- •

S. HRG. 99-798

MIDYEAR CONSULTATION ON U.S. REFUGEE

PROGRAMS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1986

HEAiRING

BEFO: tE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE

IMMIGRATION AND RE]

OF (THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIAKY

UNITED STATES SENATE

NINETY-NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JUNE 20, 1986

Serial No. J-99-113

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

63-000 0 WASHINGTON '. 1986

For gale by the Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office

US. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402
;• • COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

STROM THURMOND, South Carolina, Chairman

CHARLES MoC. MATHIAS, JR., Maryland JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware

PAUL LAXALT, Nevada EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia

ALAN K. SIMPSON, Wyoming HOWARD M. METZENBAUM, Ohio

JOHN P. EAST, North Carolina DENNIS DECONCINI, Arizona

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont

JEREMIAH DENTON, Alabama HOWELL HEFLIN, Alabama

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania PAUL SIMON, Illinois

MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky

DENNIS W. SHEDD, Chief Counsel and Staff Director

DIANA L. WATERMAN, General Counsel

MELINDA KOUTSOUMPAS, Chief Clerk

MARK H. GITENSTEIN, Minority Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE POLICY

ALAN K. SIMPSON, Wyoming, Chairman

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts

JEREMIAH DENTON, Alabama PAUL SIMON, Illinois

RICHARD W. DAY, Chief Counsel and Staff Director

JODI E. BRAYTON, Counsel

CARL W. HAMPE, Counsel

JERRY M. TINKER, Minority Counsel

<n)

&'/cr A
tfft

' CONTENTS

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Page

Simpson, Hon. Alan K., a U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming 1

Kennedy, Hon. Edward M., a U.S. Senator from the State of Massachusetts.... 51, 57

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Purcell, James N., Jr., Director, Bureau of Refugee Programs, U.S. Department of State; Alan C. Nelson, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service, U.S. Department of Justice; and Phillip N. Hawkes, Deputy

Administrator, Family Support Administration, Department of Health and

Human Services, accompanied by Bill F. Gee, Acting Director, Office of

Refugee Resettlement 2

ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND MATERIALS SUBMITTED

Hawkes, Phillip N.:

Testimony 36

Prepared statement 39

Kennedy, Senator Edward M.:

Letters to:

George P. Schultz from Karl D. Zukerman, May 22, 1986 58

Senator Edward M. Kennedy from Susan Goodwillie, June 17, 1986.... 60

Enclosures:

Critique of the report of the Indochinese Refugee Panel,

June 1986, prepared by Refugees International, Washington, DC 61

Comments and recommendations of the voluntary agencies

concerning refugee admissions for fiscal year 1987•A

statement of the Committee on Migration and Refugee

Affairs of the American Council for Voluntary International Action [InterAction], June 18, 1986 67

Senator Alan K. Simpson from J. Edward Fox, June 25, 1986 75

Enclosures:

South Africa 76

Border Khmer 88

Nelson, Alan C:

Testimony 25

Prepared statement 28

Purcell, James N., Jr.:

Testimony 2

Prepared statement 7

Refugee approvals by processing priority•October 1985-May 1986 48

ODP: Amerasian departures to the United States 105

(m)

MIDYEAR CONSULTATION ON U.S. REFUGEE

PROGRAMS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1986

FRIDAY, JUNE 20, 1986

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE POLICY,

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee convened, pursuant to notice, at 10:08 a.m., in

room SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Alan K. Simpson (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Senators Simpson and Kennedy.

Staff present: Richard W. Day, chief counsel and staff director;

Carl Hampe, counsel; Dee Dee Herzog, staff assistant; Robyn

Bishop, professional staff member; Jodi Brayton, counsel.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ALAN K. SIMPSON, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE POLICY

Senator SIMPSON. Good morning.

Thank you for being here as we proceed with the midyear refugee consultation. It is good to see you.

The Refugee Act of 1980 provides for "appropriate consultations"

between representatives of the President and Members of the Congress to review the refugee situation.

To my knowledge, this is the first midyear consultation which

the Senate Judiciary Committee has held with the administration.

I requested the consultation because of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings legislation and the effect it will necessarily have on the Refugee Program. In addition, a little over 1 year ago, I spent 2 weeks

in Southeast Asia, and filed a rather extensive report with a broad

range of observations, conclusions, and recommendations.

The subcommittee and the committee are interested in knowing

exactly how the various Gramm-Rudman-Hollings cuts will affect

refugee admissions and the resettlement program here in the

United States. I am also curious regarding the implementation of

the recommendations contained in that report of last April. We are

also interested in knowing the nature of the current refugee situation in Southeast Asia, which seems to be almost a never-ending

story.

In Africa, we know that, as the hunger problem has been reduced, the strife on that continent increases. I will be interested in

hearing about those situations and also developments in the Near

Eastern and European refugee situations.

(1)
first Khmer arrived into Thailand to where we are to date. I believe the United States has had a remarkable record in dealing

with this problem. We led the effort in 1979 and 1980 to provide

sufficient resources to the interior of Cambodia to prevent largescale famine and to control dangerous and rampant disease. Vast

resources were put into the country, of which the United States

was the major contributor.

Since that time, we have also worked on two groups of Khmer,

those that were allowed into Thailand before the border was closed

in 1980•some 165,000•and we have provided support and care for

those around the border who were not allowed into Thailand,

which has ranged from 250,000 to 500,000 over these years.

With regard to the group that came into Khao I Dang, the

165,000, we have pursued a range of solutions for them. We started

processing that group in 1980. We ceased in 1981 while the U.N.

High Commissioner for Refugees was attempting to arrange a repatriation program. When that failed, we started again in 1982 with

processing. Over that period of time, we have considered each of

the 165,000 cases on that border. The United States has approved

and accepted 130,000 of those people for admission to our country.

Others have been accepted by other resettlement governments.

There remains a population of approximately 14,500 who we have

considered but not accepted for our program.

This has become a very controversial program, and I will not go

into it in detail, because I believe Commissioner Nelson will be addressing that subject, only to say that I think we have given more

patience and consideration to this group probably than any other

that we have considered anywhere else around the world.

Our overall approval rate for that population exceeds 90 percent

of the 165,000, which I think is a remarkable record for the United

States.

We are entering a new phase with that population at Khao I

Dang. This past Friday, a meeting was held with Squadron Leader

Prasong, with the major resettlement governments, and he indicated that he would like to see the remaining people at Khao I Dang

resettled and that he has an intention to close that camp, presumably sometime toward the end of the year.

Our position was that we would like•and we were pleased that

he had this meeting, because he is allowing a dialog with major

governments on the status of the Khmer, the status of the camp;

he has indicated that toward the end of the year, he will have another meeting with the major governments to decide their exact

fate.

We indicated at that meeting that we had considered the 14,500

rejected, and we would invite other countries to now consider

them. We indicated that we are prepared to process the so-called

family cardholders now numbering about 4,300-4,500, and that we

would take family cases out of the 7,000 or so ration cardholders.

We did not indicate that we would consider processing for refugee

resettlement the ration cardholders, nor did the Thai make them

available for that purpose.

I believe that it is important now for the other governments in

the world to step up and do their fair share in resettling this popu-
lation. We certainly will do our bit on those that we have not previously considered.

But I believe that, over time, history will denote that this period,

if you look at the whole 7-year history of the Khmer program, will

show that the United States has done a respectable and outstanding job on them.

Also at site 2, there were a number of land Vietnamese, 4,300,

that we, because of the vulnerable position they are in, are now

processing. We are hopeful that it will be possible sometime in the

near future to move the remainder to a safer location in the interior of Thailand, and discussions in that regard are presently underway with the Government.

I might also mention that there was a small group of Montagnard tribesmen at site 2, some 213, which we received many, many

expressions of concern from Members of the Congress and the

public. We have considered that group and have taken all of them.

They are presently in English-language training and will soon be

on their way to the United States.

We believe that that is a group which we have special concern

about, and we were privileged to have the opportunity to assist

them.

You also requested, Mr. Chairman, a review of the Lao screening

program. It has been in effect since last July. Since that time,

about 3,900 people have come into Thailand; about 1,900 of them

have been screened in as refugees. Of the remainder, about 25 percent, have been screened out, and the last 25 percent have cases

still pending. It has not been possible because of conflicts along the

border to arrange for the return of those screened out, but we hope

that will occur very shortly.

In terms of deterrent effect, we think new arrivals of lowland

Lao and hill tribes Lao will be about 3,600, compared to about

16,000 in the previous year. So the screening program has obviously had an impact.

In the Southeast Asia Program, we are very much aware of the

report of this committee which we have been working on; and also

the recent study of the Ray panel, which I believe provides a course

and direction that will be useful to the United States to follow over

the coming months in setting its priorities in Southeast Asia.

Commissioner Nelson and I had an opportunity to meet in

Geneva this past week with a number of our allies from other resettlement governments and the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees about Southeast Asia. We are looking at a number of reviews

and concerns jointly. It is the belief of that group that it is certainly time to begin to pursue serious durable solutions in that region,

and we would hope that that dialog would continue over the

coming months.

One other point in Southeast Asia concerns the UNHCR Orderly

Departure Program which, as you know, has been suspended by

the Vietnamese in terms of new interviewing since this past January. We have had several discussions with the Vietnamese at the

technical level in order to get this program back on the road. We

had discussions with the Vice Foreign Minister in New York recently, and are prepared to discuss again, whenever further meetings can be arranged, the issue of getting this program going again.
6

In Africa, we have had, as you mentioned, a serious problem. We

saw this past year the number of African refugees expand from 2

million to 2.8 million. We are continuing to monitor serious conditions in Ethiopia, Sudan, Somalia, and the Horn. We are seeing

some return of the Ugandans to their country. We are very much

aware of the possibility of danger in the southern part of Africa

and have alerted the U.N. High Commissioner and our own embassies to be certainly conscious of it.

Mr. Chairman, I have spoken too long, and I will stop here and

entertain your questions.

[Statement follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES N. PURCELL, JR.

Mr. Chairman:

This mid-year consultation provides a welcome opportunity

to review developments in U.S. refugee policies and programs

that have occurred since the annual consultation at which the

Secretary of State testified last September. By their nature

refugee programs reflect and respond to rapidly changing

situations in many regions throughout the world. The

established structures of an annual refugee consultation and an

unpredictable budget process often come into conflict with the

changing requirements of the real world. Periodic

consultations such as this enable us to report on steps needed

to adjust our programs to the changing realities.

Your letter inviting us to this consultation expresses

particular interest in the current situation of the "border

Khmer," the "Khmer review process" at Khao I Dang, and other

subjects addressed in your comprehensive report, Mr. Chairman,

on the "U.S. Refugee Program in Southeast Asia: 1985." In

addressing these and related subjects, I also want to draw on

the Report of the independent Indochinese Refugee Panel headed

by the former Governor of Iowa, Robert D. Ray, which was

submitted to the Secretary of State on April 18. I believe

copies of that Report have been made available to the

Committee. With the assistance of the Immigration and

Naturalization Service, we are now conducting our own analysis

of the Report.

I will also discuss the implications for our programs of

the funding cuts mandated by the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings

legislation and other budgetary restrictions for this fiscal

year (1986), and the related shifts in program and funding

priorities we will follow as a result of these budget

reductions. I will also express the Administration's concerns
about the sizeable reductions which will occur in refugee and

many other international affairs programs as a result of House

and Senate action to reduce funding for these programs in their

deliberations on the 1987 budget resolution. Finally, as you

have suggested, I will provide an update on the African refugee

situation, with particular reference to Ethiopia and Sudan, and

in light of the report recently completed by the Subcommittee's

staff.

Before discussing these issues, however, I would like to

discuss briefly the context in which we are addressing several

recent studies which have suggested new policy directions in

our Southeast Asia program. We have had available your review,

Mr. Chairman, as well as that of the Ray Panel and a number of

other policy or operational critiques. All point to a

crossroads, a need to move from almost exclusive reliance on

refugee resettlement in the program to a more balanced use of

refugee and normal immigration mechanisms. The Administration

agrees with this redirection. For example, the Ray Report

provides, we believe, an excellent analysis of the problem and

offers viable suggestions for addressing it. Implementation,

however, if it is to be enduring and problem solving, must be

done in an international context with renewed leadership and

direction from the High Commissioner for Refugees and his

staff. Only in this way can we achieve broad-based

burden-sharing through the active participation of other

resettlement countries. Furthermore, we must have a mechanism

capable of actively pursuing comprehensive durable solution

planning, if we are to avoid almost exclusive reliance on third

country resettlement. Commissioner Nelson and I had the

opportunity to continue the dialogue on such a process in

Geneva last week with a number of our partners. We found the

UN High Commissioner and leaders of several other major

resettlement governments receptive to the need to review our
joint approaches to the Southeast Asian refugee program and

willing to discuss such approaches further. Coordinated action

at the international level is essential for future planning and

operations, and we are optimistic that our other partners share

this view and are eager to pursue it further over the coming

months.

Also, we must realistically acknowledge that reductions in

the U.S. budget for international affairs programs, which at

this point seem very likely to occur, argue strongly for

pursuing refugee assistance programs with a renewed emphasis on

viable burden-sharing. The United States must never back away

from its humanitarian traditions and obligations, but we must

realistically determine the proper U.S. role in such

undertakings. We are confident that the goodwill and capacity

still exists in the international community for aggressively

pursuing solutions to the Indochinese refugee problem, as well

as those of other regions, but care and patience must be taken

to develop the framework which will permit an equitable,

burden-sharing response to such problems.

Thai-Cambodian Border

Your report, Mr. Chairman, and that of the Ray Panel deal

with many of the same issues, including those highlighted in

your letter calling this consultation. Of those issues, none

is more significant and sensitive for the future of the

Southeast Asian region, and for the future direction of our

programs, than the situation of the 250,000 Khmer and other

populations along the Thai-Cambodian border.

The recent dry season in that region came and went without

significant attacks on civilian encampments by Vietnamese

military forces, unlike earlier years when Vietnamese ground
10

forces and artillery fire forced repeated evacuations of the

border populations. This may well be due, in part, to the Thai

government's decision to move the border encampments a short

distance into Thailand, thus removing the opportunity to attack

camps immediately on the border.

In its discussion with senior Vietnamese officials in Hanoi

the Ray Panel urged the Vietnamese not to attack the civilian

camps as had happened in earlier years. To lessen the pretext

for attacks, combatants were separated from civilians. The

subsequent January visit to Hanoi by Assistant Secretary of

Defense Armitage and then Assistant Secretary of State

Wolfowitz was made conditional on the absence of such attacks.

The U.S. and its allies used the diplomatic tools at their

disposal to assure that the Vietnamese knew that attacks on

innocent civilians would be met by worldwide condemnation.

Now that the 1985-86 dry season is over, we have seen that

Vietnamese military efforts this year concentrated on further

sealing the border region and on measures to extend Vietnamese

control of the Cambodian countryside. The approximately

245,000 Khmer now residing in the camps in the vicinity of the

border will continue to require special attention from the

international community to assure their security and welfare.

With the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)

acting as the focal point for protection and the UN Border

Relief Operation (UNBRO) for welfare and maintenance, we

believe the international mechanisms now in place can

adequately attend to these vulnerable populations as the search

for political solutions to their situation continues.

Need for Improved Education Programs

To the extent that the situation has stabilized, it becomes

all the more desirable to provide improved education, health.
11

and feeding programs for the displaced Khmer who remain in the

vicinity of the border. I was pleased to see, Mr. Chairman,

that the Ray Panel emphasized the need for such programs in

terms similar to those set forth in your Report a year earlier.

We in the Administration have also urged that such programs

be established and expanded, and from information we have

received recently I believe that the responsible authorities in

Thailand are giving serious consideration to allowing such

programs to go forward, if the necessary international funding

can be assured. For a population of this size, expansion of

educational programs now in place will require substantial

additional resources.

Our government recognizes a responsibility to assist

financially, but it is also important that other governments as

well as private organizations in a position to contribute, help

underwrite these programs. The Khmer on the border have been

forced to flee their homelands in what the Thai and we continue

to regard as a temporary displacement caused by the presence of

Vietnamese forces in Cambodia. Although eventual return to

their home regions clearly seems the right solution for the

great majority of these people, it is a tragic waste of human

potential that so many of them have been growing up for years

without access to even minimum schooling.

Border Processing

Such programs are even more important in view of the Ray

Panel's finding, similar to yours, that refugee admissions

processing for resettlement in third countries is not the

appropriate solution for the Khmer on the border. The Ray

Panel endorsed our current policy of immigrant visa processing

for family reunification cases in this group, recommending

generous use of humanitarian parole for hardship cases. I
12

believe this is also consistent with the recommendations in

this Subcommittee's Report.

Another group on the border, the 4,500 so-called "land

Vietnamese" refugees who survived the hazardous trip across

Cambodia from Vietnam • have been of particular concern to

many members of Congress. Because of their special

vulnerability, surrounded by hostile Vietnamese communist

military forces and unfriendly Cambodian groups, we and other

countries are processing the land Vietnamese for resettlement

on an urgent basis. The Thai authorities requested assurances

that this entire group would be processed, and we understand

that they are seriously considering moving the group away from

the border to a nearby inland site for greater safety and more

efficient interviewing. We hope they will make a favorable

decision shortly. For this group the U.S. is considering cases

in all our processing priorities. We believe this policy is

justified by the special vulnerability of the land Vietnamese,

and the absence of any prospect for them to return to their

homeland.

You will also be interested to know that the U.S. has

completed processing of a small Montangard caseload which was

also located at Site 2. We received many expressions of

concern about this vulnerable population from members of

Congress and the public. We processed the entire group,

accepting all 213 considered. They are now undergoing ESL/CO

training prior to resettlement in the U.S.

Khao I Dang

The refugee camp at Khao I Dang has served as the main site

for Cambodian refugees within Thailand since their arrival in

the wake of the Vietnamese invasion in 1978-79. Of the

approximately 165,000 pre-1980 arrivals, over 90 percent have
13

been resettled abroad, in the United States and other receiving

countries. The U.S. has approved over 90 percent of the cases

in this population that were presented to the INS. The

remaining 14,500 of this group have been rejected for admission

to the United States and, in some cases, other countries and

have been the subject of continuing case reviews carried out by

the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and the

Department, with the assistance of experts from private

voluntary agencies.

The initial review of the Khmer caseload at Khao I Dang was

completed in June, 1985. Between February and August, 1985,

there was a further review of 154 previously denied cases in

the field, for whom the earlier denials were upheld in 84 cases

and reversed in 44 with some cases held for futher review. A

subsequent formal review of an additional 631 cases previously

denied cases was instituted in November, 1985, and of this

number slightly under 10 percent (59 out of 631 cases) were

reversed. Since each case averages several people in a family

we estimate that about 20 percent of this population of 14,500

has benefited from such reviews.

The Ray Panel stated that it was impressed by the major

efforts undertaken to review the cases of the "denied Khmer"

and recognized the difficulty of carrying out this process but

concluded that additional cases should also be reviewed. The

Panel noted that among the denied Khmer are some with family

ties in the U.S. for whom it would be especially desirable to

assure that there has been a full review.

It has been the INS's judgment, in which we have concurred,

that the review of the 631 cases effectively completed the

special review process. The cases were selected with an eye to

<
14

those that appeared most likely to benefit from review,

including those with family ties in the U.S.

"Family Card Holders"

Another group at Khao I Dang, the 4,300 so-called "family

card holders" who entered the camp between 1980 and 1984, has

just become available for resettlement processing, and the U.S.

will soon commence processing in priorities 1 through 5. We

are not planning to process those who entered the camp

illegally after August, 1984, the so-called "ration card

holders" who are regarded by the Thai and the international

community as essentially in the same status as the other Khmer

on the border.

At a June 13th meeting in Bangkok, the Thai authorities

stated their ultimate intention to close Khao I Dang and to

move those remaining there to the location of their choice

along the border. We have reminded the Thai of our interest in

the family card holders, as well as those who will benefit from

immigrant visa processing. The planned relocation of these

groups is of course the responsibility of the Thai, but we have

requested that they keep the camp open until all governments

have had an opportunity to complete their processing and the

UNHCR has had an opportunity to determine whether other forms

of durable solutions should be considered. The UN High

Commissioner will visit Southeast Asia in September and this is

one of the subjects he will address. Thai officials agreed at

the June 13 meeting to meet again later in the year to review

the status of Khao I Dang with UNHCR and the major resettlement

governments.

Lao in Thailand

Both this Committee's Report and that of the Ray Panel deal

extensively with the situation of Lao refugees in Thailand,
15

particularly the screening program that has been instituted by

the Thai authorities with the participation of the UNHCR, to

determine which of the newly arriving Lao qualify for refugee

status and which should be returned to Laos as illegal

immigrants.

Essential to this program has been the Lao government's

agreement to accept back those screened out. Despite an

earlier agreement in principle between the Lao and Thai

governments, thus far none of the approximately 1,000 persons

have been permitted by Laos to return home. We are supporting

the UNHCR's efforts to work with the Lao authorities to assure

their safe and orderly return.

On the positive side, the screening program has acted to

reduce the number of new Lao arrivals in Thailand. Since it

started in July 1985, 3,900 Lao have arrived in Thailand, as

opposed to 16,000 during the comparable period in the preceding

year. Almost half of the arrivals since July, 1985 have been

granted temporary asylum by Thailand and are currently in UNHCR

camps.

The UNHCR Orderly Departure Program

You will recall that the uncontrolled flood of boat

departures from Vietnam in 1978-79 prompted the international

community, led by the UNHCR, to seek agreement from Hanoi to a

regularized system of departure. The result was an agreement

signed in June 1979 by the UNHCR and Vietnam, creating the

Orderly Departure Program (ODP) from Vietnam. Since then, the

ODP has provided a safe means of departure from Vietnam, for an

increasingly larger number of Vietnamese, as an alternative to

dangerous flight either by boat or overland through the

mine-infested fields along the Thai-Cambodian border. Over
16

105,000 Vietnamese have been able to leave Vietnam through this

program • approximately half to the U.S. and half to the other

nearly 30 participating countries.

Despite the unilateral Vietnamese suspension of processing

new cases since last January, departures in 1986 have remained

close to what they were in the comparable period last year.

There is a sufficient pool of interviewed U.S. applicants to

permit departures to continue for several more weeks. On

May 21, Senators DeConcini and Murkowski, and on June 5

Representative Bilirakis, introduced resolutions urging the

Vietnamese to allow the resumption of processing. We greatly

appreciate this bipartisan support and are hopeful that

differences with the Vietnamese can be resolved before any

permanent damage to the program is done. In spite of

Vietnamese obstruction, we will come very close to the FY-1986

refugee ceiling of 8,500.

We believe that the only way the ODP can continue to expand

significantly is by increased use of the immigration route to

bring about family reunification. In the future political and

budgetary constraints will limit the refugee route to cases of

special humanitarian concern to the U.S., individuals who

clearly face persecution because of their ties to the U.S. but

who cannot qualify for immigrant visas. Meanwhile, the vast

majority of Vietnamese refugees in the U.S. have now been here

long enough to qualify for U.S. citizenship. As citizens, they

should be urged to file immigrant visa petitions for their

relatives to join them.

U.S. Admissions Policy

On the general subject of Indochinese refugee admissions to

the United States, the Ray Panel's recommendations point in the
17

same direction as your Report a year earlier, Mr. Chairman.

The Panel concludes that the Indochinese program should have

two components: a continuing refugee program for those who

meet the legal definition of refugees; and an effective

immigration program for those seeking admission to the United

States on the basis of family ties.

Such a shift towards immigration processing was endorsed in

Secretary Shultz's statement to this Committee last September,

and it is now under careful review by the interagency study

group to which I referred earlier. The Ray Panel suggested a

number of steps to be considered in a transition period. There

appears to be wide recognition that the time is at hand for

such a shift of emphasis in our admissions programs.

Essential to this recommendation is the recognition that

many of the 800,000 Indochinese now in the United States are or

will soon be eligible, if they proceed with adjusting their

status, to petition on behalf of relatives for admission as

immigrants. The Panel endorsed the suggestion which also finds

favor in your Report, that the private voluntary agencies

should continue to play a key role in aiding these groups,

regardless of their method of admission to the U.S.

Budget Situation and FY 1986 Admissions

In recent months all parts of the Executive Branch have

been undertaking program reductions necessary to conform to the

requirements of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings legislation. In our

case, in addition to applying the across-the-board reductions

we have had to consider additional shifts in our limited funds

to meet critical refugee assistance needs overseas.

Life-sustaining care and maintenance requirements are expanding

for refugees in Africa, the Afghans in Pakistan, the Cambodians

on the Thai-Cambodian border, and for other groups in Southeast
18

Asia and elsewhere. These accelerating needs cannot be met out

of the funds originally budgeted for this purpose, even before

the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings reductions. In order to meet these

highest priority needs, therefore, we have no alternative but

to apply even greater cuts in proposed funding for FY 1986

admissions • and thus in the numbers to be admitted • beyond

those mandated by the Emergency Deficit Reduction Act and

Balanced Budget of 1985.

Revised FY 1986 Admissions

For FY 1986, we can foresee that we will be unable to

utilize fully the 67,000 admissions ceilings announced by the

President. Instead, we expect refugee admissions at about the

61,000 level.

The following chart shows the regional ceilings established

for this year, and the projected number of admissions that we

expect to be able to fund out of our budget after the shifts

and reductions described above.

Revised

Admission

Levels

FY 1986

Ceilinq

East Asia/First Asylum 37,000

East Asia/ODP 8,500

Eastern Europe and UUSR 9,500

Near East/South Asia 6,000

Latin America 3,000

Africa 3,000

Total 67,000

35 000

8 500

9 500

6 000

250

1 750

61,000

We have substantially reduced the projected Latin American

numbers because the government of Cuba has not resumed

implementation of the Migration Agreement with the United

States signed in December of 1984. The lower African

admissions result from a moratorium on refugee movements

instituted by the government of the Sudan. We have been forced

to reduce expected admissions from East Asia/First Asylum by
19

2,000 in order to free additional resources for basic refugee

assistance requirements particularly in Africa.

Mr. Chairman, the post-Gramm-Rudman-Hollings budget of $324

million for the State Department's 1986 refugee program has, as

we expected, proven inadequate to meet the serious refugee

needs the international community is addressing throughout the

world. The impact of these reductions is magnified when one

considers that up to a quarter of our budget is protected from

reductions through statutory earmarking imposed by

authorizations and appropriations actions. Therefore, because

of the unavoidable and critical need to meet serious care and

maintenance requirements of refugees in Africa and Southeast

Asia, which exceed current budget availabilities, we have

proposed to reprogram $9.2 million from the U.S. admissions

program. This will result in the ability to fund only 61,000

new admissions. We regret this action, but believe we have no

alternative given the urgent needs overseas and our reduced

ability to meet them. Highest priority will have to be given

to life-preserving programs.

Funding for FY 1987 programs could become even more

limited, especially if the major reductions proposed in either

the House or Senate overall budget resolutions are enacted into

law. As you recall, the Administration's 1987 budget request

of $22.6 billion for the international affairs budget function

has been reduced to $17.9 billion and $17 billion by the Senate

and House respectively. What these actions will mean

specifically for the refugee program request of $347 million

is, at this time, uncertain • but it is likely to be

substantial. Given that these funds aid almost 10 million

refugees throughout the world, cutbacks of the magnitude now

being discussed would have serious implications for the

well-being of these vulnerable people. We urge the support of
20

this Committee in assuring that adequate funds are provided for

these vitally important humanitarian programs.

First Half FY 1986 Admissions

For the Committee's information, I am also providing the

status of actual admissions to the U.S. as April 30, 1986:

Actual

Admissions

(Apr il 30, 1986)

East Asia/First Asylum 21,050

East Asia/ODP 4,970

Eastern Europe and USSR 5,260

Near East/South Asia 3,830

Latin America 21

Africa 450

Total 35,581

Drawing on refugees already in the refugee processing

centers (RPCs) projected Indochinese admissions for the

remainder of the fiscal year are expected to be close to the

proposed reduced level of 35,000. Admissions under the Orderly

Departure Program (ODP) are likely to reach the 8,500 ceiling.

Although admissions of refugees from the Soviet Union

(primarily Soviet Jews) continue to run disturbingly low (511

as of the end of April), admissions of other categories of

refugees from Eastern Europe should bring us close to the 9,500

ceiling.

In the Near East region, refugees are drawn primarily from

Afghans (1,629 as of April 30) and Iranians (1,973 for the same

period), and total admissions for the year are expected to come

close to the 6,000 ceiling.

From Latin America, as noted above, we have been

disappointed in our hope that the Cubans would terminate the

suspension of the December 1984, Migration Agreement.
21

Admissions now total 21 Cubans from other parts of Central

America and admissions for the year may well stay below 100

persons.

The shortfall from Africa, as I have mentioned is caused

largely by suspension of processing in the Sudan. The

suspension resulted initially from the government's moratorium

on refugee movements, but has continued because of the current

security situation and the withdrawal of American personnel.

If we are able to move the 950 already INS approved in the

Sudan we could still come close to the projected admissions of

1,750.

Actual Admissions in FY 1985

For comparison, actual refugee admissions in FY 1985

totalled 68,045 out of a ceiling of 70,000, as follows:

East Asia/First Asylum

East Asia/ODP

Eastern Europe and USSR

Near East/South Asia

Latin America

Africa

Total

Actual Regional

Admisions Ceilings

FY 1985 FY 1985

41,972 42,000

7,998 8,000

I 9,990 10,000

5,994 6,000

138 1,000

1,953 3,000

68,045 70,000

Refugees in Africa

The budget shifts I have described have been driven to a

large extent by the increase requirements for refugee

assistance in Africa. The African refugee situation is complex

and dynamic. Many countries are concurrently generators of and

receivers of refugees; refugees may be returning home to some

countries at the same time as their compatriots are fleeing
into refuge. You will remember that during late 1984 and 1985,

the number of refugees in Africa in need of international

assistance grew from some 2 million to some 2.8 million. The

dramatic increase was principally caused by the coincidence of

drought and civil strife. The relatively abundant rains this

year may signal an end to the natural disaster of drought, but

do not necessarily lead to a solution to Africa's refugee

problems. For example, Chadians who fled into Sudan may have

been seeking food relief aid as much as they were fleeing the

ravages of assorted bandits and tribal enemies. Although rains

have returned, renewed fighting in Chad's internal war and the

geopolitical interests of Libya, Sudan, and Chad (among others)

conspire to keep many of those Chadians in Sudan and of concern

to UNHCR. Elsewhere in Africa, the numbers of refugees able to

return to their homes have been offset by new refugee flows.

Therefore, the overall number of refugees in Africa remains

fairly constant, though the composition of the total is

changing.

Horn of Africa

With respect to the Horn of Africa, we continue to monitor

closely the conditions which generate refugees. Two policies

of the Government of Ethiopia - resettlement and villagization

- appear to have caused significant flows of refugees into

Sudan and Somalia. Resettlement is currently suspended,

although the Ethiopian government has announced that it will

resume later in 1986. We hope that any resumption will not be

accompanied by the gross violations of human rights previously

associated with the program. Villagization, which is purported

to improve services by organizing communities into more easily

assisted units, is an on-going effort to relocate up to

33 million rural peasants. As many as 70,000 people have

arrived in northwest Somalia during the past six months,
23

claiming that they are fleeing the effects of villagization.

There have been a number of problems with the assistance effort

in northwest Somalia since the Government of Somalia has

decided not to move these new refugees away from the border to

a more suitable site. However, the office of the United

Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is organizing relief

operations and conditions seem to be stabilizing. Of course,

civil strife in northern Ethiopia is an on-going cause of major

refugee flows into Sudan. And the Oromo Liberation Front is

engaged in activities in western and southern Ethiopia that

contribute to flows to Somalia.

Uganda

Another refugee emergency "hot spot" which we are watching

closely is Southern Sudan - Northern Uganda. War in Southern

Sudan has led to the collapse of traditional civil

authorities. As a result, in early May, armed attacks were

made on Ugandan refugee settlements. To date some 60,000

Ugandan refugees have fled home to Uganda. Uganda is currently

enjoying a period of relative stability and so far has been

able to reintegrate these returning refugees with remarkable

ease despite rather widespread destruction in northern Uganda.

Additional precipitous returns, however, could result in more

serious problems for Uganda since there are as many as 200,000

Ugandan refugees still in Southern Sudan.

Southern Africa

There have not been the outflows from the Republic of South

Africa that one might have expected given the current violence

there. Rather, South African Government pressures on countries

of first asylum - including the recent raids in Botswana,

Zambia, and Zimbabwe - have caused UNHCR to relocate refugees
24

to safer places of asylum. Our government has strongly

condemned those raids and the Bureau has earmarked funds to

help repair the refugee reception center in Zambia that was

attacked. We are, of course, quite concerned about the

potential for new refugees, including some who may simply be

fleeing the widening violence rather than being associated with

any of the banned organizations. We are continuing to work

with our refugee officers in the neighboring countries to

insure that contingency planning is done by the relevant

international organization whose mandates require it.

If the number of South African refugees has not been

growing dramatically, the number of Mozambican and Angolan

refugees has. As many as 180,000 Mozambican refugees have fled

to South Africa, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Malawi, and Swaziland since

1984. Over 100,000 new Angolan refugees have entered Zaire and

Zambia last year and this year.

Refugee Aid and Development

African host nations are developing countries with limited

resources to provide for their own citizens. We try to do our

fair share of providing for the care and maintenance of African

refugees through international organizations such as the UNHCR,

ICRC, and WFP. However, there is also a need to pursue more

lasting solutions through integration of refugee and

development aid. These medium- and longer-term needs must not

be forgotten in the process of responding to urgent life-saving

demands.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to provide this

mid-year report. I will be glad to respond to your questions.
25

Senator SIMPSON. Thank you very much.

Now, Alan Nelson, please. I will hold back on the timer, but

watch very carefully.

Commissioner NELSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. Chairman, I also would like to submit our written statement

for the record.

Senator SIMPSON. Without objection.

Commissioner NELSON. I would like to also acknowledge the presence of Richard Norton, our Associate Commissioner for Examinations, and Delia Combs, Assistant Commissioner for Office of Refugee Asylum and Parole who are present here and will be happy to

respond also to questions.

Since the last annual consultation in September, there has been

a great deal of activity in INS, of course, in conjunction with the

State Department and refugee processing. For example, our Bangkok and Rome offices alone have conducted over 34,000 refugee determination interviews during the first 6 months of this year.

There is a program underway for processing Baha'i minorities in

Pakistan. The Khmer Review panel, established in November 1985,

reviewed 631 cases of denied Khmer refugee cases and did a thorough job, indicating 9 percent of those should be reversed, the rest

should stand.

We, along with others, have given assistance to the Ray panel

and have worked with them in their study. I personally just this

last week had an opportunity to be in Europe and review our work

over there in Rome, and Vienna, and other locations, and am certainly very impressed with the job our people are doing.

As Mr. Purcell just indicated, I also was honored to attend with

him this meeting in Geneva, which I thought went very well, with

our Canadian, Australian, and Japanese representatives and the

U.N. High Commissioner in his office. I think the meeting was very

productive, as Mr. Purcell indicated, and if I could just take a

moment at this time to express appreciation both for the job Jim

did at that meeting, chairing the U.S. delegation, and overall for

his excellent work over the next number of years, and on behalf of

the Department of Justice, Immigration Service, and myself, personally, want to commend him for his outstanding work. We will

miss him in the time ahead.

Going on, you asked me, Mr. Chairman, to comment on three important issues, and our testimony largely covers that in writing•

one, being the adequacy of the priority system and the use of categories; second, the active refugee admission ceilings, and, third, the

processing and reconsideration of the denied Khmer cases at Khao

I Dang.

As far as the guidelines, I think there is a general sense that a

greater, far greater, part of the population reaching first asylum

countries is now increasingly comprised of persons seeking family

reunification and quality of life improvement, rather than actually

fleeing persecution or the fear of persecution. And I think we all,

as Mr. Purcell indicated, are working on more durable solutions in

that area. And we are certainly, in the Immigration Service and

Justice Department, committed to a course of action that will give

greater emphasis to normal immigrant visa processing where that

is possible.
And we are working with the State Department in the whole development of processing priority definitions, consideration of what

categories, and so forth, ought to be done; that is going forward,

and we will certainly work with the committee in more detail on

that.

Turning to the review of the denied Khmer cases, I think Mr.

Purcell touched the basic issues. I will be quick on that. We have

denied over the last number of years some 3,250 cases, which is

about 15,000 Cambodian denials; those are the denied numbers. But

we have accepted for resettlement approximately 70 percent of all

Cambodian nationals offered for resettlement; nearly 90 percent of

all Khmer applicants for U.S. resettlement have been approved•

that is 140,000 persons. This is one of the highest overall approval

rates of any nationality group.

And I used the example in Geneva, and I will use it again•we

talk about how we look at things, the glass half full, the glass half

empty; in this case, it is whether you look at the glass 90 percent

full or 10 percent empty. I do not think there is any question that

we have done an outstanding job in the selection process, very generous, and now of course, we have had a lot of inquiries and review

of this 10 percent, and these reviews have been procedures where

the voluntary agencies, the State Department and INS can all trigger review of cases. That was done thoroughly. In addition, of

course, there was the followup again of a more detailed review.

Each of those added some reversals and added it in.

We are convinced, and I know Ambassador Brown in Thailand is,

the State Department and ourselves, that this process has been

fair, thorough, and there is no basis whatsoever to continue to rereview and rereview. Always available is a case-by-case rereview

when new evidence might come up, and we certainly concur with

the Ray report in that regard, on an individual case-by-case basis,

but not to do any continued rereview. I think that has been adequately covered from all aspects.

On the ceilings, Mr. Purcell has touched on that, and I will just

summarize. Obviously, we will be coming to this committee and the

Congress on the issue of what the mission ceilings should be for

next fiscal year. We are not yet there. Mr. Purcell has given some

indications. I think we would concur from Justice Department that

the ceiling probably should be slightly reduced toward the normative ceiling established in the Refugee Act. And part of the consideration is some thought about whether there ought to be some reallocations within that. We will be working on that.

Clearly, the refugee ceilings established through the consultative

process under the Refugee Act of 1980 are based on a variety of

considerations. They include foreign policy needs and the interests

of our country generally; the need to respond to emergency refugee

situations; the whole first asylum country issues that tie into that;

the anticipated numbers of qualifying applicants, and how the refugees will fare in this country•something Mr. Hawkes will be addressing, certainly•and the overall domestic budget situation. So,
27

there are plenty of factors, and we look forward, Mr. Chairman, to

working with you and the committee as we go forward in this important program.

Thank you.

[Statement follows:]

<
28

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ALAN C. NELSON

Mr. Chairman:

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today, on the occasion

of this mid-year consultation, to comment on a number of issues of

interest to the Subconmittee, and to respond to your questions regarding

developments in the United States refugee program that fall within the

Service's purview.

The months that have passed since the annual consultation of September

last have been a time of much activity for the Immigration and Naturalization Service both in terms of refugee processing by our overseas district offices, and in terms of policy and program planning. By way of

illustration:

0 Service officers of our Bangkok and Rome District Offices, alone,

conducted over 34,000 refugee determination interviews during the

first six months of the fiscal year.

0

INS processing of Baha'i and other Iranian religious minorities was

initiated this past April in Pakistan, addressing a major concern

- in this area.

° A special Khmer Review Panel was established in November 1985 to

conduct the review of 631 cases of denied Khmer refugee applicants

considered by interested parties to most merit review and reconsideration of their applications. This unprecedented, supervisory review

was concluded in February 1986, and resulted in the reversal of denial

decisions in approximately nine percent of the cases.

° Service officers in the Bangkok District and at Central Office provided extensive technical support and assistance to the Indochinese

Refugee Panel during its important and valuable review of United

States refugee program policies and objectives in the East Asia region.

° Service personnel from the Central Office are participating in the

special interagency group charged with reviewing the Indochinese

Refugee Panel recommendations and with developing detailed policy

and program recommendations for a new admissions processing regime

for the region...one which more clearly recognizes the important

distinction between refugee and family reunification admissions eligibilities.
29

0

I have had the dpportunity recently to personally review INS refugee

processing and numerous other aspects of Service operations within

our Rome District.

The Subconmlttee has specifically requested Immigration and Naturalization Service comment on three important issues. These are: (1) the

nature and adequacy of the present processing priorities system and

the use of categories of likely targets of persecution in refugee processing in Southeast Asia; (2) the adequacy of refugee admissions ceilings for Fiscal Year 1986 and likely requirements for Fiscal Year 1987;

and, (3) the processing, review and reconsideration of denied Khmer

refugee applicants at Khao-I-Dang.

PROCESSING PRIORITIES AND CATEGORIES

There is growing sentiment within United States refugee program agencies

that for certain regions, at least, the current processing priorities

are In need of revision. This is particularly the case In Southeast

Asia where, 11 years after the fall of allied governments in Vietnam,

Cambodia, and Laos, the population reaching first asylum countries is

increasingly comprised of persons seeking family reunification and quality of life improvement rather than of persons actually fleeing persecution or the fear of persecution.

The present priorities system, which enables United States refugee program consideration of Priority one through five cases is, in most first

asylum posts in Southeast Asia, predominantly for family reunification

cases (Priorities three and five). Because of the several notes to the

priorities, the emphasis on family link cases is even more accentuated.

With an increasing portion of the resettlement eligible first asylum

population comprised of persons with family members in the United States

who can, now, or in time, file immigrant visa petitions, we are committed

to a course of action that will give greater emphasis to normal Immigrant

visa processing of such cases, absent the presence of a bona fide claim

to genuine refugee status.

We are currently at work with the Department of State on a planned restructuring of the processing regime in Southeast Asia. One key element

of that processing regime will be development of new processing priority

definitions, definitions that will enable the United States refugee

program to reach more precisely those who experienced persecution or

have a well-founded fear of persecution. We expect to be able to brief

this Subcommittee on the planned changes in the very near future.

63-000 0-86-2
30

The Service, in concert with this broader joint State/INS initiative,

currently has under consideration revised Worldwide Refugee Processing

Guidelines. The draft revised guidelines contain substantially revised

categories of groups from the refugee generating countries in Southeast

Asia who, objective evidence suggests, are likely targets of persecution

by the communist regimes in Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos. The proposed

new categories, which, for objective reasons, are more restrictive in

reach than those currently In effect, are, in our view, of continued

need in our processing In Southeast Asia, and are of demonstrated practical value.

REVIEW OF DENIED Kt*Ei REFUGEE APPLICANTS

No aspect of our refugee program operations has received greater attention from the American people or from within the Service In recent years

than our processing of the Khmer refugee applicants at Khao-I-Dang camp

In Thailand. Through a major film. The Killing Fields, and through several new documentary films and numerous personal accounts, the American

people, and a much wider international audience, have been shown glimpses

of the horror that befell this people and culture beginning in 1975

at the hands of the Khmer Rouge. Let us hope that the record of this

tragic and shameful period of history will be kept alive. It is a

continuing reminder to us all of why a strong United States refugee

program is so vital.

In the course of our processing of Cambodian refugees during the past

several years In Thailand, seme 3,250 cases Involving approximately

15,000 Cambodian nationals have been denied admission to the United

States. Some of those denied have relatives in the United States. Several

observers of United States refugee program processing in Thailand believe

that some number of these cases have been unfairly denied. Some believe

that the Government, in the interests of fairness and humanitarian concern, is duty bound to review anew the denied cases.

The Indochlnese Refugee Panel, chaired by former Governor Ray of Iowa,

indicated In its report to the Secretary of State that some additional

review of the denied cases would be desirable. Others, including some

who have fed too long at the trough of fiction, contend that not only

should an additional review of the entire rejected caseload be conducted,

but that such a review should employ guidelines that would effectively

shift the burden of proof from the applicant to the Government, and

in other ways assure a high approval rate.

Sunply stated, the record of United States refugee program responsiveness

to the Cambodian crisis, and the quality of the adjudications work that
31

has been done to date in the Khmer refugee processing do not support

the arguments of those who advocate for additional comprehensive reviews,

and most certainly not for relaxed refugee determination standards.

Let me briefly review that record.

The United States has accepted for resettlement approximately 70% of

all Cambodian nationals offered firm resettlement opportunities outside

the Southeast Asia region since 1975. Nearly 90% of all Khmer applicants

for United States resettlement as refugees (approximately 140.000 persons) have been approved... one of the highest overall approval rates

for any nationality group. These facts hardly square with the assertions

of those critics who see phantoms being chased.

Very early on in the processing of Khmer applicants in Thailand and

other first asylum countries of the region, it became clear that there

were serious deficiences in the stock of information available to refugee

program agencies about events within Pol Pot's Kampuchea during the

period 1975-1979. The Department of State and the Service placed strong

emphasis on developing that information and placing it into the hands

of refugee officers and immigration officers. In part because of our

interest to assure well-informed adjudications, a decision was made

in 1983 to defer the adjudication of those cases requiring closer inspection until the latter stages of Knao-I-Dang processing. Further, the

Department of State moved in 1983 to establish a team of ethnic affairs

officers to interview applicants about whom questions were raised by

their accounts in interviews with Joint Voluntary Agency caseworkers.

Agreements were also reached among the refugee program agencies in Thailand to readjudicate a number of previously denied applicants if there

were substantive reasons for doing so, or if an individual denied as

part of another case merited reconsideration in his or her own right

and could properly be separated from the originally denied case.

Additionally, in 1984, the INS relocated its District Office to Bangkok

and began to utilize more fully a permanent cadre of trained and

experienced officer personnel.

As the previously deferred cases began to be presented for ethnic affairs

officer interview and INS officer determination interviews in 1984,

the approval rates began to decline. (The approval rate reached its

lowest ebb (55%) in Fiscal Year 1985.) In response to concerns about

the rising denial rate, in late 1984 the Bureau of Refugee Programs

and INS undertook an major review of Khmer processing in Thailand with

a special focus on the matter of how ethnic affairs officers and Service

officers were applying the persecution of others test in screening and

adjudications of the Khmer applicants. Its purpose was to assess whether

the adjudications were being properly conducted and to determine what
32

additional actions should be taken to strengthen the quality of the

review and reconsideration process.

The results of this inquiry, "The Processing of Cambodian Refugees:

Second Sentence Aspects", issued in March 1985, concluded that: these

difficult adjudications were being conducted fairly, and in conformity

with the applicable laws, regulations and policy guidance; and that

substantial country conditions information was available to, and being

utilized actively by, the ethnic affairs officers and immigration

officers in reaching their findings and determinations. The report went

on to recommend that the long-standing informal field review process

should be strengthened and formalized. Indeed, this recommendation was

acted upon by the Service and Bureau of Refugee Programs in February

1985.

Under this unprecedented review procedure, any party to the refugee

processing activity at Ban Thai Samart • the JVA team leader, the senior

ethnic affairs officer or the INS team leader • could present for review, reinterview and possible reconsideration any case which was considered to have been improperly decided. Between February and August

1985, 154 cases were selected for review and possible reconsideration.

Many of these cases dated from the early period of Khmer refugee processing. The initial denial was confirmed in 84 of these cases, reversed

in 44, and deferred in 26.

In June 1985, upon the completion of the processing at Ban Thai Samart,

the field processing site for the Khao-I-Dang camp population to which

we then had access, it soon became apparent to all parties that the

review procedures established in February were too inefficient to continue. Accordingly, this procedure was suspended in August 1985.

In September 1985, Ambassador William Brown endorsed a plan for additional review of cases identified through a JVA survey of the denied

caseload of Khmer applicants. At the completion of the JVA survey, INS

concurred in the conduct of a supervisory review of 631 additional cases

selected by JVA and the Refugee Counselor as being those most meritorious

of review and possible reconsideration based on the JVA caseworkers'

reading of the INS interview sheets. Included in this caseload were

a substantial number of cases involving persons with relatives in the

United States.

INS assigned two experienced professionals to lead this review on a

full tine basis until completion. The co-chairmen of the Khmer Review

Panel were ably assisted by the JVA team leader at Ban Thai Samart,

the senior ethnic affairs officer, the INS team leader for the Ban Thai
33

Samart processing, and a Cambodian born Refugee and Migration Affairs

Officer. The co-chairmen were charged to: conduct an independent supervisory review of the cases presented; reccranend for reversal any cases

in which mistakes of interpretation or conclusion appeared to have been

made; establish whether additional review appeared warranted, and if

so, what form that review should take. The Khmer Review Panel worked

from November 1985 until early February 1986. The co-chairmen determined

that favorable consideration should be given in approximately nine percent of the cases (59 of the 631 reviewed). That is, they determined

that the sun of the evidence in these cases warranted giving the benefit

of the doubt to the applicant.

Based on their review of these 631 most meritorious cases, the co-chairmen concluded that the most appropriate way to address other case where

a wrong or arguable decision may have been reached is through the same

review and reconsideration procedures as apply in all other overseas

refugee processing posts for all other nationality groups. This conclusion was endorsed by Ambassador William Brown and has been concurred

in by my colleague Mr. James Purcell, Director of the Bureau for Refugee

Programs.

We have accepted approximately 90% of all Khmer applicants for United

States resettlement. We have undertaken a number of special reviews

of denied cases. We accepted a plan to reach deeply into the 10% of

the Khmer who were initially denied United States refugee program recognition to find those most likely to be approvable upon reexamination.

We found approximately nine percent who could be approved. And we approved them. We have no basic disagreement with the recommendation of the

Indochinese Refugee Panel that additional cases should be reviewed.

But we conclude that such reviews are properly done on a case-by-case

basis utilizing the same basic criteria and standards as apply in all

other posts and for all other nationalities.

It Is important to make several further observations on this issue.

Those denied United States refugee program recognition have been denied

either for serious credibility problems or for evidence indicative of

participation with or the rendering of assistance to the Khmer Rouge

on the part of the principal applicant or another member of the case.

As there are usually several members in each case, there is every likelihood that In many cases there are completely innocent Individuals who

were themselves victims of the Pol Pot reign of terror. Where INS officers have been able to split cases to enable approval of such persons

without violating essential family units, that has been done.

In reaching determinations on the issues of credibility or association

with the Khmer Rouge, Service officers are informed and guided by a
34

substantial body of published and unpublished information regarding

conditions and events inside "Kampuchea" during the decade of 1970-1980.

This information, much of it garnered through thousands of refugee interviews by Ethnic Affairs Officers and INS officers, encompasses such

matters as the structure of Khmer Rouge organization in various parts

of the country at various timBs, principal Khmer Rouge factions, patterns

of persecution, forced labor practices and organization, Vietnamese

invasion routes, and the structure and deployment patterns of the Khmer

Rouge resistance in the post-invasion period.

Absent the rendering of widely varying accounts of personal history

during the 1970-1980 period in the course of the sequence of interviews

or within the same interview, and absent an indication of a serious

security issue (i.e. a pattern of events strongly suggesting the possibility of a meaningful association with Khmer Rouge policies and practices), the Service officer gives the benefit of the doubt to the applicant. In fact, Service officers have given the benefit of the doubt

In tens of thousands of cases where inconsistencies have appeared.

Those who have taken the time to observe the refugee determination interviews at close hand, as you have done, Mr. Chairman, know how difficult

these determinations are. They know how seriously these determination

interviews are approached by Service officers. They know just how large

the stakes are for the applicant... for our country... and for those

victims of persecution to whom we have offered protection and new beginnings.

Mr. Chairman, we have learned much from this chapter of United States

refugee program experience in Southeast Asia. In a world of infinite

resources, we could perhaps have had a more foolproof system for selecting in bona fide refugees and selecting out those who have no basis

for finding refuge in this country. It is not a world of infinite resources. In retrospect, and when compared to the responses of all the

other resettlement countries to the horrors of the Pol Pot era, I believe

that our national response must be judged as extraordinary. We believe

further that the men and women of the INS charged with the refugee determination responsibility in these cases have performed in a manner deserving of highest commendation.

ADEQUACY CF REFUGEE ADMISSIONS CEILINGS

As you know, Mr. Chairman, for Fiscal Year 1986, the following refugee

admission ceilings were established:
35

Worldwide Ceiling: 67,000

East Asia First Asylum: 37,000

East Asia Orderly Departure Program: 8,500

Eastern Europe and Soviet Union: 9,500

Near East and South Asia: 6,000

Africa: 3,000

Latin America and Caribbean: 3,000

Importantly, these are ceilings, not quotas. For reasons beyond our

control, actual admissions during Fiscal Year 1986 will be substantially

lower than these ceilings. For East Asia first asylum, projected

admissions are now 35,000. For the Orderly Departure Program, estimated

admissions are placed at the authorized level of 8,500. Eastern European

and Soviet Union admissions are also projected to be close to the

ceiling, as are admissions from the Near/South Asia region. Africa region

admissions are expected to be 1,600. Latin America and Caribbean region

admissions are projected to be substantially below the ceiling in major

part because of the continuing refusal of the Government of Cuba to

reinstate the migration accord of December 1984. Total acknissions

worldwide will, consequently, be about 61,000.

The refugee admissions ceilings, established annually through the consultative process set forth in the Refugee Act of 1980, are based on

a variety of considerations. These include foreign policy needs and

interests of our country; the need to be able to respond to emergency

refugee situations that may threaten maintenance of open first asylum

policies on the part of front line countries; the anticipated numbers

of qualifying applicants for United States refugee program consideration

in first asylum or, in designated instances, their home countries; how

well refugees previously admitted are faring in terms of attainment

of economic self-sufficiency and social integration; and the overall

domestic budget situation.

At the present moment, I believe it to be premature to cotmnent on precise

requirements for Fiscal Year 1987 admissions ceilings. Much can happen

over the course of the next several months to invalidate even the most

firmly held needs estimates. Absent major changes around the world,

it is reasonable to believe that the global ceiling could be slightly

reduced toward the normative ceiling established in the Refugee Act.

At the same time, there may well be need and opportunity for substantial

inter-regional real locations of refugee admissions numbers.

We appreciate very much this opportunity to conment on these refugee

program issues, and would welcome the opportunity to respond more fully

to any questions you or other members of your conmittee may have.
36

Senator SIMPSON. Thank you very much, Commissioner.

And now, Phil Hawkes, please.

Mr. HAWKES. Good morning, Senator.

I am not as eloquent as the member of the diplomatic corps, my

colleague, Mr. Purcell, but I too am leaving the post that I have

occupied for the last 5 years, and I would like to tell you that it has

indeed been a pleasure working with you and the members of your

staff and other Senators' staffs who work so closely with us on the

many immigration and refugee issues•some rather thorny. Over

the last 5 years, it has been a very good time.

The Office of Refugee Resettlement will soon be directed by Bill

Gee, who is seated on my left, a very able and capable person.

I would like to enter my statement for the record and just briefly

outline some of the highlights.

Senator SIMPSON. Without objection.

Mr. HAWKES. I think I would like to start by mentioning that it

was the expectation of those who framed the 1980 Refugee Act that

the Refugee Assistance Program would be a short, transitional program which would assist refugees to become knowledgeable about

the way of life in the United States and that very quickly they

would get jobs and become self-sufficient, as millions of immigrants

had done before them.

Unfortunately, and for a number of reasons, this has been unrealized for many refugees who have arrived in this country since

1980 and in fact since 1975.

Currently, over one-half of the 3-year population•about 55 percent of the refugees arrived in this country over the last 3 years•

are on public assistance; and the range by State is from around 4

percent in some States to over 90 percent in another State.

Resettlement and secondary migration have tended to concentrate refugees in States with high welfare benefits, unemployed

parent programs as part of their benefit package, and extended

service programs, which have come to supplant work.

The range in dependency rates from 4 to 90 percent suggests, I

believe, that something is wrong with the program as much as

something wrong with the refugees.

It is hard to imagine that only literate, well-trained refugees

settle in some States•such as Arizona with a 7-percent dependency rate; the District of Columbia with a 10-percent rate; North

Carolina, which has a large number of Hmong and a 9-percent

rate•while only illiterate refugees, incapable of taking work, settle

in California with a 90-percent rate, Massachusetts with an 80-percent rate, Hawaii, with a 71-percent rate, or Washington State with

a 74-percent rate. It would be unlikely that such differences are

solely accounted for in the preparation of the refugees. To me, it

looks more like a basic flaw in the program of resettlement in

those States.

The dependency rate, by the way, does not in any case correspond to employment opportunities in those States and seems to

fluctuate regardless of what entry-level jobs are paying or how

many entry-level jobs are available.

The American Council for Nationalities Service, one of the voluntary agencies that does a fine job in resettlement, has done a study

which showed that refugees on arrival were highly motivated to
37

accept employment, but within 4 to 6 months after arrival became

much more oriented toward extended service, increasing their

skills, and entering the job market at the highest possible level.

We find that the refugee program in many States has become

something that it was never meant to be, and that is a long-term

service, training, and education program that actually provides

services parallel to those already available in community colleges

and adult education programs. I think it is important to point out

that millions of immigrants, as well as millions of other Americans, take low-paying, minimum-wage jobs while they get training

and education and gain skills for better employment opportunities.

Somehow, we have allowed ourselves to be led down what I believe

is a false path here to the effect that refugees should not have to

do this, that refugees should get training and protracted English

instead of going to work.

And in fact, it has even become a question that we are constantly asked by State administrators of these programs: Do you want

immediate employment, or do you want long-term self-sufficiency•

as if these were two different things. They are the same things. A

person gets a job and then gains additional training while preparing to better himself or herself.

In retrospect, I think it is highly questionable whether or not

this transitional cash assistance should ever have been rendered

through the mainstream welfare program. The mainstream welfare

program of this country is designed to deal with the single parent

and a couple of children and is not responsive to the needs of refugees.

We have a legislative proposal which would place all newly arrived refugees on refugee cash assistance under the rules of that

program, which are much more responsive to special refugee needs.

Let me turn briefly to Gramm-Rudman-Hollings. The GrammRudman-Hollings Deficit Reduction Act caused a 4.3-percent reduction in ORR's programs. The major part of that was in cash and

medical assistance, and we reduced 100 percent reimbursement to

States from 36 to 31 months. That did not effect any refugees' benefits since after 18 months they receive benefits the same as any

other American. It did affect a change in who financed those benefits, in that States now have to pay about 50 percent of the costs

after the 31st month instead of after the 36th month.

We also made about a $3 million reduction in social services, but

that figure, about $69 million remaining, was still well above the

President's budget request and still well above what we thought

was necessary to meet the needs of refugees. Because we have been

under a continuing resolution for several years, several line items

in our budget are well above what we would request to carry out

those activities.

In fact, I do not think that Gramm-Rudman-Hollings cuts,

present or projected, pose any real problem to the domestic refugee

resettlement program. I think the real problem is the continued

high funding for social services, including targeted assistance,

which has fostered the services-in-lieu-of-work philosophy, and that

is a much greater danger. This is not to deny real needs of such

people as highland Lao, some of the rural Khmer, and some people

from the Middle East, who in fact are incapable of taking immedi-
38

ate employment and perhaps do have extended service needs. But

dealing with any year's arrivals, or with the 3-year population, the

proportion of such people is relatively small, and the proportion of

refugees who could seek and take immediate employment is much

greater.

The dependency rate nationally is 55.5 percent. It is rising; it has

been rising for the last 3 years, and that is in the face of the highest levels of social service dollars that we have ever expended in

this program.

Thank you, and I would be pleased to answer questions.

[Statement follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF PHILLIP N. HAWKES

Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to

present a discussion of the refugee and entrant assistance program of the

Department of Health and Hunan Services.

Title IV of the Immigration and Nationality Act and Section SOI of the

Refugee Education Assistance Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-422) authorize a

comprehensive program of cash and medical assistance and social services for

refugees and Cuban and Haitian entrants. Funding for the program has been

provided by a series of continuing resolutions since the authority to make

appropriations expired at the end of fiscal year 1983. At the close of

fiscal year 1985, 49 States, the District of Columbia, and Guam were

participating in the Federal refugee resettlement program. In addition, 33

States and jurisdictions currently provide assistance and services on behalf

of Cuban and Haitian entrants.

When Congress passed the Refugee Act of 1980, its intended goal was to

provide a means by which the Federal Government would cover the costs of

ensuring that refugees were provided with transitional assistance while they

settled into life in the U.S., found employment, and pursued their

interrupted lives. Host believed that refugees would make limited use of

income and medical assistance programs, find work, and enter the economic

mainstream.

Program experience over the past six years has left this expectation

unrealized for many refugees. The single largest problem in the domestic

refugee program is its cost as related to the high percentage of refugees

who become dependent on public assistance. Currently over

one-half of the refugees who have been in the country less than three years

are receiving public assistance. In some States the number appears to be

over fifty percent even after five years. Unfortunately, among recent

arrivals (those in the country less than three years), most are not working

and tend to be resettled in or migrate to States with higher than average
40

welfare benefits and where extended service programs have come to supplant

employment as the activity in which most refugees participate.

A case study of incoming refugees carried out by the American Council for

Nationalities Service (ACNS) found that on arrival refugees were eager to

find work and become economically self-sufficient, but that by the time they

had been immersed in various services for four to six months their motivation

toward employment had significantly decreased and been replaced by a desire

for more English training, education, and employment-related services leading

to "better job opportunities."

There continues to be strong support for the refugee resettlement program,

but it is support for humanitarian relief and an immigration opportunity for

desperate people rather than for expenditures for assistance not

traditionally offered to immigrants. We fully endorse the concept that

refugees should have opportunities•the same as other Americans have--to

better their lives through education and upward economic mobility. However,

the problem is that long-term training and services were never meant to be

part of the special Federal refugee resettlement program. All immigrants

arriving in the U.S. have these opportunities provided through other

mainstream institutions, which are funded by private or public funds, such as

adult education, community colleges, universities, and trade and business

schools. There is a tradition among immigrants, as there is among many

citizens, to work and go to school in order to qualify for better and better

jobs. Millions of Americans, immigrant and native-born, many supporting

their families, have worked their way through school, more often than not at

low-wage, entry-level, sometimes menial jobs, during the evening or even

graveyard (midnight) shift. Many refugees have also followed this path, but,

we believe, not as many as could or should be doing so.

Somehow, in the current refugee resettlement effort, this traditional route

to economic betterment has been undercut by a well-meaning generosity that

has resulted in the current overuse of welfare programs. The resettlement

programs in some States have strayed far off the course of early employment
41

in favor of a course of enriched skills training, extended English language

courses, job and economic development schemes, and prolonged welfare benefits

for refugees who are attending school toward academic degrees, but who are in

no significant way different from non-refugees working their way through the

same institutions.

There is overwhelming evidence that many more recently arrived refugees could

in fact be employed than currently are. Four to five hundred thousand

immigrants plus perhaps twice that many illegals arrive here each year and do

not impose a burden on public assistance programs. Many of the immigrants

are enrolled in mainstream education and training programs which sometimes

coexist in the same institutions with ORR-funded refugee-specific programs.

The difference is that the immigrants are by and large working and paying

their taxes, while many refugees are relying upon public -assistance.

If the refugee program is to survive as a meaningful resettlement effort, it

must re-commit its program efforts to early employment and to the delivery of

those types of services which support early employment as the refugee makes

the transition from a needy immigrant to a working member of the community in

the shortest possible time. The very wide range among the States in refugee

welfare dependency rates (from 4X to 90Z) • and their apparent lack of

relationship to the availability of employment opportunities • is strong

evidence that changes need to be made in the way in which the program

operates.

Our major objectives now are, first, to help more refugees achieve earlier

employment and move toward self-support, which we believe is necessary to

their long-term well-being in the United States, and, second, to obtain

Federal cost reductions which are essential in our efforts to address the

national deficit.

To achieve both these objectives, the President's FY 87 Budget and a draft

bill which we have transmitted to Congress propose to 1) convert from the

current categorical eligibility for AFDC, Medicaid, SSI, and special refugee
42

cash and medical assistance to a more uniform and equitable eligibility

policy designed to meet the unique needs of the refugee population, and

2) limit the substitution of Federal funding for the normal State share of

program expenditures to 18 rather than 31 months after a refugee arrives in

the U.S. These policies merely alter the funding source mechanism for

refugee cash and medical assistance without changing the level of assistance

received by welfare-eligible refugees and entrants. Special rules which

permit refugees to receive benefits when citizens eligible for welfare cannot

are similarly limited to 18 months.

The approved FY 1986 budget was for $427,861,000. Under the provisions of

the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 a budget

reduction was mandated in the amount of $18,398,000. In order to achieve the

sequestration required, a A.3Z reduction was taken under the ORR activities

as follows:

State Administered Programs - Cash and Medical Assistance

The FY 1986 budget for Cash and Medical Assistance (CMA) was reduced by

$11,643,000 as the result of the sequestering. In order to achieve this

level of savings, ORR instituted a new program policy* effective March 1,

1986, whereby the special CMA provided to the States was limited to a

refugee's initial thirty-one months in the United States instead of the

thirty-six months previously given. No refugee lost benefits as a result of

this change; only the extent of Federal payment of what is normally funding

for the States was affected. Aid to unaccompanied minors was not affected by

the new policy, and the special programs of Refugee Cash Assistance (RCA) and

Refugee Medical Assistance (RMA) continue to be available during a refugee's

first eighteen months in the country.

State Administered Programs - Social Services

Sequestering reduced funding for social services by $3,083,000. Funding for

the refugee program by a series of continuing resolutions over the past three
43

fiscal years in Che face of declining refugee flow* has resulted in a level

of support for social services that exceeds historical per capita amounts.

As a result, the reduced level of funding will still be adequate to meet

refugee needs.

Voluntary Agency Programs

The reduction required by sequestering was $172,000. By reducing the maximum

match available to non-profit organizations from $1,000 per refugee to $957

per refugee, the program is able to serve 4,000 refugees as intended.

Targeted Assistance

The reduction due to sequestering on FY 1986 Targeted Assistance was

$2,150,000. Targeted Assistance appropriations for FY 1985 and earlier years

are anticipated to carry moat, if not all, projects through the end of March

1987. We did not request any Targeted Assistance funds for FY 1986 and

consider the available funds not be needed.

Education Assistance

Grama-Rudman-Hollings sequestering reduced funding for education assistance

for children by $714,000. Due to past progress towards building the capacity

in local educational systems to serve refugee school children and the reduced

refugee admissions experienced in recent years, no education assistance funds

were requested for FY 1986, and we continue to believe these funds are

unnecessary.

Federal Administration

The reduction required by Gramm-Rudman-Hollings for the Federal

Administration activity is $275,000. The amount will be absorbed through

consolidating Regional Offices and reducing administrative costs.
44

Preventive Health

The $361,000 sequestration reduced funding available for grants to States for

health assessments. The planned level of health assessments for secondary

migrants will be reduced by 3,900 to a total of 15,300 with the numbers of

health screening overseas and primary health assessments through the States

being maintained at their budgeted levels.

In summary, Mr. Chairman, we do not consider the 4.3Z Gramm-Rudman-Hollings

reduction to be having any serious effect on the domestic refugee

resettlement program in FY 1986.

I wish to thank you for the opportunity to address this subcommittee.

Senator SIMPSON. Well, I always appreciate hearing the lucid

way you present things, all of you. And indeed, I am going to miss

your good counsel•you, Jim Purcell, and you, Phil Hawkes. You,

Jim, have brought a real continuity and steadiness to the refugee

program, under continuing pressure to either increase admissions

or, in some others, to decrease admissions. It is a tough job, and

you have performed it very well, and you have been a very steady

and pleasant and accessible person, and I appreciate that very

much.

And Phil Hawkes, I know you began your Government service as

Director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement. What a way to

start. You have been most cooperative and available to me and to

the staff and you have been a very strong supporter of providing

necessary assistance to refugees while working very tirelessly to

reduce unnecessary welfare dependency among some refugee populations. And the figures you give, again, are disturbing, as you say,

in the light of the great social response that we have given in so

many areas. You have been very realistic, and I am going to indeed

miss your good advice.

And Mr. Gee, you already know what you are into, don't you?

Mr. GEE. Yes, sir.

Senator SIMPSON. After listening to that.

Mr. GEE. Right.

Senator SIMPSON. Well, let me ask a few questions of Jim Purcell first

Section 207(d) of the Refugee Act of 1980 states that, "The President shall provide for periodic discussions"•I said this in my opening remarks•"between designated representatives of the President

and members of the Senate and House Judiciary committees regarding changes in the worldwide refugee situation, the progress of
45

refugee admissions, and the possible need for adjustment in the allocation of admissions among refugees."

That is the quotation from the act. In that light, what are the

most significant developments in the world refugee situation that

this committee should be advised of?

Mr. PURCELL. Mr. Chairman, there are a number of developments that have occurred since we last met. Let me just run down

them.

In Africa, we had assumed a refugee ceiling of 3,000. Since that

time, we have seen the government that has replaced the Nimeiri

government in Sudan put a moratorium on refugee resettlement

out of that country. It was ended in March, but because of security

concerns, we had to withdraw American presence from the Sudan

recently. We will be returning a few over the next few weeks, but

the situation there is still rather serious.

So for that reason, we will not be able to achieve the 3,000 ceiling; we are now estimating under our revised total approximately

1,750, and that again is dependent on the security situation stabilizing.

In Central America, we had also hoped that there would be headway with the Cubans in regard to the renewal of the migration

agreement. That has not occurred. Therefore we expect to see admissions from that region of the world very small. We are now estimating probably no more than 250.

We had also hoped that there would be a breakthrough with

regard to the ability of Soviet Jews to exit from the Soviet Union

in greater numbers. That has not occurred. We expect to see admission of Soviet Jews. Through this part of the year, we have had

511, there again maintaining the trickle of admissions.

We have seen the UNHCR Orderly Departure Program almost

grind to a halt. The Vietnamese expelled our interviewers January

1. We are in negotiations with them about the future of the program. I know, Mr. Chairman, this is an issue which you reviewed

in your review, and on which I think we are in total agreement.

We are talking to the Vietnamese about who comes out under this

program. And we are hopeful that we can arrange agreement so

that we can have a family migration program, utilizing normal immigrant visas, and that we can reach vulnerable humanitarian

groups such as Amerasian children and political prisoners. We are

in hard and serious negotiations with them.

We expect that those already interviewed will allow us to retain

about the 8,500 ceiling that was set this past year, but the future of

this program will be subject to later negotiations with the Vietnamese.

We have seen also, Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned in my opening

remarks, the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings effect now beginning to

showup. And it is my belief that under whatever level of funding

we are given, we have to balance that out amongst the world's refugees. Although Southeast Asia will continue to be a vitally important region for this world, we have got to recognize that there are

also vulnerable refugees in other parts of the world, and that we

will have to do some hard soul-searching and prioritizing within

current funding levels.
And as I mentioned, this year has led me to reprogram•and I

have a letter now pending before relevant committees in the Congress to reprogram funds that will reduce our first asylum level for

Southeast Asia to about 35,000.

We also have had the Khao I Dang closure, which will add a new

element in the program for the Khmer. I will not go into that further.

We have also had the Ray Panel, which I think has done a

rather exhaustive review of Southeast Asia. I think it has carefully

and correctly analyzed the problems. It has set us on a course

where I think we can actively pursue a two-track program in the

future, one utilizing normal immigrant mechanisms for family reunion; and second, a refugee program for however long is necessary

for those vulnerable people who continue to be the subject of persecution.

But overall, we see these events suggesting that given current

priorities, our limited budget allocations will reduce our ability to

bring people in and to finance them to about a 61,000 admission

level. We believe that is a realistic number. And I will use the

funds thus saved for programs in Africa and other parts of the

world where millions of people's lives are in jeopardy.

Senator SIMPSON. Well, you answered all the questions I had in

that one•no, you did not, not yet.

The levels you discuss, is there a possible need for adjustment in

the allocation of admissions among refugees?

Mr. PURCELL. Yes. We are looking•let me say in 1986 for East

Asia first asylum, we were 37,000. We believe that should be reduced in terms of actual admissions to 35,000. We believe ODP

should stay at 8,500. Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, we believe that 9,500 still remains a good figure; for the Near East,

6,000; for Latin America, given the lack of progress on the migration agreement, we believe the 3,000 figure•we will not bring in

that number, but rather about 250•and in Africa, because of security concerns, the 3,000 number will be reduced to 1,750.

So we are seeing a readjustment, a reallocation within the numbers, an overall reduction from 67,000 to 61,000.

Senator SIMPSON. The worldwide refugee priorities system assists

us in processing those people whom we have already determined

meet the definition of refugee in the Refugee Act in 1980, and

those are the priorities of PI through P6.

Could you just briefly give a breakdown of overall refugee admissions by the refugee priorities for fiscal year 1985 and then a

breakdown in priority for East Asia for fiscal year 1985 and fiscal

year 1986 to this point?

Mr. PURCELL. OK. Mr. Chairman, I have figures that combine

those periods, but the patterns are reasonably parallel between

1985 and 1986. The most recent data we have covers the period

from October 1985 through May 1986, for which worldwide, about

35,000 people were processed by INS.

In Southeast Asia, we have no people in priority 1 since, as you

know, that is a very limited category; 2 percent of the total•and

the total here is about 25,000 processed and approved by INS•2

percent in P2; 25 percent in P3; 46 percent in P4; 20 percent in P5
47

and about 7 percent•these would generally be unaccompanied

minors•in P6.

The distribution of the priorities in other regions reflects the peculiarities of those regions, and I have a table by region that

breaks out the percents that I would be more than happy to put

into the record, Senator, if that would be agreeable.

Senator SIMPSON. If you would, I would appreciate that very

much.

[Information follows:]
48

10

00

o>

r-H»>

(0|l

IT)

00

0>

r-l•u

CD

XIo

4-1OO .*••* w 1 e 1 h

CD

>1 •P

•P

• rH 0} u CP o (0

•H •p

Ij

c

ft d) u

cnM

C CD

•H a< ww c

QJ •H U ••

'

Ou

04>

jQw

r-H

to>oua

P- <

a)

CD

crs

4-1

0) «

uo

•HU

cua

•HWw

CDuou

Cu

CD

CD

01

4-1

CD «g•H

a>

0\° o*> o*> oV of O o o O O O O o O O

U31

04

«

o«»

of o

ao

O

of of

00

IT)1

ft

of o

CM

of

ID

o

of

rH

of

CM

•* of of of 1 VO rH O 0>

eu •<*

n

m of of of of 1 ID CN O O •*

04 CM rH

m CM

of

CM

>1W

(0

•pwu

•H

HH

of

rHO

of0

CMouwau

CD

4JW

CO w\Go

•rHD

-P

CD

-H>ow

o\o

I-Ho

of O of of o CM <*

(0

(0 •H u w

•H r*

J-4

CD •p 1 a

(0w

c

•H

M

•P (0

(0 CD

•J 53

CJ

•rHU

4-1<

WMoa

•HgIoo

fOu

COe

•H

PJ
49

Senator SIMPSON. Let me just ask, could you identify for us according to your information, and also that of the UNHCR, the

major refugee populations of the world for which third country resettlement appears to be the only likely option?

Mr. PURCELL. Yes, sir. As I mentioned earlier, we estimate, the

UNHCR does, there are almost 10 million refugees in the world.

Third country settlement is probably now being applied for fewer

than 200,000 of them.

The bulk of the refugee population of the world is being maintained and cared for by the United Nations, and the first two solutions are those of preference for them.

In terms of those for whom third country resettlement appears

to be the only solution, I would say clearly, persecuted groups like

the Baha'i in Iran, if they can get out, the only viable solution to

them is third country resettlement.

I think you will find in many countries of the world political

prisoners which will have no choice other than third country resettlement.

The only major region of the world wherein we have used this as

a primary solution obviously has been Southeast Asia. That is historic. It has represented the characteristics of the flow and the

agreements that were reached in 1979.

We believe third country settlement will continue to be an alternative of some importance, but it is certainly time to begin to

pursue the first two solutions with our partners. And I have spoken

with the U.N. High Commissioner in the meeting we had in

Geneva this past week, and I think we will see a very active pursuit of the first two solutions in that region over the coming

months.

The High Commissioner will in fact be travelling to Southeast

Asia in September and will be conducting, I think, a very exhaustive review of that program.

Senator SIMPSON. The Refugee Act of 1980 states that, we cannot

accept as a refugee anyone who does not meet the refugee definition, and that we should only grant admission to those refugees

who are, "of special humanitarian concern," to the United States.

The Ray Commission has now recommended we resume processing some P6 refugees from Southeast Asia.

Do you believe that these refugees are of "special humanitarian

concern" to the United States, or of greater special humanitarian

concern than those in other parts of the world who are in need of

third country resettlement?

Mr. PURCELL. I might mention historically, Mr. Chairman, that

on May 1, 1982, we imposed a new policy which said that we would

not consider for U.S. resettlement, any person leaving the Communist states unless they had some reported tie to the United States.

What we did was stopped considering for U.S. resettlement the

P6's. The hope was this would add something of a deterrent measure and allow orderly programs within the countries of origin to

develop.

We never said that these people were not legitimate and valid

and persecuted refugees. The policy was to simply say that we

would not consider them for the U.S. program.
50

It would be our hope that a range of durable solutions for the

population could occur under the auspices of the new High Commissioner, but as with the Ray Panel, I believe that it is important

to look at the long-stayer population, and to try to sort out humanitarian solutions for them.

I would be wary at this point of just entering into a processing

program for P6's because of the likely magnet effect, but I think if

we can establish a solution-oriented framework led by the U.N.,

and involving a range of other countries, that certainly, we ought

to be pursuing it, and I think resettlement will probably be a necessary ingredient to that framework.

I do believe that these people certainly could be classified as of

"special humanitarian concern", and it would be our hope that we

can work out a range of solutions for them over a several-year

period.

Senator SIMPSON. Let me ask•and then I will go to my colleague

for any of his remarks•I was interested in your statement concerning the need for a two-track policy in Southeast Asia•that is

the use of both the refugee and the normal immigration programs.

The Ray Commission also endorsed this idea, but suggested only directing this policy toward those persons who have not yet arrived

in the first asylum country. That, I think, would not meet the

thrust of my initiatives and thoughts, because so many people now

in the camps have relatives in the United States, and some have

claims to refugee status which I think are questionable.

What are the State Department's views on this suggestion of the

Ray Commission?

Mr. PURCELL. Well, the Ray panel did suggest that we continue

the current population and the present guidelines. When we looked

toward the future, they did suggest a 2-year transition period.

It would be our belief that in looking at the current populations,

they ought to be processed under existing priorities, but that we

certainly should look into that population, and any who can qualify

for normal immigrant visas should be pursued in that course.

I think we would want to be flexible on that point. The Ray

Panel has suggested a 2-year transition period after which all arrivals departing primarily for family reunion would go through

normal immigration, and refugee admission would be limited to

those who can meet on an individualized basis the persecution factors laid out in the Act.

But I think in our own review, that we would certainly suggest

that those who presently are in first asylum who can qualify for

normal immigration certainly should do so, and I think that is the

way we will be proceeding.

Commissioner Nelson has indicated that we are looking presently at the current priorities and categories that we use in the

region, and we will be attempting to leave the refugee route open

to legitimate persecution, and for family-connected cases that,

cannot qualify over this transition period for normal immigration.

But I would agree with you, Senator, that we cannot ignore the

fact now that there are some who are eligible, and we ought to

pursue those cases very aggressively.

Senator SIMPSON. Well, it seems to me that there is a good deal

of discussion about the two-track system, but that is about what it
51

is: discussion. Everybody says, "My, that is certainly fascinating;

we are all going to get right with that." But I do not see much

action there, just a lot of magnificent rambling. And I think the

proof is in the figures. So we get all concentrated on this Southeast

Asia milieu, and forget what is going on with refugees around the

rest of the Earth. That focus I guess is history, but we do not have

to keep it that way in a distortion. That is of interest to me.

Well, let me recognize the presence of my friend, Senator Ted

Kennedy, who is the Ranking Member of this subcommittee and

who has had an interest in this issue for his entire Senate career.

He has been of splendid assistance to me in my almost 6 years

now, as chairman of the subcommittee•since we wrested the

Senate away from his political faith. He has been a marvelous resource for me and very, very generous with his time and attention

to the issues.

Ted Kennedy.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD M. KENNEDY,

A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS

Senator KENNEDY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We will

try and relieve you of this particular responsibility as chairman

after the 1986 election.

I want to again say how much we appreciate your having these

hearings today. This is a continuing process to oversee and support

our refugee programs, and it is certainly one that I know our chairman is strongly committed to, as I am. It is always, I think, helpful

in gaining this information, making it available to the members of

our committee and to the Senate.

Let me continue to focus on the problems that we are facing in

one important area in Southeast Asia, and that is where Indochinese refugees, because of family ties in the United States, are given

the visas, but they are required to remain in many of the camps

where there is real danger because of visa backlogs. Sometimes,

they may have to remain 2, 3, or 4 years, sometimes even longer.

And I know that one of the active suggestions that has been made,

and one that you are familiar with, is whether you could not move

ahead and parole these individuals into this country and then

when the year comes up that they would otherwise have come

here, you just subtract those numbers from the overall immigration ceiling at that time.

Why wouldn't that make some sense, once we know that those

individuals have been approved for an immigrant visa•we know

they will be coming•but and in the meantime, they are separated

from their families, and in many instances living in a very tenuous

circumstance•certainly true in many refugee camps in Southeast

Asia.

Mr. PURCELL. I think that is an excellent point, Senator. We

have, over the past few months, been working very closely with the

Immigration and Naturalization Service to look at the implications

of this Family Reunification Program that the Secretary announced last September.
52

We have found that it has been far more difficult to implement

than we had anticipated, but I think the program is well underway.

We have been looking particularly at those classified as noncurrent immigrant visaholders, to which you refer. It is clear that over

time, they will be allowed into the United States but will have to

wait out their turn.

So we have been talking with the Immigration and Naturalization Service about the possibility of paroling those people in, and

the discussions to this point have indicated that certainly, we will

look on a case-by-case basis at those individuals, and assuming that

there are no other factors that preclude them, that they can be

considered for humanitarian parole.

It would certainly seem, I think, to both of us that we ought to

give serious thought to these people and the dangerous conditions

under which they reside, and I think we would certainly agree with

the thrust of your question, and I believe you will see that that will

be addressed, but on a case-by-case basis over the coming months.

Senator KENNEDY. When will that policy be implemented, do you

know?

Mr. PURCELL. Well, it is my understanding that that policy will

be inaugurated very soon.

Senator KENNEDY. Let me try one more time

Mr. PURCELL. We have had discussions about it, but the Immigration Service will have to issue the directive, and my understanding

is that that is presently underway.

Senator KENNEDY. Are we talking days or weeks or months or

what?

Mr. PURCELL. I would think that we are talking weeks. But it is a

very active issue, and the concern that we have is the same that

you express, and I think you will see very quickly that we will be

able to issue humanitarian parole on a case-by-case basis to those

deserving and who are holders of noncurrent visas, assuming other

emergent conditions exist and there are no disqualifying reasons to

deny them.

Senator KENNEDY. Well, that is a partially encouraging response.

I suppose there is no question that it will take some time in terms

of the administration of it. But I find it troublesome that it takes

weeks to develop whatever has to be developed to try and implement what is a pretty simple and fundamental recommendation.

Why is that so complicated?

Mr. PURCELL. Well, it is my understanding, sir, that we have to

issue implementing guidance to the field; we have to set up the modalities in which cases can be identified, they can get to the appropriate authorities in the INS. I think the basic decision has been

made; it is just a matter of getting all the necessary implementing

measures in place.

I do not think it will be delayed. In fact, I have found those that

I have been speaking with at the INS to be very receptive to the

idea, but certainly needing to take a period of time to make sure it

is done correctly, and we do not have glitches in it.

But I do not think there is any effort to delay.

Senator KENNEDY. OK. It was just about 1 year ago that I asked

about refugees in Central America and whether there has been any
53

admission of refugees from Central America, if any of them have

been admitted to the United States or paroled in here.

Can you tell us?

Mr. PURCELL. Well, we presently are looking at a population in

Central America of 60,000 refugees in Mexico, 108,000 in Honduras,

and around 105,000 in Costa Rica. Many of those are located spontaneously in the cities of the region. About 120,000 of those are assisted by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

We are continuing to follow the policy as laid out by the U.N. to

which we are signatories, that we will support the countries of the

region to bolster safe first asylum. We are the largest contributors

to that, and we are working very carefully with them. And it is our

belief that as long as safe asylum exists in the region that that

should be our priority.

So we are not at this point looking at large scale refugee admissions to the United States.

We have also been working quite actively with the new U.N.

High Commissioner and his staff in the region about possibilities

for aiding further the asylum governments, and of bolstering some

voluntary repatriation where that may be possible. We are in

Mexico, for instance, helping to relocate as quickly as possible

those refugees now located in dangerous situations along the

border. There are two new sites further inland. About half of that

population has already been relocated.

But it remains our policy that we should follow the durable solutions that the United Nations worked out and try to bolster safe

asylum, look at voluntary repatriation and regional settlement to

the degree that that can be done.

We have indicated that we will take refugees in priorities 1 and

2. We had hoped to have some breakthrough on the Cuban agreement, but that has not been possible. We are at this point continuing to look at the whole fabric of Central America. We will certainly want to talk to the committee at our annual consultations in

September about the overall situation there and the role that third

country resettlement ought to play.

But at this point, we are not encouraging large-scale resettlement to the United States.

Senator KENNEDY. Well, as a general policy statement, there

would be very little that anyone could question in that. But let us

get somewhat more specific. Have there been any political prisoners from Cuba that have been in jail and requested to come to the

United States recently?

Mr. PURCELL. Well, certainly, we are addressing a group of 75 political prisoners that had been identified to us by the U.S. Catholic

Conference. We would certainly like to get agreement to bring that

group in. We had hoped that the renewal of the migration agreement would permit that.

Commissioner Nelson has had some discussions on that; perhaps

he might want to describe where we are on that.

Commissioner NELSON. Yes. Well, certainly, congratulations to

you, Senator Kennedy, and Jerry Tinker and Mr. Craig and others

for your excellent work on the Montero Duque case, and we are

pleased to have worked with you on that.

(
54

I think as Mr. Purcell indicated, we obviously are concerned and

interested in political prisoners, but I think it is important that we

put it in the larger context of the Mariel Agreement, which was an

excellent agreement for both countries, normal immigration plus

the United States taking political prisoners, refugees, from Cuba

and they in turn taking the criminals that they sent to this country or who committed crimes when they came here, and it is very

important for our country to get a quid pro quo, also.

So we are hoping that things will move along, that we can start

getting back into discussions on that agreement. And we will continue, of course, to look at all aspects of that.

Senator KENNEDY. Well, I think all of us understand the importance of getting that agreement back ontrack. That is clearly the

most effective way to deal with this issue over any period of time.

But I am just wondering in the meantime if there were individuals who were political prisoners, perhaps opponents to the regime,

who were released and wanted to come to the United States, what

would be our policy on that•individuals that were opposed to the

Castro regime?

Commissioner NELSON. Senator, again, there is obviously a lot of

balancing, and it is hard to give a single answer without knowing

the particular circumstances

Senator KENNEDY. Well, have you granted any? Have you granted any visas, say, in the last 3 months?

Commissioner NELSON. I do not know in visa numbers•of course,

we were involved in the process when Castro canceled the agreement 1 year ago. I do not know in the last few months whether

there have been any visas granted, but I do not think they have

allowed any to come forward, either.

It is very important as a negotiating tool that we not continue to

set people on a one-way street. That is not to take away from the

idea we need to deal with political prisoners, but it is much more

important for everybody that we get this overall agreement which

is in everybody's interest because it allows normal immigration,

and it allows the political prisoners to come in.

Senator KENNEDY. Well, with all respect, I draw a distinction between normal immigration and political prisoners•individuals

who have been in prison and served there as political opponents to

the regime, and

Commissioner NELSON. Well, that is part of the agreement, too.

Senator KENNEDY [continuing]. And want to come to the United

States. And I gather from what you are saying is that if those had

been political opponents to Castro and served because of political

opposition and wanted to come here to the United States, that they

would not be permitted to do so at this time•despite our previous

policy of accepting them?

Commissioner NELSON. NO, I did not say that, Senator. I think it

is a combination of

Senator KENNEDY. Well, if you can tell me, then, how many have

you accepted?

Commissioner NELSON. I do not know the numbers. We can provide that for the record.
55

Senator KENNEDY. Well, you have some staff here. My understanding is you have not given any. And if you have given some,

then let us find out.

Commissioner NELSON. Well, they have to be released from Cuba

by Fidel Castro first of all, and that has not been the case, as you

well know. And we are talking, but it is

Senator KENNEDY. I am not so sure, Mr. Nelson, and that is what

I am trying to find out. I have some preliminary information that

some political prisoners have been released, individuals that have

served in prison for a very considerable number of years, and have

indicated a desire to come to the United States, and their requests

have not been favorably considered. I would like to just explore

that with you.

Commissioner NELSON. Well, Senator, I would appreciate receiving from you and your staff that information, and we would be

most pleased to look at it.

Senator KENNEDY. OK, fine.

Commissioner NELSON. I am not aware of that. We have had

problems with getting information from the Cuban officials, but

again, I would like to reiterate, because I think it is important

policy consideration for this country, that we adhere to the fact

that it has to be a two-way street.

Senator KENNEDY. Does it have to be a two-way street if they are

political prisoners? Are you going to say that they cannot come

here until the agreement is reinstated? This is what you are getting back to.

Commissioner NELSON. Well, I do not think you can get to an absolute, black-and-white situation. Obviously, we want to be consistent with accepting political prisoners. However, you cannot accept

an unending number whom Castro might decide to send out, if we

are not getting something in return. I think you have got some

basic foreign policy things

Senator KENNEDY. I am not talking about normal immigration. I

am talking about those who have served in prison because of political opposition to Castro and whether our policy at the present

time, on the issue of political prisoners, whether they are permitted to come here to the United States.

Commissioner NELSON. Senator, I think another element, one is

that they are released from the Cuban facilities and are allowed to

leave•that is, of course, their government's decision. The other is

that we have to be able, under our normal procedures, to verify

that these are the people that they are supposed to be and that

they are not in fact other criminal types that might be pushed out.

We were victimized in 1980, and we do not want that to happen

again.

Senator KENNEDY. I could not agree with you more. The only

point I want to make is if you received an authentic political prisoner who had been in jail, what would be the policy of the United

States?

Commissioner NELSON. We would, Senator, have to review that on

a case-by-case basis. Again, I think it is important, and I will reemphasize once more, if that agreement can be reinstated, that

would cover the situation. So that is clearly the best way to go, and
56

that does not exclude other considerations, but I think it is important for this country.

Senator KENNEDY. Well, perhaps you would supply for the committee at least what, if any, visas have been granted to any political prisoners, say, in the last year.

Commissioner NELSON. I would be happy to.

Senator KENNEDY. I also understand that you requested about

1,000 refugee numbers for Central America; and thus for the

United States has accepted only 21, and they actually were all

Cubans. I guess that was before the breakdown in the negotiations.

Am I correct?

Commissioner NELSON. The 21 figure, Senator, is Cubans that

have been accepted from locations other than Cuba, at other third

country locations yet this year. We had anticipated that the agreement would be renewed and that we would be able to reach several

thousand political prisoners. That has not happened, but we certainly are open to any refugees that we can get at who do showup

at third country sites, which they frequently do.

Senator KENNEDY. Well, how many refugees have we accepted

from other countries in Central America?

Commissioner NELSON. We figure throughout the year, the figure

is going to be low. It is probably going to be no more than 250. Up

to this point, I think the 21 figure is the number of Cubans that

have been accepted so far this year.

Senator KENNEDY. But 250 political refugees from Central America?

Commissioner NELSON. Well, we are hopeful that we can get

some more out from other locations. You know, we do process in

Panama, Costa Rica, and Madrid. We do not really know. It is a

case-by-case basis. But we are hopeful that we can get as many as

can reach that point and that we can renew the agreement with

Castro.

I think it is critically important that we reinstitute the political

prisoner program.

Senator KENNEDY. But, there are certainly other areas of attention in Central America that we hear about, and I am just trying

to figure out what number of political prisoners we are accepting

from those other countries in the area.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to, if I could, submit some questions

with regard to refugees from South Africa, what we are anticipating happening there. If I could submit those, I would appreciate

some response from the administration.

Thank you.

[Statement follows:]
57

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR EDWARD M. KENNEDY

I want to commend our Chairman, Senator Simpson, for calling

this hearing to provide the Subcommittee with an opportunity,

mid-way through the fiscal year, to review our worldwide refugee

programs. This oversight is in the spirit of The Refugee Act of

1980 which called for a very close collaboration between the

Congress and the President in setting and maintaining United

States refugee policies.

This collaborative effort is necessary not simply to sustain

strong public support for our humanitarian efforts overseas, but

it is also a recognition of the fundamental importance refugee

problems have in our Nation's foreign and domestic policies. As

I have noted before, refugee issues must be of deep concern to

the American people, not only because they are part of our

country's long humanitarian tradition, but because we know that

refugees pose critical foreign policy problems for us and the

international community. We know from recent history that

massive movements of refugees can unbalance the world's peace and

stability as much as any arms race or political or military

confrontation.

The challenges we face today around the world have only grown

since our consultation last year.

While the refugee problem in Pakistan remains unchanged,

where nearly 3 million Afghans have fled violence and repression

in their homeland, their continued presence poses increasingly

complex relief and political problems. And in Southeast Asia,

the flow from Indochina continues unabated, creating a growing

backlog of refugees and other migrants in need of assistance.

In Africa • already the continent with the most number of

refugees • the new and escalating violence in South Africa

threatens to produce a further tide of refugees into neighboring

southern African states. And in recent days we have seen the

brutal violation of international law and the international

protection of refugees with the armed attacks by South African

forces on UNHCR refugee camps. Clearly, refugee assistance and

protection issues will grow in southern Africa in the days ahead,

and our country must be better prepared to act firmly in support

of programs to protect South African refugees.

Finally, in Central America • in our "back yard," as the

Administration is fond of noting • we continue to face urgent

refugee and other humanitarian issues. But instead of talking

about the spectre of "feet people" swarming north to justify

further U.S. military aid and an escalation of the conflict, we

should be pursuing a policy of diplomacy and negotiation that can

truly help bring peace and relief to this troubled area • and

one which will also allow refugees to return to their homes.

So, Mr. Chairman, I welcome this hearing and look forward to

working with you and the Administration in support of our

overseas refugee programs, and in welcoming those refugees coming

to our country as well.
58

OIlMJ^trAcfion AcnorKun Council for Voluntary International Action

Htc ttonarabti- lloiiriji; I'. Wtull/ '*'y ''• 1'

M

'

1

Secretary cil Stale

U.S. Department ot State

2201 C Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20S20

Dear Mr. Secretary:

The voluntary organizations represented on the Committee on

Migration and Refugee Affairs of InterAction welcome and endorse

the overall thrust of the report of the Indochinese Refugee Panel

which you appointed. While we also support most of the specific

recommendations, we are concerned that the Panel's suggested

approach to the border Khmer does not go far enough, particularly

in support of family reunification. We believe a limited refugee

processing program is required for this population.

As organizations who have been deeply involved for decades in

assistance to refugees throughout the world, we dre extremely

concerned about the safety, humane treatment and eventual fate of

the thousands of Indochinese refugees who remain in countries of

first asylum in Southeast Asia. In our view, the Panel has

demonstrated through its report a clear understanding of the

complex problems still confronting refugees and host governments

in Southeast Asia, as well as the need for the United States to

continue its leadership in finding solutions to their plight.

We urge you to continue the initiatives generated by the Panel

and press vigorously for the implementation of its

recommendations. In this regard, we urge with equal vigor that

you designate a senior person to be attached to your office who

would coordinate this activity within the departments of State

and Justice, with the Congress and the members of the Panel

itself. In the meantime, our Committee will put forward

practical suggestions that we trust will be helpful in realizing

the goals of the Panel. These suggestions will be sent to you

shortly.

We drc appreciat i re ol the opportunity we had to present the views

of the Committee to panel members last October before they traveled

to East Asia. We are anxious to participate in the next steps

needed to assure that the initiatives generated by the Panel not be

dissipated.

Karl 0. /ukerman

Chairman

Committee on Migration

and Refugee Affairs

Executive Vice President

HIAS

on behalf of:

*'--!.. rt..

• •, . Rev. Nicholas DIMarzIo

Wells C. Klein Director

Executive 01 rector ,,,,,•. Migration 4 Refugee Services

American Council for Nationalities ,. ! rjlfh•,,r r•;fprM•

Service

U.S. Catholic Conference
59

Jan Papanek

President

American Fund for Czechoslovak

Refugees

Janusz Krzyzanowskl

Executive Vice President

Polish American Immigration

and Relief Committee

Douglas Powers

Deputy Director

Buddhist Council for Refugee

Rescue and Resettlement

Dale de Haan

Executive Director

Immigration & Refugee Program

Church World Service

Rev. Canon Samir J. Habiby

Executive Director

Presiding Bishop's Fund for

World Relief

(The Episcopal Church)

Leon 0. Marlon

Executive Director

Tolstoy Foundation

Rev. Donald 0. Bjork

Associate Executive Director

World Relief

John £. McCarthy

President

International Catholic Migration

Commission

Robert P. DeVecchl

Executive 01 rector

International Rescue Committee

Rev. Donald H. Larsen

Director

Lutheran Immigration and Refugee

Service

Dr. Charles E. MacCormack

President

The Experiment for International

Living

David L. Guyer

President

Save the Children Federation

Charles Morton

Executive Director

World Concern Development

Organization

Dean Hirsch

Director

World Vision Relief Organization

Joel H. Lamstein

President

World Education
60

REFUGEES

INTERNATIONAL

June 17, 1986

Senator Edward M. Kennedy

113 Russell Senate Office

Building

Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Kennedy,

I am pleased to submit to you the enclosed

"Critique of the Report of the Indochinese

Refugee Panel". This paper has been endorsed by

the following organizations:

Concerned Virginians for

Cambodian Families

Federation of Lao Associations

Indochina Resource Action Center

Lutheran Refugee and Immigration

Service

U.S. Catholic Conference

Migration and Refugee Service

U.S. Committee for Refugees

World Relief Refugee Services

We urge you to consider this paper in view

of the upcoming mid-year consultation on refugee

policy and programs of the Subcommittee on

Immigration and Refugee Policy which will be held

at 10 a.m. in Dirksen 226 on Friday, June 20th.

We hope you will raise the issues discussed

in this critique and ask the witnesses for their

specific plans for implementation of the Ray

Panel's recommendations.

We will be pleased to answer any questions you may

have regarding the enclosed critique.

With best wishes,

Y o u A s sincerely,

JJL:

Susan Goodwillie

cc: Mr. Jerry Tinker

Ends.

SG/cs
61

CRITIQUE

of the

REPORT

of the

INDOCHINESE REFUGEE PANEL

June. 1986

Prepared by

REFUGEES INTERNATIONAL

Washington, D.C.

INTRODUCTION

We welcome the Ray Panel report's recommendations and,

in general, find them positive and worthy of our support.

The parameters of an improved U.S. policy for Indochinese

refugees have been laid out; the burden is now upon the

U.S. government to quickly and effectively implement the

Panel's recommendations. Although we find the Panel

recommendations gravely lacking in specifics on a number of

crucial issues, we feel that they provide the framework for

successful resolution of the continuing refugee crises in

Southeast Asia.

Our objective in this critique is to highlight those

Panel recommendations that we find particularly commendable

and appropriate, note our concerns where we find the

recommendations fall short, and suggest specifics for

implementing the policies that have been recommended. We

unanimously support the Panel's initial assertion that, for

refugees in Southeast Asia, "the job is not over."

How to preserve first asylum in Southeast Asia while

addressing the problems of declining resettlement offers

and increasing residual populations

We welcome the call for a strengthened U.S. government

commitment that will ensure adequate international support

for resettlement and relief. More specifically, we

strongly support the recommendation that the U.S.

government "begin processing refugees from the current

population with no ties to the U.S. (P-6)", taking into

account length of stay in first asylum camps and other

specified "compelling" circumstances. We also concur with

the concept of "sharing out" the remaining refugee

populations, noting that the potential for international

burden-sharing will het realized' on'ify to the extent that the

ci_nr\ri n
62

U.S. is willing once again to demonstrate aggressive

interest in the resettlement of Indochinese refugees.

We agree that all resettlement countries must make a

concerted effort to resolve the plight of "long-stayer"

populations still languishing in first asylum camps, but

deeply regret that the Panel made no recommendations

concerning "residual" Vietnamese refugees in Hong Kong.

Like the Panel members, we feel that repatriation to

Vietnam is not an alternative for this or any other

Vietnamese refugee population.

Whether and how to shift Indochinese familv reunification

cases from refugee flows to immigration channels

We strongly endorse the recommendation that refugee

admissions remain "available for those (who

qualify)... regardless of location, date of arrival, family

relations, or other criteria of eligibility." This

recommendation, of course, is simply a recognition of the

mandate of existing law. That law, however, is not being

applied with respect to many persons who may well qualify

as refugees eligible for resettlement in the U.S. What is

called for is enforcement of existing law rather than

merely a restatement of it. We endorse the call for

adequate admissions numbers to be authorized in the annual

consultations to provide for such refugees.

With respect to the "phasing in" of an effective

immigration program, we do not believe that such a program,

given the circumstances of the population it intends to

serve, can be effective if, as the Ray Panel recommends, it

is implemented "with the same procedures used by the United

States throughout the world." The situation of Indochinese

refugees in Southeast Asia is simply not comparable to that

of other immigrants awaiting U.S. visa issuance in their

home countries. Given the marginal circumstances in which

most Indochinese refugees are living, it is neither

practical nor appropriate for them to be subjected to the

normal immigration processing delays. Their fragile

existence mandates expedited immigration visa processing

for those who qualify.

We applaud the Panel's recommendation for an extended

and generous use of humanitarian parole, and urge the U.S.

government to act on this recommendation speedily to move

those who are being separated from their family members in

the U.S. only by the lengthy delays of U.S. immigration

processing. They simply cannot wait in first asylum camps

for the one or two or ten years it will take for their visa

numbers to become current.

As is recommended in the attached Khmer family

reunification proposal, persons who are beneficiaries of

approved immigrant visa petitions, but for whom visas are

not currently available, should be admitted using the

Attorney General's parole authority. These humanitarian

parolees would remain in this status until their immigrant

visas become current, at which time they would adjust their

status.

We fully support, and are ready to assist in, the

implementation of an active outreach program to encourage

family members in the U.S. to become U.S. citizens and to

file immigration petitions for their relatives. We regret,

however, that the report makes no mention of the unusual
delays that already are occuring in the processing by the

State Department of immigration visa applications for which

current numbers have been assigned by the INS. This

situation calls for, and we propose to carry out, a

concerted effort to implement and test these available

channels for the sponsorship of Khmer family members in

Thai camps.

Although the call for maintaining a refugee admissions

program is clear, the Panel's report makes no mention of

how to revitalize what has become an essentially moribund

refugee admissions program. Nor does it clearly address

the continuing need for refugee resettlement after the

proposed transitional two-year period.

We endorse the Panel's call for a study of benefits

for Indochinese refugees and immigrants. As a coalition of

private sector organizations, we stand ready to offer our

assistance and full cooperation in carrying out such a

study.

Finally, although the Panel's report refers to the

desirability of safe alternatives for those resorting to

clandestine flight from their countries of origin, it makes

no specific recommendations for exploration of an orderly

departure program from Laos or Cambodia. We note that

there have been a few instances of direct departure from

Vientiane for the U.S. Establishment of a "Khmer ODP"

could serve as a deterrent to future border flight and

perhaps allay fears of the "magnet effect" of border

processing. We urge that such alternatives be pursued

vigorously at the earliest possible opportunity.

How to make the Orderly Departure Program a_ more effective

alternative to clandestine flight, including ways to gain

the release of the re-education camp prisoners?

As the present problem in ODP appears to be the

backlog of cases approved for departure by the Vietnamese

but not yet accepted by the U.S., we strongly support the

Panel's call for a speedy resolution of that backlog by the

U.S. authorities. As of mid-April, the biggest portion of

the backlog were people granted exit visas by Vietnam to

depart as refugees, but whose authorization by the U.S. had

not yet been given to the UNHCR because of the lack of

sufficient numbers to move them (8,500 for ODP in FY86).

In addition, we urge the U.S. authorities to do whatever is

necessary to move cases which have been approved (more than

5000 people), all of whom are awaiting reunification with

close family members in the U.S. Having survived many

years waiting for Vietnamese processing and the attendant

denial of basic rights, U.S. delays forcing them to wait

even longer cannot be condoned.

We also support efforts to expedite the departure of

Amerasians and their families, including possible revision

of the existing legislation and the offer of unlimited

admissions numbers for Amerasian refugees.

We endorse the Panel's recommendation for vigorous

U.S. support of anti-piracy programs, noting that the

ability of UNHCR to rally anti-piracy efforts will depend

on the continuing financial support and diplomatic efforts

with the Thai of the U.S. and the international community.

We note with particular concern in this regard the closing

of Songkhla camp and the possible closing of the only UNHCR

office in southern Thailand. As refugees continue to
arrive by boat the closing of these facilities leaves them

in jeopardy. We further support private initiatives in

response to continuing acts of piracy.

We agree with the Panel that the U.S. should take all

available measures to encourage the release of reeducation

prisoners by the Vietnamese government.

We note that early in the report the Panel states that

the fundamental cause of the refugee problem in Southeast

Asia is Vietnam's "repressive and expansionist policies."

We agree with this analysis, but note that while U.S.

efforts to "isolate" Vietnam have not deterred SRV

expansionism or repression, they have ensured the

continuance of dismal conditions within Vietnam from which

people still flee.

How to respond to the continuing arrival of Lao in Thailand

and to the Royal Thai Government/UNHCR border screening

program

The panel recommends that the United States should

"support the Royal Thai Government/UNHCR screening program

for Lao arrivals" but makes no mention of the need to

strengthen its effectiveness, ensure that all new arrivals

have access to it, and see that it is fair. We believe

that this is a serious shortcoming that deserves priority

attention .

The recommendations concerning "safe return" of Lao

who do not qualify as refugees and an expanded voluntary

repatriation program do not, we believe, go far enough in

specifying a mechanism to ensure that mistreatment of

returnees by the Lao authorities does not occur. Such a

mechanism is essential.

We support the Panel's recommendation for the

continued processing of lowland Lao refugees, but are

concerned by the lack of a similar recommendation for

highland Lao who may qualify and desire resettlement in the

U.S.

We appreciate the Panel's recommendation that

consideration be given to "developing self-sufficiency

programs by international funding for highland Lao who

cannot return to Laos and do not seek third country

resettlement." Here again, however, we regret that the

report is not more forthright in encouraging dialogue with

the Royal Thai Government to encourage specific

initiatives, with financial support from the United States

and other industrialized nations, to develop opportunities

for local settlement of Highlanders in Thailand.

Again, we strongly endorse the Panel's call for

initiatives with the Lao government and with Lao residing

in the U.S. towards a legal departure option for those

desiring to join family abroad.

How to proceed given the new situation along the

Thai-Cambodian border which has placed more than 245,000

displaced Khmer in evacuation sites in Thailand

We agree that the U.S. government should assist UNBRO,

ICRC, and the Royal Thai Government to "ensure the safety

of all border camps as much as possible from Vietnamese
attack" and that security measures within present sites

should be "enhanced through additional guards and patrols,

increasing training, and better communications". We would

add that ICRC's protection mandate should be "monitored and

strengthened" by the establishment of a visible and

effective international presence inside the border camps at

all times.

We strongly oppose the Panel's adoption of the

Administration's decision not to undertake refugee

processing of border Khmer. The attached family

reunification proposal appropriately calls for a discreet

border refugee processing program involving U.S. processing

priorities three and five. We believe that such a program

can and should be implemented without producing a

significant "magnet effect".

We applaud the Panel's call for the U.S. government, in

coordination with other concerned countries, to "expedite

admissions processing for Khmer on the Thai-Cambodian

border for those eligible for immigrant visas and Visas 93"

and for the generous use of humanitarian parole. We note

with concern, however, that the IV and Visa 93 applications

that have been made have thus far been of little effect;

whatever bottlenecks exist in the process must be

resolved. Further, if humanitarian parole is to be "used

generously for especially compelling cases", then clear

criteria for such cases must be established without

preference or prejudice to where cases reside or how long

they have been in Thailand.

We fully concur with the Panel's recommendation that

the U.S. work for the establishment of a border education

program. In order for such a program to proceed, however,

the U.S. government must take the lead in negotiations with

all parties involved to propose a multilateral program that

will not augur permanence, will address the pressing

educational needs of the 100,000 school-aged Khmer children

along the border, and will be permitted by Thai

authorities.

The Panel has recommended that the U.S. "assure that

the remaining denied Khmer are reviewed." We strongly

agree, but regret that the Panel's report stops short of

specific proposals for a fair and equitable review, given

the woefully inadequate process of review to date. We

commend to Congress, the Department of State, the

Department of Justice, and other authorities concerned the

recommendations contained in Stephen Golub's Issue Brief,

"Looking for Phantoms: Flaws in the Khmer Rouge Screening

Process," recently published by the U.S. Committee for

Refugees. This document provides the framework for the

implementation of a new and more just review process. Such

a program is needed immediately, not only to remedy what

many believe to be unfair denials in the past, but also to

demonstrate to Thai authorities our continuing commitment

to fair and comprehensive refugee processing for the Khmer.

We support the Panel's recommendation for the

processing of "family card holders" in Khao I Dang, but are

concerned that a similar recommendation was not made with

respect to "ration card holders". We believe that both

groups merit immediate processing as refugees.

We fully concur that Khao I Dang camp should be kept

open but we doubt the viability of the recommendation that

the Royal Thai Government should be "pressed" to do so
until solutions "other than U.S. resettlement can be

developed for this group." Until the U.S. Government comes

to terms with the residual population in Khao I Dang by

implementing a decent review of rejected cases, its

credibility with, and influence on, the Royal Thai

Government is severely weakened.

We also concur that "return to the border should be

carried out only on a voluntary basis" and assert that any

return to the border without the willing concurrence of

returnees would be in direct violation of international

law.

Finally, we support the Panel's recommendations that

"land Vietnamese on the border, including those without

ties to the U.S., should be processed as rapidly as

possible for resettlement as refugees" and that they should

be fully protected from Vietnamese military attack, as well

as from surrounding populations. Despite the recent

relocation to Site 2 South, we reiterate the need for

physical protection of land Vietnamese from the continuing

threat of rape and theft at the hands of Thai bandits and

Khmer rebel forces.

How to ensure the continuing effective leadership of the

UNHCR in seeking multilateral solutions to these problems

which will maximize international burdensharing

The United States should not only "support" but must,

by its very history, take the lead in encouraging the

"efforts of the new High Commissioner to strengthen the

principle of international burden-sharing and to improve

UNHCR efficiency and effectiveness."

In this regard we strongly endorse the proposal for

the appointment of a senior representative based in

Southeast Asia to carry out regional programs on the High

Commissioner's behalf.

We also agree that "traditional donors and others

should be encouraged to increase financial support for

UNHCR and other refugee-related international

organizations." We strongly believe, however, that any

attempts to convince other countries to renew their

participation in refugee resettlement and relief can

succeed only to the extent that the fundamental precedent

of renewed U.S. participation in and support for these

efforts is clearly demonstrated.

We agree with the recommendation that the U.S. should

continue to provide its fair share of refugee relief and

resettlement support and urge that the implications of

Gramm-Rudman-Hollings cuts be specified to ensure such

continued support.

In conclusion: the overall recommendation of the

Panel's report is that international participation in

Southeast Asian refugee resettlement must be renewed. We

could not agree more. But given our American heritage as a

nation of refugees, our more recent history in Southeast

Asia, and our role as leader of the free world, the United

States can call for renewal only by restoring our previous

commitment to the resettlement and relief of refugees from

Indochina. The burden is on us; we must now move forward

aggressively to demonstrate our willingness to adhere to

these principles.
67

COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE VOLUNTARY AGENCIES

CONCERNING REFUGEE ADMISSIONS FOR FT 1987

A Statement of the Committee on Migration and Refugee Affairs

of the

American Council for Voluntary International Action

(InterAction)

June 18, 1986

The worldwide refugee population has surpassed the ten million

mark and appears to be Increasing. Having survived persecution and

deprivation, these refugees now seek daily sustenance in countries beyond

their homelands. The fortunate among them will be able to return home or

resettle in contiguous countries with familiar climates and ways of

living. The less fortunate must depend upon the generosity of the

international community. They will require resettlement opportunities in

third countries where they will have to learn a new language, new customs

and new lifestyles.

Since 1980, refugee admissions to the United States have declined,

while the number of the world's refugees has steadily increased. From a

high of 159,252 in 1981, projected admissions for FY 1986 will slightly

exceed 60,000, a greater than 607. decrease. Although the International

community agrees that third country resettlement is the least preferred

solution for refugees, it remains the only permanent solution for some.

The United States has taken the lead among countries protecting

and resettling refugees. Other nations look to us in the determination

of their own policies of resettlement. Our international leadership In

refugee resettlement has relieved the pressure on countries of first

asylum, assuring the continuing existence of safe haven for people driven

from their homes by persecution, civil strife and/or conditions of war.

This vital aspect of our refugee policy must be maintained.

America has extended its generosity to the refugees of the world,

and refugees have benefited our society. Representing many cultures,

they have enriched the American multi-cultural milieu, bringing with them

values that honor and nurture the family; respect the importance of

industry and hard work; and promote the pursuit of education. Refugees

demonstrate the vitality of our democratic society while they personify

and rejuvenate our American value system. The vast majority become

productive members of our communities and of our work force. These are

benefits which are extremely difficult to quantify.

We of the voluntary resettlement community are concerned that as

the world refugee crisis grows, commitment to resolving this problem may

be diminishing.

America has long nurtured an ambivalence to strangers. The

Lazarus poem at the base of the Statue of Liberty has not always

expressed the reality of our historical experiences. We like to think of

ourselves as a welcoming and generous people, but we grow nervous when
our cities fill up with "foreigner!" who speak different languages, dress

differently than we and practice customs we are unuaed to. The cauaea of

our apprehensions are many and complex; we fear that "strangers" have

different values from "us", that they have different aspirations and

hopes for themselves and their families. We have prejudices and basic

inchoate feara. Much of the debate around immigration and refugee

related legislation In the present Congress reflects these feara. It Is

Important to set the record straight In our talks about refugee

admissions so that we nay realize the overwhelming benefits of a generous

resettlement policy and to think of It as an expression of our best

traditions and highest values.

Voluntary agency staff, congregations and volunteers continue to

be dedicated to assisting refugees In their adjustment to American

society and to facilitate their becoming contributing members of their

communities. Individuals and communities across the nation work

diligently to help newcomers make the transition from refugee to

citizen. We frequently read headlines such as "Indochlnese Adapt Quickly

to U.S. Life", "Committee to Help Refugees Work on Housing Problems" or

"Families Help Refugees Unwrap Christmas Joys". They reflect the atoriea

of individual refugees and their helpers; long hours of work, challenge

and accomplishment. More often than not, success stories remain untold.

Yet they are visible In the new businesses springing up in every major

city, in the extraordinary educational accomplishments of refugee

children, In the increasing movement of refugee families to suburban

communities and small towns.

The national program of resettlement is overwhelmingly auccessful

in the long term, although refugee use of public assistance is high in

some regions of the country. The voluntary agencies, In partnership with

the Administration and Congress, are taking agreasive steps to address

this vexing problem where it exists. Through the use of Fish/Wilson

programs, voluntary agencies and state and local governments are planning

and implementing demonstration resettlement projects, utilizing several

models of resettlement in an attempt to solve problems of unnecessary

welfare use. The matching grant program, originally a highly successful

innovative program to resettle Soviet Jews, Increasingly is being used

with excellent results by voluntary agencies to mainstream refugees of

diverse ethnic backgrounds. In addition, the voluntary agencies have

implemented tightened case management systems which track and coordinate

the many facets of refugee resettlement, engendering greater efficiencies

and avoiding duplication of effort.

We are painfully aware of the budget limitations under which

Congress is operating this year. Hard choices must be made. We believe,

however, that the refugee admissions program has taken the sharpest cuts

it can and still offer hope to refugees. The dimensions of this problem

require our most humane and generous response.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The voluntary agencies of the Committee on Migration and Refugee

Affalra of InterAction recommend 63,000 overall refugee admissions for FY

1987, as a minimum number, not as a ceiling. Furthermore, we recommend

that there be no limit on Orderly Departure Program admissions. We

suggest the following regional allocations:

Africa 5,000

Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union 10,000

Latin America and the Caribbean 3,000

Near East and South Asia 10,000

Southeast Asia 35,000

63,000

Orderly departure program No limitation
69

Africa

It is estimated that there are currently over 3 million refugees

In Africa. For the vast majority, resettlement outside the continent is

not necessary, advisable, or even desired by the refugees themselves.

Most refugees in Africa are able either to obtain haven within the

continent or eventually to repatriate. While we propose an increase in

the admissions ceiling for Africa from 3,000 to 5,000, this figure

remains quite modest in comparison to the massive dimensions of the

continent's refugee problems.

There are a number of situations in which resettlement outside the

continent is necessary.

First, the government of Sudan should vigorously be encouraged to

resume processing of select Ethiopian refugees for resettlement in the

United States. Approximately 900 persons remain in that country who

already have been found qualified for the U.S. program but may not be

able to depart Sudan this fiscal year. Admissions numbers should remain

available for them. In addition, there will continue to arrive In the

Sudan, as well as potentially In Somalia and other parts of the Horn

region, a small number of Ethiopians in need of resettlement because of

their inability to return to Ethiopia and unsuitablllty for local

resettlement. In Somalia, for example, the integration of Amharas from

Ethiopia is proving extremely difficult, if not impossible. Resettlement

outside the region will likely be necessary for members of this group.

Second, a small number of Ethiopians in Djibouti should be

processed for U.S. resettlement. The proposed group represents but a

segment of the Ethiopians remaining in Djibouti following a successful

repatriation program conducted by UNHCR. These Ethiopians could not

return to Ethiopia under that program due to their urban or political

background and they have been unsuccessful in supporting themselves in

the extremely depressed Djiboutian economy. A voluntary agency survey

team two years ago interviewed many in this population and discovered an

estimated 250-500 persons with family or other ties to the United States.

This situation should be corrected as quickly as possible so as not to

hold out a magnet to others In Africa. Those countries In Europe

providing temporary asylum hope for at least a family reunification

program for these cases.

Third, a small resettlement "escape valve" is necessary in

Southern Africa in such areas as Lesotho and Botswana. Lesotho is a

classic example of the necessity of such a relief mechanism. South

Africa surrounds It and Johannesburg has not hesitated to use economic

sanctions and military incursions to keep the country from providing

refuge to South Africans. Uganda and Kenya have agreed recently to

provide temporary haven for some South Africans from Lesotho. However,

the United States could also play a significant protection role -- as

well as contribute to the stability of Lesotho -- through the

resettlement of a small number of persons for whom no option is available

in the region and who desire resettlement outside Africa.

Fourth, U.S. resettlement should also be made available to

marooned African refugees -- primarily Ethiopians -- with U.S. ties or

who otherwise qualify for the U.S. program. Such resettlement is

currently afforded those who transit Eastern Europe. (A number of

Ethiopians undergoing training in Eastern Europe have fled to Western

Europe.) However, it is not available to those who proceed directly from

Africa to Western Europe, as such persons are generally perceived to have

circumvented the refugee program existing in Africa itself.

It is our contention that Ethiopian refugees proceeding directly

to Europe should receive the same consideration as those in the Sudan.

Our offices in Europe report the presence of several hundred Ethiopians

in Greece, Italy, Austria and Germany who are not being received for

resettlement in Europe and who, if they had applied to the U.S. program

in Khartoum, would likely qualify. It is important to note that many

Ethiopians have no option for escape other than direct flights to Europe.
It It therefore recommended that an admissions allocation of 5,000

be established for Africa, to be Informally alotted as follovn

Sudan 2.000

African* In Europe 1,500

Djibouti, Somalia and

other situations 1,000

"escape valve" In

Southern Africa 500

Latin America and the Caribbean

The U.S. should admit refugees from a variety of countries In this

region under an allocation of 3,000, or set admissions for the region at

a much lower level. Although not present stated policy, present practice

Is to admit only Cubans • 21 In this fiscal year to date. Even Cuban

processing appears to be on hold since six INS-approved Cuban

ez-polltlcal prisoners in Madrid were Indefinitely denied admission

numbers in May.

Proposed admission levels In the past few years have ranged

between 1,000 and 3,000. Actual admissions, however, do not even

remotely approach these levels. In 1984, the U.S. admitted 46 refugees

from the region, all Cuban. In 1985, 150 refugees were admitted, again,

all from Cuba.

We are encouraged by the resumption of talks between the U.S. and

Cuban governments and hope that they will have a positive outcome. In

particular, we call for the renewal of the Cuban political prisoner

program. If negotiations on a broader range of Issues should founder, we

would hope that the United States would press for the release of all

political prisoners and agree to admit them as refugees along with their

Immediate family.

We agree with U.S. refugee policy and its emphasis on voluntary

repatriation and local settlement where possible. Many Central and South

American refugees may ultimately be able to return to their homelands,

and for them resettlement in the U.S. is not the best answer. But there

are more than 389,000 refugees in Latin America, only a few of them

Cuban. The U.S. should offer an opportunity for resettlement to some

"other than Cuban refugees".

About 300,000 of the refugees in the region are located in Central

America. Canada and Australia have active resettlement programs for

these refugees. Canada resettled 4,045 Central Americans In 1985 •

3,380 as refugees and 665 under a special humanitarian program. U.S.

refugee policy in Central America should follow the Canadian lead.

Particularly compelling among Central American refugees are those

who have neither UNHCR protection nor have they permanently settled in

nations of first asylum. Many are undocumented, and have been unable to

Integrate in their new environment. This is especially true of urban

refugees, and the U.S. should consider some for resettlement due to their

emergent clcumstances. Other refugees with close ties to the U.S. should

also be given an opportunity for resettlement. In addition, a small

number of Chileans should be resettled in the United States.

U.S. resettlement can provide a safety valve for first asylum

nations and thus provide greater protection for refugees remanlning In

camps. Specific inldividuals in UNHCR camps in Honduras could be

resettled, for example, when protection problems arise, thus ensuring

better protection for remaining camp residents.

The U.S. could maintain a refugee resettlement program which would

facilitate the protection of refugees in the region by the allocation and

use of 3,000 numbers. Limited, case-by-case resettlement of individuals

who are in need of immediate protection directly out of their home

country could be a critical aspect of such a program in Central America.
71

But if the U.S. continues to process, within this quota, only

smell numbers of Cuban refugees, the allocation number should be reduced

accordingly and the Latin American regional numbers should be used In

other regions of the world.

Eastern Europe and the USSR

The flow of refugees from Eastern European countries to Western

Europe has Increased slightly over the past year. The number of Eastern

Europeans registered for third country resettlement with voluntary agency

offices throughout Western Europe grew from 11,000 In January, 198S to

15,400 in December, 1985. Austria and Germany continue to shoulder the

largest burden as nations of first asylum for this refugee population.

They have urged the United States and other Western nations to maintain

or increase resettlement quotas in order to permit their own hospitality

as providers of safe haven to continue. The Swiss have the highest

proportion of refugees to population In Europe • one refugee for each

150 citliens.

The recent expulsion of Eastern European refugees by Switzerland

and that country's newly adopted restrictive asylum policies underscore

the tenuous character of asylum In Europe, even for Eastern European

refugees.

While the Soviet Union has permitted the recent emigration of a

handful of spouses of U.S. citizens, almost no other emigration from the

USSR is tolerated. We strongly support efforts to reestablish Soviet

Jewish emigration, and we stand ready to assist In the resettlement of

Soviet refugees In this country.

Lately, many countries in Western Europe have become nations of

safe haven for Sikh, Iranian, Tamil, Afghan and other asylum seekers,

which has in turn led governments to tighten asylum policies, resort to

increased use of detention and deportation, and to implement other

deterrent measures to discourage new arrivals. The growing influx of

asylum seekers has had some negative effect on Western European

hospitality toward refugees from the Eastern bloc.

It Is therefore essential that the United States maintain a

generous celling for resettlement from Eastern Europe and the USSR to

help alleviate the pressures which are increasingly being felt in many

parts of Western Europe. We recommend a 10,000 allocation for the

region, which will contribute to a more welcome climate for all refugees

in Western Europe.

Near East and South Asia

The Near East and South Asia has a disproportionate number of the

world's refugees. Fortunately, the vast majority of these refugees are

being provided haven locally. But a steadily growing number are seeking

asylum in Europe and applying for resettlement in the United States.

Presently, the regional backlog of cases already exceeds the Department

of State FY 87 budget request of 6,000 numbers. For this reason and also

due to the political conditions described below, we recommend a minimum

allocation of 10,000 for this region, an lncreaae of 4,000 over last year.

The ongoing Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, the continuing

Iran/Iraq war, unresolved growing violence and civil strife in Sri Lanka,

and the persecution of religious minorities and dissidents in Iran create

new refugees dally. Kurdish minorities are under attack in Iraq, Iran

and Turkey. Pakistan alone is supporting close to three million Afghans

as well as thousands of Iranian Moslems, Bahals and Jews. Over two

million UNRWA registered Palestinians remain in the region with no

solution to their situation in sight.

Regional conditions currently leave little or no opportunity for

voluntary repatriation, which has resulted In Increased demand for
72

refugee processing. Because of limited availability of numbers, the U.S.

has restricted its refugee processing to those applicants who fall into

priorities 1-4. (During FY 85, the U.S. finished processing P 5-6

refugees who had registered prior to 10/15/84.)

We believe that the unsettled circumstances and the scope of the

refugee problem require a regional allocation in FY 87 of 10,000, which

would permit some alleviation of the existing backlog and the possible

expansion of refugee processing beyond priorities 1-4.

Southeast Asia

There are 147,000 refugees in first asylum in Southeast Asia, not

counting the 230,000 "displaced" Cambodians on the Thai-Cambodian

border. Some 33,000 are Vietnamese boat people, located in every first

asylum country. The other 114,000 are land Vietnamese, lowland and

highland Lao, and Cambodians inside Thailand. The total numbers are

slightly reduced since a year ago, but new boat and land refugees arrive

in first asylum nations each month.

The past year has produced clear indications that the United

States is winding down its resettlement of Southeast Asian refugees.

This policy is being implemented despite the continued outflow of people

from Vietnam and Laos, the continued conflict in Cambodia, and the fact

that virtually no legal emigration options exist for those inside the

three "Indochinese" countries.

We believe that special efforts must be made at this time to

preserve first asylum in the region, and that a viable and generous

resettlement policy must remain the cornerstone of U.S. policy toward

Southeast Asian refugees and host ASEAN nations.

With the exception of Thailand, Vietnamese boat people are the

only refugee population currently in first asylum throughout the region.

They continue to flee although the journey is dangerous and many

encounter vicious pirate attacks along the way. Since 1982, the U.S. has

denied resettlement opportunities to Vietnamese boat people who do not

have special ties to this country • so-called priority 6 refugees.

We strongly endorse the Ray Commission's recommendation that P-6

processing for Vietnamese refugees be reopened to reduce the size of this

"long-stayer" population and alleviate the pressures on first asylum

nations. We believe that U.S. processing of P-6 refugees should be part

of an international effort to address the issue.

In addition, we recommend that P-6 processing be explored for

other refugee populations in first asylum in Thailand, again in concert

with the international community.

We are also concerned about the fates of new refugee arrivals in

Thailand; we have heard increasing reports of forcible pushbacks of

lowland Lao and Hmong refugees attempting to flee across the border. In

view of these incidents, and the failure of the Lao government to

cooperate in the return of those determined by the Thai government not to

be refugees, we fear that the entire "screening" process may break down,

with negative consequences for all Lao who seek safety outside their

homeland.

The most serious protection and resettlement related problems are,

however, associated with Thailand's Cambodian border. The refugees

housed there are particulalry vulnerable and "at risk", as the recent

shelling of Site 8 indicates. It is to this cauldron that those now in

Khao-1-Dang who are not accepted for U.S. resettlement will be bound

within several months, according to Thai officials.

We are pleased at the recent decision to process for U.S.

resettlement those in priorities 1-5 among the "food card holders" in
73

Khao-I-Dang. However, we believe that the U.S. should consider as

potential refugees all Cambodians Inside Thailand, Including the "ration

card holders" In Ban Phu and a limited number from sites along the

border, and that some Cambodians previously rejected for the U.S. program

should be reconsidered.

We also support the admission of eligible Cambodians through

immigration channels, as proposed by Secretary of State Shultz on

September 28, 1985. However, we are disturbed that only a handful of the

eligible immigrants along the border and In Khao-I-Dang have, in fact,

been moved to the United States. We are also concerned for the fate of

approved immigrants whose visas are not current; because of their

emergent circumstances, we believe they should be moved to the United

States immediately, under humanitarian parole, and adjust status when

their visas become current.

To account for the resettlement of currently eligible populations,

as well as those we believe should be made available from P-6 and

Cambodian border populations, we recommend the allocation of 35,000

numbers for South East Asia.

Orderly Departure Program

We are dismayed at the recent end to UNHCR interviewing of new

applicants for the ODP program. We support a strong, fully operational

ODP program and we hope for an early resolution to the current stalemate.

We have some concerns about U.S. implementation of ODP. At Its

Inception in 1979, ODP was intended to reduce the numbers of refugees who

risked their lives to flee Vietnam by boat. But over the years, aspects

of ODP processing have become encumbered by overly restrictive and

bureaucratic requirements, unnecessarily limiting the number of

beneficiaries and prolonging the approval process.

ODP requires comprehensive documentation of potential cases,

Including the submission of original documents obtainable only in Vietnam

or simply not available, such as marriage certificates for aged parents

or pre-1975 Vietnamese ID cards. While adequate documentation is clearly

necessary, we believe that solid secondary documentation should, in most

cases, suffice.

We have encountered difficulties with the processing of families

composed of Immigrants with both current and non-current visas.

Repeatedy, families have been divided as current cases are permitted to

move while non-current family members are forced to stay behind. Such a

policy Is unlikely to reduce clandestine boat departures as families seek

to maintain unity.

Another chronic problem has been the admission through ODP of

Amerasian children as unaccompanied minors who are placed into foster

care in the United States while their Vietnamese foster parents are

denied entry to this country. ODP often requires extensive documentation

in order to consider foster parents for the United States program, yet

legal adoption or formalized foster care have not been common practice in

Vietnam.

We understand that the intent of stringent ODP processing Is the

avoidance of fraud, and we concur that care must be taken to prevent the

admission of Ineligible individuals under the program. However, we ask

that greater sensitivity and flexibility be exercised in the

determination of ODP cases, and we believe that such improvements in U.S.

ODP processing would be of significant help in reducing the existing

backlog and resolving the current impasse in the program.
74

The critical humanitarian nature of ODP Bake* It crucial that

full, normal processing be restored. In order to emphasize our

commitment to legal emigration alternatives and to the special Interest

populations of Aaeraslan children and those confined to reeducation camps

In Vietnam, It Is Important that there be no limitation on the program

and that we are able to admit as many Individuals as possible through

this humane channel as both Immigrants and refugees.

American Council for Nationalities Service

American Fund for Czechoslovak Refugees

Buddhist Council for Refugee Rescue and Resettlement

Church World Service Immigration and Refugee Program

Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (BIAS)

International Rescue Committee

Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service

Polish American Immigration and Relief Committee

Presiding Bishops Fund for World Relief (The Episcopal Church)

Tolstoy Foundation

World Relief
75

United States Department of State

Washington, D.C. 20520

June 25, 1986

* IB*

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Following the June 20 mid-year consultations on refugee

programs, at which Mr. Purcell appeared, additional questions

were submitted to be answered for the record by Senators

Simpson and Kennedy.

Please find enclosed the answers to those questions.

With best wishes.

Sincerely,

^>

J. Edward Fox

Assistant Secretary

Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs

Enclosure:

As stated

The Honorable

Alan K. Simpson, Chairman,

Subcommittee on Immigration and Refugee Policy,

Committee on the Judiciary,

United States Senate.
76

SOUTH AFRICA

QUESTION: What is the reason for the relatively low number of

admissions from Africa during FY 1985 and so far in

FY 1986? In particular, I understand that a group

of 900 Africans, approved for refugee status, have

not been provided with the proper arrangements to

leave the country. Could you enlighten us on these

issues?

ANSWER:

During FY 1985, 1,953 African refugees were resettled in the

U.S. To date 445 African refugees have been resettled in

the U.S. during FY 1986.

Relatively few African refugees require resettlement outside

of the region. Our program has aimed at those who cannot be

assimilated locally, for example, urban Ethiopians and South

Africans.

Historically, most of our African refugees have been

Ethiopians processed from the Sudan. However, in November

1985 the Government of the Sudan imposed a moratorium on all

refugee departures. Although the moratorium has now been

lifted, refugee departures, have been temporarily halted due

to the recent Embassy evacuation.

Approximately 300 refugees were able to leave the Sudan

after the moratorium on departures was lifted and before the

Embassy was evacuated.

We remain hopeful that an additional 900 approved and travel

ready refugees in Khartoum will be allowed to depart for the

U.S. once resettlement operations can safely resume.

QUESTION: The Administration's testimony indicates that the

recent violence and repression in South Africa has yet

to result in any increased flow of refugees. However,

there has been a steady increase in the number of

refugees over the past year. What is the Department's

current estimate of the total number of refugees from

South Africa, where they are located, and what the

projections are for the remainder of the year?
77

ANSWER:

• Drawing on information from the DNHCR and from our refugee

officers in the field, we count just over 22,000 South

African refugees in need of international assistance. They

are located in African countries of asylum as follows:

Angola 9,000

Botswana 600

Lesotho 200

Mozambique 400

Nigeria 1,000

Swaziland 7,000

Tanzania 250

Zambia 3,000

Zimbabwe 450

Others 350

It is important to point out that in arriving at estimates

of the number of South African refugees, those South

Africans in exile who are adherents of the liberation

movements and who are under the care of those movements -

for example, attending ANC-sponsored schools in Tanzania -

are not included as they are not in need of assistance from

the UNHCR.

Predicting refugee flows is, of course, a very difficult

business. We anticipate that there will be more movement of

South African refugees northward from the countries of first

asylum bordering the Republic of South Africa. Such

movements would probably number in the tens, rather than in

the hundreds, of people. Heretofore, most refugees leaving

South Africa have been associated, at least at the beginning

of their flight, with various "banned" organizations. With

the widening violence in South Africa, we may see more

refugees who are unaffiliated and who are simply fleeing the

63-000 0-86-4
78

violence. For the remainder of 1986, we would project any

new outflows from South Africa to involve only hundreds,

rather than thousands, of people. Over time, refugee flows

could be much larger depending upon the course of events in

Southern Africa.

QUESTION: The United States has condemned the military raids by

South African forces on refugee camps in neighboring

countries, and the U.S. is also contributing to the

UNHCR program to repair the damage. What is the

nature and scope of our assistance? What further

steps is the Administration prepared to take to help

assure international protection of South African

refugees under the mandate of the U.N. High

Commissioner for Refugees?

ANSWER:

• We are earmarking up to $15,000 of our pledge to the UNHCR

Africa program toward the costs of repairing the damage to

the Makeni Resource (Refugee Reception) Center just outside

Lusaka, Zambia, which was hit by the South African raid.

• The Administration has 6trongly protested the South African

raids both publicly and privately to the South African

Government.

In support of the UNHCR, we have, on a bilateral basis,

urged countries of asylum in Southern Africa to continue to

respect the principle of first asylum and to cooperate with

the UNHCR as the non-political representative of the whole

international community charged with refugee protection.

We recognize that the international community must also

provide adequate assistance to the countries of first asylum

to enable them to better assume their international

obligation of hosting refugees. However, assistance can

only be effective where adequate protection for refugees

exists. Correspondingly, where assistance is inadequate, it

is more difficult to maintain protection. Within the budgetary

limits set for us, the Department will endeavor to continue

providing a fair and substantial share of the international

assistance for African (and indeed all other) refugees.
79

QUESTION: Has there been an increase in the number of South

Africans seeking asylum in the United States or being

admitted as refugees because of the new violence and

repression in South Africa? How many South Africans

have applied, and how many have been admitted to the

United States, since January 1985? What is their

ethnic background?

ANSWER:

• Historically, few refugees from South Africa have applied

for resettlement in the United States. Many South Africans

are seeking post secondary education/training outside of

Africa instead of permanent resettlement. Many others have

opted for temporary resettlement in Africa, with the hope

that they will be able to return to their homeland in the

near future.

• Eight South Africans were granted asylum in the U.S. during

FY 1985 while 11 South Africans have been granted asylum

thus far during FY 1986. Since January 1985, 32 South

Africans have entered the U.S. as refugees • An

additionally 56 South African refugee applicants will be

interviewed by INS this month for possibile admission as

refugees.

• Neither the Department of State nor the Immigration and

Naturalization Service maintains statistics on refugee or

asylum applicants by ethnic background.

QUESTION: If a white South African who is here on a student visa

applies for asylum because he refuses to return to

South Africa because he does not wish to serve in the

South African armed forces because of their actions in

implementing apartheid and the emergency rules, what

consideration would the Department of State and INS

likely give such claim for asylum?

ANSWER:

All applications for asylum are based on the individual

circumstances of each and every case. Therefore, it would

be impossible to prejudge a specific case without having all

of the evidence available.
80

• Any South African asylum applicant will be given every

consideration consistent with U.S. law and regulation.

QUESTION: If a flow of white South African refugees or

asylum-seekers were to begin, will the same screening

procedures now being used in the Khmer processing •

to exclude those who themselves have engaged in

persecution • also apply to South African applicants

who have engaged in the implementation and enforcement

of apartheid? Would their activity in these programs

preclude granting them refugee status under the terms

of the Refugee Act of 1980 and the United Nations

Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of

Refugees? What policy guidelines have been developed

or considered?

ANSWER:

Under Section I0l(a)(42) of the Immigration and Nationality

Act of 1952 as amended, "The term 'refugee' does not include

any person who ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise

participated in the persecution of any person on account of

race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular

social group, or political opinion."

Whether or not a particular individual was ineligible for

admission to the U.S. as a refugee under this section of the

law because he or she engaged in the implementation and

enforcement of apartheid would be determined on a

case-by-case determination and would be based upon the facts

of each individual case.

No new policy guidelines have been developed on this issue.

A decision of ineligibility on this basis would be a

case-by-case determination.
81

CHANGING NATURE OF REFUGEE FLOW

FROM SOUTHEAST ASIA

QUESTION: The Ray Commission report mentioned an increasing

number of Southeast Asian refugees undertaking

perilous journeys to countries of first asylum in

search of "economic and political freedom or to be

reunited with family members," rather than fleeing

specific persecution. The Commission also noted that

approximately 45% of refugee admissions to the U.S.

last year from Southeast Asia were based on family

relationships. There is clearly a change in the

character of the refugee flow in Southeast Asia.

Given this change, how much longer will the United

States be able to justify admissions levels in excess

of 10,000 or 20,000 refugees per year from Southeast

Asia? Will there be a sufficient number of "true

refugees" left?

ANSWER:

The Department views the next few years as a period of

transition for the refugee program in Southeast Asia. As

the first asylum population continues to drop and those

admitted to the U.S. meet the qualifications for adjustment

of status and naturalization to allow them to petition for

immigrant visas for family members, the U.S. must ensure

that viable mechanisms are in place to provide for both

refugees and immigrants.

As Secretary Shultz testified last fall, we are promoting

the increased use of normal immigration channels, as

appropriate, for the family reunification segment of the

Indochinese resettlement program. This approach has been

endorsed by the Indochinese Refugee Panel which recommended

a two-track refugee/immigrant processing program. We are

currently working on specific implementation plans for these

and other Panel recommendations.

We must recognize, however, that as the shift to

conventional immigration processing proceeds, adequate

refugee numbers will continue to be needed for bona fide

refugee cases.
The Department admissions estimate for FY 1987 reflects

these considerations. He do expect the number of refugee

admissions to decline as the shift to immigration progresses.

EAST-ASIA FIRST ASYLUM PIPELINE

QUESTION: Your testimony notes that 21,050 refugees have entered

the U.S. this fiscal year so far from East Asia/first

asylum. How many refugees are presently in the

"pipeline" (accepted for admission but still in the

refugee processing centers) from East Asia/first

asylum?

ANSWER:

There are presently 15,950 first asylum refugees in the

pipeline. All of them will enter the United States during

this fiscal year.

Between now and the end of the year, other refugees will

enter the RPCs at Bataan, Galang and Phanat Nikhom for

training for ESL/CO training. We expect to have about

15,300 refugees in the pipeline at the end of FY86.

EAST ASIA/ADMISSIONS/ODP

QUESTION: The only alternative to a continued "boat flow" from

Vietnam • which is obviously dangerous and chaotic

• is the UNHCR orderly departure program • which

to date, has brought out 105,000 Vietnamese since

1979 (half coming to the U.S.). What is the

Administration doing diplomatically to get the

O.D.P. program back on track? To date we have given

diplomatic priority in our contacts with Hanoi to

the M.I.A. issue. Is the family reunification

problem and the O.D.P. program receiving a similar

priority? If so, by whom, what recent initiatives

have been undertaken?

ANSWER:

On July 1, senior U.S. officials • from both State and the

White House • were in Hanoi discussing MIA's and also how

to restore the functioning of the ODP.

' Z///AV3*\\\S «
83

• On Kay 30, senior U.S. officials met with the Vietnamese

Deputy Foreign Minister at the United Nations in New York

to discuss the present state of the ODP and other matters.

They also presented him with the text of a Concurrent

Resolution introduced in the Senate and subsequently in the

House of Representatives, calling for a full resumption of

the program.

• Earlier we protested the expulsion of the interviewers via

UNHCR. We also asked other countries to express their

concern to the SRV, especially those countries that could

expect to have to deal with the problems created by an

increase in the number of refugees landing clandestinely on

their shores.

• We have held talks with the Vietnamese under UNHCR

chairmanship, most recently at UNHCR offices in Bangkok on

March 3-4, and have sent repeated messages urging the

resumption of interviewing. We have forcefully pointed out

to the Vietnamese the consequences of their unilateral

action and presented our position on how ODP processing can

be resumed and improved in an equitable manner.

• In addition to the messages we have sent since the March

meeting • one in April and two more in May, • we have

proposed another ODP meeting. We are currently awaiting a

response.

• The Vietnamese delegate indicated informally at the March

meeting that the SRV had a list of 2,800 Amerasians and

family members who had been issued exit permits and were

ready for interview. Despite our requests, the SRV has so

far declined to make this list available to us or permit

processing of these cases.

• Vietnam asserts that interviewing should not resume for new

applicants until all the interviewed applicants have been
84

either approved or denied. Unfortunately, many of those

the Vietnamese have presented for UNHCR interview were not

on U.S. lists nor in possession of a Letter of Introduction

(LOI) requesting departure. By presenting for interview people

whose qualifications have not yet been demonstrated or

documented, the Vietnamese built into the system a serious

delaying factor.

• Thousands of Vietnamese are beneficiaries of current

immigrant visa petitions. If the Vietnamese would allow

interviewing and processing of these immigrant applicants,

thousands could be accepted now for family reunification.

• Meanwhile, we continue to process cases that have already

been interviewed. Flights out of Vietnam for the U.S. ODP

are continuing, although the number of departures has

fallen from 5,745 for January through May 1985 to 4,884 for

the same period in 1986. Roughly 70 percent of this year's

departures have been for family reunification. (Departures

to other countries have also dropped, from 5,050 to 4,168

for the same period of January through May.)

QUESTION: This year's rate of "boat people" is barely down

thoughout the Southeast Asia region, and in Hong

Kong there has been reportedly been a sharp increase

compared to the same period last year. The

Department's testimony stresses the need to find new

solutions and new approaches to the Indochinese flow

beyond third country resettlement. This means

either voluntary repatriation or local settlement.

What specific plans does the Department have on

finding new approaches for the coming year? What

new "international action and cooperation " do you

visualize developing over the coming year?

ANSWER:

• Last fall Secretary of State Shultz requested an

independent review of the refugee situation in Indochina.

The report of the Indochinese Refugee Panel has been

completed and is being evaluated by the Departments of

State and Justice. Consultations have already begun with
85

the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and major

resettlement countries concerning international

approaches. The U.S. new Coordinator for Refugee Affairs

will take the lead in developing these initiatives.

• The Panel Report includes proposals for working with host

governments in a "sharing out" which would include both

third country resettlement and local settlement. Local

settlement is already occurring in Hong Kong and Malaysia.

The Panel recommended that negotiations be started with

Thailand concerning programs to permit the Highland Lao to

remain until repatriation is possible.

• Voluntary repatriation was seen as a viable option for

lowland Lao. Vietnamese intransigence with regard to its

responsibility to permit its citizens to return voluntarily

blocks present consideration of international programs such

as that operating in Laos under UNHCR auspices.

• The Panel endorsed the need for revitalized international

burden-sharing of both the relief and resettlement efforts

and recommended the appointment of a special representative

to negotiate with the sending and receiving states. The

new UN High Commissioner for Refugees will visit Southeast

Asia early this fall. We believe that his leadership and

interest can result in a strategy for this region, which

will include an appropriate mix of all three durable

solutions.

• Another key element is the Orderly Departure Program.

Vietnam's decision to curtail new interviews has

contributed to the rise in boat departures. We are

pursuing continued negotiations in an effort to reopen this

safe alternative to clandestine flight.
QUESTION: There is a growing backlog of Indochinese refugees

who have been denied refugee status or admission to

any country. These so-called "long-stayers" (some

up to S and 6 years) are becoming special

humanitarian cases simply because their plight has

become so prolonged and their future so uncertain.

What thought is being given to dealing with the

residue population in Southeast Asia • assuming a

new flow can finally be stemmed?

ANSWER:

• The Indochinese Refugee Panel has recommended that the

United States participate in an international "sharing out"

of the long-stayer population. While details would require

considerable negotiation, the program would include local

settlement of some refugees and expanded third country

resettlement of the remainder. The Panel suggested that US

processing include members of the P-6 population (those

without ties to the U.S.) who arrived after the cut-off

date of April 30, 1982. The potential magnet effect of

such a policy must be recognized and its implementation

include measures to deter future clandestine flight of

non-refugees.

• Malaysia is currently operating a limited vocational and

English-language program to qualify potential long-stayers

for the programs of countries such as Australia and Canada

which place a premium on such skills. Similar programs are

being considered in Hong Kong and for the Khmer in

Khao-I-Dang. These programs were supported by the Panel.

QUESTION: With regard to the Thai-Cambodian border, is there

any evidence that the Thai government has shown any

greater willingness toward instituting education

programs for the displaced-person population on the

border? In addition, is there any evidence that the

processing for immigrant visas and humanitarian

parole that the U.S. has conducted among the border

population has drawn additional Cambodians to the

border in hope of third country resettlement?
87

ANSWER:

Primary education is currently provided to approximately

25,000 border Khmer children through programs operated by

the UN Border Relief Operation (UNBRO). In addition,

informal programs supported by the Khmer Women's

Organization and private individuals provide elementary and

secondary education to a limited number of others. UNBRO

with the support of the United States and other donors is

continuing efforts to expand these programs to provide

opportunities for the growing school age population. The

Royal Thai Government has tended to focus its attention on

the Kap Cherng project, a proposal for secondary -and

vocational education on the site of a former refugee camp.

This is being pursued by UNBRO although it does not appear

that progress will be made soon.

The number of new arrivals along the Thai-Cambodian border

remains small with no noticeable impact from the processing

program. Camp populations have been growing as a result of

a higher birthrate rather than an influx from the

interior.

QUESTION: Last year the Administration requested, and Congress

approved, a refugee admissions ceiling of 3,000 for

Central American refugees. As of the latest report,

only 21 cases have been admitted this fiscal year, and

all of these have been Cubans. By contrast, last year

Canada found and admitted almost 3,000 deserving

refugees, including 690 directly from the United

States • mostly Salvadorans and Guatemalans. How is

it that again this year the United States cannot find

one, single Salvadoran, Guatemalan, or other Central

American to be admitted as a refugee • much less the

3,000 approved by Congress?

ANSWER:

• The 3,000 ceiling is for all Latin American refugees and not

exclusively for refugees from Central America.
• Our request included sufficient numbers to process Cuban

refugees under the Mariel Migration Agreement. However, the

Cuban government has not yet lifted its suspension of the

Agreement. Therefore, we have not needed to use all of the

numbers which were requested.

• Third country resettlement is the least desirable solution

to refugee situations•or only necessary when neither

voluntary repatriation nor regional resettlement is not

achieveable solution. Central American countries have

generously offered regional resettlement to those fleeing

civil strife.

• Under current guidelines, any Central American may apply for

the U.S. refugee program, and all individuals are considered

for admission on a case by case basis. Central American

refugees are processed in priorities one or two.

We are aware that the Canadians have admitted substantial

numbers of Central American refugees during recent years.

Canada's program emphasizes family reunification and one

part of that program is similar to our own fifth preference

immigrant visa category which reunities brothers and sisters

of U.S. citizens.

QUESTION FROM SENATOR SIMPSON:

BORDER KHMER

QUESTION: Does the State Department have any plans at the moment

to begin screening the Khmer border population?

ANSWER:

There are no plans to begin screening the border Khmer

for the purpose of refugee resettlement. The United

States has not changed its long-standing policy of

regarding this group as displaced persons rather than

refugees. Neither the United States nor other

resettlement countries plan to accept for resettlement
89

as refugees many of the 240,000 displaced Khmer who

have moved into Thailand since 1980. The Royal Thai

government, the UNHCR, and the rest of the

international community recognize them as displaced

persons. The UN Border Relief Operation is providing

them food, shelter, and other support until conditions

permit their safe return to Cambodia.

On September 17, 1985, the Secretary of State announced

a limited immigration program for certain of the border

Khmer with close relatives in the United States. This

program includes only those with current immigrant visa

petitions or "Visas 93" cases. Additionally, the

Immigration and Naturalization Service will implement

selected use of humanitarian parole, including a

case-by-case review of beneficiaries of non-current

immigrant visa petitions. Immigration or Visas 93

documents filed in the U.S. will identify those few

border Khmer who will be considered for admission.

A screening program for a quarter of a million border

Khmer is thus unnecessary and could be misinterpreted

as implying a much larger program than currently

envisaged. The result would be unfair to the border

Khmer who have no close relatives in the United States

and would, therefore, not qualify for immigration to

the United States.

Moreover, if we began refugee processing among the

border Khmer, we are concerned that a "magnet effect"

would draw additional people out of Cambodia and

increase the border population to well above the

present 240,000. We would then be faced with the

prospect of placing an overwhelming burden on Thailand

and the international organizations involved in caring

for the displaced Khmer.
Senator SIMPSON. Indeed. I will just do a quick, 10-minute round,

and can come back to another round. I appreciate very much your

zeroing in on that area. You and I joined together many years ago

on the Cuban situation to reestablish relations through legal immigration channels, and I was very pleased to meet the former brigade commander that you were instrumental in assisting. I think

that was a very remarkable incident, and I congratulate you, also.

We have an irony here. We have Cuban Americans who now are

complaining about the policy of stopping the taking of Cubans until

Castro agrees again to take back the Mariel criminals. There are

many reasons for that: One of them apparently is Radio Marti. At

least, we are told that. So there are enough ironies in it to last for

everybody. But the point is, we ought to be making every effort to

open that channel once again. It is in the best interest, I think, of

Cuban Americans and in the best interest of those who are former

brigade persons and political prisoners. I want to know a little bit

more about that myself, and I will be inquiring through appropriate channels.

But back to Southeast Asia, if we might switch back for a

moment. On the issue of humanitarian parole•and I have talked

to the voluntary agencies about that proposal•the problem comes

in defining "life-threatening situations," whether this is life-threatening.

Then, indeed, humanitarian parole might be justified. But if

there is no real danger, then what is the effect of parole upon the 2

million other persons waiting in the backlog for legal immigration

into the United States? I think that is a very important issue.

If there is fighting in the camps, I agree with Senator Kennedy

completely, that is certainly life-threatening. We have had one incident of shelling, but there has been no dry season offensive in the

area.

We have to weigh the issue of is that a life-threatening situation

as much as a person waiting in Haiti to come in under legal immigration, or a person waiting in Calcutta to come in under legal immigration•living in a situation which is, "life-threatening". Those

are things that we get to weigh here at this level in the congressional business. We do not get to draw the clear lines that you get

to draw out there on that. We have to play with the deck of 58_

cards sometimes around this place, rather than 52.

So those are things that concern me on the humanitarian parole,

and how many will come in under humanitarian parole. I would

like to have someone give me a figure. No one does.

When I came here, it was because of the parole policy of the

United States that we had to come to the Refugee Act. Parole was

abused and misused. Is this another entry into that, another shunt

around inappropriate numbers? I would like to know.

Commissioner NELSON. Mr. Chairman, I think that is an excellent point, and I think is the balance on that issue of parole. I

think you have covered it so well when you indicated that we have

had a lot of problems in this country with paroles over the years

and the overuse of a Refugee Act; and there are always pressures

to go back to parole. There certainly are occasions•I do not have

the figures•but we do grant a substantial number of paroles each

year, all on a case-by-case basis, and it must be that way because if
91

we start using paroles too generously, then there is•and I do not

mean the word "generously" in a negative sense, but too broadly

for groups•then there is a problem.

I think Mr. Purcell answered it well. We will look at it on a caseby-case basis. Certainly, where there are life-threatening situations,

that is valid. But the one thing we will not do is to go against congressional intent and to use parole as a substitute for refugee processing.

Now, obviously, you are going to have to look at these cases, and

there are some that you can, where they are waiting in line and

you can get them out, but you are right; we have to be careful

what we do in one place that it does not open up a similar issue or

a precedent for another location.

Senator SIMPSON. Let me ask a question in another general area

of you, Alan Nelson, and then I am going to bounce around. In

your testimony, you remarked about the Bahai and other Iranian

religious minorities in Pakistan.

Could you elaborate on the new processing of Iranian refugees

currently in Pakistan? What specific religious groups are being reviewed? How many potential refugees are there, and are there

other countries offering them any third country resettlement?

Commissioner NELSON. I cannot answer the last part; maybe Mr.

Purcell can. We are primarily talking at this point, anyway, about

the Bahai's; about 95 percent of those in the first round of processing, which was in April, were Bahai's. There have been 500 numbers set aside for that processing, and it is going forward. Staff can

give the exact figures to the committee on that.

Mr. PURCELL. I would say, Senator, that we did get many expressions of concern about the Bahai community in Pakistan. The Secretary announced last September that we would open a very limited program. As the Commissioner has said, we have limited it one

way by numbers. We have also limited the processing priorities

that can be used. We are trying to really zero in on persecution.

I would say in the general sense that the burden-sharing on

Bahai is probably about as widespread as any nationality group

that we deal with. There are substantial numbers that do go to

Canada, Australia, other governments, and in fact, I think we can

see a much broader-based sharing of that particular population

than most any other that we consider.

Senator SIMPSON. Let me ask, has that processing in Pakistan already begun?

Mr. PURCELL. Yes; it has begun. It was announced this past September. The system was setup. I think there has been one INS

team in, doing interviewing, and there will be another yet this

year.

Senator SIMPSON. September is when it was announced, but I

asked if it had been done.

Mr. PURCELL. Well, it has been started. INS has been in. We

have provided

Senator SIMPSON. SO it is going on right now?

Mr. PURCELL. It is going on right now.

Senator SIMPSON. That is good. When did it begin to get begun?

Mr. PURCELL. Well, the system was setup after the September

hearings. We had to setup the modalities and get the JVA inter-
92

viewers established. The case files were prepared, and the INS

interview, I think, was done within the past couple of months, but

it has been underway since the hearings. There is a good bit of

preparatory work that has to be done before INS can come in and

look at files, and that occurred over a 3-, 4-month period, and INS

has had one team in already, and it has been a very successful program in that regard.

Senator SIMPSON. Let me ask you, Al, could you provide the subcommittee with some indication of the direction the INS might suggest in updating the refugee priorities and categories in order to

take into account the increasing economic and family reunification

components of our Southeast Asian refugee flow?

Commissioner NELSON. We would be very pleased, Mr. Chairman,

certainly, to consult with you and staff. There is a lot of work

being done on this in various areas to accomplish, I think, the principles you just alluded to, and we are committed to developing

those. I do not have a lot of the details at this point, but we would

like to have a chance to sit down with Mr. Day and others to let

you know how we are coming along.

Senator SIMPSON. I think I have shared with most of you the

criticisms we receive about the rigidity of the Khmer review process.

I, almost like Charles Dickens "Christmas Carol," have been visited by three spirits, and they continue to come back to me: "What

are you doing about these?" Yet they ignore the 90 percent approval figures, they ignore the awesome generosity of this country•

awesome especially in relation to our allies in this cause who have

been remarkable, too, but who are not going to remain remarkable

very much longer.

So I appreciated your detailed description of the Khmer review

process in your testimony. Is there not a point, despite the Ray

Commission's suggestion, at which we say how many times do you

review a certain designated, identified population and review them

and review them and review them? What is the point? How far do

you go?

Commissioner NELSON. I think, Mr. Chairman, your question indicates the answer. And as our testimony stated, we think we have

been more than generous, more than thorough, more than fair and

accurate.

Now, let us face it, there are Khmer Rouge people there that are

not subject to coming in as refugees. There are others who do not

have claims, valid claims, of persecution.

I think it can be recognized when you have approved 90 percent

that you have gone a long way. And we have, as indicated, done

several reviews, and we do basically think enough is enough. We

are not going to do general reviews for the purpose of review and

for the real purpose that some would like, that you basically end

up taking them all.

I think we have made our position clear. Mr. Purcell as I did in

Geneva, also, that we will•and I do not think it is inconsistent

with the Ray Commission in this regard•there might be some interpretation question•any time there is a case that should be reviewed and is raised because there is new evidence, some specific

factors, of course. That is consistent throughout the world in our
93

refugee processing. There is a review process. And that will exist,

of course, for the Khmer, too, but not the continued, ongoing rereview process. I think we have met our burden in every reasonable manner there.

Senator SIMPSON. Well, it is certainly a bit troubling to me, because those who consistently make the plea really have identified

certain persons that they want here, and for various reasons. Some,

I think, are rather magnificent. I think some are rather selfish,

and some are rather self-serving. They identify these persons, and

then the mail cranks up. We have not just isolated these people to

cause pain and anguish among the pleaders•but they certainly

cause pain and anguish in my mind when they continue to stir the

pot when we have done an extraordinary, extraordinary, generous,

humane, compassionate taking off of people who all of us in this

room know do not fit the designation of "refugee". And yet that is

the way we are. That is our strength, that is our country. But you

know, we do not have to play it like a violin in the background.

That does get tedious to me.

So show us those, and we will respond. We have an awfully good

track record in protecting those people, and have protected people

in that area of the world more than we have protected people in

any other area of the world.

So just one more question. More than 1 year ago, I urged the administration to take Southeast Asians who wish to join their family

in the United States as immigrants, instead of abusing the Refugee

Act to admit them as refugees. You have all heard me speak on

that. But I understand that only 11 Southeast Asians have been admitted as immigrants, and I have been told by some of the voluntary agency people•and the things I said just moments ago do not

really have anything to do with the voluntary agency people; they

are superb in what they are trying to do•but I have been told by

some of the voluntary agency people working in the field that

there are people in Southeast Asia with current immigrant visa petitions that are not being processed.

I would like to know about that, either one of you, anyone.

Mr. PURCELL. Yes, sir. What they are talking about, Senator, are

the border Khmer, which we have indicated will have a normal immigrant program, and we will take those who qualify for immigrant visas, Visas 93, and some limited humanitarian parole.

What they are telling you, the figure 11•now, I have checked

the figures, and it is 13•but what we have had in Thailand is the

voluntary agencies, our consular sections, setting up the process for

which we can identify those who can be considered under this program.

We have identified up to this point a total of 553 people, Khmer,

with approved immigrant visas or Visa 93 petitions. These people

are located 114 at site 2, 344 at Khao I Dang, and 95 at other locations. Of these, the following are current in terms of priority date:

208, of which 45 are at site 2, 108 at Khao I Dang, and 55 in other

locations.

Until this past week, we had access only to applicants at site 2.

We received access in principle last Friday to the residents of Khao

I Dang. We are now in the process of reviewing that group.
94

We have to date asked to interview 84 cases of which 40 are at

site 2, 44 at Khao I Dang. We have been allowed to interview only

at site 2•that is 32 cases•of that number, we have approved 21;

11 have been referred for further review; visas issued and left Thailand are 13.

We have attempted over the past few months to identify everybody who is eligible, and we have setup a program•and we in fact

have put it in our consular section to make sure that it follows

normal consular rules. We have had some difficulty working out

procedures with the Thai Government to get access to the people.

We will now with access, which has only since last Friday been

granted to the vast majority of these people, accelerate the interviewing. I can assure you that there is no deliberate effort to delay.

In fact, it is to our benefit to speedup this process.

But we are finding substantial problems of documentation. And

we know this is basically a documentless society, but there has to

be some basic documents in order for the consular people to review

the file. And we are taking extraordinary steps with the petitioners

back here to complete those documents. It is taking a while. But

we also have to regard that there have been substantial problems

of fraud found in our reviewing, and

Senator SIMPSON. Right there, let me develop that a little more.

You say substantial evidence of fraud. I understand that they say

they have established family ties, and the family ties are not there.

I have heard of instances of that.

Mr. PURCELL. Yes.

Senator SIMPSON. I also know that it often does not have anything to do with fraud, but it has to do with misinformation, that a

person under the legal immigration system, when you say, "You

are clear, you are ready," and they say, "Well, send them over."

And then we say, "Have you got the money to do that?" and they

say, "What? Do you mean that is a responsibility of someone other

than the Federal Government?" And it is. That is something I do

not think people understand in this situation. I found that myself

in personal interviews, with refugees. They would say, "Well, I

came here as a refugee 8, 10 years ago, and I did not have to pay

my way here. Now, do you mean that if I bring someone in my

family, under legal immigration, that I have to pay for it or find

the funds to do so?"

Do those things come up in the discussions?

Mr. PURCELL. Yes, sir; I would say that of those who have been

approved and have left, that the affidavit of support has not been a

problem; it has been granted. However, this is still a requirement

that exists and has to be satisfied before a person can be certified

to leave. It exists there as it does anyplace else in the world.

I will say that we have had, obviously, with the desperation that

many of the border Khmer face, there have been some instances of

people added to the file, which our people have had to sort out. But

I would say that we have been as liberal, and generous, and compassionate in our reviews as the situation permits, and our objective is to speedup the processing, not to slow it down, but we have

got to do it in conformance with the laws under which we operate.

Senator SIMPSON. Well, what is the other element of fraud•if

there is such•what is the most significant element of fraud?
95

Mr. PURCELL. Well, I will give you an example of a case we had

of a husband, wife, and a number of children. Upon interviewing, it

was determined that two of the young people were not in fact children, relatives of that family.

So this can only be ascertained by looking at documentation,

interviewing, and it was ferretted out by our interviewers.

But it is important if we are going to operate under these procedures that we be not rigid, but we adhere to the law, and I would

say that our people who are doing the interviewing understand the

difficult circumstances these people are living in; they are trying to

be generous and compassionate, but they are also trying to enforce

the law.

Senator SIMPSON. Yes; when I spoke of the transportation costs

and getting them back here, I know that there are certain voluntary agencies that expend their funds in that area, and I am aware

that ICM provides some type of special rate transportation, and

that would be very typical of that fine organization and what they

do in the world. But maybe that is not as much of an issue.

Let me ask you if the consular section in Bangkok is sufficiently

staffed to handle this new work on the border, or do we need to

beef that up?

Mr. PUKCELL. Well, it will depend, Senator, on the size of the program. At this point, of the 553 we mentioned, we have 208 that

have current immigrant visas and 345 noncurrent. These are all we

know about.

We are advertising this program here in the United States.

Whether additional petitions are forwarded, we do not at this point

know, but we expect they will. At some point, the staffing of the

consular section certainly will become an issue. Up to this point,

given the low volume that we are dealing with, it has not been an

issue. But we are reviewing that with the consular people here in

Washington and in Bangkok, and we will attempt to take steps to

try to deal with it.

But our objective is to try to accelerate the normal immigrant

program from the border Khmer as the viable means of assisting

that group. I do believe that if we do not have such a thing that

the consideration of launching a refugee processing program from

that border would be from a policy standpoint not a desirable thing

to do.

Senator SIMPSON. Now let us get to Phil. I would not want you

on your last day to have missed any of the action here. And indeed,

you have, as I said, served admirably.

You now are sharing with us that the dependency rate, the refugee welfare dependency rate, is about 50 percent, ranging from one

State with 4 percent, I believe you said, to one with a plus 90-percent dependency rate. Is that correct?

Mr. HAWKES. Actually, Senator, it is from just about 4 percent to

about 90 percent.

Senator SIMPSON. And what are the States that have been seemingly going up, on the rise, of dependency, and which are those?

Mr. HAWKES. Senator, that is pretty mixed. I would say there are

about 25 States that are increasing. I can give you that for the

record, but not off the top of my head.

Senator SIMPSON. But you mentioned two or three.
96

Mr. HAWKES. There are some very high States, yes. California

has a 90-percent rate, which is up from last year; Massachusetts,

an 80-percent rate, which is

Senator SIMPSON. What was Massachusetts before?

Mr. HAWKES. I can probably find that.

Senator SIMPSON. That has been a rather dramatic rise, hasn't

it?

Mr. HAWKES. Yes, it has; they have come up from 71 percent last

year.

Senator SIMPSON. Why would that be? Do you have any explanation for Massachusetts?

Mr. HAWKES. Well, Massachusetts has a new program, welfare

reform program, which they call choices, I believe, and one of the

aspects of that program is training toward an academic degree, including community college and adult education.

Refugees, especially Southeast Asian refugees, are very highly

motivated toward education in general, and have been in fact leaving work, and jobs, and other New England States and moving to

Massachusetts to take advantage of that program.

In fact, our voluntary agency people in Massachusetts tell us

that, under the new rules, the options that a person has when applying for welfare are so great that it has greatly reduced the voluntary agencies' influence on incoming refugees from Eastern

Europe as well as from Southeast Asia to try to attract them into

available jobs.

So I think that while that program may be excellent for nonrefugees, it is another example of a mainstream welfare program which

is not particularly suitable for the refugee population.

Senator SIMPSON. That is an interesting statistic to me, anyway.

Has there been any significant variation in the national refugee

welfare dependency rate over the past 5 years? You have been

there.

Mr. HAWKES. Senator, it has been going up about 1 percent a

year, I think, from something around 50 percent or so 5 years ago.

Now, we made a policy change, if you recall, in 1982, and that

had a dramatic effect because it took certain people out of the program. But since that policy change, we have had a gradual increase

year by year.

Senator SIMPSON. HOW about the Fish-Wilson activities?

Mr. HAWKES. Senator, we have two Fish-Wilson demonstration

projects underway. One, of course, is the refugee demonstration

project in the State of California. At this point it is too early to tell

how successful it will be.

We had and continue to have high hopes for that project. It does

make it possible for people to go to work at any available job while,

prior to the project, they only needed to accept employment that

was at or above the level of their welfare grant, and the project

took them out of the WIN Program, which is another mainstream

welfare activity which is counterproductive for refugees.

The demonstration project has only been underway since last

July•almost 1 year•but we only have the first and second quarterly reports, and they are not encouraging. Perhaps it is too early

to tell. We have no data at this point that shows that that RDP is
97

making a significant dent in the California welfare dependency

rate.

The other project is in Oregon, and that has only been underway

a few months, and that really is too early to say.

There are other projects being considered. Notably, the voluntary

agencies in San Diego County are in the process of putting together

a demonstration project that looks very interesting.

Senator SIMPSON. What is that dependency rate in Oregon? Do

you have those figures?

Mr. HAWKES. Oregon is 64 percent.

Senator SIMPSON. Washington was 70 some?

Mr. HAWKES. Seventy-four, yes. And the national average is

about 55, but if you take California out of it, it drops to 38, which I

think is a little more realistic in terms of States in general, a more

realistic average to deal with than the one that is highly skewed by

California.

Senator SIMPSON. There are some in the House and Senate who

think that is just exactly what we ought to do. [Laughter.]

But I will not go into that.

But certainly it is a very distorted schedule, and as you said so

well in your testimony, these are not less literate, nor less able to

care for themselves.

Could you just share with us quickly what the proper balance is

in your mind•as you go on now to other things, to the Family

Support Administration as Deputy Administrator•the proper balance between encouraging early employment and providing employment skills training?

Mr. HAWKES. Well, Senator, I think it is just that. It is a balance,

and it has to meet the circumstances of the individual refugee as

well as the local employment market and the available public assistance.

I think that what we are looking for is early employment, perhaps not as they step off the airplane, but as soon as possible, and

then the provision of services concurrently with that employment

that would allow a person to progress.

In the State of California, for instance, where the problem is perhaps worse than anywhere else, well over 90 percent of services are

given during working hours, between 8 and 5 on weekdays, which

means that it is pretty hard for a person who is attending an English class to be concurrently holding a job.

Other States, several in New England•Rhode Island, Massachusetts and Connecticut•offer a good portion of their services in the

evenings, allowing people to hold jobs and still get the services that

they so highly desire.

So I think it is a balanced approach. The first referral that a refugee gets on contacting the welfare program is very important. In

some areas of the country, up to 90 percent of those people are referred immediately to an English class for which there may be

some wait, and they are relieved of any responsibility for seeking

employment while they are either waiting for that class or attending it.

Again, referrals for English•for any kind of services•should be

balanced with referrals to work concurrently. That is what we are

looking for on an individual basis•obviously different for a Pole
who has a background in industry than for a Khmer who was a

rural farmer, but, nevertheless, addressing that individual's needs.

Senator SIMPSON. You noted the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings

impact•almost everyone does now. I appreciated the information

you supplied concerning the impact of that on this year's domestic

resettlement program.

Could the larger cuts that are envisioned in future years act to

reduce admission levels? Whether we go through our own self-discipline or through the sequester process it will not matter which, because the next time the debt limit extension comes up, we will just

do another Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, even if it falls apart in every

court. Anybody that is missing that is missing the whole essence of

the action, court decisions to the contrary. I would think that admission reductions would be the impact, would it not?

Mr. HAWKES. Senator, I do not think that would necessarily have

to be the impact. Our legislative proposal envisions an 18-month

all-refugee, cash-assistance program, which would track all needy

incoming refugees into a program which parallels the mainstream

AFDC and which provides particularly for refugee needs. That

would save a considerable amount of money.

Further, we are currently operating under a continuing resolution at levels of social services and other components of our budget

that are well above what the President requested and well above

what the needs that we believe are actually there require in terms

of funds.

If specific cuts to the refugee program were in the nature of a

draconian 50, 70 percent, or something like that, we would certainly have to look at numbers. But under the projections that I have

seen, I think that the program can deal with incoming refugees in

a rational way if we could change the philosophy of welfare in

many locations.

Senator SIMPSON. Some of the resettlement agencies have complained that the proposed elimination of the Matching Grant Program would destroy one of the most successful resettlement programs around. We who deal with it know that there is a so-called

R&P grant of $560, paid to groups, persons within groups, who

place refugees. I think that sometimes escapes the general public's

attention. It is a very generous program, and maybe it has not kept

pace with inflation, but it still is a very generous program. Under

the Matching Grant Program, ORR gives the voluntary agencies

$1,000 per refugee, plus the $560 State Department R&P grant, in

exchange for a $1,000 matching contribution from the voluntary

agencies•and that is what I want the record to disclose, These

agencies claim that ORR studies exist which confirm the success of

that program. If those studies do exist, why is that program now

scheduled for elimination?

Mr. HAWKES. Senator, there is no doubting that the Matching

Grant Program has been a success. The voluntary agencies use up

to $1,000 of our funds•actually, minus 4.3 percent this year,

$957•and do an excellent job, have done an excellent job over the

years.

The number of people in the Matching Grant Program has been

reduced sharply. If you will recall, it was originally put in place in

about 1979, specifically to deal with the very large number of
99

people who came out of Russia in that year and has since been expanded to include any other refugee for whom a voluntary agency

wants to participate, but it mainly tends to be East Europeans•

Russians and other Eastern Europeans. There were over 20,000

people in it in 1980, which means that the voluntary agencies

raised over $20 million to complement the $20 million put up by

the Federal Government.

In recent years, the number has been fewer than 4,000 people included in the program. ORR has put up about $4 million and the

voluntary agencies something approximating that figure.

We do not doubt the effectiveness of the program. Our position is

that the agencies are capable of carrying it out at this point without government assistance. They raised $20 million in 1980. It

seems as if they could raise $8 million in 1986 to carry out that

program without government participation; it would be well within

their fundraising capacity. And we are not doubting that the program is effective, only who should be paying for it.

Senator SIMPSON. We have now my colleague from Iowa, Senator

Grassley, who has been a remarkable participant in the activities

of this subcommittee, a steady ally who has been right there

through hours and hours of hearings in 6 years, a very thoughtful

participant in this entire area of legal and illegal, immigration, refugees and those significant issues.

Senator Grassley, it is good to have you here. I appreciate your

coming.

Senator GRASSLEY. I just have one question, Mr. Chairman, and

the reason I did not get here earlier is that I am chairing an IRS

Oversight Subcommittee meeting down the hall.

This is admittedly a parochial question, based upon communications I have had from my own State of Iowa, and I think you would

all agree that we have had a fairly good record in my State of finding jobs and homes for Southeast Asians. I have received this communication expressing fear that refugee processing for Laotians

and the Vietnamese is slowing and even being closed down.

I would like to have you comment on my constituents' concern

about this happening. I will address it to the panel.

Mr. PURCELL. Senator, there is no question, if one looks over the

last few years, that the admissions levels of Southeast Asian refugees are declining. We had, for instance, this year a ceiling established in September of 37,000, but because of the needs to reprogram funds to Africa and other parts of the world, that program

will decrease to 35,000 this year.

In 1987, we may be facing up to a 20-percent cut in the refugee

program as a result of deliberations between the House and the

Senate on the overall budget resolution for international affairs.

If in fact such a cut is realized, we obviously will have to look at

where that comes. And as has just been indicated previously, with

more budget cuts, we cannot exempt the admissions program from

those, since I am trying to provide aid and care to over 10 million

refugees in the world.

We are still processing Lao, lowland Lao, and some very small

number of highland Lao. We are still processing Vietnamese, and

we are still reviewing a few of the last Khmer cases. But the level

of the program, I would say, at this point is uncertain because of
100

the very strong likelihoods of quite sharp budget cuts that are in

store for us in 1987.

I would certainly urge the members of the committee to support

adequate funding for refugees, but I think we are going to be a

victim of the deliberations that are occurring on the overall budget

resolution for international affairs programs, which does suggest

now a reduction of up to $5 billion out of about $22 billion that the

President had proposed.

Senator GRASSLEY. Admittedly, then, we would all agree that

there would be some change so that there would be some slowing

down; but would there be any sort of•I am sorry, I cannot think of

the word•but can you tell us whether there are plans to shut it

down, as opposed to it slowing down?

Mr. PURCELL. No, sir. There are no plans to shut it down. In fact,

we have just had a report prepared by a team that the Secretary of

State commissioned, headed by Governor Robert Ray, and that

team has proposed, I think, a program over the next few years with

which we agree, which would maintain processing for Lao and

would suggest some additional processing for Vietnamese.

Our ability to carry out that report, however, will be dependent

on our resource base. But we think that the likelihood of it being

shutdown is very unlikely. We will be attempting to bring more

and more of the Vietnamese and the Lao to qualify as immigrants

rather than as refugees, but as long as you have got the harsh

Communist societies that you have in Vietnam, Cambodi and Laos,

and people need to flee, I think there will be a refugee program;

whatever size will be dependent upon events that will occur on

budget and other matters over the next few years.

Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator SIMPSON. Thank you, Senator Grassley. I appreciate your

being here.

Just a couple more questions and then we will wind down. I

come back to Jim Purcell. How do we determine the "whole universe" of those who are on the Thai-Cambodian border who may

qualify for an immigrant visa?

Mr. PURCELL. Sir, I can only say the figures I gave you early,

553•that is, 208 current immigrant visa petitioners, and 345

others•are all of those who have petitioned to this point.

We are advertising the program more widely, and we may get

additional applicants. The only other way we could do it is to take

our field forces to look at all of those remaining on the border, to

see who has got family connections, and to take the initiative from

our side.

Up to this point, I have felt that we should operate this as we do

other immigrant programs around the world, that the initiative

should be taken from the petitioner here.

We certainly could have our forces go in and look at all 250,000

files and see who has relatives here and could qualify. I would be

willing to discuss that if the committee thought it was a desirable

thing to do, but we have not done that up to this point.

But that is the only foolproof way we could determine it.

Senator SIMPSON. Just a moment. [Conferring with staff.] The

Reverend Day was sharing some important information with me

there•my former counsel and long-time friend. [Laughter.]
101

I•and this is not what Richard was sharing with me•but I am

concerned that if you screen the entire population, that that would

draw significant attention and simply create a magnet that would

be very persuasive. That is a view of mine.

Mr. PURCELL. That is certainly, Senator, why we have not requested such a review at this point. As you know, there has been a

very strong debate in this country, at least, over the past year

about departure mechanisms for the border Khmer. There is strong

interest for refugee processing. I think there is strong support, if

we can make it work, for normal immigration.

But I think we have got to look over the long term at what is in

the best interest of that overall population. And I think the Secretary of State's review, certainly your report to us of your trip, indicated that we ought to be looking at political solutions on an international level that force the Vietnamese out, or allow the Vietnamese to depart, so these people can go back to their country.

And I think that is certainly the policy we want to follow. We do

need to reach out to those few vulnerable people who do have

family members here, but to launch largescale processing or whatever mechanism we choose to call it, I believe over the long haul

would be the wrong decision for this group. And that position has

been sustained by a number of reviews, including your own.

Senator SIMPSON. Well, I do feel that way, I certainly do. And I

am sure there would be varied reasons why that feeling is prevalent, but I have that feeling.

Let me just ask you, as we talk about the burden-sharing in

Southeast Asia•some call it burden-sharing, others call it pretty

good, consistent over-sharing. With the Baha'i's you talked of the

burden-sharing, and I think that is remarkable, and we must continue to do that, and we must continue to recognize that remarkable population•and should. I pledge to do that. Burden-sharing

with the Southeast Asians I see changing, and this is no reflection

on our remarkable allies. The Canadians and the Australians have

done magnificently when you consider their population as versus

the population of the United States. They deserve every bit of accolade we could give.

What is the current policy? I visited with them and their higher

level and field level people several months ago. So I would like to

know what the current policy of the Canadians and the Australians is with regard to the resettlement of Southeast Asian refugees.

Mr. PURCELL. Well, I think, Senator, you can see in the Australian program this year, they are trying to retain their worldwide

level, or increase it a little bit, but they are giving decreasing emphasis to Southeast Asia; probably declining from a smaller base,

about the same level which the United States has over time.

The Canadians are also maintaining a generous program for that

government, for worldwide programs, but will, I think, be giving

less attention in terms of overall numbers to the Southeast Asian

program.

What we have attempted to do•and Commissioner Nelson and I

spent a day in Geneva, working with the Canadian, Australian,

and Japanese Governments and the High Commissioner is to call

attention to the fact that Southeast Asia has become almost a
102

three-country resettlement program. It is the United States,

Canada, and Australia.

In fact, there was a meeting in Thailand about a month ago that

squadron leader Prasong called with all the resettlement governments, and he called attention to that point.

In our discussions with High Commissioner Hocke, we indicated

that it is essential that there be a solution-oriented framework developed under his leadership that can be explained, and we can

invite back into a fold a wide range of European and other governments who are not active participants any longer, but any solutions that we look at, such as the sharing out proposed by the Ray

Panel report, if that is to be done, it seems to me it must be done

with a larger number of governments than the three presently engaged.

I think Commissioner Nelson might wish to comment, but I

think we had great support for that in our meeting in Geneva, and

I think you will see the new High Commissioner aggressively pursuing such an approach. But it is clear that burden-sharing is declining in Southeast Asia, and it has got to be buoyed again. And

we are looking to a much more aggressive High Commissioner to

undertake that function.

Commissioner NELSON. I have nothing to add.

Senator SIMPSON. Well, I think it is going to be difficult to induce

other countries into that participation, especially if they know it is

just going to be continuing. I think you might induce other countries into that if they knew that at sometime, there was an end.

And since the Canadians and the Australians already feel that

there is an end, we may lose two allies•oddly, ironically•lose two

and pickup others. I do not know, but there has got to be some

kind of finality to the program which does not in any way reduce

our commitment to the world's refugees.

Well, just a quick word about ODP and then we will conclude.

You express concern about the inordinate number•and maybe Al

can be helpful here•the number of relatives of Amerasians that

have entered under the ODP Program.

Could you provide the subcommittee with the number of ODP admissions that have been granted to Amerasians and their family

members in fiscal year 1985 and so far in 1986?

Mr. PURCELL. Yes, sir. In fiscal year 1985, we admitted through

ODP 1,498 Amerasian children, 2,334 accompanying relatives. In

fiscal year 1986 through May, we have admitted 467 Amerasian

children and 776 accompanying relatives.

Throughout the history of this program, I will provide for the

record, when we started in October 1982, we have brought in about

8,600 including children and relatives•that is about 3,500 children

and the rest relatives.

Senator SIMPSON. And that is not being done under the separate

law that we passed with regard to Amerasians.

Mr. PURCELL. That is correct.

Senator SIMPSON. What an extraordinary thing. I do not think

anybody understands that out in the real world, that we went

through the anguish of passing an Amerasian children legislation

for those who were the "dust of the Earth", and I was a cosponsor,
103

and we do not bring anybody in under that•we bring them in

under our immigration and ODP process, right?

Mr. PURCELL. That is correct, Senator. We communicated with

the Congress in 1982 that the Amerasian Act, would work fine in

countries like Korea, the Philippines, but could not be used in Vietnam, given our lack of diplomatic or consular relations. Also, the

provision in the act that requires the mother to irrevocably sever

her ties with the child did not seem to us to be workable. And we

communicated with the Congress, and we have been pursuing since

that point the admission of Amerasian children through the orderly departure program.

We will certainly be willing to look at the legislation, and we

have been reviewing, to see if it can be made to work in that country, but I think the key provision of severing the tie between the

mother and the child, and the documentation that will be required

in a country for which we have no relations, make it unworkable

law in that particular instance.

Senator SIMPSON. Yes, an interesting irony. We do not use it because of, as you say, the limitation on relatives, and yet, even

though the numbers are limited and they do not use them, it still

takes away from numbers.

Mr. PURCELL. That is correct.

Senator SIMPSON. Well, there are lots of things I did not know

when I lived in Cody, WY, but I sure as hell found out since I got

here.

Just one other question and then we will stop. On the ODP program and "our list versus their list," and in obtaining the release

of the reeducation camp persons, is there any progress•even

though things are in disarray•of processing our list instead of

their list?

Mr. PURCELL. Yes, sir. OK. The question you raise is reciprocity.

We do, Senator, communicate to the Vietnamese in a variety of

ways our desires for people to come out of that country. We do it at

our annual meetings in Geneva. We do it through special priority

lists for certain vulnerable groups that we know could not otherwise be reached. We do it through the working groups that are set

up between Bangkok and Vietnam, and in our management of this

program.

One of the problems that has probably caused the severing of ties

in ODP has been our insistence on reciprocity. Let me give you a

few figures.

I have been maintaining that we have to define what we mean

by "reciprocity." And I say that our 50 percent or whatever share

should include family reunification through immigrant visas; it

should include fiancees of American citizens; it should include

former U.S. Government employees; it should include others of concern to the United States which include employees of the pre-1975

government in South Vietnam, employees of U.S. firms, Vietnamese who studied in the United States, or others with close ties. It

should include Amerasians and families, and political prisoners

and their families.

If you take that as the definition of reciprocity from our side, in

1985, we had 13,841 people depart ODP, both as refugees and immi-
104

grants. Of that number, 7,565 came into those categories that I just

elucidated•that is 55 percent.

Thus far in 1986, if you use the same categories, we have had

5,147 out of a total departure of 7,763. That is 66 percent.

As far as I am concerned, we are achieving reciprocity. That is

the problem, because the Vietnamese are issuing exit permits to

people who are low on our priority list, and we have maintained

that unless they honor and respect those that we want to get out,

that we cannot do business with them.

Now, we are hoping that we can bridge this gap. It is critically

important that ODP be reactivated. But the special list that you

are referring to is one element of our communication with the Vietnamese, and we believe that one has to look broader at all of the

groups that we think we want to get out.

With regard to the political prisoners, we are at absolutely

ground zero with the Vietnamese on that. While we have maintained our willingness to take them, they seem to me are taking

every opportunity to back away from the commitment they gave us

several years ago that if we wanted them we could have them. We

have asked for them, and they have not been forthcoming. But that

again is another issue on the table for negotiation, and I am hopeful that we can make some headway on it.

[Material follows:]
105

rH CN VO oo

to in vO rH P m o VO O *. « * H en in 00

vO

•

en

oo

3 VO r~ vo 'C U 00 vo r» CN

* X!\ -# c»

«

PM

p in rH

m CO -# CN

oo en en r*> * en 00

>i

^ •k*

h rH CN en

00

en

oo

CN

oo

sO

CN

^< rH

»> in cn

en CM rH

<7\ •«.

*

rH CN

CN

oo -4< en n cn en

VO VO-

00

o

CN

w

(1) >

•HP

CO

rH

CDM

CnC

w •H a >1

rC

G

H (0 w ft

(0

i rH

U

o rO

0o

p

i CJ

o

5

< En

00

cno

enu

CD !ww1p

•a

4Hc

(0

•HM

(0U

CD IPwu

•H

VM

4987
106

Senator SIMPSON. I hope so, too. And I know you are pleased,

Alan Nelson, with finally getting INS participation and emphasis

there that you had not been able to get before, and we have got to

get back on that track.

Well, I thank you. There will be further questions for the record

from myself and from Senator Kennedy.

I thank Dick Day very much, and Jerry Tinker, who have always

been most helpful as they work together, and those who set up this

hearing•Stephanie Kellum, Dee Dee Herzog, Robyn Bishop, and

Carl Hampe; I thank you. And my particular good will and respects to you, James and Phil, as you go out to new duties. I know

you will do well, because you have certainly done well in all I have

seen you perform in my time here, and God bless you.

And you, Al, stick around. We will probably see each other a few

times in months to come.

Thank you, and thank you for your participation, Mr. Gee; nice

to have you here, sir.

That concludes the hearing.

[Whereupon, at 12:13 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

O