill because it effectively acted as a "broad
amnesty" for too many people.

"This legislation was written expressly for the purpose of giving people an opportunity to unite their families," Gramm said in a statement about his original bill.

The measures signed by Clinton on Dec. 21 help three main classes of immigrants.

The largest group includes more than 300,000 spouses and minor children of legal residents who have been waiting more than three years for visas. A new category
of visa will allow these applicants to bypass backlogs of up to seven years in Mexico and other populous countries, where the demand for visas far outweighs the
number available under annual quotas.

Another provision will allow as many as 200,000 illegal immigrants to pay a $1,000 fine in order to adjust their immigration status if they apply by April. Without this
provision -- which was tried successfully once before -- these immigrants legally would have to return home for as many as 10 years before reapplying for a green
card; in practice, most would just remain here illegally.

Finally, an estimated 150,000 immigrants who missed out on a broad amnesty in 1986 will be allowed to apply for citizenship. This group was involved in a series of
class-action lawsuits against the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which initially ruled against them because of brief trips they took out of the country.

By and large, these provisions will help those from countries with the heaviest rates of immigration into the United States, including Mexico, India, China and the
Philippines.

"The bill would allow nearly 700,000 immigrants who have worked, lived and paid taxes in the United States for years to stay here legally without fear of being
separated from their families," Clinton said before signing the legislation.

But relatively few Central Americans are likely to be helped, experts said, in part because many of their relatives also are here illegally and can't serve as U.S.
sponsors.

The final bill outraged members of the 17-member, all-Democrat Congressional Hispanic Caucus. Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez (D-Ill.) fired off a blistering letter accusing
Clinton of a "lack of fortitude" and of breaking his word to Hispanics.

The caucus also feels betrayed after agreeing to support an earlier GOP priority: an increase in visas for high-tech workers, mostly from India and China, needed by
Internet and technology firms.

"Let's not kid ourselves: They played Cold War politics, and they were cold-hearted about it," said Gutierrez, whose district includes a large number of Mexican
immigrants, but who has been a champion of parity for Central Americans. "They play politically with the immigration issue, and they don't play fairly with it. . . . I'm
not happy with how either side handled this."

But Echaveste, the White House deputy, said Gutierrez is unfair in his criticism of Clinton, arguing that there may have been no immigration reforms at all this year if
the president had not issued his veto threat.

Aides to Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.), Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) and other GOP lawmakers told the administration that the 1997 amnesty,
although pushed by Republicans at the time, was a mistake that should not be repeated for other Central Americans, according to Echaveste.

Skeptical Democrats ascribe a more political motive to the GOP, which has strong support among conservative Cuban and Nicaraguan immigrants. Hispanics overall
voted against President-elect Bush in November by nearly 2 to 1.

"They were willing to provide citizenship for people who they think might become Republican, but not to do the same for people that they think might support
Democrats," Echaveste said. "That's the only distinction anyone can think of for treating the two groups differently."

Conservatives argue the opposite: that Democrats want to legalize as many potential supporters as possible and that Clinton was pandering to Hispanic voters with an
empty veto threat. "The vast majority of those who would have been amnestied, and eventually become citizens, would be Democratic voters," Ray said.

Jose Pertierra, a Washington immigration lawyer, says few of his Central American clients pay attention to such political arguments. All they know is that many of
them have been cut out of the deal, he said.

Pertierra recalls one single mother from El Salvador, age 25, who rushed into his office shortly after the compromise legislation was announced. She heard the
immigration deal had been passed and wanted to file paperwork to avert being deported along with her 6-year-old child, a U.S. citizen by birth.

When he explained that the package didn't include her, Pertierra said, she broke down in sobs.

"There's nothing I can do for her unless she's prepared to go back to El Salvador," Pertierra said. "She either lays low or goes back home for 10 years. . . . After all
the high hopes people had, Central Americans are the big losers in this."

                                               © 2001 The Washington Post Company