CUBAN/HAITIAN ADJUSTMENT

HEARINd^f0l98^

Va3

BEFORE THE N^&ft&fCfflQ'

SUBCOMMITTEE ON

IMMIGRATION, REFUGEES, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NINETY-EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

H.R. 4853

CUBAN/HAITIAN ADJUSTMENT

MAY 9, 1984

Serial No. 64

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

36-483 0 WASHINGTON : 1984
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

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

JACK BROOKS, Texas HAMILTON FISH, JR., New York

ROBERT W. KASTENMEIER, Wisconsin CARLOS J. MOORHEAD, California

DON EDWARDS, California HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan THOMAS N. KINDNESS, Ohio

JOHN F. SEIBERLING, Ohio HAROLD S. SAWYER, Michigan

ROMANO L. MAZZOLI, Kentucky DAN LUNGREN, California

WILLIAM J. HUGHES, New Jersey F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR.,

SAM B. HALL, JR., Texas Wisconsin

MIKE SYNAR, Oklahoma BILL McCOLLUM, Florida

PATRICIA SCHROEDER. Colorado E. CLAY SHAW, JR., Florida

DAN GUCKMAN, Kansas GEORGE W. GEKAS. Pennsylvania

BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts MICHAEL DEWINE, Ohio

GEO. W. CROCKETT. JR., Michigan

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York

BRUCE A. MORRISON, Connecticut

EDWARD F. FEIGHAN, Ohio

LAWRENCE J. SMITH, Florida

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California

FREDERICK C. BOUCHER, Virginia

ALAN A. PARKER, General Counsel

GARNER J. CUNE, Staff Director

ALAN F. COFFEY, Jr., Associate Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, REFUGEES, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

ROMANO L. MAZZOLI, Kentucky, Chairman

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

BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts BILL McCOLLUM, Florida

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

LAWRENCE J. SMITH, Florida

ARTHUR P. ENDRES, Jr., Counsel

KI'GF.NK PucucsE, Assistant Counsel

LYNN R CONWAY, Assistant Counsel

PETER REGIS, Legislative Assistant

PETER J. LEVINSON, Associate Counsel

(II)

P/tcr/cn
TEXT OF BILL

N. CONTENTS

Page

H.R. 4853 3

WITNESSES

Audige, Jerome, executive director, New Jersey Haitian/American Cultural

Foundation 128

Prepared statement 143

Bevilacqua, Bishop Anthony, chairman, Committee on Migration, National

Conference of Catholic Bishops 46

Prepared statement 48

Hill, Norman, president, A Philip Randolph Institute 67

Hooper, Michael S., executive director, National Coalition for Haitian Refugees 67

Prepared statement 85

Kurzban, Ira, general counsel, Haitian Refugee Center 128

Prepared statement 131

Mazur, Jay, secretary-treasurer, International Ladies Garment Workers

Union 67

Prepared statement 78

Michel, James H., Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Inter-American

Affairs, Department of State 7

Prepared statement 20

Nelson, Alan C, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service 7

Prepared statement 12

Padron, Eduardo, cochairman, Greater Miami United 67

Prepared statement 122

Payne, Donald, councilman, Newark Municipal Council, on behalf of the

National Council of Churches 46

Tanenbaum, Rabbi Marc H., director, international relations, American

Jewish Committee 46

Prepared statement 63

APPENDIXES

APPENDIX 1.•CORRESPONDENCE

Letters to Hon. Peter W. Rodino, Jr.:

de Haan, Dale S., chairman, Committee on Migration and Refugee Affairs, March 20, 1984 150

Hooks, Benjamin L., chairman. Leadership Conference on Civil Rights,

March 27, 1984 153

Hooks, Benjamin L., executive director, NAACP, February 17, 1984 151

Hoye, Rev. Msgr. Daniel F., general secretary, United States Catholic

Conference, February 22, 1984 149

Kirkland, Lane, president, AFL-CIO '

c

'

Leiden, Warren, executive director, American Immigration Lawyers Association, March 3, 1984 155

Rustin, Bayard, vice chairman, National Coalition for Haitian Refugees,

February 15, 1984 153

Tanenbaum, Rabbi Marc H., director, International Relations, the American Jewish Committee, March 5, 1984 149

din
IV

Page

Letters to Hon. Peter W. Rodino, Jr.•Continued

Torres, Arnold S., National Executive Director, League of United Latin

American Citizens, February 28, 1984 151

Walter, Ingrid, Lutheran Council in the U.S.A., March 1, 1984 155

Yzaguirre, Raul, president, National Council of La Raza, February 28,

1984 151

APPENDIX 2.•STATE DEPARTMENT'S EFFORT REGARDING EXCLUDABLE CUBAN8

Michel, James H., Deputy Assistant Secretary for Inter-American Affairs,

Department of State, June 18, 1984, to Hon. Romano L. Mazzoli 156

APPENDIX 3.•STATE DEPARTMENT'S RESPONSES TO SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONS

Michel, James H., Deputy Assistant Secretary for Inter-American Affairs,

Department of State, June 1, 1984, to Hon. Peter W. Rodino, Jr 159

APPENDIX 4.•ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

Craige Tito, director, Cuban/Haitian Entrant Program, Farmworker English

Language School, Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers Association, Inc.,

May 22, 1984 161

Gomez, Manuel R., president, Cuban-American Committee, May 17, 1984 167

Fauntroy, Hon. Walter E., chairman, Congressional Black Caucus, Task Force

on Haitian Refugees, prepared statement 163

McCarthy, Rev. Edward A., Archbishop of Miami, May 3, 1984 162

Statement of Greater Miami United 166

APPENDIX 5.•SUPPLMENTAL QUESTIONS

Michael S. Hooper's responses to supplemental questions 170
CUBAN/HAITIAN ADJUSTMENT

WEDNESDAY, MAY 9, 1984

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, REFUGEES,

AND INTERNATIONAL LAW,

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 8 a.m., in room 2226,

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

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

Lungren, McCollum, and Fish.

Also present: Representative Rodino.

Staff present: Arthur P. Endres, Jr., counsel; Lynn Conway, assistant counsel; Eugene Pugliese, assistant counsel; Peter Regis,

legislative assistant; and Peter J. Levinson, associate counsel.

Mr. MAZZOLI. The subcommittee will come to order.

The gentleman from Texas is recognized for a motion.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the subcommittee permit coverage of this hearing in whole or in part by

television broadcast, radio broadcast, or still photography in accordance with committee rule 5.

Mr. MAZZOLI. IS there any objection? The Chair hearing none,

the gentleman's unanimous consent request is agreed to.

I have a short opening statement, but let me first apologize to

my panelists, as well as all the witnesses who are with us now and

will join us, for this early hour. Since the time we had originally

announced the hearings, the Democratic caucus was called at 9:30

this morning which will take up some very important business and

many of us want to be there, so we will try to get our hearings disposed of. I appreciate everybody's cooperation.

On behalf of the subcommittee, I welcome all of our panelists

here this morning. Today we will receive testimony from various

panels on H.R. 4853, a bill introduced by Representative Peter

Rodino, our chairman of the Judiciary Committee, which would

grant permanent residence status to Cubans and Haitians who entered our country seeking asylum in the early 1980's.

We have many witnesses here today who will attest to the fact

that these people suffered much to reach the shores of our country.

They were welcomed to our country and given a new immigration

status, that of Cuban/Haitian entrants, status pending. Their

status has been pending since 1981.

My subcommittee recognized the equities of this situation 2 years

ago and included a provision regularizing the status of some of

(1)

98TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4853

To authorize the creation of a record of admission for permanent residence in the

cases of certain natives of Cuba and Haiti, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 9, 1984

Mr. RODINO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on the Judiciary

A BILL

To authorize the creation of a record of admission for permanent

residence in the cases of certain natives of Cuba and Haiti,

and for other purposes.

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

3 That (a) the status of any alien described in subsection (b)

4 may be adjusted by the Attorney General, in the Attorney

5 General's discretion and under such regulations as the Attor6 ney General may prescribe, to that of an alien lawfully ad7 mitted for permanent residence if•

8 (1) the alien makes application for such adjust9 ment within two years after the date of the enactment

10 of this section;
2

1 (2) the alien is otherwise eligible to receive an im2 migrant visa and is otherwise admissible to the United

3 States for permanent residence, except in determining

4 such admissibility the grounds for exclusion specified in

5 paragraphs (14), (15), (20), (21), (25), and (32) of sec6 tion 212(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8

7 U.S.C. 1182(a)) shall not apply;

8 (3) the alien is not an alien described in section

9 243(h)(2) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1253(h)(2)); and

10 (4) the alien is physically present in the United

11 States on the date the application for such adjustment

12 is filed.

13 (b) The benefits provided by subsection (a) shall apply to

14 any alien (other than an alien described in subsection (c))•

15 (1) who has received an immigration designation

16 as a Cuban/Haitian entrant (status pending), or

17 (2) who is a national of Cuba or Haiti, arrived in

18 the United States before January 1, 1982, and with

19 respect to whom any record was established by the

20 Immigration and Naturalization Service before January

21 1, 1982.

22 (c) The benefits provided by subsection (a) shall not

23 apply to an alien who was admitted to the United States as a

24 nonimmigrant, unless the alien filed an application for asylum

HR 4853 III
1 with the Immigration and Naturalization Service before Jan2 uary 1, 1982.

3 (d) Aliens granted permanent resident status under this

4 Act shall be considered to be granted the special status re5 ferred to in section 501(d)(1) of Public Law 96-422.

6 (e) Upon approval of an alien's application for adjust7 ment of status under subsectioi> (a), the Attorney General

8 shall establish a record of the alien's admission for permanent

9 residence as of January 1, 1982.

10 (0 When an alien is granted the status of having been

11 lawfully admitted for permanent residence pursuant to this

12 section, the Secretary of State shall not be required to reduce

13 the number of immigrant visas authorized to be issued under

14 the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Attorney Gen15 eral shall not be required to charge the alien any fee.

16 (g) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this sec17 tion, the definitions contained in the Immigration and Nation18 ality Act shall apply in the administration of this section.

19 Nothing contained in this section shall be held to repeal,

20 amend, alter, modify, effect, or restrict the powers, duties,

21 functions, or authority of the Attorney General in the admin22 istration and enforcement of the Immigration and Nationality

23 Act or any other law relating to immigration, nationality, or

24 naturalization. The fact that an alien may be eligible to be

25 granted the status of having been lawfully admitted for perHR 4853 IH
6

4

1 manent residence under this section shall not preclude the

2 alien from seeking such status under any other provision of

3 law for which the alien may be eligible.

4 SEC. 2. Consular officers shall provide for the issuance

5 of immigrant visas to aliens who are nationals, citizens, sub6 jects, or residents of Cuba and who have qualified for issu7 ance of the visas under section 203 of the Immigration and

8 Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153) without regard to section

9 243(g) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1253(g)).

IIR 4X53 III
Mr. MAZZOLI. Because of the real time constraints we have today,

I have asked each of our witnesses to limit their statement to 5

minutes and then we will have plenty of time for questions.

Mr. Nelson, you may proceed.

TESTIMONY OF ALAN C. NELSON, COMMISSIONER, IMMIGRATION

AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, AND JAMES H. MICHEL,

DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF INTER-AMERICAN AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Mr. NELSON. Thank you. It is a pleasure to be before you and the

committee at this early hour, but we are pleased to get off to a

good start.

We have submitted our written testimony on this matter

Mr. MAZZOLI. Which will be made a part of the record.

Mr. NELSON. And would like that if the committee would so

order. Also, I make reference to the letter to Chairman Rodino

from the Department of Justice of May 8, which parallels our testimony; we would like that to be part of the record also.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Without objection.

[The letter referred to follows:]
8

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs

Office of the Aleutanl Attorney General WuAinyroR. D.C 20530

8 MAY19W

Honorable Peter W. Rcdino, Jr.

Chairman

Cormuttee on the Judiciary

House of Representatives

Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

This letter is in response to your request for the views of the Department

of Justice on H.R. 4853, a bill to authorize the creation of a record of

admission for permanent residence in the cases of certain natives of Cuba

and Haiti, and for other purposes. The Department of Justice recommends

consideration of this legislation, if amended as noted below, only if H.R.

1510 is not enacted in this session of Congress.

The Department of Justice, as has been stated to the Cormuttee on previous

occasions, prefers the provisions contained in H.R. 1510 regarding an

adjustment of status of these particular individuals. We have consistently favored the sane treatment for Cuban/Haitian Entrants with regard

to adjustment of status and concur with the approach in S. 529 which

establishes more recent legalization dates for this group from that of

other illegal aliens because of the circumstances and period of their

arrival in the United States. As you will recall, the Administration's

immigration reform proposals submitted in 1981 addressed this issue in a

similar fashion.

We believe strongly that immigration reform and relief for illegal alien

groups should not be done piecemeal. We endorse the trend away from

nationality specific determinations by the Legislative Branch. This

legislation would run counter to efforts to apply immigration statutes

evenly without regard for nationality or country of origin. The

Simpson/Mazzoli bill is the appropriate vehicle for dealing with the

Cuban/Haitian group as well as with other manifestations of illegal

immigration. Until the outcome of the House's consideration of the bill

is established, we believe it is premature to take a position on H.R.

4853. If Simpson/Mazzoli is unsuccessful, H.R. 4853 might be in order.

The bill would allow those nationals of Cuba or Haiti, commonly designated

as Cuban/Haitian Entrants (status pending), to have their status adjusted,

at the discretion of the Attorney General, to that of an alien lawfully

admitted for permanent residence, under the conditions stated in the bill.
However, the bill does not repeal P.L. 89-732, as amended (the Cuban

Adjustment Act of 1966), and, indeed, specifically provides that the fact

that an alien may be eligible to be granted lawful permanent residence

status under the instant legislation shall not preclude such alien from

seeking such status under any law. He believe that nationals of Cuba who

are able to adjust will choose to apply for adjustment under the provisions of P.L. 89-732. The provisions of that Act are more beneficial

than the instant legislation; for example, an earlier record of the

alien's admission for permanent residence would be made; the spouse and

child may be adjusted, and the benefits of that Act do apply to an alien

admitted as a nonimmigrant, where the instant legislation (section 1(c))

specifically exempts such aliens. Therefore, Cubans and Haitians would

continue to have somewhat different treatment under the two provisions of

law.

We would also like to raise two technical concerns with the language of

H.R. 4853. One concern revolves around the wording of subsection (b)

(2) of section 1 of H.R. 4853. This section provides permanent residence

for an alien who "is a national of Cuba or Haiti, arrived in the United

States before January 1, 1982, and with respect to whom any record was

established by the Immigration and Naturalization Service before January

1, 1982." It is our feeling that the term "any record" is ambiguous, and

the subcommittee's clear intention as to what is to be interpreted as a

"record" should be included in the proposal.

We also direct the Ccnmittee's attention to subsection (d) of the first

section. This provision states that aliens granted permanent residence

under this section shall be considered to be granted the special status

referred bo in section 501(d)(1) of Public Law 96-422, which we assume was

intended to be a reference to section 501(e)(1) of the Refugee Education

Assistance Act. The intended effect of granting the status to a permanent

resident is unclear, and we urge that the provision be redrafted to state

explicitly the result to be achieved so that it may receive careful consideration.

The Department of Justice also has some concern about Section 2 of the

proposed legislation. While we defer to the Department of State on this

issue, the Committee should be aware that the Attorney General has notified the Secretary of State, pursuant to Section 243(g) of the INA, that

Cuba has denied and unduly delayed acceptance of the return of its nationals. This is an issue between the Government of the United States and

the Government of Cuba in the matter of the.return of certain Cuban

nationals who have been found excludable.

The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there is no objection

to the submission of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program.

^

mil

Assistant Attorney General
10

Mr. NELSON. I think the administration's position has been clear,

Mr. Chairman, that the concept embodied m this bill of a paritytype treatment for Cuban and Haitian entrants during this particular timeframe is desirable. We have supported that; clearly, the

Administration has supported that concept in the position of the

Reagan Task Force which was set up after the President came into

office. It was a provision of the initial Reagan bill that there should

be some special treatment of these two groups because of the

unique circumstances. All along we have supported the Simpson/

Mazzoli versions of the bill at various stages through the Senate

and the House; there is justification for it.

So, I don't think there should be any doubt on the record or in

the public that the Administration has favored a concept of equal

treatment, even though it raises some differences with other illegal

alien groups.

But also, in balance, as we indicate, it is very, very important,

and I think goes back to this House's action on the Refugee Act,

among other things, that there not be a piecemeal approach to immigration issues. There is danger in that approach.

Therefore, as you have indicated in your opening remarks, Mr.

Chairman, the clearly preferable response to this issue and this bill

before us is not a separate piece of legislation such as H.R. 4853,

but, in fact, the passage of the immigration reform legislation that

is so close in this House. We just hope that the delays are over, and

that we can get it to the floor and pass it. This is the answer. It is,

therefore, premature to take a position•the administration will

not take a formal position on H.R. 4853 at this time, because we

feel that the answer is in Simpson-Mazzoli. That will resolve the

issue; we should go forward.

Therefore, we think it would clearly be a mistake to push separately, at least at this time, this bill, but the concepts are certainly

approved.

In our testimony, Mr. Chairman, we have raised several technical and policy types of issues that are worthy of pointing out. One

thing is that this bill, H.R. 4853, does not repeal the Cuban Adjustment Act. We think that is something that has to be dealt with.

We can't keep leaving this on the books for the future. We need to

resolve it, hopefully with comprehensive reform legislation, repeal

is something that clearly needs to be addressed.

There is some language in the bill containing the words "any

record," regarding the arrival. It is confusing and ambiguous; there

certainly needs to be clarification. There are some concerns about

the application of assistance to this group, and we think, again,

there are some unclear provisions in the bill. At least, it ought to

be very explicit as to whether the entitlement program will apply.

One other point that is not in our testimony, but which I think is

important to raise at this time, and again, I will put it on a technical basis because I think we have explained that our basic position

on the bill is that it is premature at this time•the January 1, 1982

date. As you recall, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, the

President of the United States, in the summer of 1981, announced

that we would vigorously enforce our immigration laws and particularly the statute that required detention of illegal aliens. That

did commence in the summer of 1981, followed in the early fall by
11

the interdiction program. I think everybody has been well aware

that this has been a very successful application of our immigration

laws. So, therefore, to talk about a January 1982 date we think is a

mistake. We really ought to be thinking, if we are getting into

dates, of a June or July 1981 date, a date consistent with the President's policy. To do otherwise, would be somewhat undercutting

the Administration position, the legislative position in the law, and

the judicial position that has upheld very clearly the actions of the

administration in that regard.

Mr. Michel will testify on the section 2 issues. There are certainly some foreign policy, executive, legislative branch issues there,

and we certainly would join in with the State Department's position.

If I might•one last item, Mr. Chairman, again, that isn't in the

testimony but Which I think is worthy to bring up before the committee at this time. I will be brief; we know that we are followed

today by a number of people, many of whom I know and respect, of

interest groups and church groups, that will be testifying on this

bill. I have not seen any of their testimony and I would hope what

I am saying is wrong, but the likelihood is that there will be many

people testifying, repeating allegations of discrimination by this administration regarding racial bias because they are black, the overall problems that are asserted in this program that I alluded to.

I think, again, the record should be very clear, Mr. Chairman. I

noted a minute ago, this action was taken beginning in the

summer of 1981 by the President and by the Attorney General. We

complied with the statutory language that Congress passed in the

immigration laws despite a lot of court battles over the last few

years that I have been involved with, and Mr. Kurzban, who will

testify later and others here have been involved with.

The trial before Judge Spellman several years ago clearly showed

on the trial basis, after the evidence was heard, that there was no

discrimination. Unfortunately, people made so many accusations

for such a long period of time that that sort of became the factual

foundation for media and others. That issue continues to be raised

by many, but if you look at the record, the court held there was no

discrimination by the government.

We know now, of course, that the Court of Appeals and the full

11th Circuit decision has fully ratified the legal posture of this administration. So, I can say as a matter of fact, there has not been

discrimination against the Haitians as a matter of legislative

policy. We have carried out the law that Congress has enacted. As

a matter of good public policy, it has been done well, effectively

and fairly and as a matter of judicial determination, it has been

fully ratified.

So I would hope that my colleagues whom I respect who will testify to these issues, would keep that in mind. I would hope that we

would not get these kinds of rancorous and completely inaccurate

comments that have characterized this debate more than they

should have.

I think we all favor the equitable treatment here and I hope we

can accomplish•

[The prepared statement of Mr. Nelson follows:]
12

PREPARED STATEMENT OP ALAN C. NELSON, COMMISSIONER, IMMIGRATION AND

NATURALIZATION SERVICE

Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee:

I am pleased to be here today to offer the views of the Department of

Justice on H.R. 4853.

The bill proposes to authorize the creation of a record of admission for

permanent residence in the cases of certain nationals of Cuba and Haiti.

The Department of Justice strongly believes that immigration reform and

relief for specific groups of illegal entrants should not be accomplished

in a piecemeal fashion. We endorse the trend that this subcommittee and

Congress as a whole have followed away from nationality-specific

legislation. This Administration holds, as I believe you do, that our

inmigration statutes must be applied evenly without regard to nationality

or country of origin. For these reasons, while we support the intent of

H.R. 4853 to provide residence for Cuban and Haitian nationals, we

continue to take the position that the preferable response rests with

enactment of the imnigration reform legislation currently being considered

by Congress. Until the outcome of the House's consideration of 3uch

legislation is established, we believe it is premature to take a position

on H.R. 4853.

This Administration has consistently supported the concept of comparable

relief for Cuban and Haitian nationals who entered the country illegally

and were given the administrative designation, Cuban-Haitian entrants. The

Administration's immigration reform bill introduced in 1981 contained

provisions for the legalization of these Cuban Haitian entrants. We have

continued to support similar provisions for legalization contained in the

reform legislation now before Congress.
13

I would also like to raise several technical concerns with the language of

H.R. 4853. The Department of Justice takes the position that the

nationals of Cuba who would be covered by the provisions of this bill are

also potentially eligible for the provisions of Public Law 89-732, the

Cuban Refugee Adjustment Act of 1966. H.R. 4853 does not repeal P.L.

89-732, and therefore would afford nationals of Cuba an opportunity to

choose between the two pieces of legislation. We believe nationals of

Cuba would choose adjustment under the provisions of P.L. 89-732 as those

provisions are more beneficial in terms of effective date of permanent

residence. To implement H.R. 4853 without the repeal of P.L. 89-732 would

treat nationals of Cuba differently than nationals of Haiti.

Another concern revolves around the wording of subsection (b) (2) of

section 1 of H.R. 4853. This section provides permanent residence for an

alien who "is a national of Cuba or Haiti, arrived in the United States

before January 1,1982, and with respect to whom any record was established

by the Immigration and Naturalization Service before January 1, 1982." It

is our feeling that the term "any record" is ambiguous, and the subaomnittee's clear intention as to what is to be interpreted as a "record"

should be included in the proposal.

We also direct the Committee's attention to subsection (d) of the first

section. This provision states that aliens granted permanent residence

under this section shall be considered to be granted the special status

referred bo in section 501 (d) (1) of Public Law 96-422, which we assume was

intended to be a reference to section 501(e) (1) of the Refugee Education

Assistance Act. The intended effect of granting that status to a

permanent resident is unclear, and we urge that the provision be redrafted

to state explicitly the result to be achieved so that it may receive

careful consideration.

The Department of Justice also ha3 some concern about section 2 of the

proposed legislation. While we defer to the Department of State on this

issue generally, the Committee should also be aware that the Attorney

General has notified the Secretary of State, pursuant to section 243(g)

of the INA, that Cuba has denied and unduly delayed acceptance of the

return of its nationals. This is an issue between the Government of the

United States and the Government of Cuba in the matter of the return of

certain Cuban nationals who have been found excludable.

This completes my prepared testimony. I would be glad to respond to any

questions which you may have.

36-483 0-84-2
14

Mr. MAZZOLI. The gentleman's time is expired. I have to share

Commissioner Nelson's disappointment. I have read some of the

statements which will succeed yours and I am disappointed in their

tenor, content and tone. I don't think they add much to the opportunities we have to pass a piece of legislation. I think they dredge

up a lot of very difficult situations and I think they don't really

add to the opportunity we have of doing anything.

So for those whose statements contain that kind of reference, to

the extent they could excise those references, at least in their

verbal presentation, that, I think, would add a lot to the opportunities that we have to proceed with our bill.

Mr. Michel, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. MICHEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, have a prepared

statement and the Department of State has submitted a letter to

the committee and would ask that those be•

Mr. MAZZOLI. Which is made a part of the record.

[The letter referred to follows:]
15

United States Department of Stale

Washington. D.C. 20520

MAY 7 1984

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent letter

enclosing for the Department's study and report a copy of H.R.

4853, "A bill to authorize the creation of a record of admission

for permanent residence in the cases of certain natives of Cuba

and Haiti, and for other purposes.*

Section 1(a) of the bill would authorize the Attorney General

to grant adjustment of status to permanent resident to an alien

described in section 1(b) of the bill if the alien applied for adjustment of status within two years following enactment of the

bill and was in the United States at the time of filing the application for adjustment of status. In addition, the alien would

have to establish his admissibility for permanent residence; except that in determining such admissibility the provisions relating to labor certification, public charge, immigrant visa and

passport documentation, illiteracy and the exclusion of certain

foreign medical graduates would not apply. Finally, an otherwise

eligible beneficiary could not benefit from this provision if he

were determined to be an alien (1) 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; (2) who constitutes a dangers

to the community of the United States because of a conviction of a

particularly serious crime; (3) who there are serious reasons for

believing has committed a serious nonpolitical crime outside the

United States prior to arrival in the United States; or (4) whom

there are reasonable grounds for regarding as a danger to the

security of the United States.

Section 1(b) defines the beneficiary class as (1) any alien

who has received an immigration designation as a Cuban/Haitian

entrant (status pending), or (2) any other national of Cuba or

The Honorable

Peter W. Rodino, Jr., Chairman,

Committee on the Judiciary,

House of Representatives. ,,«

i*#
16

Haiti who arrived in the United States before January 1, 1982, and

for whom any record was established by the Immigration and

Naturalization Service before that date.

Section 1(c) of the bill would deny the benefits of section

1(a) of the bill to an alien who otherwise qualified as a member

of the beneficiary class if the alien was inspected and admitted

as a nonimmigrant alien unless the alien filed an application for

asylum prior to January 1, 1982.

Section 1(d) would provide that aliens granted permanent residence under the provisions of the bill would nonetheless retain

the special status provided for them in section 501(d)(1) of

Public Law 96-422.

Section 1(e) of the bill would direct the Attorney General to

record the admission for permanent residence of any alien granted

permanent residence pursuant to section 1(a) of the bill as of

January 1, 1982. This provision would expedite the eligibility

for naturalization of such aliens by fixing their date of admission at a time which could be more than four years in the past

by the time the statutory period for seeking the benefits of

section 1(a) had run.

Section 1(f) would exempt grants of adjustment of status under

section 1(a) of the bill from the numerical limitations on inunigration.

Section Kg) of the bill would make the standard references to

the applicability of the provisions of the Immigration and

Nationality Act and would specify that a member of the beneficiary

class of this bill also remains entitled to acquire permanent

residence under any other provision of law pursuant to which he

might qualify for such status.

Many of these provisions are substantially identical with the

provisions of S. 529 or H.R. 1510 for granting a retroactive date

of admission for permanent residence. The Department of State

strongly believes that immigration reform and relief for specific

groups of illegal entrants should not be accomplished in a piecemeal fashion. Instead, such measures must be carried out evenhandedly without regard to nationality or country of origin. For

these reasons, while we have no objection to the intent of section

1 of H.R. 4853 to provide residence for Cuban and Haitian

nationals, we take the position that the preferable response rests

with enactment of immigration reform legislation currently being

considered by the Congress. In addition, the Department has

reservations about the retroactive aspect of section 1 of the

bill, but will defer to the comments of the Department of Justice

with respect thereto.
17

Section 2 of the bill would direct consular officers stationed

at the United States Interests Section (USINT) at Havana, Cuba, to

process immigrant visa applications pending at that office notwithstanding the provisions of section 243(g) of the Act. As you

are aware, the Attorney General has notified the Secretary of

State pursuant to section 243(g) of the Act that Cuba has denied

or unduly delayed acceptance of the return of aliens who are

nationals, citizens, subjects or residents of Cuba. As provided

for by section 243(g), the Department has directed consular

officers at USINT Havana to cease processing immigrant visa applications, except those which have been exempted from this prohibition by regulations of the Immigration and Naturalization Service

(i.e., applications of immediate relatives as defined in section

201(b) of the Act and of returning resident immigrants as defined

in section 101(a)(27)(A) of the Act).

Section 2 of the bill would have the effect of nullifying section 243(g) of the Act insofar as it relates to Cuba. As the

Department interprets section 2, it would afford no special

benefits to the aliens concerned but would rather direct only that

their applications be processed in accordance with world-wide requirements and procedures which would apply absent the Attorney

General's notification.

The Department strongly opposes enactment of section 2 of the

bill. As you know, the United States last summer proposed to the

Government of Cuba the expeditious return to that country of those

Mariel Cubans who are excludable from the United States for substantive reasons. This initiative is being actively pursued with

Cuba and enactment of section 2 of the bill would have a most

detrimental effect by removing an important element in the negotiating process. It is the Department's judgment that enactment

of this provision could eliminate any possibility for reaching an

acceptable agreement with Cuba on this matter. Accordingly, the

Department urges that section 2 of the bill not be enacted.

The Office of Management and Budget advises that from the

standpoint of the Administration's program there is no objection

to the submission of this report.

Sincerely,

W. Tapley Bennett,AJr.

Assistant Secretary

Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
18

Mr. MICHEL. Thank you, sir.

I would first of all just confirm that the Department of State, of

course, shares the views of the Department of Justice as to the administration's position on section 1 of the bill and I would like to

confine my testimony to section 2.

In that regard, we do strongly oppose the enactment of that section. Existing law, section 243(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, requires that we stop issuing visas in a country where the

Attorney General has informed the Secretary of State that the government of that country has refused to accept the return of its nationals or residents. We believe that the exodus of Cubans from

Mariel in 1980 represents the most egregious case in which a foreign government expelled its citizens without their consent, without our consent, without regard to our laws or international law

and has subsequently refused to accept their return.

It seems anomalous that this bill would leave section 243(g) on

the books as the general policy and then make an exception to that

policy for this most egregious case in our history.

Second, we are concerned because we have raised this subject

with the Government of Cuba on several occasions, initially in the

end of 1980, beginning of 1981, with a view to seeking the return to

Cuba of those inadmissible aliens who were included among the

more than 100,000 Cubans who migrated to the United States in

the Mariel boatlift.

Now, I would emphasize, for the record, Mr. Chairman, that the

vast majority of the individuals who have arrived in the United

States as a result of Mariel have made a positive contribution to

our society. But there is a small number of people who have imposed a great burden on our society. These are people who are

known criminals, people who have committed criminal acts in the

United States and people who are institutionalized, requiring substantial costs for their care.

The Government of Cuba has received a benefit by not incurring

those social and economic costs. The Government of Cuba would receive a further benefit if this bill were enacted into law that the

Government of Cuba, through the normal resumption of visa issuance by the United States in Cuba, would collect the substantial

exit fees that it charges individuals who wish to leave that country.

We think that the matter of the return of the small number of

excludables remains a subject for discussion, that the economic

benefit of the visa issuance, normal visa issuance, is an issue to be

held for those discussions.

We cannot say that the discussions will succeed. I think we can

predict accurately that if we were unilaterally to make this concession to Cuba by legislation, there would be no prospect for negotiations on the return of the Mariel excludables.

Mr. Chairman, I would not want in public testimony to discuss

the steps that have been taken since May of last year when we presented a note to Cuba asking it to accept the return of some of the

Marielitos. I have, however, had prepared a classifed written summary of events since that date on this subject, which I would be

happy to make available for the committee's consideration on a

confidential basis.
19

Mr. MAZZOLI. We appreciate that offer and we will take you up

on it in some secure way if you could get that to our staff members,

it would help.

Mr. MICHEL. I would be happy to do that, sir.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Michel follows:]
20

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES H. MICHEL, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF

INTER-AMERICAN AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF STATE

MR. CHAIRMAN, IT IS A PLEASURE TO ACCEPT YOUR INVITATION TO

PRESENT THE VIEWS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF Si ITE ON h.R. 4853. "A BILL

TO AUTHORIZE THE CREATION OF A RECORD OF ADMISSION FOR PERMANENT

RESIDENCE IN THE CASES OF CERTAIN NATIVES OF CUBA AND hAITI, AND

FOR OTHER PURPOSES."

TOU WILL ALREADY HAVE RECEIVED FROM ASSISTANT SECRETARY W.

lAPLEY bENNETT A REPORT OF THE POSITION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE

ON BOTH SECTIONS OF THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION. IF 1 MAY BE

PERMITTED TO SUM UP THE SENSE OF THAT REPORT. IT WAS TO INFORM THE

COMMITTEE THAT IN OUR VIEW THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 1 OF h.R. 4853

ARE SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL TO PROVISIONS OF IMMIGRATION REFORM

LEGISLATION CURRENTLY BEING CONSIDERED 8Y THE CONGRESS INSOFAR AS

THEY RELATE TO HAITIANS AND CUBANS. EXCEPT THAT H.R. 4853 CONTAINS •

AN ADDITIONAL PROVISION GRANTING A RETROACTIVE DATE OF

ADMISSION"JANUARY 1. 1S82"FOR PERMANENT RESIDENCE. THE

DEPARTMENT OF STATE HAS RESERVATIONS ABOUT THE RETROACTIVE ASPECT

OF SECTION 1 OF h.R. 4853. ALTHOUGH RETROACTIVE DATES OF ADMISSION

HAVE BEEN APPROVED IN CERTAIN PAST INSTANCES, IN THIS CASE THE

RETROACTIVE ADMISSION WOULD BE AVAILABLE ONLY TO THE HAITIANS AND

CUBANS BUT NOT TO ANY OF THE OTHER NATIONALITIES WHICH WOULD BE
21

LEGALIZED UNDER PENDIN6 IMMI6RANT REFORM LE6ISLATI0N. THE

DEPARTMENT OF STATE BELIEVES THAT IMMIGRATION REFORM AND RELIEF FOR

SPECIFIC GROUPS OF ILLE6AL ENTRANTS SHOULD NOT BE ACCOMPLISHED IN

PIECEMEAL FASHION. INSTEAD. SUCH IMMIGRATION STATUTES MUST BE

APPLIED EVENLY. WITHOUT REGARD TO NATIONALITY OR COUNTRY OF

ORIGIN. FOR THESE REASONS. WHILE WE HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THE

INTENT OF H.R. 48S3 TO PROVIDE RESIDENCE FOR CUBAN AND HAITIAN

NATIONALS. WE TAKE THE POSITION THAT THE PREFERABLE RESPONSE RESTS

WITH ENACTMENT OF IMMIGRATION REFORM LEGISLATION CURRENTLY BEING

CONSIDERED BY THE CONGRESS. IN ADDITION. SECTION L(O) OF THE BILL,

WHICH REFERENCES THE SPECIAL STATUS FO SECTION 501 (D)(1) OF PL

SC-H22 (WHICH WE ASSUME TO MEAN £01 (C)(1) IS AMBIGUOUS. CONGRESS

SHOULD CLARIFY WHAT RESULT IS INTENDED BY GRANTING SPECIAL STATUS

TO ALIENS WHO WOULD ALSO BE GRANTED PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS UNDER

THE PROVISIONS OF THIS BILL. OTHERWISE WE HAVE NO SUBSTANTIVE

OBJECTION TO SECTION 1. BUT WE DEFER TO THE COMMENTS OF THE

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

THE DEPARTMENT STRONGLY OPPOSES THE ENACTMENT OF SECTION 2 OF

h.h. 4853. THIS SECTION WOULD DIRUCT CONSULAR OFFICERS AT THE

UNITED STATES INTERESTS SECTION IN HAVANA. CUBA, TO PROCESS

IMMIGRANT VISA APPLICATIONS NOTWITHSTANDING THE PROVISIONS OF

SECTION 243(6) OF THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT. HR.

LHAIRMAN. AS THIS COMMITTEE IS AWARE. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS

NOTIFIED THE SECRETARY OF STATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 243(6) OF THE

ACT THAT CUBA HAS DENIED OR UNDULY DELAYED ACCEPTANCE OF THE RETURN
22

OF ALIENS WHO ARE NATIONALS. CITIZENS. SUBJECTS OR RESIDENTS OF

CUBA. AS PROVIDED FOR 8Y SECTION 2HH.6) THE DEPARTMENT HAS

DIRECTED CONSULAR OFFICERS AT THE U.S. INTERESTS SECTION IN HAVANA

NOT TO PROCESS IMMIGRANT VISA APPLICATIONS. EXCEPT THOSE WHICH HAVE

BEEN EXEMPTED FROM THIS PROHIBITION BY RE6ULATI0NS OF THE

IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE. BY THIS 1 MEAN THAT THE

INTERESTS SECTION IS CONTINUING TO PROCESS

APPLICATIONS OF IMMEDIATE RELATIVES AS DEFINED IN SECTION

2C11B) OF THE ACT AND OF RETURNING RESIDENT IMMIGRANTS AS

DEFINED IN SECTION 1C1U) (27) (A) OF THE ACT.

SECTION 2 OF h.R. 4653 WOULD HAVE THE EFFECT OF NULLIFYING

SECTION 2M2(G) OF THE ACT INSOFAR AS IT RELATES TO CUBA.

MR. CHAIRMAN, THE OUESTION OF THE ISSUANCE OF IMMIGRANT

VISAS IN THE B.S. INTERESTS SECTION IN HAVANA IS CLOSELY

RELATED TO THE ACTION OF THE CUBAN GOVERNMENT IN 1980 WHEN IT

PERMITTED THE MASS EXODUS OF PERSONS FROM FLARIEL. CUBA. AND

RELEASED FROM DETENTION COMMON CRIMINALS AND MENTALLY ILL

PERSONS FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXPELLIN6 THEM TO THE UNITED STATES

WITHOUT THE KN0WLED6E OR CONSENT OF OUR GOVERNMENT. THIS

ACTION BY THE GOVERNMENT OF CUBA HAS DONE CONSIDERABLE HARM TO

THE SOCIAL FABRIC OF THE UNITED STATES. PARTICULARLY IN THOSE

COMMUNITIES TO WHICH LARGE NUMBERS OF THESE EXCLUDABLE ALIENS

MIGRATED. 1 HE COST TO FEDERAL. STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL

AGENCIES IN THE UNITED STATES HAS BEEN IMMENSE. NOT TO MENTION
THE BURDEN BORNE BY THE VICTIMS OF CRIMES WHICH HAVE BEEN

COMMITTED IN THE UNITED STATES. SECTION 1 OF h.R. ^853 TAKES

ACCOUNT OF THESE PERSONS AND PROVIDES THAT AN OTHERWISE

ELIGIBLE BENEFICIARY COULD NOT BENEFIT FROM THE LAW IF HE WERE

DETERMINED TO BE AN ALIEN WHO CONSTITUTES A DAN6ER TO THE

COMMUNITY OF THE UNITED STATES BECAUSE OF PAST CRIMINAL

ACTIVITY OR WHERE THERE EXIST REASONABLE 6ROUNDS FOR REGARDING

HIM AS A DANGER TO THE SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES.

hR. CHAIRMAN DURING THE LAST MONTH OF THE CARTER

ADMINISTRATION THERE WERE TWO ROUNDS OF TALKS BETWEEN

REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE

GOVERNMENT OF CUBA CONCERNING THE REQUEST OF THE UNITED STATES

THAT CUBA TAKE BACK ITS NATIONALS, CITIZENS, SUBJECTS OR

RESIDENTS WHO WERE INELIGIBLE TO REMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES

FOR SUBSTANTIVE REASONS. THE GOVERNMENT OF CUBA, WHICH DID NOT

ACKNOWLEDGE ANY RESPONSIBILITY TO TAKE BACK THESE PERSONS,

ESTABLISHED TWO CONDITIONS FOR TAKIN6 BACK ANY OF THEM: FIRST,

THE CUBAN GOVERNMENT WOULD CONSIDER THE ACCEPTANCE OF ONLY

THOSE WHO WISHED TO RETURN VOLUNTARILY. AND SECOND THE RETURN

OF ANY SUCH INDIVIDUALS WOULD BE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE

GOVERNMENT OF CUBA ON A CASE"BY-CASE BASIS. ALTHOUGH THE

UNITED STATES WAS WILLING AT THAT TIME TO RESUME ISSUANCE OF

IMMIGRANT VISAS IN THE U.S. INTERESTS SECTION IN HAVANA IF AN

AGREEMENT HAD BEEN REACHED. IT COULD NOT ACCEPT THE CONDITIONS

ESTABLISHED BY CUBA. WHILE 1 DO NOT WISH TO GO INTO DETAIL WHY
24

THE CUBAN CONDITIONS WERE NOT ACCEPTABLE. 1 SHOULD LIKE TO

POINT OUT. hR. CHAIRMAN, THAT ONLY A MINUSCULE MINORITY OF THE

12b.OOO PERSONS WHO CAME WITH THE MARIEL BOATLIFT HAVE EVER

INDICATED THAT THEY WISH TO RETURN TO CUBA. 10 HAVE ACCEPTED

THE CUBAN CONDITIONS WOULD NOT HAVE SOLVED THE PROBLEM OF THE

MARIEL EXCLUDABLES.

WHEN THE SUBJECT OF RETURNING THE MARIEL BOATLIFT

EXCLUDABLES WAS RAISED THROUGH DIPLOMATIC CHANNELS WITH CUBA IN

THE PERIOD AFTER JANUARY. 1&81. THE CUBAN OOVERNMENT INITIALLY

MADE KNOWN THAT THERE HAD BEEN NO CHANGE IN THE CUBAN POSITION

ON THE TWO CONDITIONS.

NEVERTHELESS, THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE ON MAY 26. 1983.

ASKED CUBA FORMALLY TO TAKE BACK THOSE PERSONS FROM THE MARIEL

BOATLIFT FOUND INELIGIBLE TO REMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES FOR

SUBSTANTIVE REASONS. AL0N6 WITH THOSE PERSONS WHO MI6HT WISH TO

RETURN TO CUBA VOLUNTARILY. AT THE SAME TIME CUBA WAS FORMALLY

GIVEN A LIST OF THE 769 SUCH PERSONS AGAINST WHOM FINAL ORDERS

OF EXCLUSION HAD BEEN ENTERED AT THAT TIME AND WAS TOLO THAT

ONCE THOSE PERSONS HAD BEEN RETURNED. MORE SUCH LISTS WOULD

FOLLOW. IN RETURN. CUBA WAS TOLD, THE UNITED STATES WOULD BE

PREPARED TO RENEW THE PROCESSING OF IMMIGRANT VISAS IN THE U.S.

INTERESTS SECTION IN KAVANA.
MR. CHAIRMAN, SINCE THE POSSIBLE RETURN OF THESE PERSONS TO

CUBA IS STILL A SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENTS

OF THE UNITED STATES AND CUBA. 1 DO NOT WISH TO MAKE FURTHER

PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ISSUE. LHE DEPARTMENT OF STATE IS

PREPARED TO PROVIDE YOUR COMMITTEE WITH A CLASSIFIED COMMENTARY

ON DEVELOPMENTS SINCE MAY. LSB3. IN THIS REGARD. 1 DO WISH TO

MAKE CLEAR FOR THE RECORD. HOWEVER. THAT THERE REMAINS A DIRECT

AND VITAL LINK BETWEEN THE POSSIBLE RETURN OF THE EXCLUDABLES

TO CUBA AND THE RESUMPTION OF THE ISSUANCE OF IMMIGRANT VISAS

BY THE U.S. INTERESTS SECTION IN HAVANA.

I CAN UNFORTUNATELY 6IVE NO ASSURANCE THAT CUBA WILL PROVE

ANY MORE WILLIN6 TO ACCEPT THE RETURN OF ITS NATIONALS AT THE

REQUEST OF THE UNITED STATES THAN IT WAS IN DECEMBER 1S80 AND

JANUARY 1&81. 1 CAN STATE. HOWEVER. THAT IF SECTION 2 OF H.R.

Hbbi WERE TO BE ENACTED INTO LAW. THE CHANCE THAT WE COULD

PERSUADE CUBA TO ACCEPT THE RETURN OF THE MARIEL EXCLUDABLES

WOULD BE VIRTUALLY NON-EXISTENT.

IT MAY BE ARGUED THAT INNOCENT PERSONS IN THE UNITED STATES

AND CUBA. THE SPONSORS OF WOULD-8E IMMIGRANTS AND THE

IMMIGRANTS THEMSELVES. SHOULD NOT BE ASKED TO PAY FOR THE

MISDEEDS OF THE GOVERNMENT OF CUBA. 1 CAN WELL UNDERSTAND ANO

SYMPATHIZE WITH THAT POINT OF VIEW. SOME OF THESE PERSONS ARE

PRESENTLY ENTERING THE UNITED STATES THROUGH ISSUANCE OF VISAS

BY OUR EMBASSIES IN THIRD COUNTRIES. BUT OF COURSE THIS IS ONLY

A MINORITY OF THOSE WHO WOULD OTHERWISE BE ELIGIBLE.
26

THE FACT IS. HOWEVER. MR. CHAIRHAN. THAT THE GOVERNMENT OF

CUBA STANDS TO OERIVE CONSIDERABLE ECONOMIC ADVANTA6E IF THE

UNITED STATES RESUMES THE PROCESSIN6 OF IMMIGRANT VISAS IN

HAVANA. IN PARTICULAR, THE CUBAN GOVERNMENT. WHICH CHAR6ES

VERY HI6H FEES IN CONVERTIBLE CURRENCY FOR THE NECESSARY

DOCUMENTATION TO LEAVE CUBA. WOULD STAND TO GAIN SIGNIFICANT

REVENUES. IF EMI6RATI0N FROM GUBA TO THE UNITED STATES WERE TO

RISE TO 2C.OG0 PERSONS PER YEAR. WE ESTIMATE THAT CUBA MI6HT

WELL EXPECT TO EARN 30 MILLION DOLLARS IN CONVERTIBLE CURRENCY

PER ANNUM FROM CHARGES FOR EXIT PERMITS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS.

"IHUS GUBA HAS A VERY REAL STAKE IN THIS ISSUE.

IT IS CLEAR THAT G0N6RESS. WHEN IT ENACTED THE IMMIGRATION

AND NATIONALITY ACT. INTENDED THAT THE UNITED STATES SHOULD NOT

ISSUE IMMIGRANT VISAS IN THOSE STATES WHICH REFUSE UPON REOUEST

TO TAKE BACK THEIR NATIONALS. CITIZENS. SUBJECTS OR RESIDENTS

WHO ARE NOT ADMISSIBLE TO THE UNITED STATES. OR WHO DELAY SUCH

ACTION. THE INTENT OF SECTION 2 OF H.R. 4853. TO RESUME NORMAL

IMMIGRANT VISA PROCESSING IN HAVANA. IS AN OBJECTIVE WHICH THE

ADMINISTRATION SHARES. BUT SUCH RESUMPTION SHOULD FOLLOW, NOT

PRECEDE. A DECISION BY THE GOVERNMENT OF GIBA TO ACCEPT THE

RETURN OF THE HARIEL EXCLUOABLES AS PROPOSED BY THE GOVERNMENT

OF THE UNITED STATES.

FOR THESE REASONS. MR. CHAIRMAN, THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE IS

STRONGLY OPPOSED TO SECTION 2 OF H.R. 4653 AND URGES THAT IT BE

REMOVED FROM THE BILL.
27

Mr. MAZZOLI. The gentleman's time is expired and I appreciate

both of you keeping well within your time. It helps us to move

along.

Let me yield myself 5 minutes to begin some questions. Mr.

Nelson, if I understand correctly, the Department of Justice and

the Immigration Service agree conceptually with the idea of trying

to balance the equities that exist between these two groups of

people, the Cubans and the Haitians. You have differences of opinion with respect to the date. You think the January 1, 1982, date is

too proximate; it should be what date?

Mr. NELSON. I would say July just to round it off; probably a July

1,1981, date.

Mr. MAZZOLI. July 1, which is when the administration began its

policy, July 1, 1981.

In your prepared testimony and also in your statement, Mr.

Nelson, you mention concern about what "any record" means because the bill specifically says, if you came in, you have to either

be an entrant or if you came in after the entrance status ended,

that you have to make a record.

Could you give me just the best judgment of what you think

might constitute a record.

Mr. NELSON. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, I really can't. I think our

point there was that we felt that language was ambiguous. We did

not attempt to rewrite it. It is just a matter of concern. If we

reached the point where this language was incorporated in Simpson-Mazzoli, we would be happy to work with the committee to try

to get some clarification.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Let me ask you this, then, Mr. Nelson. I believe

that this bill does give a retroactive residency. I think that it accepts January 1, 1982 as the beginning of residency. Is that correct?

Mr. NELSON. I am not sure of that, either.

Mr. MAZZOLI. I believe in the•Mr. Michel, perhaps you might

help, too, if you are familiar with this•I believe in the immigration reform bill, the bill does not grant retroactive residency, is

that your understanding?

Mr. MICHEL. That is my understanding.

Mr. MAZZOLI. And in this bill, there is a retroactive grant, is that

correct?

Mr. MICHEL. Yes.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Does the State Department have any position? Or

is that a matter for the INS and the Justice Department?

Mr. MICHEL. This is something I think is primarily a Department

of Justice and INS issue. I think that we have joined in a consensus that does not favor these retroactive

Mr. MAZZOLI. Thank you.

Mr. Michel, let me ask you this question. Has there ever been a

situation where the United States has granted to people like the

Cubans who are now in Cuba, but who could otherwise qualify as

immigrants because they fit into a classification, a preference category; has there been any other situation where America has granted people in that category an opportunity to come into the country

ana have visas issued to them, despite the situation that you described?
28

Mr. MICHEL. I believe that there have been situations involving

the Soviet Union and one other Soviet bloc country, Czechoslovakia, where there were incidents of a failure to return and where,

pursuant to regulations, the constraints of section 243(g) were

waived.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Waived.

Mr. MICHEL. Let me point out, Mr. Chairman, first that we have,

I think, an entirely different order of scale here involving the

Mariel boatlift; and second, that in the case of Cubans who do

leave Cuba, that they can get a visa; that is, that we do not issue a

visa in Cuba

Mr. MAZZOLI. But if they got to some other country, then the

State Department's program is to issue visas? If they, for example,

went to Spain or if they went to some Central American country

Mr. MICHEL. What we do not do is issue a visa in Cuba that results in a hard currency payment to Cuba for the exit permits to

allow the Cuban national to leave. Now, they may collect something•I don't know if they collect as much for someone going to a

third

Mr. MAZZOLI. YOU said something like $30 million might be

somehow involved in hard currency

Mr. MICHEL. That is right.

Mr. MAZZOLI. If the full number were to be granted.

Mr. MICHEL. That is right

Mr. MAZZOLI. NOW, if I understand correctly, and to flesh out the

record, the State Department does, despite this provision of section

243(g) issue visas to spouses and to minor children of people who

are in the United States, correct?

Mr. MICHEL. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. We do issue visas to

immediate family members as a humanitarian matter and that is

done on the same basis as the exceptions to section 243(g) that we

have done in the Eastern European cases.

Mr. MAZZOLI. In the time past.

Very fine, my time is exactly expired and I yield to the gentleman from California for 5 minutes for his questions.

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Nelson, I understand that the administration has this preference to have this question dealt with in the Simpson-Mazzoli bill. I

share that preference. However, do you agree that if the House

rolls back the January 1, 1982 legalization date•as may very well

be the case, particularly judging from the results in Texas this last

week•a specific provision should be included for Cuban and Haitians who either have the entrant designation or who arrived

before 1982, or as you suggest, June or July 1981?

Mr. NELSON. Yes; we would agree with that, and that certainly,

as you know, Mr. Lungren, has been the administration's position

throughout the Simpson-Mazzoli debate. We do favor the Cuban/

Haitian special treatment in that regard.

Mr. LUNGREN. The House leadership, as you know, has indicated

or numerous occasions that we are going to deal with SimpsonMazzoli. I could recite them but since I only have 5 minutes, I

won't.
29

In view of this experience, at what point do you think it would

be reasonable for the committee to take action on H.R. 4853, rather

than to continue to wait•hopefully not holding your breath•for

Simpson-Mazzoli to be scheduled?

Mr. NELSON. Well, we•the administration has, of course, shared

the disappointment, I know, of all Members on both sides of the

aisle on the delays on 1510, but we are not ready to give up and we

know the Speaker has made it clear that this was the last delay.

We take the man at his word and we will hold him to that. We are

looking forward to that debate on the House floor coming up, in

fact, in the middle of June.

Mr. FRANK. YOU are the only one who is. [Laughter.]

Mr. NELSON. And therefore, I will defer any answer as to 4853

until we

Mr. MAZZOLI. Let me say to my friend from Massachusetts, I look

forward to that debate. He may not, but I do, and I think that the

country does and I think that we could have ourselves, as we had

back in

Mr. FRANK. If I could explain, Mr. Chairman, briefly, I am for

the bill coming up and I am going to do everything I can, but I am

not looking forward to it. (Laughter.]

Mr. MAZZOLI. YOU can't get a bill unless you have the debate, so I

am looking forward to the debate.

Mr. LUNGREN. Mr. Commissioner, I share your hope that the

Mondale intervention will be the last reason for us to delay this

and I hope that we can move on it because it does cause a problem.

I agree with you; this ought to be part of the Simpson-Mazzoli bill,

but if they are just going to continue to dance with us and never

have us finally deal with it, then I think this subcommittee is

going to act on this piece of legislation.

Mr. NELSON. But this is, Mr. Lungren, piecemeal legislation and I

think, as many equities as it might have, there are a lot of other

equities. Let's look at Florida right now. There is a lot of pressure

from a lot of Nicaraguan exiles saying, "Well, we ought to get some

kind of treatment." We clearly face the issue with the El Salvadorans, and many others. So if you don't deal with the Cuban/Haitian

issue as part of comprehensive immigration reform, we have some

real problems, both in the Congress and the administration, of

piecemeal legislation on nationality groups.

I think that raises some very serious problems. We feel very

strongly about the issue. We are going to hope for the best on the

debate and enactment of comprehensive legislation and will deter

dealing with this issue until that is resolved.

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you, Mr. Commissioner.

I yield back.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Thank you.

The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. HALL. HOW many people would be covered by this 4853 if it

was passed?

Mr. NELSON. Our best estimate, Mr. Hall, is there are approximately 131,000, about 100,000 Cuban nationals and 31,000 Haitian

nationals. Those are our best estimates.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Where are the majority of those people today?

36-483 0-84
30

Mr. NELSON. The majority are in Florida, approximately 60 percent. Again, these are rough estimates, but, of course, we think

they are relatively accurate: about 60 percent in Florida, about 20

percent in the New York/Newark area, about 8 percent in the Los

Angeles area, 2 percent in the Chicago area, and 5 percent

throughout the rest of the United States.

Mr. HALL. Are those people working?

Mr. NELSON. I think, as indicated by Mr. Michel, that a great

number of them are, that they are productive people in society.

The 5,000, just to round out, of the hardcore Mariel Cuban criminals, certainly cast a spell over this whole issue. The whole number

of these, of course, are excluded from any consideration. No person

with a criminal record, et cetera, would be entitled to this adjustment. This would only apply to those who could meet the various

requirements of the law as to no criminal background and ability

to maintain themselves, et cetera.

So we are thinking of maybe 5,000 or so that are in this excludable category. As Mr. Michel says, efforts are under way and we are

certainly hopeful of effecting a return to Cuba of that group.

Mr. HALL. Well, you don t really think that is going to happen,

do you? You don't think that Castro is going to accept those people,

do you?

Mr. NELSON. Let me ask Mr. Michel to respond to that.

Mr. MICHEL. Excuse me, Mr. Hall, I really would hope that you

would study the classified material that we have offered to provide

and will provide this morning to the committee and would

Mr. HALL Does it go into that question?

Mr. MICHEL. Would respectfully request your indulgence in not

pressing us on what the Government of Cuba might or might not

do in this public forum.

Mr. HALL. All right.

The people who are working and leading productive lives, they

have been kind of dangled and had on a string for what, 4Vz years,

5 years, some of them?

Mr. NELSON. I don't know that I would necessarily accept the

"dangled on a string" analogy, but that is the period ot time we are

talking about, 1980, roughly.

Mr. HALL. NOW, if we are talking about Simpson-Mazzoli getting

up for discussion and maybe a vote, suppose it doesn't pass? Where

does that leave these people?

Mr. NELSON. Well, I think the comment, Mr. Hall, that I made a

moment ago is that we have a lot of balancing to do. We have the

real problem, as I said and won't repeat it all, with the piecemeal

legislation. So I think it is proper that we defer a formal position

until we determine whether Simpson-Mazzoli passes.

If it passes, that answers the question. If it doesn't, then we have

to face that. But we have a problem with piecemeal legislation.

Also, on the books now is the Cuban Adjustment Act which Congress passed in 1966. It has been our legal determination by many

reviews of the Justice Department, and others, that the Cubans, by

and large, are entitled to relief under that act. There are some

legal questions; there is now pending litigation brought by Cuban

interest groups that raise some questions•mainly, why haven't

you processed under the Cuban Adjustment Act•but that group,
31

in our opinion, certainly would prima facie qualify for relief under

the existing legislation.

The problem, of course, is that the Cuban Adjustment Act does

not, by its terms, relate to Haitians.

Mr. HALL. Well, now, there is a very strong editorial, I think,

that will be presented in testimony that follows from the Miami

paper, which strongly follows and backs this legislation. Of course,

those people have had the brunt of this. They have looked at it

day-in and day-out for 4 v2 years, more or less.

Mr. NELSON. Of course, I might have seen the editorial; I am not

sure that I am aware of the one you are referring to, but the

Miami Herald, among all the major newspapers in the United

States, even more strongly backs Simpson-Mazzoli as the best

answer.

Mr. HALL Well, I don't think these people have been handled exactly right; on the other hand, I can see the position you are taking

to try to get it all in one fell swoop, but the one fell swoop may not

come forth as rapidly as we may think it will.

If it doesn't, are we going to then•you suggest•come back to

this bill and pass it?

Mr. NELSON. I would suggest that we definitely ought to come

back to it and that we put all our efforts at this point in the Simpson-Mazzoli bill which basically encompasses the same principles

that are in the 4853 bill. So, that is the area to concentrate on because you get the positive benefits from it without the negative aspects of the piecemeal legislation. So, if it does not pass, then I

think we have to face these other issues. They are difficult ones.

Mr. HALL. Thank you.

I yield back.

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

The gentleman from Florida.

Mr. MCCOLLUM. Thank you.

Mr. Nelson, I am concerned about the 31,000 Haitians that you

described that are in here now. If we go forward with this legislation and grant them a status of permanent residents, in essence,

aren't we going to be encouraging more economic folks to come

over here; people who are not eligible for political asylum because

they are not in a reasonable fear of persecution, but instead,

simply having problems in an economic situation back home?

Mr. NELSON. No question, Mr. McCollum, that is a very valid

concern and that is part of the whole balancing factor that we have

to consider in this situation. That is a definite concern.

Mr. MCCOLLUM. If we were not

Mr. NELSON. Excuse me, that is why, again, I think the comprehensive legislation is really the answer because it deals with many,

many issues and it properly encompasses this issue. That is the

way to resolve it. If you have to deal with it piecemeal, the point

you raise is a definite factor to consider.

Mr. MCCOLLUM. Isn't it also true that if we deal with it piecemeal like this instead of in a comprehensive fashion, that we have

got a lot of other nationality considerations here, such as the Salvadorans who have been here for longer than January 1, 1982, who

might very well not be in reasonable fear, although that is a great
debate among many Congressmen, if they were to be sent back.

Aren't we raising a specter of acting very unevenhandedly?

Mr. NELSON. Yes, sir, absolutely right. You stated it better than I

can. And I think you are all aware that the Nicaraguans particularly in the Miami area, have been very active in picketing and

claiming this same kind of consideration so, we definitely have the

result that different nationality groups may use this, saying, "You

did it for the Cubans and the Haitians; now, what about us?" Then

you have that precedent to follow.

Mr. MCCOLLUM. Aren't we still having some boat people come

over from Haiti and occasionally making it now?

Mr. NELSON. Yes, there are, but it is certainly greatly limited.

Since the interdiction; since the detention policy, and everything,

the numbers have dramatically dropped. Still, some get through•

not many. We still have some flow from the Bahamas. That still is

probably the bigger area where the bigger number get across from

Bimini in very small boats; that is hard to stop.

Mr. MCCOLLUM. But if we pass this bill alone, without the regular legalization provision in the immigration bill, we might be stirring up a bigger flow than we have got now, right?

Mr. NELSON. That is definitely a possibility.

Mr. MCCOLLUM. Mr. Michel, I have got a question. I have never

understood how we thought that we were going to advance our

policies•and I haven't read the classified material on this question

of the return of the criminals to Cuba, but I have never understood

how we thought we could advance our policies by denying visas to

the people who want to come over here from Cuba to match up

with their relatives. I have never understood that because it seems

to me the only people we are hurting in this process are the CubanAmericans and the Cuban-Americans' relatives who want to come

over here.

Castro could care less, from what it appears to me. Why did he

want to send a whole bunch of those people over here?

Mr. MICHEL. For two reasons, Mr. McCollum, and I think they

are both economic•well, there is also a third reason and that is

political. This is an outlet for him and for the Government of Cuba.

The same reason that he sent 130,000 people in 1980, he would like

to send 20,000 a year more to relieve social strains within Cuba.

People who have ties, perhaps, to the United States because of relatives here who might, from his standpoint, be less supportive of the

Communist policies of the Cuban Government.

Second, I mentioned earlier the substantial fees that the Government of Cuba charges for exit from that country, and it demands

that those fees be paid in hard currency, which Cuba desperately

needs. It is dependent upon a subsidy of about $4.5 billion a year

from the Soviet Union and would like to have an additional source

of hard currency revenues.

Third, the number of people to whom the exit permits might be

granted in exchange for these fees might be people who are not in

the most productive years of their lives and making the greatest

contribution to Cuba. So the Government of Cuba would benefit in

a number of respects from a resumption of & ,e normal immigrant

visa policy and practice that obtained prior to the Mariel boatlift.
33

We recognize that there is a cost to individuals as well, and we

regret that. At the same time, we know of no other policy that we

could maintain that would preserve the opportunity for a possible

negotiated return of the Mariel excludables

Mr. MCCOLLUM. How long has this been going on now? Quite a

long time, several years, hasn't it?

Mr. MICHEL. October 1980,1 guess.

Mr. MCCOLLUM. I know we aren't privileged to discuss, and I

don't want to, whatever classified status we may have currently in

these negotiations, but the point I want to make is it has been a

long time. We have not been successful with this and it seems to

me patently ridiculous that we haven't taken one of two steps on

either end of that accord. I think it is outrageous, first of all, that

we are holding these individuals captive•that is, the people who

are in Cuba who could come back here for unification if Castro

really wants to send them over there; and second, I think that we

are really remiss, greatly remiss, in not forcibly returning those

criminals and shoving them down his throat.

If that would anger him; if that would tick him off; if that would

make this whole situation even more hostile, so be it. We ought to

take those Cuban Marielitos out of the prison•at least the 1,800-

and-some-odd, however many there are eligible in Atlanta right

now, by a boat, by a ship, by whatever means are necessary and

ship them into Cuba. I have advocated this and, this Congress has;

and I think that whoever is deciding this policy is just absolutely

absurd and ludicrous.

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

The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. FRANK. I want to begin by agreeing with much of what the

gentleman from Florida has said•not the last eight or nine sentences, but we can start back before that.

I haven't read the classified material. I now feel obligated to read

it. I have been here 3Vfe years. I have never read classified material

that materially changed my information on anything, but I will

read it.

I don't see any justification in the world for us punishing innocent, freedom-loving Cubans who may be dissidents from the Castro

regime, but Fidel Castro won't take back the Marielitos. That is

the policy of the American Government and the gentleman from

Florida has accurately characterized it.

I don't understand it, even it has got some remote bargaining leverage•and I am very skeptical that it does. I think we are going

to see a lot of speculative cables about maybe and wouldn't it be

possible and none of it is going to mean very much in the classified

stuff, but the basic point, it seems to me, is undeniable.

We have this Communist dictatorship; we criticize places like

that for refusing people the freedom to travel; we signed the Helsinki accords and say that we are for the freedom to travel; we are

a bastion of freedom; there are people in Cuba who could come

here, we are told; Castro might be willing to let them out; maybe

he is bluffing but we will never know that; and we are now in what

seems to me the intolerable moral position of the United States

saying to those people:
34

Because of other policies of your government which we don't like, we are going to

deny you the change to escape, to get away from your dissident status and to come

here and be reunified which you might otherwise be legally eligible to do. We are

not even going to give you a visa.

I just don't understand how this administration can carry out

that kind of position. It seems to me to be directly in contrast to

our basic positions.

I will go and read your classified material, but I will be astounded if I find anything in there that can remotely justify the position.

I just think the gentleman from Florida has characterized it accurately.

We are in the position, unfortunately, of denying to some people

in Cuba the chance at freedom which they may have, and I just

think that that is not only wrong morally, but in terms of international political positions that undercuts us substantially.

Mr. MICHEL. Well, Mr. Frank, let me just comment that the

policy is not intended to punish individuals

Mr. FRANK. DO you think they care what the intent is when the

effect is to keep them locked up?

Mr. MICHEL. I understand that it has that effect and that is unfortunate and I can sympathize with a lot of what you say, but I

would also wish to reiterate that those who are allowed to leave

Cuba and go to a third country are admitted to the United States

and those who are immediate family members of residents of the

United States are presently being

Mr. FRANK. YOU are saying it doesn't make any difference, then,

if we have the restriction? Then why do we have it? I mean, if they

can get out and go to a third country and come here, then what is

the point of it? Is this all something

Mr. MICHEL. The numbers are different.

Mr. FRANK. OK, so it does make a substantial difference. All

right, let me get on to the subject of this, if I can.

First, let me explain my comment, Commissioner. You said you

did not like being characterized the way the Department was with

regard to this legislation. That is what I mean when I said I wasn't

looking forward to the debate.

I will continue to be for this bill, but if you think you were unfairly characterized in this business, you wait until the debate

comes up and hear what they say about all of us. So we will be

through that now, but we will all be there.

I just want to make sure I understand your position, because I

understand the legislative strategies. As I understand your position, you have no objection to, in effect, a January 1982 cutoff date

for Haitians and Cubans; is that correct?

Mr. NELSON. Well, we would amend that to, say, July 1, 1981.

Mr. FRANK. Why? What are we talking about

Mr. NELSON. Maybe you hadn't arrived when I made the comment. I think, first of all, remember the context of our position is

that it really is premature to push this bill forward. We ought to

wait and

Mr. FRANK. I understand. We are all for Simpson-Mazzoli and because it is purely hypothetical, we will make all the appropri-
35

Mr. NELSON. And it is the spirit of it that we do concur with. We

have made that clear and that has been envisioned

Mr. FRANK. Let me put it this way: We are going to deal with

this either in Simpson-Mazzoli or not, so the question is what is the

date in whichever piece of legislation we address it?

Mr. NELSON. Obviously, within Simpson-Mazzoli, we are for the

concept. It makes sense. We have supported it all along and

Mr. FRANK. With what cutoff date?

Mr. NELSON. We hope the record makes it clear. Now, I think on

the cutoff date, and this was the point that really hadn't come up•

it was not in our testimony, but it seemed a little incongruous that

we talk about a January 1982 cutoff date when the President of the

United States and the Attorney General announced, and we start

implementing the law, the detention law that is in the statute, and

backing that up with our judicial position, which has been fully

vindicated, and that all started in the summer of 1981. It seems

that it doesn't make a lot of sense to then have a January 1982

cutoff date.

Our recommendation, if we get down to a date situation, that it

be moved back

Mr. FRANK. HOW many people are we talking about

Mr. NELSON [continuing]. To the middle of 1981.

Mr. FRANK. HOW many people would get caught in the 6-month

window?

Mr. NELSON. I think there are•I am not positive, but maybe in

the range of 10,000.

Mr. FRANK. We are talking about 10,000 people, then, who would

be in that 6-month period?

Mr. NELSON. At the most.

Mr. FRANK. And your position would be with them, to send them

back?

Mr. NELSON. Sure, if they do not otherwise qualify for admission

to the United States, either as legal immigrants or as

Mr. FRANK. Wait, let me just ask my last question. There is a lot

of concern that we are going to be dealing with this, we hope, the

problem of the deportations now going ahead, and I realize it has

been in litigation. I would hope that there could be some forebearance with regard to people•I would hate to see people who would

qualify under this legislation be deported in the interim if we know

the legislation is coming.

What is the Service's position with regard to those people who

might be the beneficiary of this legislation? Wouldn't it be reasonable to hold off until at least the summer comes and we get a sense

of what we are doing, either with the Mazzoli bill or with this bill?

Mr. NELSON. Mr. Frank, you can certainly make a lot of equitable arguments that we ought to do that, but I think we have seen

what has happened in the last 2 years with Simpson-Mazzoli and

all the delays. We had the problem with the silva letterholder issue

where we did defer action pending likely resolution. It didn't

happen. People would like all the benefits on the one hand, but yet

are fighting the bill•many of the people that are asking for the

special benefit are doing everything they can to kill the overall bill.

So the bottom line is that, absent some very special considerations, we would not be willing, pending potential legislation.
36

Mr. FRANK. Commissioner, I have been supportive of a lot of

what you do and you have been supportive of some of my concerns

and I appreciate it, but that disappoints me. Like with the Cuba

thing, I just don't like that idea of holding innocent people hostages

because we don't like what third parties are doing. It seems to me

that in both cases, there is a tendency to do that.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Thank you. The gentleman's time is up. I appreciate his understanding.

The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. FISH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think the record ought to show, Mr. Chairman, that every

member of the subcommittee is present at the ungodly hour that

you called this meeting

Mr. MAZZOLI. Sorry, I was

Mr. FISH. YOU have got 100 percent attendance, which is, I

think

Mr. MAZZOLI. I appreciate your bringing it up. It is an honor to

chair a panel like this because we probably have, as a group,

worked together better and had better attendance than almost any

other panel on this committee

Mr. FRANK. This subcommittee probably does better at ungodly

hours.

Mr. MAZZOLI. I don't know. Maybe, Ham, we are all insomniacs.

Maybe that is part of it; I am not sure.

Mr. FISH. I ask unanimous consent that my 5 minutes commence

now

Mr. MAZZOLI. Your time has expired, I am sorry. [Laughter.]

Mr. FISH. Mr. Commissioner, I welcome you both here, of course,

this morning and I wonder if you could comment on the 1966

Cuban Adjustment Act. Earlier in your testimony, you made reference to the fact that the measure we are considering this morning

does not deal with it, whereas the Simpson-Mazzoli bill does.

Could you tell us why you prefer the repeal of that act?

Mr. NELSON. It seems again, Mr. Fish, that we are confronted

with the Cuban Adjustment Act; it has been on the books since

1966 and I have a feeling from the committee that in the light of

some of the events that have occurred since, that it would have

been better not to have it there at this point. It seems, again, the

idea of the comprehensive approach that Simpson-Mazzoli advances

is the way to deal with it. Not only could the Cuban/Haitian issue

be dealt with in that manner, but we probably shouldn't have that

act on the books; should something happen in the future, then we

are still facing it.

It seems to me we ought to sort of clear the decks.

Mr. FISH. Thank you, and, of course, I want to commend you and

support your comments about the administration's efforts for comprehensive immigration reform. The administration has been particularly supportive of Simpson-Mazzoli. That has been a strong

effort on the part of the administration for the last several vears.

Mr. Michel, as I recall, it was sometime in the spring of 1980

that our interests section in Cuba stopped processing immigration

visas for the very people that are still there in preference categories. So negotiations have been going on•as you said, they started

the fall of that year•so they have been going on almost 4 years.
37

Now it is difficult, since you presented this subcommittee the

classified material that we haven't had a chance to look at, but I

want to ask you this: Have the negotiations with the Cuban Government been on the narrow issue, the humanitarian issue of the

exchange of the excludable Marielitos for the issuance of visas to

people with established preferences, or are we insisting•as we did

when Secretary Haig was in charge•that a much broader range of

political issues be negotiated at the same time?

Mr. MICHEL. We are not insisting on a broad range of political

issues, Mr. Fish. In the material that I have for the committee,

there is a description of the exchanges and developments that have

occurred since our note of last May, in which we asked the Government of Cuba to accept the return of a specified list of individuals

against whom final orders of exclusion had been issued.

I would prefer to ask you to read the description of these developments, rather than describe them.

Mr. FISH. Right. A few of us did have an opportunity to discuss

this issue with Premier Castro in 1982 solely on the humanitarian

basis of an exchange, and he said he was perfectly willing to talk

about that in that context and on that single narrow issue.

You have testified that there have been instances when 243(g)

has been waived, and we have heard about the economic and political benefits for the Government of Cuba, but I can't help but echo

what my colleague from Florida said and my colleague from Massachusetts, that it does seem to me that we are penalizing the wrong

people. We are penalizing the U.S. citizens and lawful permanent

residents who are seeking family reunification. We are penalizing

those in Cuba who have qualified under a preference category for 4

years.

Inasmuch as negotiations have proceeded for 4 years so far, it

would seem to me that we should start thinking in a broader vein

here about what we are doing. As money is being brought up, we

could also bring up the cost of incarceration to the United States as

a major factor here.

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

apologize, but the clock doesn't lie.

Mr. FISH. That is all right, I am finished.

Mr. MAZZOLI. With the indulgence of my further remaining panelists, I would like to yield to our distinguished chairman of the

full committee and the author of the bill for any statements he

might want to make or any observations.

The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Rodino, is recognized for 5

minutes.

Mr. RODINO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and members

of the committee. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I want to commend

you for scheduling this committee hearing this morning. I also

thank the other subcommittee members for being here on a matter

that I consider to be of tremendous urgency. I appreciate the fact

that the Commissioner is present here this morning in order to

present views of the Immigration Service, together with the State

Department.

I believe there is definitely a situation here that cries out for immediate action. I have been discussing this matter for a long period

of time with the Immigration Service and the State Department.
38

It seems that our administrative enforcement policies, while notdeliberately, have discriminated against the beneficiaries of this

bill. For this reason, it became incumbent on us•if you remember,

Mr. Chairman, to address this problem legislatively, first of all, in

H.R. 1510, which is the proposal that is still pending before the

Congress. Second, I thought it necessary to introduce this separate

legislative proposal H.R. 4853•as a safety net in the event the Immigration reform bill is not scheduled for floor action. I would ask

unanimous consent that you include in the record a copy of the bill

and my prepared testimony.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Without objection.

[H.R. 4853 is printed on p. 3.]

[The prepared statement of Hon. Peter W. Rodino, Jr., follows:]
39

March 9, 1984

PREPARED STATEMENT

OF THE

HONORABLE PETER W. ROD INO, JR.

I WISH TO COMMEND THE SUBCOMMITTEE AND ITS CHAIRMAN FOR SCHEDULING

HEARINGS ON THIS MOST IMPORTANT LEGISLATION AND I AM MOST HOPEFUL THAT

THIS BILL OR THE COMPANION PROVISION IN H.R. 1510 WILL BE ENACTED INTO

LAW THIS YEARTHIS SUBCOMMITTEE IS OFTEN CALLED UPON TO PROVIDE SOME SORT OF RELIEF TO

ALIENS IN THE UNITED STATES WHO DO NOT FIT NEATLY INTO THE PARAMETERS OF

EXISTING LAWS- OFTEN WE ARE CONFRONTED BY COUNTERVAILING PRESSURES AND

INTERESTS, AND SOMETIMES OUR COMPASSION FOR THOSE WHO WISH TO MAKE THE

UNITED STATES THEIR HOME MUST BE TEMPERED BY THE REALIZATION THAT EVEN THE

UNITED STATES, WITH ITS VAST SPACES AND BOUNTIFUL RESOURCES, CANNOT ACCOMMODATE EVERYONEIN SOME CASES, HOWEVER, THE EQUITIES ARE SO OBVIOUS, THE NEED FOR JUSTICE

SO EVIDENT, AND THE DICTATES OF FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS SO COMPELLING THAT

SPECIAL LEGISLATIVE RELIEF MUST BE PROVIDED- THE CASE OF THE CUBAN/

HAITIAN ENTRANTS IS JUST THAT TYPE OF CASEFOUR YEARS AGO TODAY THE SO'CALLED MARIEL BOATLIFT WAS IN FULL SWING- THEY

CAME BY THE THOUSANDS DURING THAT PERIOD NOT ONLY FROM CUBA BUT ALSO FROM

HAITI- THEY CAME IN ALL TYPES OF BOATS, INCLUDING SOME THAT WERE NOT

SEA-WORTHY- SOME DID NOT MAKE IT, AND FOR THEM THE AMERICAN DREAM ENDED

EITHER ON THE HIGH SEAS OR ON THE BEACHES OF FLORIDA, WHERE THEIR BODIES

WERE FOUND-
40

BUT THOSE WHO DID MAKE IT WERE FILLED WITH HOPES OF A NEW LIFE, OF A SECOND

CHANCE- THE CUBANS WERE TOLD THAT THEY WOULD BE WELCOMED WITH "OPEN HEARTS"

AND "OPEN ARMS/' AND INDEED THOSE WHO ARRIVED IN THE SPRING AND SUMMER OF

19:9 WERE QUICKLY PROCESSED AND RESETTLED. BUT FOR MANY OF THOSE WHO

ARRIVED FROM HAITI IN 1981 THE WELCOME WAS NOT SO WARM. UNLIKE THEIR HAITIAN

PREDECESSORS AND THE CUBAN ARRIVALS ONLY MONTHS BEFORE, THEY FOUND THEMSELVES

INDEFINITELY DETAINED IN INS DETENTION CENTERS- DAYS TURNED INTO WEEKS, AND

WEEKS TURNED INTO MONTHS- MEANWHILE, A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT IN MIAMI, AND

LATER TWO FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURTS, WERE REVIEWING THE EPISODE- ALL THREE

COURTS CONCLUDED THAT THE PROCESSING OF HAITIAN NATIONALS IN THE UNITED

STATES HAD BEEN PREJUDICIAL AND UNLAWFUL- THE LITIGATION CONTINUESIT HAS BEEN FOUR YEARS SINCE CUBAN/HAITIAN ENTRANTS WERE FIRST PAROLED INTO

THE UNITED STATES. DESPITE THE FACT THAT BOTH THE CARTER AND REAGAN

ADMINISTRATIONS SUBMITTED LEGISLATION TO ALLOW THEM TO ADJUST STATUS, AND

DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE IMMIGRATION REFORM AND CONTROL ACTS OF 1982 AND

1983 INCLUDED PROVISIONS FOR ADJUSTMENT, THEY ARE STILL WAITINGHOW LONG MUST THEY CONTINUE TO WAIT? HOW LONG WILL THEY BE DENIED THE

OPPORTUNITY TO PETITION FOR THE ADMISSION OF THEIR FAMILIES? HOW LONG

WILL THEY BE DENIED THE OPPORTUNITY TO BECOME PERMANENT RESIDENTS AND

EVENTUALLY CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES? HOW LONG WILL THEY BE SUBJECTED

TO STATE LAWS THAT LIMIT EMPLOYMENT IN CERTAIN OCCUPATIONS TO PERSONS

WHO ARE U-S- CITIZENS OR LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENT ALIENS? HOW LONG WILL

THEY BE REQUIRED TO ENDURE UNCERTAINTY AND CONFUSION REGARDING THEIR FUTURE

IN THIS COUNTRY?
41

FOR THEIR SAKE AND FOR OUR NATION'S SAKE WE MUST SETTLE THIS MATTER AND WE

MUST SETTLE IT NOW- THAT IS WHAT MY BILL, H.R. 4853, WOULD DO.

LIKE MANY OTHERS, I HAD HOPED, AND I CONTINUE TO HOPE, THAT THIS MATTER

WILL BE RESOLVED BY PASSAGE OF THE IMMIGRATION REFORM AND CONTROL ACTI INTRODUCED H.R. 4853 NOT BECAUSE I BELIEVE THE IMMIGRATION REFORM AND

CONTROL ACT WILL NOT PASS, BUT BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE

ADJUSTMENT OF CUBAN NATIONALS UNDER THE 1966 ACT WOULD SEVER THE LINK

BETWEEN TWO GROUPS OF PEOPLE ~ CUBANS AND HAITIANS ~ WHO ARRIVED HERE

UNDER SIMILAR ~ IF NOT IDENTICAL ~ CIRCUMSTANCESIT IS CLEAR THAT THE CUBAN ENTRANTS HAVE BEEN VERY PATIENT IN WAITING FOR

THE CONGRESS TO ACT- IT IS EQUALLY CLEAR THAT THEY ARE JUSTIFIED IN SEEKING

ADJUSTMENT UNDER THE 1966 ACT- MY FEAR, HOWEVER, IS THAT THE HAITIANS, IF

FORCED TO STAND ALONE, MAY BE PASSED OVER, NEGLECTED AND FORGOTTEN FOREVERTHAT IS WHY I HAVE INTRODUCED AND SOUGHT URGENT CONSIDERATION OF THIS

URGENTLY-NEEDED REMEDIAL LEGISLATIONI HAVE SAID THAT THE CUBAN AND HAITIAN NATIONALS COVERED BY MY BILL ARRIVED

IN THE UNITED STATES DURING THE SAME TIME AND UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCESLET ME ELABORATE- SINCE THE EARLY 1960'S THE CUBAN PEOPLE HAVE DEMONSTRATED

THEIR DISDAIN FOR THE REGIME OF FLDEL CASTRO- THEY HAVE FLED TO EUROPE, TO

OTHER NATIONS IN THE CARIBBEAN, AND OF COURSE, TO THE UNITED STATES WHERE

THEY HAVE ALWAYS BEEN WILLINGLY ACCEPTED- IN FACT, SINCE CASTRO CAME TO

POWER NEARLY TEN PERCENT OF THE CUBAN POPULATION " OR ONE MILLION PEOPLE

~ HAVE COME AS REFUGEES TO THE UNITED STATES- THE RECENT ENTRANTS, THEN,

ARE SIMPLY THE LATEST MANIFESTATION OF THE HISTORICAL MIGRATION FROM THAT

COUNTRY-
42

HAITIANS, ON THE OTHER HAND, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THEY WERE ALSO FLEEIJV

POVERTY AND PERSECUTION, HAVE NEVER BEEN THE BENEFICIARIES OF SPECIALLY

ENACTED U-S- REFUGEE LAWS- THERE CAN BE LITTLE DOUBT, HOWEVER, THAT THE

QUALITY OF LIFE IN HAITI IS AS BAD, IF NOT WORSE THAN, THAT IN CUBA.

THE PEOPLE OF HAITI HAVE THE LOWEST PER CAPITA INCOME OF ANY PEOPLE IN THE

WESTERN HEMISPHERE, AND THEIR UNEMPLOYMENT RATE IS OVER FIFTY PERCENT- IN

SHORT, MOST OF THEM LIVE A LIFE OF RELENTLESS, GRINDING POVERTY- AND

ALTHOUGH MANY OF THE HAITIANS MAY NOT, IN THE STRICTEST SENSE, BE POLITICAL

REFUGEES, WE MUST RECOGNIZE THAT FREQUENTLY THE LINE SEPARATING POLITICAL

EXILES FROM ECONOMIC MIGRANTS IS SO VAGUE AND IMPERCEPTIBLE AS TO BE, FOR

ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES, MEANINGLESSTHE HAITIAN BOAT PEOPLE, LIKE THE MOST RECENT FLOW OF CUBANS TO THIS

COUNTRY, REPRESENT THE LOWEST SOCIOECONOMIC SECTOR OF THE POPULATION OF

THEIR COUNTRY TO HAVE COME TO THE UNITED STATES THUS FAR- LIKE THE CUBANS,

MANY OF THEM HAVE COME NOT SO MUCH TO ESCAPE PHYSICAL TORTURE AND IMPRISONMENT AS TO ESCAPE THE SPIRITUAL TORTURE AND IMPRISONMENT THAT PERMEATES THEIR

LIVES- THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE HAITIAN PEOPLE HAVE GONE TO ESCAPE THAT KIND

OF LIFE • TO THE POINT OF RISKING DEATH ON THE HIGH SEAS ~ CONSTITUTES A

MORE COMPELLING TESTIMONY CONCERNING THE CONDITIONS IN HAITI THAN ANY SET OF

FACTS AND FIGURES COULD EVER PRODUCEMR- CHAIRMAN, THE LEGISLATION BEFORE US IS NOT WITHOUT PRECEDENT- IN 1958,

FOR EXAMPLE, CONGRESS PASSED SPECIAL LEGISLATION TO ALLOW THE ADJUSTMENT OF

HUNGARIAN REFUGEES WHO HAD BEEN PAROLED INTO THE UNITED STATES- SIMILARLY,

IN 1960, 1966, AND AGAIN IN 1975 SPECIAL LEGISLATION WAS PASSED TO ALLOW

THE ADJUSTMENT OF EASTERN EUROPEAN REFUGEES, CUBAN PAROLEES, AND INDOCHINESE

PAROLEES, RESPECTIVELY. IT IS CLEAR, THEN, THAT WHEN COMPELLING NEED HAS

BEEN DEMONSTRATED, CONGRESS HAS NOT BEEN UNWILLING TO ACT-
43

IN CONCLUSION, MR. CHAIRMAN, WE ARE DEALING HERE TODAY WITH A SITUATION

THAT CRIES OUT FOR IMMEDIATE ACTION- IN MY MIND THERE IS NO DOUBT AS TO

WHAT WE MUST DO.

BY PASSING H.R. 4853 WE WILL ALLOW THOUSANDS OF CUBANS AND HAITIANS WHO ARE

HERE AND ARE ALREADY CONTRIBUTING TO OUR SOCIETY TO LIVE FREE AND SECURE IN

THE KNOWLEDGE THAT THEY ARE WELCOME HERE AND WILL NOT BE FORCED TO RETURNWE WILL ALLOW THEM TO GET ON WITH THEIR LIVES. AND WE WILL PUT BEHIND US

ONCE AND FOR ALL THIS TARNISHED EPISODE IN OUR IMMIGRATION HISTORY.

I WOULD ASK THAT THE CORRESPONDENCE ATTACHED TO THIS STATEMENT BE INCLUDED

IN THE HEARING RECORD. THESE LETTERS ARE INDICATIVE OF THE WIDESPREAD SUPPORT

FOR THIS HUMANITARIAN LEGISLATION-

(See app. 1 at p. 149.)

Mr. RODINO. There is precedent for the kind of action that we

need to take, especially in a situation such as this. My recollection

is that back in 1958, when we dealt with the Hungarian refugee

problems, we immediately, as a Congress, recognized the need to legalize their status and we did so. We did again in 1966 for Cuban

refugees and we did so in 1975 when we dealt with the Indo-Chinese refugees.

Almost 4 years ago this month we were dealing with the question of the Mariel boatlift and we found that there were people

who, responding to the invitation to come to this country, because

we opened up our hearts and arms, did so. I think that it would

behoove us to recognize that their plight has been brought to our

attention time and again by so many people who have come to us

and many of these people are here today. There will be present this

morning a distinguished member of the council from the city of

Newark, Mr. Donald Payne, Bishop Bevilacqua, speaking for the

people who have been ignored and neglected for so long and Mr.

Hill, who represents Bayard Rustin. They, together with many

other civic labor and religious groups have long been interested in

the plight of these people.

I think that we can do no less than recognize that this is a situation where people who came here before 1982 have been left, as I

have described it, in legal limbo.

I think that we need to so something about it. I haven't been

privy to some of the statements that have been made by the representatives of the Government here, but I have heard them time

and time again. Very frankly, they don't square with what I believe to be the kind of commitment we should make to resolving

the uncertain status of these people.
44

I don't believe that there are people who deserve more just treatment than the Haitians and Cuban entrants. I think that it is high

time, Mr. Chairman, that this committee takes action by approving

this legislation.

Again, I want to applaud you and the ranking member of our

full committee Mr. Fish, who has always been very responsive, together with the your ranking minority member on the subcommittee, Mr. Lungren, and the other subcommittee members for their

attention and participation here this morning.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. You will be

pleased to know that everyone spoke highly about the concept of

your bill and the attitude it displays and the charity and compassion. There have been some differences, perhaps, with the second

section of the bill which deals with the issuance of the visas to

Cubans who are in Cuba and there has been some evidence of some

technical difficulty with some of the words, but conceptually, I

think that everyone certainly supports the bill.

The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. CROCKETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to join those in complementing the chairman of our full

committee for his thoughtfulness and generosity in introducing

H.R. 4853 and also for the impassioned plea he just made in support of that bill.

Most of the comments and questions that I would have have already been anticipated by my colleague, the gentleman from Texas.

The position of the two departments, I take it, is that we should

wait and let this whole question be covered by Simpson-Mazzoli;

and yet I think the general tenor of thinking in the House is that

there won't be any Simpson-Mazzoli any time soon. So to say leave

it to Simpson-Mazzoli is just another way of saying, don't do anything about the question.

If I understand your testimony, Mr. Nelson, and also Mr.

Michel's testimony, you both agree that there is no problem as far

as the Cuban refugees are concerned, because what is attempted in

H.R. 4853 is already available to Cuban refugees under the Cuban

Adjustment Act.

If that is so, then it necessarily follows that H.R. 4853 is really

intended to correct the situation as far as Haitians are concerned

and to put Haitians in essentially the same position that the Cuban

Adjustment Act puts the Cubans.

So the substance of your position, gentlemen, is that you are just

opposed to bringing about the kind of equality of treatment that

the chairman of the full committee was just speaking about. Now,

when I consider that conclusion against the background of your impassioned denials that there has been any racial discrimination

with respect to the treatment of Haitian refugees, I wonder how

much sense it makes to say, on the one hand that there has been

no discrimination against Haitians•and to condemn those who

have pointed out the existence of that discrimination•and on the

other hand, to say the Cubans are already being treated fairly

under the Cuban Adjustment Act, but we don't want the Haitians

to be given the same fair treatment that this bill would provide.

Do you wish to comment on that?
45

Mr. NELSON. Yes, Mr. Crockett, I do. I think our earlier comments, and I certainly won't repeat them all, but I would summarize several, are responsive. As pointed out by Mr. Michel and

myself, this administration, since the time it has been in office, and

even prior to the introduction of Simpson-Mazzoli, has favored

some•if you can call it special treatment for the Cuban/Haitians,

recognizing there are some unique situations there, but in context

of the overall immigration reform.

Now, I am disappointed to hear what seems to be a negative prediction on the Simpson-Mazzoli bill coming up. We are all very interested in watching that; remember, it is 95 percent down the

track, needing only a final rule after full Rules Committee, and

floor action. We know very well, with Chairman Rodino and Chairman Mazzoli and other able members of this subcommittee and

Senator Simpson and counterparts, that there will be a successful

conference I think the President and the administration made it

clear that we want a bill and we expect that there will be a bill.

So, while we know there are roadblocks, and it is certainly very

unfortunate that there seems to be a politicalization lately, and I

hope that that doesn't continue and that we can get a vote, as we

are very far down the track. To start all over with this one part,

we think, is the wrong way to go. So we are not saying we won't

deal with this issue, but let's put all our attention and efforts into

the comprehensive bill and do all we can, as Members of both sides

of the aisle, to get that bill up.

That answers it, and it also voids, as I have testified earlier, the

other problem of the piecemeal legislation. I think even Chairman

Rodino and others would recognize that while everybody would like

to do some balancing for the Haitians, in context with the

Cubans•there is no argument with that•but it does open up, as

Mr. McCollum's questions and others indicate•it does open up a

problem of the nationality-specific legislation that will then be carried on by other nationality groups in saying, "If you did it for the

Haitians, you do it for the others.'

The Cuban legislation has been on the books for almost 20 years.

That has been there. That is a fact of life, but I think that is why

we need the comprehensive bill approach•and I think all would

agree with that.

Now, the question is, if that does not pass, then what do we do?

That is a tough question and I think we have to face it, but it is

premature at this point and it is certainly not correct, sir, to say

that that is the way of saying we oppose it.

I will only comment very briefly because of the time constraints.

I think I have made my point on the discrimination issue. I think

it has been very, very unfortunate, Mr. Crockett, that a lot of

media, a lot of interest groups, have really not been too responsible

in their comments, because the law on the books that has been enforced, in the relevant court decisions the facts indicate that there

has not been discrimination.

Remember, too, that there are many thousands of Haitians,

20,000-or-so, that are here; and there is no effort from this administration to deport them, and they would not. So I think that that

has to be

36-483 0-84-4
46

Mr. MAZZOLI. I apologize and I apologize to the gentleman from

Michigan but time has expired. Our subcommittee will try to complete one more panel before 9:30. Actually, at 9, both the Republican conference and the Democratic caucus start. Our members

here may feel free to leave if they have to.

I am hoping we can continue until 9:30 and finish one more

panel and maybe take a break and then come back and finish up

our day.

So we thank you, gentlemen.

Mr. MAZZOLI. I would like to call forward the next panel, which

is actually listed as panel No. 2, and that is Bishop Anthony Bevilacqua, chairman of the Bishops' Committee on Migration, National Conference of Catholic Bishops; Bishop Phillip Cousin, president

of the National Council of Churches; and Rabbi Marc Tanenbaum,

director of the American Jewish Committee.

Excuse me, I am just reminded that Councilman Donald Payne is

appearing for Bishop Cousin of the National Council of Churches.

Bishop Bevilacqua, we again are on a very short time so you are

recognized for 5 minutes.

TESTIMONY OF BISHOP ANTHONY J. BEVILACQUA, CHAIRMAN,

COMMITTEE ON MIGRATION, NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF

CATHOLIC BISHOPS; DONALD PAYNE, COUNCILMAN, NEWARK

MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL

OF CHURCHES; AND RABBI MARC H. TANENBAUM, DIRECTOR OF

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, AMERICAN JEWISH COMMITTEE

Bishop BEVILACQUA. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am Bishop Anthony J. Bevilacqua, Roman Catholic Bishop

of Pittsburgh. I am the chairman of the Committee on Migration of

the National Conference of Catholic Bishops and I am delighted to

appear today on behalf of the U.S. Catholic Conference to express

our enthusiastic and unequivocal support for H.R. 4853, the

Cuban/Haitian Act of 1984, as introduced by Judiciary Committee

Chairman Peter W. Rodino, Jr.

It is a distinct pleasure to have this opportunity to personally

thank all of you on this subcommittee who have had the courage

and vision to support this bill to end the suffering of the Haitian

and Cuban boat people.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4853 is a just, carefully crafted and longawaited solution to the plight of this limited group of Cuban and

Haitian refugees. Chairman Rodino's bill will grant permanent residence to approximately 125,000 Cuban and approximately 131,000

Haitian boat people who arrived during the comparable periods in

1980 and 1981.

These Cuban and Haitian refugees risked their lives to flee from

misery and repression. However, it is the unconscionable treatment

that they received on arrival and the still unfulfilled promises of

our Government to regularize their status that makes their situation unique. The vast majority of the Cubans from Mariel and the

comparable and smaller group of Haitian refugees have been repeatedly promised that their entrant status would be converted to

permanent residency through legislation.
47

We applaud the long-awaited regularization of status for Cuban

and Haitian entrants, but the true humanity and sophistication of

this bill is that it includes as beneficiaries a relatively small group

of additional refugees, those arriving subsequent to the entrant

program, but before January 1, 1982. The U.S. Catholic Conference

is committed to having this later group included, since in many

cases, they have suffered even more than the previous arrivals.

Of particular and perhaps even a primary concern to us is the

group of over 2,000 Haitian refugees who were detained for up to

18 months in isolated locations around our country as part of a detention program that is universally regretted.

Now is the time for us to find the human compassion to recognize the suffering of the Cuban and Haitian refugees who arrived

on our shores before 1982; recognize the equities that they have accumulated in our communities; and to finally grant them permanent residence here.

Mr. Chairman, it is essential that the subcommittee formally

confirm the comprehensive coverage of H.R. 4853 with regard to

two subgroups. Clearly this bill•the bill is intended to grant permanent residency to Cuban/Haitian entrants.

Subsection (c) of the bill, however, excludes from coverage nonimmigrants who are lawfully admitted to the United States and who

subsequently overstayed their visas while never having made application for political asylum in our country. Unfortunately, a rigid

application of subsection (c) could arguably undermine the spirit of

the bill.

A number of the entrants have previously been admitted to the

United States before 1980 and never applied for political asylum

because of the official assurances that their status would be regularized. A merely formalistic reading of subsection (c) unfairly

might make ineligible this group of entrants.

A second ambiguity in coverage of H.R. 4853 involves the eligibility of certain Haitians whose files were lost by the Immigration

Service. During the INS Haitian program, a significant number of

files were misplaced as Haitian refugees were transferred from

prison to isolated prison around the country. Clearly, coverage

under this legislation must be available to those Haitians whose

original records were lost or destroyed through no fault of their

own.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we enthusiastically support the

clear intent of this legislation to grant permanent residence on an

equal basis to these Cuban and Haitian boat people in order to implement past promises and to correct past injustices.

The time is now for the U.S. Congress to reaffirm this country's

commitment to remain a safe haven for the oppressed and we ask

that this bill be passed into law immediately.

[The prepared statement of Bishop Bevilacqua follows:]
48

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BISHOP ANTHONY J. BEVTLACO.UA, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE

ON MIGRATION, NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee:

I am Bishop Anthony J. Bevilacqua, Roman Catholic Bishop of

Pittsburgh. I am the Chairman of the Committee on Migration of

the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. I am delighted to

have this opportunity to appear before this Subcommittee on

behalf of the United States Catholic Conference to express our

enthusiastic and unequivocal support for H.R. 4853, commonly

called the Cuban/Haitian Adjustment Act of 1984, as Introduced by

Judiciary Committee Chairman Peter W. Rodino, Jr.

Mr. Chairman and other distinguished Members of the

Subcommittee, I am grateful for your consideration of and support

for this legislation. It is a distinct pleasure to have this

opportunity to personally thank all of those who have had the

courage and vision to support this bill to end the suffering of

the Haitian and Cuban boat people. I am particularly grateful to

Chairman Rodino for introducing this legislation, and to Chairman

Mazzoli, Chairman Pepper, Chairman Fascell, Chairman Barnes,

Representatives Fauntroy, Dlxon, and the other distinguished

Members of the Congressional Black Caucus, for their sustained

Page 1
49

leadership on this question.

For many years the United States Catholic Conference has

been actively involved in seeking substantive and procedural due

process of law for the Haitian, and later the Cuban, boat

people. We are grateful and proud that such a wide range of

nationally-known civil rights organizations have joined us during

the last several years in this effort, and we are pleased to

unite our voices crying for justice for these refugees again

today. It gives me particular personal pleasure to be joined

today by my colleagues Bayard Rustin and Michael Hooper, who have

worked tirelessly to end the tragic civil and human rights

plight, and the legal limbo, of the Haitian refugees through the

National Coalition for Haitian Refugees, on which I am also proud

to serve.

For many years the United States Catholic Conference has

participated with deep interest in the national debate about

immigration legislation. This reflects the Church's pastoral

concern for immigrants and refugees, both the documented and the

undocumented, whatever their origin, manner of entry, or present

status. It reflects the fact that, through its Office of

Migration and Refugee Services working in conjunction with its

diocesan counterparts, the United States Catholic Conference

conducts the nation's largest voluntary program of assistance to

immigrants and refugees. It reflects sensitivity to the ethnic

and nationality groups most directly affected by immigration

policy, notably including the large and growing Hispanic

Page 2
50

population of the United States. And it reflects concern for the

nation itself as a eorrmunity of diverse origins committed by its

history, its best values, and its own self-interest to liberty

and justice for all.

Soon after Chairman Rodino took the initiative to introduce

this essential legislation to grant permanent residence to a

well-defined group of deserving refugees, the General Secretary

of Uie United States Catholic Conference, Monsignor Daniel F.

Hoye, applauded the bill and pledged Conference support in

obtaining its passage. Monsignor Hoye stated that through this

bill:

"...the plight of our Haitian brothers and sisters who have

fled poverty and persecution, only to find imprisonment and

deprivation upon arrival in this country, will finally be

relieved. These good people are of special concern to the

Church which has sought for so long to relieve their misery

and to open the door to a life filled with hope rather than

despair."

Monsignor Hoye added:

"The thousands of Cubans who came to the U.S. during

the Mariel boat lift of 1980 have made a remarkable record

of adjustment since their entry. Despite this, they have

been deprived of any opportunity to obtain the benefits

accorded permanent resident aliens. Among such benefits is

the right to send for family members including spouses and

children from whom they have been separated for well over

three years. This legislation will make it possible for

families to be reunited, a cornerstone of our basic U.S.

immigration policy."

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4853 is a just, carefully-crafted, and

long-awaited solution to the plight of this limited group of

Cubans and Haitians. The United States Catholic Conference

congratulates Chairman Rodino on both the spirit and on the

technical substance of this legislation. The Cuban/Hai t ian

Page 3
51

Adjustment Aet of 1984 is not compromised by rigid legalisms or

narrow formalities, yet it restricts the benefits of this

legislation to the most meritorious Haitians and Cubans.

Chairman Rodino's legislation will grant permanent residence

to approximately 125,000 Cuban, and approximately 31,000 Haitian

boat people who arrived during the comparable periods in 1980 and

1981. These Cuban and Haitian refugees risked their lives to

flee from misery and repression to this country. However, it is

the unconscionable treatment that they received on arrival and

the still-unfulfilled promises of our government to regularize

their status that makes their situation unique. The vast

majority of the Cubans from Marlel and the comparable and smaller

group of Haitian refugees have been repeatedly promised that

their "entrant" status would be converted to permanent residency

through legislation.

While we applaud this long overdue regularization of the

status of the Haitian and Cuban "entrants," Chairman Rodino's

bill intends to include as beneficiaries a relatively small group

of additional refugees, and herein lies the real sophistication

and humanity of this bill. Without greatly increasing the number

of beneficiaries, this legislation eliminates the arbitrariness

and other limitations that a rigid application of the definition

of the term "entrant" would entail. The United States Catholic

Conference is absolutely committed to the proposition that the

small group of Cubans and Haitians who arrived subsequent to the

initial granting of "entrant" status should also be regularized,

Page 4
since they, in many cases, suffered far more than those who

happened to arrive in the United States before the formation of

this "entrant" status.

Of particular, and perhaps even of primary concern to the

United States Catholic Conference, is the group of over two

thousand Haitian refugees who were detained for up to 18 months

in isolated locations around the United States as part of a

detention program that was universally condemned and that is now

universally regretted. These Haitian boat people have been

subjected to repeated harsh and discriminatory treatment since

their arrival on our shores. Now is the time to find the courage

and compassion to recognize their suffering and the equities that

they have accumulated in our communities and grant them permanent

residence status. It is absolutely essential that the bill's

definition of eligible applicant be preserved as it is now

stated. This definition is not only equitable, but is also

clearly understood and easily applied. It is the clear intent of

the bill to include all those who fall within these conmonsense

parameters.

An exhaustive study* recently published by Florida

International University supported by a grant from the United

States Catholic Conference states, in part:

"This study reveals that the Haitians who are in South

Florida have the education, training, and skills to

• "Haitians Released From Krome: Their Prospects For Adaptation

And Integration In South Florida", Latin American and Caribbean

Center, Florida International University, Occasional Papers

Series Dialogues, #24, March 2, 1984, pp. 34, 35.

Page S
potentially contribute to American society. Moreover they

are firmly committed to remaining in the U.S. Only the

most dramatic changes in both political and economic

conditions might entice them to return to Haiti. Other

evidence further indicates that if they were to return to

Haiti they have a high likelihood of facing persecution by

Haitian officials. Because many of them left Haiti

illegally, Haitian officials interrogate them closely and

may imprison them upon return."

"The U.S. government, however, has had a consistent,

continuing policy of deterring Haitians from coming to or

remaining in the U.S. The imprisonment of Haitians in

Krome was part of this. For the Entrants, Congress has yet

to act upon President Carter's promise to provide a

permanent immigration status to the Cubans and Haitians who

arrived in 1980. Most of the Krome Haitians are still

having their applications to remain in the U.S. adjudicated

by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). The

uncertainty of their status has undeniably impeded their

adaptation and integration. In many cases the impediment

is direct--employers refuse to hire them. In most cases it

is less direct --psycho logica1 and emotional stress for the

individual. They cannot return to their homeland to see

their wives or husbands or children left behind. Also,

because they have no permanent immigration status in the

U.S., the INS will not allow them to re-enter the U.S."

"Provision of permanent immigration status would

protect them from abuse in Haiti and greatly help the

Haitians' efforts to adapt to and integrate into U.S.

soc i ety."

This study concludes:

"Permanent resident status for Krome Haitians and

Haitian Entrants should be provided by the U.S. Congress.

Returning Haitians to Haiti would likely subject them to

persecution by Haitian officials. Moreover, permanent

resident status would assist in the adaptation of Haitians

by alleviating the psychological uncertainty they currently

face, promoting family development and bringing many

Haitians out from the underground. Moreover, if a large

population exists which is afraid of the law because of

their uncertain legal status, then enforcing the law,

including labor law, becomes more difficult. It would

further deter others from exploiting Haitians because of

their uncertain legal status. Congressman Rodino with

support from Greater Miami United along with the National

Coalition for Haitian Refugees, the Congressional Black

Caucus and others has recently proposed legislation which

would legalize the status of both the Krome and Entrant

Haitians. Passage of this legislation would significantly

aid the Haitians in their efforts to adapt to and integrate

into U.S. soc iety."

Page 6
54

Finally, Mr. Chairman, it is essential that this

Subcommittee clarify all potential ambiguities that could arise

in the application of this proposed legislation. I ask that your

Subcommittee formally confirm the clear intent of this

legislation in its application to include as eligible to apply

two distinct sub-groups of Cubans and Haitians whose numbers are

small, but who simply must be included in the coverage of this

legislation for reasons of justice, humanity and administrative

simplici ty.

The clear purpose of this bill is that persons who received

the immigration designation of "Cuban-Haitian entrant (status

pending)" are to receive permanent residence along with other

Cubans and Haitians (subsection (b)(1)). Similarly, the intent

of subsection (c) is to exclude from coverage nonimmigrants who

were lawfully admitted to the United States and who subsequently

overstayed their visas while never making application for

political asylum in the United States. Unfortunately, a rigid

application of subsection (c) could arguably undermine the clearon-its-face spirit of this bill. A number of those persons

officially designated by the Carter Administration as "entrants"

had previously been admitted to the United States as

nonimmigrants before 1980 and never applied for political asylum

because of the official assurances of status that they had

received. A merely formalistic reading of subsection (c) could

be seen to support the position that these "entrants" could not

be adjusted under II.R. 48S3.

Page 7
55

This clearly unintended result can be avoided by reaffirming

the initial intent of this legislation that the class to be the

recipients of permanent residence status under this legislation

include all "entrants". This can be done by adding one clause to

subsection (c) which would then read:

"The benefits provided by subsection (a) shall not apply to

an alien who was admitted to the United States as a

nonimmigrant, unless the alien has filed an application for

asylum with, or was accorded Cuban-Haitian entrant (status

pending) by the Immigration and Naturalization Service

before January 1, 1982 (addition underlined)."

The second potential ambiguity in coverage in H.R. 4853

involves the small group of Haitians who would have clearly been

beneficiaries of this legislation if their files had not been

lost or misplaced by the Immigration and Naturalization

Service. The Act does provide benefits to all otherwise eligible

Cubans and Haitians "...with respect to whom any record was

established by the Immigration and Naturalization Service before

January 1, 1982 (emphasis added)." However, during the

Immigration and Naturalization Service's "Haitian Program," a

significant number of files were misplaced as Haitian refugees

were transferred from prison to isolated prison around the

country. Clearly, coverage under this legislat ion must be

available to those Haitians whose original records were destroyed

or lost, for whom other evidence of eligibility exists.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we enthusiastically support the

clear intent of this legislation to grant permanent residence on

an equal basis to these Cuban and Haitian refugee boat people in

Page 8
order to implement past promises and to correct past

injustices. We thank all of you who have encouraged and

supported this legislation for your humanity and sense of

justice. The bill that we have before us today is the just,

carefully-crafted, and long-overdue solution to the

unconscionable plight of a relatively small group of Cubans and

Haitians. The time is now for the United States Congress to

reaffirm this country's commitment to remain a safe haven for the

oppressed, and we ask that this bill be passed into law

immediately.

Page 9
57

Mr. MAZZOLI. Thank you, Bishop.

Councilman Donald Payne is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Donald

Payne and I am representing Bishop Philip Cousin, president of the

National Council of Churches and I am presenting his statement.

Bishop Cousin sends his sincerest regret that he was unavoidably

detained today. I would ask that his statement be included in the

hearing record.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Without objection.

Mr. PAYNK. For further introduction, Mr. Chairman, I am a

member of the Newark Municipal Council. I have known and

worked with the Church World Service and its parent body, the

National Council of Churches for a number of years through my

position as a board member of the International Division of the

YMCA, which is also a member of the Church World Service.

I have also had the privilege for the past 12 years to serve as a

member of the World Alliance of YMCA's Committee on Refugee

and Rehabilitation, out of Geneva, Switzerland, and serve as its immediate past chairman.

Church World Service and its 31-member denominations are

strongly supportive of H.R. 4853, the Honorable Chairman Rodino's

Cuban/Haitian adjustment bill. We support it strongly.

I was going to say that as a member of the 10th Congressional

District of New Jersey, Congressman Rodino is my Congressman

and I feel privileged to be before this committee supporting his legislation.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Mr. Payne, I say parenthetically, he is a Congressman to many of us who don't live in the 10th District of New

Jersey as well.

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you.

It is really unfortunate that this legislation is even necessary at

this time. It rights wrongs which should have been addressed a

long time ago. This bill is important for a number of reasons, as

you will see in Bishop's statement•Bishop Cousin's statement, and

points out the following: First, it provides long-awaited permanent

residence to Cubans and Haitians who find themselves currently in

a legal limbo.

We in the church circles call it an immigration purgatory. The

Cubans and Haitians covered by Chairman Rodino's bill have done

well. We have many Cubans and Haitians in Newark and we are

very proud of their accomplishments and achievements. They are

very proud people and they are certainly a positive influence in

our community.

With all due respect to the members from Florida and elsewhere,

we in Newark like to think of this as our bill, benefiting our residents in Newark and East Orange, which is another community

which borders on us and has a tremendous number of Haitians.

We feel it appropriate and desirable that the Cubans and Haitians in Newark and elsewhere receive permanent residence. We

want them not only to have the opportunity to be contributing

members of our communities, which they already are, but we also

want them to be on track to becoming good citizens some day.

Second, this bill is also extremely important for its inclusion of

those who entered the United States after the so-called 1980
58

Cuban/Haitian entrant program. We think it absolutely essential

that this class be included in this legislation and I commend Chairman Rodino for doing so.

There are few more shameful episodes in our immigration history than the treatment given Haitians in 1981 and 1982. As you

know better than me, they were thrown into our jails for a year

and a half, were run through mass proceedings without legal counsel in closed-door, so-called kangaroo courts, and it is high time we

set the record straight with H.R. 4853.

We have a lot of Haitians in Newark and this provision is extremely important to them and the rest of us in the city.

The third and final point is that I would just like to strongly

urge this committee to report this bill out favorably and quickly. I

am told that it is perhaps the intention of those concerned to offer

this bill as an amendment to H.R. 1510 if necessary.

This would be appropriate, in our view, as it would provide for

an adjustment, rather than legalization for this group. As Bishop

Cousin's statement indicates, we are dealing with a class whose

members are already known to the Immigration Service and whose

equities in the system are well known. Their adjustment can and

should be made to take effect as of January 1, 1982.

Again, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to appear

before the subcommittee in support of H.R. 4853. The subcommittee is to be commended for taking the time to consider this very

important issue.

Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Bishop Cousin follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BISHOP PHILIP R. COUSIN, PRESIDENT. NATIONAL COUNCIL OP

CHURCHES OF CHRIST IN THE U.S.A.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have the opportunity to testify in support of Chairman Peter Rodino's bill (H.R. 4853) to adjust the status of certain Cubans and Haitians to permanent residence. As you know, the National Council of Churches of

Christ, of which I am President, and its 31 member national Protestant communions, have over the years maintained a considerable ministry to Cubans and Haitians seeking haven in this country. Our work with and on behalf of these refugees

primarily has been conducted through out relief, development, and immigration

arm, Church World Service. Our ministry includes sponsorship, pastoral care, legal

aid, and advocacy for due process and justice for these refugees. Chairman Rodino's

bill is long-awaited relief for all of us, especially the Cubans and Haitians who have

suffered so much.

OVERVIEW OF PROTESTANT CHURCH INVOLVEMENT

Church World Service (CWS) of the National Council of Churches has over the

years sponsored some 65,000 Cuban and Haitian refugees. As the bulk of these refugees entered the United States through South Florida, CWS has maintained an

office in Miami since the early 1960s. This office continues to this day to provide

assistance to refugees in that area, and sponsors those few Haitians, Cubans, and

•ti,,. nationalities being released from the INS Krome North detention facility.

i ne record of this country in responding to the Cuban influx of the 1960s is truly

remarkable. Our churches in New York, Chicago, Miami, and other parts of the

country offered in large scale sponsorship and support for the Cubans entering the

country, contributing to the now-celebrated success of the Cuban community in this

country. To this day, we can walk through major cities in America and point to

thriving business establishment which were begun with support from churches and

made to succeed with Cuban determination.

In that decade was passed the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966. We strongly supported that legislation•just as we have similar legislation pertaining to other refu-
gee groups•as we felt it an important step in permitting the Cubans to become

fully part of the American policy and on the track toward citizenship.

The decade of the 1970s was a different story. In late 1972, the first boat of refugees from Haiti arrived on our shores. An editorial in The Miami News of December

12, 1972, proved to be hauntingly prophetic when it stated:

"A moment of truth has arrived for our local immigration officials who so casually go about their almost daily task of processing Cuban citizens landing in South

Florida after having escaped the Castro regime. Should the procedure be any different for the dark-skinned Haitians?"

Certainly, discrimination has been a theme consistently raised by critics of our

government's response over the past dozen years to the Haitian boat people. It was

first our Black churches which raised this accusation, and it was further cited officially in a resolution passed by the Governing Board of the National Council of

Churches of Christ in February 1974.

Additionally, arguments noting the discriminatory treatment of the Haitians have

made up an important part of the legal suits filed on behalf of the Haitians. Indeed,

financial and other support from our churches for such cases as Louis v. Nelson was

considerable.

It is undeniable, for example, that until the last year there has been no other national group to suffer such prolonged detention. In the 1970s, Haitians were held in

county prisons for months on end. And in the 1980s, the so-called "Spellman class"

was held in detention for a year and a half until Federal Judge Eugene Spellman

ordered their release.

Further, the denial of such due process rights as access to legal counsel, notification of the right to apply for asylum, and more was for many years commonplace

when it came to the Haitians. As early as 1974, The Miami Herald (3/15/74) decried

what the newspaper termed the INS "20-minute interview" of Haitian asylum applicants, in which The Herald noted that no attorney was present, there were no hearings conducted before immigration judges, no opportunity existed to present witnesses, and there was no chance to present documentation of persecution. These

practices were continually challenged by our churches.

In November 1977, the National Council of Churches of Christ was unsuccessful

in reaching an agreement with the Immigration and Naturalization Service which

temporarily ameliorated many of these conditions. The INS agreed to release Haitians from detention and to grant them work authorization. The INS altered its procedures so as to permit Haitian hearings before an immigration judge. This agreement came at a time in which court battle against the INS on these matters had

reached the U.S. Supreme Court. However, by the summer of 1978, the Service revoked employment authorization for Haitians and began hurried deportation proceedings. This led the following summer, on July 23, to a decision by Federal Judge

King in Miami to issue a temporary restraining order against further deportations

of Haitian asylum seekers. His decision was followed a few days later by a preliminary injunction by Federal Judge Hoevela, also of Miami, against the revocation of

work permits.

The basis for church concern for the Haitians was a belief that their claims for

asylum were generally legitimate and nonfrivolous. In fact, the National Council of

Churches of Christ, and its Church World Service department, in 1974 and 1975 engaged in an exercise of collecting from 300 detained Haitians in the United States

affidavits which substantiate this belief. The affidavits note political imprisonment

in Haiti, torture, and maltreatment by the "Ton Ton Macoutes" and other government authorities.

The human rights problems in Haiti have been well chronicled since the accession

to power of Francois "Papa Doc" Duvalier in 1957, and persisting to date under his

son, President-for-life "Baby Doc" Duvalier. As early as 1962, President John F.

Kennedy recognized this, and suspended aid to that country until Haiti holds legitimate and free elections, curtails the Ton Ton Macoutes, and discloses fully the uses

by the government of U.S. Government assistance. Assistance to Haiti was then resumed in 1964.

Since that time, a number of groups, including Amnesty International, the Lawyers Committee for International Human Rights, and others, have been consistent

reporters of the Human rights problems in Haiti. Numerous delegation visits to that

country, including one most recently by representatives of the Congressional Black

Caucus, have highlighted some of the human rights problems there. These actions

led to such important court cases as Jean v. Meisner and, later, Louis v. Nelson.

As the Subcommittee is well aware, the decade of the 1980s has been a problematic one in the area of first asylum, beginning with the Cuban-Haitian "Mariel" boat

lift of 1980. Members of the Subcommittee•in particualr those from Florida•know
60

well the problems Florida, as well as the nation, faced in that year. All of us, the

churches included, were not adequately prepared to meet the need for emergency

food, clothing, shelter, and other services which the boat lift demanded. The problems which the Cubans and Haitians faced on top of the trauma of their journeys on

the high seas were ones no human being should have to endure.

However, the problems which these refugees encountered did not encompass only

shortcomings in service delivery. The classification of the 1980 arrivals as "entrants" placed these individuals in a kind of immigration purgatory, what the press

has widely termed a "legal limbo." This has meant that for four years now, these

persons have found it much more difficult than other legal residents or legally-recognized refugees to obtain jobs and to integrate into U.S. communities, and they

have also been unable to pursue permanent residence and citizenship.

Mr. Rodino's bill rightly rectifies this injustice.

Those who came in 1981 bring additional equities and merits to bear. They arrived by identical means as their compatriots who came the previous year, i.e., by

boat going primarily to South Florida. However, rather than receive entrant status,

many were imprisoned and deported.

It became apparent by the spring of 1981 that the INS had implemented a new

policy with respect to the Haitians of detaining them while they applied for asylum.

As the Krome North detention camp outside Miami filled to capacity, the INS

began using other Service facilities and federal prisons to hold the Haitians, generally in remote areas away from legal counsel and immigration judges. By the end of

1981, 2000 Haitians were held in New York, West Virginia, Texas, Louisiana, Kentucky, Puerto Rico, and, of course, Florida.

Concerned about their plight, religious and other groups began meeting to consider their situation. What emerged in March 1982, was the National Emergency Coalition for Haitian Refugees, of which we are a founding member. While maintaining

our interest in ensuring general due process for the detained Haitians, our primary

focus•and that of the Coalition•became one of gaining release for the Haitians.

Finally, in the summer of 1982, Judge Eugene Spellmen ordered the Haitians released from detention while they pursued their asylum claims.

Voluntary agencies, including Church World Service, cooperated with the court in

the release program. The Haitians were placed with sponsors in areas in which, for

the most part, they could receive competent legal counsel and in which there existed a Haitian community.

The trauma which this population faced did not end with their release from eighteen-months imprisonment. They and their sponsors faced the difficult task of locating employment, with employers reticent to hire Haitians given their tenuous immigration status. Also, the imminent possibility of deportation to Haiti left many of

the Haitians in a state of uncertainty. Indeed, a few from among the Spellman class

have been deported.

THE NECESSITY OF THE ROOINO BILL

Chairman Rodino's bill is essential for a number of reasons.

First, it appropriately ends the ad hoc "entrant" status in favor ofpermanent residence.•For the past four years, these Cubans and Haitians have had stamped to

their 1-94 entry document "Cuban-Haitian Entrant (Status Pending)." The pending" designation remains as a reminder that then-President Jimmy Carter, whose

administration coined the term "entrant," promised these refugees that their status

would soon be adjusted to permanent residence.

Thus, H.R. 4853 represents a promise fulfilled for those entrants who, as described

in paragraph (aX2), are "otherwise eligible to receive an immigrant visa" with the

relevant exclusions of the law applicable.

Second, the bill recognizes the necessity of encompassing those Haitians and

Cubans who arrived after the entrants program, but before January 1, 1988.•The

conditions which this class of individuals faced are unprecedented and we cannot

adequately underscore how absolutely critical it is that this legislation covers the

class.

The treatment which these individuals received was briefly described above. They

arrived, just as their compatriots in 1980, seeking asylum in the United States.

However, unlike the 1980 entrants, they were imprisoned for a year and a half.

Almost every member of this subcommittee had Haitians incarcerated in his state.

Federal courts have found their detention unlawful and discriminatory.

Some among the class were shipped back to Haiti after hurried, back room mass

hearings, without benefit of counsel, in what the press appropriately dubbed "kangaroo courts." Again, the courts had to put a halt to this practice.
61

These are but a few of the merits and equities which pertain to this class. We

commend Chairman Rodino for recognising them. As a result, again, we support as

absolutely essential the inclusion in this legislation of Cubans and Haitians up to

January 1, 1982.

Third, the bill provides for an "adjustment" rather than a "legalization."•This

difference here, in our view, is not mere semantics.

The individuals which this legislation encompasses came here, we would argue,

seeking asylum, a legitimate basis for entry into the United States. This Subcommittee is on record, as of last year, with respect to the Cuban-Haitian entrants, agreeing that their entry was legal. So, in that sense a "relegalization" or annesty is not

appropriate.

Furthermore, this population has records with and is known to the Immigration

and Naturalization Service. In this sense, H.R. 4853 is not a legitimation of the presence of an unknown population. Unlike the population which would benefit from a

legalization, the INS already has the records for this class documenting their continuous residence, their admissibility or inadmissibility, and more.

Finally, an adjustment of this sort appropriately confers benefits different from

the beneficiaries of a legalization, whose legal presence in the United States would

begin only upon legalization.

Primary among these is that the adjustment program in H.R. 4853 establishes the

record of permanent residence as of January 1, 1982, rather than as of the date of

application. We commend Chairman Rodino for including this provision in his bill.

Such a provision recognizes that the beneficiaries of the bill are known to the INS

to have been continuously resident since 1980 and 1981. It does not inordinately

delay the ability of the class members to gain permanent residence and to be on the

track toward citizenship.

Finally, the bill is desirable for not closing the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966.•

Appropriately, the Rodino bill is a measure to benefit a specific class over a specific

time frame. The Cuban Adjustment Act, on the other hand, is law designed to deal

with the potentially ongoing situation of arrivals in the U.S. from Cuba, and therefore should be retained. Granted, the Adjustment Act itself could use some adjustments, but the basic law we believe should remain intact.

Mr. Chairman, I want again to convey to the Subcommittee the strong support

which H.R. 4853 has received from Protestant Churches across the country. We

stand fully behind the bill, and urge the subcommittee to report it favorably and

soon.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Thank you, Councilman Payne.

Now, Rabbi Tanenbaum.

Rabbi TANENBAUM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and other distinguished members of the subcommittee for inviting the views of the

American Jewish Committee on H.R. 4853, the Cuban/Haitian Adjustment Act of 1984.

My name is Rabbi Marc H. Tanenbaum. I am the director of

international relations for the American Jewish Committee. It is a

privilege to appear before you today to express my strongest support for the Cuban/Haitian Adjustment Act of 1984, as introduced

by Judiciary Chairman Peter Rodino.

The American Jewish Committee has long advocated the necessity of granting permanent residence to the limited group of Haitian

and Cuban boat people defined in Chairman Rodino's bill, and at

our annual meeting in New York last year, we adopted a strongly

worded resolution urging the early passage of this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, American Jewish organizations, the American

Jewish people in this society, are particularly sensitive to and concerned with the plight of refugees stranded without a homeland.

The Jewish people know only too well the human consequences of

policies of indefinite detention and the interdiction of boats in

international waters.

In 1939, just prior to the Second World War, oppressed Jews

from Germany also took to the sea in search of refuge and were

36-483 0-84-5
62

denied entry to the United States. That indifference to human suffering resulted in the death of thousands and became a moral

blotch on the escutcheon of liberty of this great democracy.

The American Jewish Committee has, for the last 3 years, placed

a very high priority on finding a just and equitable solution that

would end the horrible dilemma and suffering experienced by the

Haitian refugee boat people. We have actively been involved in the

defense of the fundamental legal and human rights of these Haitians since the first boatload of fearful refugees landed in southern

Florida in 1972.

We applaud the efforts of Chairman Rodino and other cosponsors

of this long-awaited legislation, both because of its comprehensive

coverage and because of its humane spirit and formed by respect

for the fundamental principles of equal treatment before the law.

We are convinced that no lesser coverage would rectify the continuing tragedy of these boat people and we congratulate the bill's

sponsors for their precise wording of these provisions.

The American Jewish Committee is particularly supportive of

the legislation, precisely because its comprehensive class definition

provides for Cubans and Haitians who entered our country before

1982. This coverage is not restricted solely to the regularization of

narrower Cuban/Haitian entering class of refugees. It is essential

to fully correct the discriminatory treatment that all the refugees

have thus far received.

In addition to endorsing the spirit of fundamental fairness and

humanitarian concern in this legislation, the American Jewish

Committee agrees with its provisions as absolutely essential to

grant permanent residency to both entrants and to persons with respect to whom any record was established by the Immigration

Service before January 1, 1982.

A more restrictive class definition will simply not correct the injustices suffered by the Haitian boat people.

Mr. Chairman, we are proud of our association with the cause of

the Haitian and Cuban boat people and we are pleased to state our

unequivocal support for this legislation. However, we are particularly concerned that it must be as comprehensive as possible in the

breadth of its coverage.

Mr. Chairman, we affirm these views, not as a matter of charity

or being nice to these unfortunate victims of injustice. We do so because in an issue such as this, the quality of the soul of our great

Republic is at stake.

Thank you again for this welcome opportunity to appear and express the views of my organization on this issue of great concern to

all of those who wish justice to prevail in our treatment of refugees

from all parts of the world.

[The prepared statement of Rabbi Tanenbaum follows:]
63

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RABBI MARC H. TANENBAUM, DIRECTOR OF INTERNATIONAL

RELATIONS, AMERICAN JEWISH COMMITTEE

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and other distinguished Members

of the Subcommittee for inviting the views of the American

Jewish .Committee on H.R. 4853, the Cuban-Haitian Adjustment

Act of 1984. My name is Rabbi Marc H. Tanenbaum and I am the

Director of International Relations for the American Jewish

Committee. I am honored to appear before you today to express

my strongest support for the Cuban-Haitian Adjustment Act of

1984 as introduced by Judiciary Committee Chairman Peter Rodino.

The A.J.C. has long advocated the necessity of granting permanent

residence to the limited group of Haitian and Cuban boat people

defined in Chairman Rodino's bill, and at our annual meeting in

New York last week we adopted a strongly worded resolution urging

the early passage of this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, American Jewish organizations are particularly

sensitive to and concerned with the plight of refugees stranded

without a homeland. The Jewish people know only too well the

human consequences of policies of indefinite detention, and the

interdiction of boats in international waters. In 1939, just

prior to the Second World War, oppressed Jews from Germany also

took to the sea in search of refuge and were denied entry to

the United States. That callousness to human suffering resulted

in the death of thousands, and became a moral blotch on the

escutcheon of liberty of this great democracy.

The A.J.C. has for the last three years placed a very high

priority, on finding a just and equitable solution that would end

the horrible dilemma and suffering experienced by the Haitian

refugee boat people. We have actively been involved in the

defense of the fundamental legal and human rights of these

Haitians since the first boatload of fearful refugees landed in
64

southern Florida in 1972. Ke applaud the efforts of Chairman

Rodino and the other co-sponsors of this long-awaited legislation

both because of its comprehensive coverage and because of its

humane spirit informed by respect for fundamental principles of

equal treatment before the law. In a recent letter complimenting

Chairman Rodino for his leadership on this issue of fundamental

importance to the A.J.C., we wrote:

"The unique plight and legal limbo of this restricted

number of tefugees can only be satisfactorily resolved

through a grant of permanent resident status as you

propose. The American Jewish Committee stronly agrees

that fundamental principles of justice and humanity

demand that both the Cuban refugees from Mariel and

the far smaller group of Haitian refugees who arrived

slightly later must have their legal status regularized not only because of the tragic nature of their

plight and the treatment they have received but also

because they have been repeatedly linked with the

Cuban-Haitain "entrant" program of the Carter Administration. The great majority of the class of Cubans

and Haitians who would benefit from the Rodino legislation long ago have been granted a temporary "entrant"

status and a promise of legal residence."

In the same letter commending Chairman Rodino for his

initiative, we emphasized the crucial importance of the specific

provisions of the Cuban-Haitian Adjustment Act. We are convinced

that no lesser coverage would rectify the continuing tragedy

of these boat people, and we congratulate the bill's sponsors

for their precise wording of these provisions.

The A.J.C. is particularly supportive of the legislation

precisely because its comprehensive class definition provides

for Cubans and Haitians who entered our country before 1982.

This coverage is not restricted solely to the regularization

of the narrower Cuban-Haitian "entrant" class of refuaees. It

is essential to fully correct the discriminatory treatment that
65

all the refugees have thus far received. In addition to

endorsing the spirit of fundamental fairness and humanitarian

concern'*in this legislation, the A.J.C. agrees with its provisions as absolutely essential to grant permanent residency

to both (1) "entrants" and (2) persons with respect to whom

any record was established by the Immigration Service before

January 1, 1982. A more restricted class definition will simply

not correct the injustices suffered by the Haitian boat people.

Mr. Chairman, we are proud of our association with the

cause of the Haitian and Cuban boat people and we are delighted

to state our unequivoca.1 support for this legislation. However,

we are particularly concerned that it must be as comprehensive

as possible in the breadth of its coverage.

Mr. Chairman, we affirm these views not as a matter of

charity, of being "nice" to these unfortunate victims of

injustice, we do so because the quality of the soul of our

great republic is at stake.

Thank you again for this welcome opportunity to appear

and express the views of the American Jewish Committee on

this issue of great concern to all those who wish justice to

prevail in our treatment of refugees from all parts of the world.
Mr. MAZZOLI. Thank you, Rabbi, and let me salute all three of

you. Each one was well within the 5 minutes and I salute you. I

know•I personally know how hard it is to compress and condense

a statement to 5 minutes in length. It is extremely more difficult

than to prepare a long speech, so let me thank you for that.

Let me yield to my chairman for any questions or observations

he would have.

Mr. RODINO. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am going

to take the time of the committee except to commend all these gentlemen and the organizations they represent. They have really responded to the plight of these people and have eloquently stated

the cause. I don t think that there are any questions that I might

ask that would enlighten us any more than the very, very fine

statements that have been and will be made in support of the legislation.

Mr. MAZZOLI. They are very eloquent.

My friend from Michigan is recognized for a statement or questions.

Mr. CROCKETT. NO questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Thank you.

Well, I think you gentlemen have seen from my two panelists

here that you have answered the questions in advance. Let me just

perhaps ask one quick question of anyone who would care to respond•or all of you•and that is about the second part of the bill

which doesn't deal with regularization of the Cuban/Haitians who

come to the country, but deals with the question of issuance of

visas to Cubans who are currently in Cuba, but aren't in that class

of close relatives which are now being cleared by the State Department.

Have any of your organizations taken a stand on that?

Councilman Payne?

Mr. PAYNE. The position of Church World Services is that they

are in favor of visas to be issued. I think that any kind of liberalization of current standards to allow the country to once again be

the place where we send people who are striving for democracy

would be provided with visas.

Mr. MAZZOLI. I would assume from that answer, too, though, that

this phase doesn't rise to the same magnitude of intensity and importance as the first phase. Is that a fair statement?

Mr. PAYNE. That is right.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Bishop Bevilacqua.

Bishop BEVILACQUA. I think I would have to go along with that,

also, that they be treated equally like any other country. It isn't

the part of the bill that rouses the compassion that the other

would.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Thank you.

Rabbi, please.

Rabbi TANENBAUM. We have not taken a formal position, but I

know the sense of our leadership would support every possible act

that would make possible the reunification of families. Anyone who

has had any experience in oppressive societies, restrictive societies,

feels a profound sense of obligation to open up every conceivable

human opportunity for people to achieve freedom; to achieve
67

human dignity by reconciliation with their families and to live in

an atmosphere of democracy. We would certainly support that.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Thank you very much and thank you, again, all

the panels.

We will now take a break until about 11 and we will have to

take part in our Democratic caucus.

We stand in recess until 11.

[Recess.]

Mr. MAZZOLI. The subcommittee will come to order.

Because of changes in part dictated upon us, we have altered our

hearing list. We now ask to come forward Mr. Norman Hill of the

A. Philip Randolph Institute; Mr. Jay Mazur, secretary-treasurer,

of the International Ladies Garment Workers, AFL-CIO; Mr. Michael S. Hooper, executive director, National Coalition for Haitian

Refugees; and Mr. Eduardo Padron, cochair of the Greater Miami

United.

Most of you were in the room this morning and heard that we

are operating with a very limited time, so if you could, we would

appreciate your compressing your statements to 5 minutes each

and any written statements are now made a part of the record.

Mr. Hill, you are recognized.

TESTIMONY OF NORMAN HILL, PRESIDENT, A. PHILIP RANDOLPH INSTITUTE; JAY MAZUR, SECRETARY-TREASURER,

INTERNATIONAL LADIES GARMENT WORKERS UNION, AFL-CIO;

MICHAEL S. HOOPER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL COALITION FOR HAITIAN REFUGEES; AND EDUARDO PADRON, COCHAIRMAN, GREATER MIAMI UNITED

Mr. HILL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am here on behalf of

Bayard Rustin, the national chairman of the Randolph Institute. I

am president of the A. Philip Randolph Institute. He sends his regrets because a sudden illness which we hope will be of short duration prevented him from being here.

Mr. MAZZOLI. I am sorry. We admire him very much and hope

that it is short.

Mr. HILL. He very much wanted to be here and expresses his regrets. I will now read his statement.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Thank you.

Mr. HILL. Thank you, Mr. chairman, Representative Fish and the

other members of the Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and

International Law for holding these hearings to consider the

Cuban/Haitian Adjustment Act of 1984, H.R. 4853, introduced by

Judiciary Committee Chairman Peter Rodino.

This legislation is the long-overdue civil rights remedy to the

tragic plight of Cubans and Haitians who have come to our shores

seeking safety and have already waited too long for an equal

chance in our society.

My name is Bayard Rustin and I am chairman of the A. Philip

Randolph Institute. The A. Philip Randolph Institute's 160 chapters nationwide today remain committed to the principles espoused

by our founder, A. Philip Randolph, including a commitment to political democracy for all people, whether in the United States or

abroad.
68

I know that A. Philip Randolph would have enthusiastically endorsed our efforts to place the concern for refugees high on the

civil rights agenda. My own involvement in civil rights and refugee

affairs spans over 40 years, beginning with my active involvement

in the effort to protect the fundamental rights of Japanese Americans who were interned during World War II.

I am sad for our country when I am reminded of the parallels

between this shameful episode and the recent long-term detention

of the Haitian refugee boat people. It is from this long commitment

to justice that in March 1982,1 joined with over 40 colleagues from

prominent national civil rights, religious, labor, and human rights

organizations to respond to the intolerable detention of Haitian refugee boat people by forming a National Coalition for Haitian Refugees with the specific aim of ending this dreadful mistreatment

and furthering the public consideration of legal status for the Haitian refugees.

I am proud to be joined on this panel today by Michael Hooper,

the executive director of this organization. We remain committed

to the goals of justice and equal protection for the Haitian refugees

and I am delighted to have this opportunity today to personally

thank Judiciary Committee Chairman Peter Rodino for having the

courage and vision to continue to play a leadership role in the

effort to correct the intolerable plight of the Cuban and Haitian

boat people through the introduction of the Cuban/Haitian Adjustment Act of 1984.

In gratitude to Chairman Rodino, and with heartfelt thanks, we

strongly support this legislation. I also want to thank you, Chairman Mazzoli, and the other subcommittee members who have already joined Chairman Rodino as cosponsors of this essential legislation.

The Haitian refugee boat people are the first numerically significant group of black refugees ever to seek safety on our shores from

brutal repression and degrading economic chaos. Our treatment of

this group of boat people is, technology, significant as a test of the

fairness and equal application of our refugee laws to peoples from

all nations who no longer are allowed full participation in their

own societies.

Our treatment of the Haitian refugees is to test our Nation's will

to carry out the much-applauded reforms contained in the Refugee

Act of 1980, its attempt to evenhandedly provide uniform criteria

to discern who shall obtain safe haven in our country.

Our treatment of this group of black boat people has provided

our Nation a test, and it is a test that thus far we have sadly not

met.

From the first boatload of Haitian refugees who landed in southern Florida in 1972, the Immigration Service has speeded the rejection of Haitian claims for political asylum and hastened their deportation back to Haiti, often at overwhelming social cost and

untold suffering. Wholesale violations of civil rights have occurred

in the process.

In 1980, a Federal judge in Miami found the INS treatment of

the Haitian refugees so repugnant that he ordered a stop to their

proceedings and retrials for over 4,000 Haitian plaintiffs. But this

unprecedented mistreatment did not stop.
69

In fact, with the illegal detention program promulgated in 1981,

the singling out of the Haitian refugees for particular abuse escalated. It took a court order handed down over a year later to release almost 2,000 Haitians who were imprisoned pursuant to this

detention program.

This unprecedented treatment meted out to these black boat

people is a civil rights light for our country, that can only be satisfactorily remedied by granting permanent residency to these

people who have been so maltreated.

Chairman Rodino's Cuban/Haitian Adjustment Act would do just

that. Chairman Rodino's bill is simple, limited and fair. H.R. 4853

would grant permanent residence to Cubans and Haitians who arrived in our country before January 1, 1982, and for whom any

record was established with the Immigration Service before that

date.

This comprehensive coverage is the very reason that Chairman

Rodino's bill has received the wholehearted support of every major

civil rights organization in the country aware of the plight of

Cuban and Haitian refugees.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Mr. Hill, I am sorry, could you summarize, perhaps, the remainder of Mr. Rustin's statement.

Mr. HILL. We feel that not only is the bill timely; it is right, just

and fair. It refers to a specific group which unfairly has been let

down and promises to rectify a longstanding injustice.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rustin follows:]
70

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BAYARD RUSTIN, CHAIRMAN, A. PHIUP RANDOLPH INSTITUTE

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Representative Fish and the other

Members of the Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and International .Law, for holding these hearings to consider the CubanHaitian Adjustment Act of 1984, H.R. 4853, introduced by

Judiciary Committee Chairman Peter Rodino. This legislation

is the long overdue civil rights remedy to the tragic plight

of Cubans and Haitians who have come to our shores seeking

safety and have already waited for far too long for an equal

chance in our society.

My name is Bayard Rustin, and I am the Chaiman of the A.

Philip Randolph Institute. The A.P.R.I., as many of you know,

was established almost twenty years ago following the passage

of the civil rights legislation of the 1960s which had such a

significant impact on the ability of the black community in

our country to realize in their own lives the American ideal

of political freedom and economic justice for all people.

Today, our 160 chapters around the country remain dedicated

to the principles espoused by our founder, A. Philip Randolph,

including a commitment to political democracy for all people

whether in the United States or abroad. I know that A. Philip

Randolph would have enthusiastically endorsed our efforts to

place the concern of refugees high on the civil rights agenda.

My own involvement in civil rights and refugee affairs

spans over forty years, beginning with my active involvement in

the effort to protect the fundamental rights of Japanese-Americans

who were interned during World War II. I am sad for our country

when I am reminded of the parallels between this shameful episode

and the recent long-term detention of the Haitian refugee boat
71

people. Today, as an International Vice President of the

International Rescue Committee, I am devoting an ever-increasing

amount of time and energy to safeguarding the basic rights and

freedoms of refugees here and abroad.

It is from this commitment that in March of 1982 I joined

with over forty colleagues from prominent national civil rights,

religious, labor and human rights organizations to respond to

the intolerable detention of Haitian refugee boat people by

forming the National Coalition for Haitian Refugees, with the

specific aim of ending this dreadful mistreatment, and furthering

the public consideration of legal status for the Haitian refugees.

I am proud to be joined on this panel today by Michael S. Hooper,

the Executive Director of this organization.

We remain committed to the goals of justice and equal protection under law for the Haitian boat people, and I am delighted

to have this opportunity today to personally thank Judiciary

Committee Chairman Peter Rodino for having the courage and vision

to continue to play a leadership role in the effort to correct

the intolerable plight of the Cuban and Haitian boat people

through the introduction of the Cuban-Haitian Adjustment Act

of 1984. In gratitude to Chairman Rodino, and with heartfelt

thanks, we strongly support this legislation.

I want also to thank you. Chairman Mazzoli, and the other

Subcommittee Members who have already Joined Chairman Rodino as

co-sponsors of this essential legislation.

The Haitian refugee boat people are the first numerically

significant group of black refugees ever to seek safety on our
72

shores from brutal repression and degrading economic chaos.

Our treatment of this group of boat people is therefore significant as a test of the fairness and eaual application of

our refugee laws to peoples from all nations who no longer

are allowed full participation in their own societies. Our

treatment of the Haitian boat people is a test of our nation's

will to carry out the much-applauded reforms contained in the

Refugee Act of 1980, its attempt to even-handedly apply international law and provide uniform criteria to discern who shall

obtain safe haven in our country. Our treatment of this group

of black boat people has provided our nation a test, and it is

a test that thus far we sadly have not met.

From the first boatload of Haitian refugees who landed in

southern Florida in December 1972, extraordinary measures have

been taken by the Immigration and Naturalization Service to speed

the rejection of Haitian claims for political asylum and to hasten

deportation back to Haiti • often at overwhelming social costs

and untold suffering. Wholesale civil rights violations have

occured in the process, and this official disrespect for the

rule of law has also eroded respect for the rights of permanent

residents and citizens. In 1980, Judge James Lawrence King found

in his celebrated decision handed down in Haitian Refugee Center

v. Civiletti, that the "manner in which the Immigration and

Naturalization Service treated the more than 4000 Haitian plaintiffs

violated the Constitution, the immigration statutes, international

agreements, I.N.S. regulations and I.N.S. operating procedures. Tt

must stop."
73

But it did not stop. In fact, with the detention program

illegally promulgated by the Immigration Service in fay 1981,

the singling out of the Haitians for particular mistreatment

escalated. The Government Accounting Office, in its report,

"Detention Policies Affecting Haitian Nationals", issued June

16, 1983, concluded that "(T)he cost and the adverse humanitarian effects of long-term detention do not make it attractive

as a normal way of dealing with undocumented aliens seeking

asylum" (p.iv). However, it took a court order, handed down

in June of 1982, to release almost 2000 Haitians held under

this detention program, many of whom had been imprisoned for

over a year and a half under substandard conditions.

This unprecedented treatment meted out to these black boat

people is a civil rights blight for our country, and can only be

remedied satisfactoruly by granting permanent residency to these

people who have been so mistreated. Chairman Rodino's legislation

would do just that.

Chairman Rodino's bill is simple, limited and fair, providing

legal status to a selected group of refugees. It is not a substitute for a comprehensive legalization program, but a specific

grant to meet a specific need.

H.R. 4853 would grant permanent residence to Cubans and Haitians

who arrived in our country before Janaury 1, 1982, and "with

respect _to whom any record was established by the Immigration and

Naturalization Service" before that date. This legislation has

received the active endorsement of every major civil rights organization aware of the plight of these refugee groups precisely
74

because of this comprehensive coverage.

Repeated government announcements have promised the great

majority of this group that their "entrant" status would be

converted to permanent residence through legislation. We in

the civil rights community agree with Chairman Rodino's particular concern for the small group of Haitians and Cubans who

arrived subsequent to the granting of "entrant" status but prior

to January 1, 1982. Their added suffering under indefinite

detention deserves the special attention this legislation

affords these refugees.

I am additionally gratified to have received assurances

that the intent of the legislation is to include all Cuban and

Haitian "entrants" and all those for whom any record was

established, to ensure the most just and equitable implementation of the bill's benefits. It is of crucial importance

that potential beneficiaries not be made ineligible because

their files were misplaced by the Immigration Service. Additionally, all "entrants" must be secure that the interim status

granted to them over three years ago will not be taken away

through a rigid application of Section "C" of the Act. Mr.

Chairman, it would go against all civilized principles to grant

to these boat people an interim status, to promise them that it

will be made permanent, only them to deny them permanent

residence on a clearly-unintended technicality.

CONCLUSION

In closing, I want to say again how important this issue

is to the entire human rights community in our country, and
75

how Chairman Rodino's legislation has been carefully crafted

to be bqth inclusive of the refugees in need of status adjustment while remaining limited in scope and not open-ended.

Mr. Chairman, I sincerely request that the Subcommittee

on Immigration, Refugees and International Law work closely and

actively with Judiciary Committee Chairman Peter Rodino in

correcting the intolerable civil rights plight of the Cuban

and Haitian boat people, by expediting the passage of the

Cuban-Haitian Adjustment Act out of the Subcommittee and by

furthering its early consideration by the full House of

Representatives.

Thank you again for this opportunity to appear before

you today to speak on this essential civil rights legislation.
76

Mr. MAZZOLI. Thank you very much. I appreciate your willingness to work with us in this very narrow framework we have.

Mr. HILL. Right.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Mr. Mazur, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. MAZUR. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for holding

these hearings on H.R. 4853 and for inviting me to testify before

this subcommittee.

My name is Jay Mazur and I am the general secretary-treasurer

of the International Ladies Garment Workers Union. The ILGWU

strongly endorses the Cuban/Haitian Adjustment Act of 1984 and

so does the AFL-CIO.

In his recent letter to Chairman Rodino of the House Judiciary

Committee, President Kirkland called for the enactment of H.R.

4853 as•and I quote: "The only satisfactory solution to the unique

plight and suffering of Cuban and Haitian boat people who sought

safety on our shores before 1982."

Mr. Chairman, our union, a union of immigrants, was one of the

earliest to stand in defense of the Haitian refugees. We did it because we realized early on that their treatment in this country had

posed a major civil rights challenge to all of us.

In the words of Lane Kirkland, "Our Government's policy

against Haitian refugees has been discriminatory, cruel and politically dangerous."

In the tradition of all civil rights struggles, therefore the ILGWU

joined hands with other major labor, civil rights, religious and

human rights organizations to establish the National Coalition for

Haitian Refugees. I am glad to see some distinguished friends from

that coalition here with me this morning.

It has been the commitment of that coalition to bring justice to

the Haitian refugees. The bill before you, in many ways, is a culmination of the effort of that coalition, and to that extent, it is personally gratifying.

Mr. Chairman, the ILGWU and the men and women of the

American labor movement have always supported the cause of all

people who have left their homelands and arrived on U.S. shores

fleeing from one form of persecution or the other. To treat the Haitians in any different way is morally and ethically intolerable. Yet,

that is exactly what our government has chosen to do.

The administration has singled them out for mistreatment. The

list reflecting the uniqueness of their plight is long and unprecedented. The Haitian refugees are the only group that was denied

the most fundamental elements of due process under our laws and

the Constitution.

They were subjected to mass deportation hearings that resembled Kangaroo courts. They were effectively denied access to committed lawyers who were willing and able to defend them without

cost. They were put in jails where basic human conditions did not

exist. They were shipped to remote parts of the country where

there were no immigration lawyers to plead their cases and where

subzero temperatures were common.

Their detention was held illegal by our courts and yet they face

the possibility of their deportation to their homeland at this very

moment.
77

The administration, Mr. Chairman, played the game for a long

time of branding the Haitian as economic migrants, and not as political refugees.

We, all of us, have bitter memories of that dubious distinction,

both before and during the Second World War. We opposed the distinction then and we oppose it today, no matter what the color of

the skin of the refugees.

Mr. Chairman, the Haitians who reached our shores have not

only fled the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere, they

have also fled the last hereditary dictatorship in our hemisphere.

Their fear of persecution if deported back has been amply proven

by long judicial proceedings in the Federal courts and by testimonies of reporters, journalists and academics who know something

about Haiti.

Modern history has taught us that dictatorships comes in more

than one' variety. The Duvalier government's record is full of suppression of the press and of individual freedom. Its wholesale physical elimination of trade union activity has been documented by

many human rights reports.

Haitians fled their homelands, not to seek a welfare check in

Florida; they fled the economic corruption and the political terror

of their government. Haitians have proven to be exemplary workers in the farms and industries of our country. Those among them

who have joined our union are good union members.

Instead of being jailed and made vulnerable to threats of deportation, they should be allowed to become a part of the mainstream

America and to contribute their talent and labor to the American

economy. That goal, Mr. Chairman, is precisely what the bill before

you would seek to accomplish.

We applaud Congressman Rodino's courage in introducing this

legislation. It is a tribute to his sense of decency and fair play. And

we highly appreciate the bipartisan support the bill has received

from a number of cosponsors.

This bill, Mr. Chairman, is long overdue. Granting legal permanent residence status to all Haitians and Cubans who arrived in

the United States prior to January 1, 1982, would finally resolve

the bureaucratic and legal chaos that surrounds this issue.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Mr. Mazur, I am sorry, your time has also expired.

Could you maybe summarize what other points you may wish to

make.

Mr. MAZUR. I just have one more paragraph that will take about

10 seconds.

Mr. MAZZOLI. All right, fine.

Mr. MAZUR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Only then can the various voluntary agencies, churches, and

communities around the country quickly engage in a decent resettlement program that both would benefit, the refugees and relieve

the problems and tensions affecting south Florida and other areas

where Haitians and Cubans now reside.

For our part, Mr. Chairman, the ILG will offer its help in this

effort.

Thank you for the opportunity to be here today.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mazur follows:]

36-483 0-84-6
78

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAV MAZUR, SECRETARY-TREASURER, INTERNATIONAL LADIES

GARMENT WORKERS' UNION, AFL-CIO

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for holding these hearings

on H.R, 4853, and inviting me and my union to testify before this

subcommittee.

My name is Jay Mazur, and I am the General Secretary-Treasurer

of the International Ladies Garment Workers' Union. The ILGWU

strongly endorses the Cuban Haitian Adjustment Act of 1984. And

so does the AFL-CIO. In his recent letter to Chairman Rodino,

of the House Judiciary Committee, President Kirkland called for

the enactment of H.R. 4853 a* "the only satisfactory solution

to the unique plight and suffering of Cuban and Haitian boat

people who sought safety on our shores before 1982."

Mr. Chairman, our union • a union of immigrants • was one

of the earliest to stand in defence of Haitian refugees. We did

it because we realized early on that their treatment in this

country had posed a major civil rights challenge to all of us.

In the words of Lane Kirkland, our government's policy against

Haitian refugees has been discriminatory, cruel, and politically

dangerous.

In the tradition of all civil rights struggles, therefore,

the ILGWU joined hands with other major labor, civil rights, religious

and human rights organization to establish the National Coalition

for Haitian Refugees. I am glad to see some distinguished friends

from that Coalition here with me this morning. It has been the

commitment of that Coalition to bring justice to the cause of the

Haitians. The bill before you, in many ways, is the culmination

of the effort of that Coalition. To that extent, it is personally

gratifying.
79

Mr. Chairman, the ILGWU and the men and women of the American

labor movement have always supported the cause of all peoples

who have left their homelands and arrived on U.S. shores

fleeing from one form of persecution or the other. To treat

the Haitians in any different way is morally and ethically

intolerable. Yet, that is exactly what our government has chosen

to do. The administration has singled them out for mistreatment.

The list reflecting the uniqueness of their plight is long and

unprecedented.

The Haitian refugees are the only group that was denied

the most fundamental elements of due process under our laws and

the Constitution. They were subjected to mass deportation

hearings that reminded us of Kangaroo courts. They were effectively

denied access to committed lawyers who were willing and able to

defend them without cost. They were put in jails where basic

human conditions didn't exist. They were shipped to remote

parts of the country where there were no immigration lawyers to

plead their cases, and where sub-zero temperatures were a common

occurrence. Their detention was held illegal by our courts. And

yet they face the possibility of deportation to their homeland.

Our administration, Mr Chairman, played the game for a long

time of branding the Haitians as economic migrants and not as

political refugees. We, all of us, have bitter memories of that

dubious distinction. Nazi Germany called all migrating .Jews

economic migrants. And the U.S. government adopted the same

definition until we discovered the consequences of that distinction

in the unfortunate farm that no one wants to be reminded of. Me

opposed the distinction then, and we oppose it today • no matter
80

what the pigmentation of the skins of the refugees is.

Mr Chairman, the Haitians who reached our shores have not

only fled the poorest country in the western hemisphere, they

have also fled the last hereditary dictatorship in our hemisphere.

Their fear of persecution, if deported back, has been amply

proven by long judicial proceedings in the federal courts, and

by testimonies of reporters, journalists and academics who know

something about Haiti. Modern history has taught us that dictatorships come in more than one variety. The Duvalier government's

record is full of suppression of the press and individual freedom. Its wholesale physicial elimination of trade union activity

has been documented by many a human rights report. Haitians

fled their homeland not to seek a welfare check in Florida.

They fled the economic corruption and the political terror of

their government.

Haitians have proven to be exemplary workers in the farms

and industries of our country. Those among them who have joined

our union are good union members. Instead of being jailed and

made vulnerable- to threats of deportation, they should be allowed

to become a part of mainstream America, and to contribute

their talent ai.d labor to the American economy.

That goal, Mr Chairman, is precisely what the bill before

you would seek to accomplish. We applaud Congressman Rodino's

courage to introduce this legislation. It is a tribute to his

sense of decency and fairplay. And we highly appreciate the

bi-partisan support the bill has received from a number of co-sponsors.

This bill, Mr. Chairman, is long overdue. Granting legal

permanent resident status to all Haitians and Cubans who arrived
81

in the U.S. priot to January 1, 1982 would finally resolve the

bureaucratic and legal chaos that surrounds this issue. Only

then can the various voluntary agencies, churches and communitie

around the country quickly engage in a decent re-settlement

program that would both benefit the refugees and relieve the

problems and tensions affecting South Florida and other areas

where Haitians and Cubans now reside. For our part, the 1LGWU

will offer its help in this effort.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
82

Mr. MAZZOLI. Thank you very much, Mr. Mazur.

Mr. Hooper, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. HOOPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and other members of

the subcommittee for inviting our views today.

My name is Mike Hooper; I am the executive director of the National Coalition for Haitian Refugees.

Mr. Chairman, there are several technical changes in my written

testimony which I would like to submit at this time.

Mr. MAZZOLI. All right.

Mr. HOOPER. Mr. Chairman, we are particularly grateful that

this legislation would finally end the tragic plight and the aggravated legal limbo of this restricted class of Cuban and Haitian boat

people.

This bill has already been endorsed and cosponsored by a bipartisan group of your colleagues: Chairman Pepper, Chairman Fascell,

Chairman Barnes, Chairman Dixon, Mr. Fauntroy, Judge Crockett,

and the overwhelming majority of the Black Caucus. The chairman

of the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and Refugee Policy,

Senator Simpson, is also supportive of a need to end this limbo situation for Cuban and Haitian refugees.

Apparently following the testimony of Mr. Nelson this morning,

the administration supports this same class definition, although

they seem to prefer a July 1981 cutoff date.

Mr. Chairman, every major civil rights, trade union, religious,

and voluntary organization familiar with the plight of the Cuban

and the Haitian boat people favor this act. There are numerous letters of endorsement from organizations as well known and representing as many organizations. For instance, the Leadership Conference of Civil Rights, representing 150 well known national civil

rights organizations has strongly enclosed this legislation. There

are strong letters of support from the AFL-CIO. The NAACP has

written that legal status is the only just solution to right this grave

mistreatment. There are many other strong letters of endorsement.

At this time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit for the record

one additional letter from Greater Miami United, a coalition organization of 90 groups from southern Florida that have written to

each Member of the House of Representatives urging that they cosponsor this bill.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Without objection, it will be made a part of the

record. [See app. 4 at p. 166.]

Mr. HOOPER. Mr. Chairman, the Haitian and Cuban boat people

have risked their lives to come to our country. Obviously, refugees

from other lands have suffered similar hardship, but the situation

of the Haitian and Cuban boat people is unique and made more

compelling because of the treatment they have received here.

The intended beneficiaries of H.R. 4853 are a specific and restricted group of Cuban and Haitian boat people. Our figures are

essentially the same as those presented by Commissioner Nelson

this morning. The number of Cuban boat people is approximately

110,000, the vast majority of those people have already been•already received entrant status from the Carter administration. However, the eligibility period, for the entrant status program was focused around and fixed around the influx of these Cuban refugees.
83

It includes a certain number, approximately 13,000 Haitians, but it

essentially remains predominantly a Cuban program.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4853 should be enacted immediately because

it conforms to and implements the purpose and the motivating

principle of this entrant program.

Unfortunately, the Immigration Service narrowly interpreted the

mandate of the entrant program, qualifying the term "known to

INS" to mean only those persons who were encountered and placed

in proceedings.

Mr. Rodino's bill, the Cuban/Haitian Adjustment Act, grants

permanent residence status to all Haitians and Cubans who had

any record established with the Immigration Service, regardless of

whether actual deportation proceedings are initiated against them.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4853 should be enacted immediately because

it will provide long overdue relief to a restrictive group of Haitians

and Cubans who have suffered particularly harsh treatment and

accumulated considerable equities. The most crucial aspect of this

bill is it will grant permanent residence to a relatively restrictive

group of Cuban and Haitian boat people who arrived subsequent to

the entrant program. The most important subclass of these people

are the 2,000 Haitian boat people imprisoned for 18 months.

It is now well accepted that this group of Haitian boat people

suffered from a policy that was cruel, low precedented, that is now

universally regretted. We believe that the moral heart of this bill,

the moral linchpin of this bill is its central attention to make

amends for this suffering.

Mr. Chairman, there are two areas of potential ambiguity involving the comprehensive coverage of H.R. 4853. We believe that

simple technical amendments can resolve these ambiguities and

preserve the spirit of the bill.

First, it is beyond dispute that in this bill, and through previous

Government pronouncements, the clear intention is that persons

who receive the immigration designation of Cuban/Haitian entrant

status pending are to be adjusted to permanent residence, section

(bXD of this bill.

It is also clear that section (c) of this bill is intended to exclude

from coverage nonimmigrants who were lawfully admitted to the

United States and who subsequently overstayed their visas.

As Bishop Bevilacqua pointed out, without further clarification, a

rigid application of subsection (c) could completely undermine the

mandate

Mr. MAZZOLI. Proceed. You have this point and a second one

and

Mr. HOOPER. And then I will summarize. Thank you very much.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Yes.

Mr. HOOPER. The second ambiguity involves the need to reinforce

the act's clear intention that all otherwise eligible Cubans and Haitians "with respect to whom any record was established by the Immigration and Naturalization Service before January 1, 1982, will

receive the benefits of the legislation."

These benefits clearly should be granted to all otherwise eligible

persons even if the files of certain of the refugees were later lost or

misplaced by the Immigration Service.
84

Mr. Chairman, to summarize, in the spirit of Mr. Frank's comment earlier this morning, the sense of justice and humanitarian

concern that is basic to this bill, that is absolutely fundamental to

this bill, will be needlessly compromised if interim relief is not

granted immediately to protect class members from the threat of

imminent deportation. No intended beneficiary of this legislation

should be deported while this bill is pending before the Congress.

Given the administration's assurances thus morning that they

agree with the class definition, given the July 1981 date they proposed, some kind of interim, even informal protection must be afforded. Absent a halt of deportation proceedings there would be a

further disproportionate impact on Haitian refugees. This tragedy

must not be further aggravated.

Thank you very much for inviting our views.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hooper follows:]
85

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL S. HOOPER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL

COALITION FOR HAITIAN REFUGEES

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee on

Immigration, Refugees and International Law, for inviting the

views of the National Coalition for Haitian Refugees during

your consideration of the Cuban-Haitian Adjustment Act of 1984,

H.R. 4853, proposed by Judiciary Committee Chairman Peter Rodino.

We consider this legislation to be absolutely essential and far

too long overdue.

My name is Michael S. Hooper and I am the Executive Director

for the National Coalition for Haitian Refugees, which is composed

of over 45 national civil and human rights, labor, legal, religious,

Haitian and other national voluntary organizations. Our member

organizations traditionally concerned with fundamental civil rights

issues include all north American and Haitian organizations working

nationally to ameliorate the desperate plight of the Haitian refugee

boat people. The concern of the Coalition and our constituent

members with this legislation arises from our specific involvement

since 1979 in all aspects of the national crisis created by the

unprecedented official treatment that the Haitian boat people have

suffered, and from our deep commitment to secure for them humane

treatment, substantive and procedural due process of law, and

eventual permanent residence status in this country.

Mr. Chairman, we are particularly grateful that this legislation would end the tragic plight and aggravated legal limbo of

a restricted class of Cuban and Haitian boat people. It would

grant to approximately 125,000 Cuban and 31,000 Haitian boat

people permanent residence in the United States. This bill has

already been endorsed and co-sponsored by a bi-partisan group of

over forty of your colleagues including Chairman Mazzoli, Chairman

Pepper, Chairman Fascell, Chairman Dixon, Chairman Barnes,
86

Representatives Conable, Pritchard, McKinney and Fauntroy,

and the overwhelming majority of the Congressional Black Caucus.

The Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and

Refugee Policy, Alan Simpson, has also supported the need to

"end the Cuban and Haitian legal limbo" and grant them permanent resident

status. We sincerely appreciate this vigorous support and the

courage and vision of the most active proponents of this

legislation.

Everv maior civil riqhts, trade union, religlou" «n^

voluntary organization familiar with the plight of the Cuban

and Haitian refugees has enthusiastically endorsed the CubanHaitian Adjustment Act. Mr. Chairman, the Leadership Conference

on Civil Rights, representing over 150 civil rights organizations

of national prominence, has written to each Member of the House

stating:

"Our member organizations have long been concerned

with the tragic civil rights plight of the Haitian

refugee boat people, and we agree with Chairman

Rodino that this situation can only be resolved

satisfactorily by granting this restricted number

of Haitian and Cuban refugees permanent residence

status.... We further applaud this legislation because it embodies the fundamental principles of

equal justice for all and respect for basic human

rights."

Mr. Lane Kirkland, President of the A.F.L.-C.I.O., has strongly

endorsed the Cuban-Haitian Adjustment Act of 1984 stating that

"Justice demands that this group of Cuban and Haitian

refugees who risked their lives to flee to our country

from misery and repression be granted permanent residence and an end to their tragic plight and legal limbo.

The unique and desperate situation of the Cuban and

Haitian refugees has been repeately linked by governmental action and in the public mind. The great majority

of the Cuban boat people from the Mariel flotilla and the

comparable group of Haitian refugees have long ago been

promised that their "entrant" status would be converted

to permanent residency through legislation."
87

The N.A.A.C.P. has written that "legal status is the only just

solution to right this grave mistreatment." The American

Jewish Committee strongly agrees, expressing a grave concern

for the unique plight of the Haitian refugees, "many of whom

were jailed for up to 18 months under a detention program that

has been universally condemned as illegal and discriminatory."

The A.J.C. continues:

"fundamental principles of justice and humanity demand

that both the Cuban refugees from Mariel and the far

smaller group of Haitian refugees who arrived slightly

later must have their legal status regularized not only

because of the tragic nature of their plight and the

treatment they have received but also because they have

been repeatedly linked in the public mind and in government actions, beginning with the Cuban-Haitian program

of the Carter administration. The great majority of

the class of Cubans and Haitians who would benefit from

the Rodino legislation long ago have been granted a

temporary "entrant" status and a promise of legal

residence.

The American Civil Liberties Union has written to each

Member of Congress stressing that they are:

...committed to preserving the rights of due process

and equal protection of law guaranteed by the Constitution

and federal legislation. No recent example of government

action more dramatically demonstrates the import of these

rights or their frailty than the experience of Cuban and

Haitian refugees here in the United States. These refuoees

came to this country seeking freedom and political asylum

but they have suffered substantial abuse."

The League of United Latin American Citizens, this

country's largest and oldest Hispanic organization, has

enthusiastically supported Chairman Rodino's bill and have

called for its early enactment:

"...in risking their lives they fled expecting just

treatment by the democratic institutions of this

country. Unfortunately, both these groups have been

poorly treated and have had misrepresentations made
to them regarding their legal status in the U.S. by

being promised that their "entrant" status would be

converted to permanent residency through legislation.

Regretfully and unfortunately, this promise has not

been materialized and as a consequence major undue

hardships have resulted.... Your bill serves to

underscore the need to have legislation benefit

both groups and is a message to those who wish to

divide blacks and Hispanics that such efforts will

be resisted."

I. INTRODUCTORY RATIONALE UNDERLYING THE NECESSITY OF IMMEDIATE

STATUS FOR CUBAN AND HAITIAN BOAT PEOPLE

This legislation finally accords justice and due process to

these Cuban and Haitian boat people, the great majority of whom

have suffered in a legal limbo for an intolerable period. At the

same time, the number of people who would benefit from this

legislation is well defined and limited.

Mr. Chairman, the Haitian and Cuban boat people have risked

their lives in fleeing to our country seeking shelter from

repression and stark misery. Although refugees from other lands

suffer similar hardship, the situation of the Haitian and Cuban

boat people is unique and is made more compelling because of

the treatment that they have been subjected to here on our shores.

Since 1980, the situation and fate of the Haitian and Cuban

boat people has been linked both in the public mind and in government action and announcements. The Carter administration repeatedly

recognijeed the uniqueness of the plight of these two refugee groups,

and the great majority of them were repeatedly promised that their

"entrant" status would soon be legislatively confirmed through a

grant of permanent residence. The Cuban-Haitian Adjustment Act
89

would finally end their legal limbo and grant them this longawaited status.

However, adjusting the legal status of only the "entrant"

group arbitrarily restricts the small class of Haitians who should'

be eligible for the same protections from deportation. The cutoff date for eligibility for the Cuban-Haitian "entrant" program

was set at October 10, 1980, because of the particularities of

the Mariel experience. Specifically, the Mariel influx ended in

the late summer of 1980, but the comparable group of Haitians

were still arriving in 1981. A rigid enforcing of the "entrant"

date would exclude from coverage the comparable group of Haitian

boat people totaling approximately 9,000 persons, including the

2200 Haitians whose detention has been universally condemned and

regretted. Both groups have essentially the same profile and the

same equities. A slight difference in arrival date should not

result in turning the equal protection of the Cuban-Haitian

"entrant" program into a predominantly Cuban program.

Of the small group of Haitian and Cuban boat people who

arrived subsequent to the grant of "entrant" status but prior

to January 1, 1982, approximately 2200 Haitians languished in

prisons for up to eighteen (18) months under intolerable conditions.

This is an additional and substantial equity that must be recognized as warranting that their presence should be legally confirmed

by a grant of legal status.

Both the Haitians and the Cubans work and are productive

members of our communities, particulalry in south Florida. The

federal government entitlement programs they have benefitted from
90

recognize the historical linkage and particular needs of the

Cuban and Haitian refugees, and have served as further reinforcement to the assurance that legal status would soon be

forthcoming for both groups. Numerous studies have shown that

these refugees are law-abiding and hard working. They have

undeniably contributed to our society, yet they have been

denied the benefits of full legal residence.

II. INTRODUCTION TO THE PLIGHT OF THE HAITIAN REFUGEE BOAT PEOPLE

Since 1959, almost one-eighth (1/8) of the population of

Haiti has fled from their homeland to escape the cumulative

effects of the twenty-six (26) years of Duvalier family rule.

A small part of this diaspora has sought haven in the United

States. In the last ten years approximately 50,000 refugees

have risked their lives across 800 miles of hazardous ocean

to seek safety and asylum in the U.S. These are the Haitian

"boat people" whose total numbers are minuscule when compared

to other refugee groups warmly and continuously received by our

government. The desperate nature of their plight has been

repeatedly confirmed in reports by Amnesty International, the

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the Organization

of American States, and other respected human rights organizations.

Nevertheless, these refugees have been greeted by harsh and

discriminatory policies, unprecedented in the history of our country,
91

that systematically deny them their riqhts to fair and impartial

administration of our immigration laws.*

Many Haitians have applied for political asylum in the United

States, expressing a fear of persecution in their home country.

Despite substantial evidence of ongoing human rights violations

in Haiti, almost all of these claims (more than 99%) have been

denied by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (I.N.S.)

after consultation with the Department of State. Federal courts

have repeatedly found that our government's policy of detention

of Haitians was unlawful, unconstitutional, and discriminatory.

Yet the emergency of the Haitian boat people continues, as they

still face the imminent threat of forcible deportation back to

Haiti.

Three years ago a two-part policy was implemented that

virtually guaranteed that the Haitian boat people, and virtually

only Haitians, would not be able to exercise their riqhts

to claim political asylum in this country. This policy appears

to have been aimed at creating a deterrent against future arrivals

* The Haitian refugee boat people have been improperly denied th«»ir

statutory and treaty rights to a hearing before an immigration

judge in exclusion proceedings on their claims for political asylum.

Sannon v. United States, 427 F. Supp. 1270 (S.D. Fla. 1977), vacated

and remanded on other qrounds, 566 F. 2d 104 (5th Cir. 1978). They

have been denied their right to notice of the procedures that the

government intended to use against them in exclusion proceedings.

Sannon v. United States, 460 F. Supp. 458 (S.D. Fla. 1978). They

have been denied the right to work during the pendency of their

asylum claims. National Council of Churches v. Egan, No. 79-2959-

Civ-WMH (S.D. Fla. 1979). They have been denied access to information to support their asylum claims. National Council of Churches

v. Immigration and Naturalization Service") No. 7 8-516 3-Civ-JLK

(S.D. Fla. 1979) . They have been denied the very right to be heard

on their asylum claims. Haitian Refugee Center v. Civiletti, 503

F. Supp. 442 (S.D. Fla. 1980), affirmed H.R.C. v. Smith 676 F.2d

1023 (5th Cir. Unit B, 1982). They have been denied their right to

counsel and to fair process in their exclusion hearings by being

shipped, like cattle, to remote areas of America. Louis v. Meissner,

530 F. Supp. 924 (S.D. Fla. 1981).
92

from Haiti regardless of the extent to which the legal rights

of the refugees in this country were trampled on.

Beginning in May 1981, Haitian asylum applicants arriving

in the U.S. were placed in detention, first in the Krome Avenue

North Detention Facility in Miami. As protest concerning the

overcrowded conditions there grew, the I.N.S. began to jail

the refugees in ten federal prisons and I.N.S. facilities in

five states and in Puerto Rico. In July of 1981, Attorney

General William French Smith formally announced the Administration's

new immigration and detention policy for Haitians. By September

1981 over 2,700 Haitians, and only Haitians, were held in ten

isolated and widely dispersed locations, many far from attorneys,

interpreters, and any contact with the Haitian community. In every

meaningful sense they were thus effectively denied the right to

apply for asylum in the U.S.

On September 29, 1981, President Reagan signed an Executive

Order authorizing the interdiction of Haitian boats in the

Caribbean by the U.S. Coast Guard, acting in cooperation with

the Haitian Navy. Under this program, implemented pursuant to

an agreement with the Government of Haiti, all Haitian boats

suspected of carrying potential asylum applicants are intercepted and forcibly returned to Haiti.

The State Department and I.N.S. have officially pre-judged

the claims of the Haitian boat people, declaring that all Haitians

with few exceptions flee to the U.S. for economic, rather than

political reasons, and are thus not entitled to receive refugee-'

status. While one would expect a pronouncement of such potentially

deadly significance to be supported by unimpeachable facts, our
government has offered only meager specifics to support their

conclusory distinction. In fact, reliable evidence suggests

just the opposite conclusion.

In the landmark judicial opinion rendered in the case of

Haitian Refugee Center v. Civiletti. the United States District

Court of the Southern District of Florida found that "Haitians

have flocked to the shores of south Florida over the past twenty

years fleeing the most repressive government in the Americas."

Judge James Lawrence King found that the evidence presented in

his court concerning conditions in Haiti was "stark, brutal and

bloody." He concluded that "the treatment of returnees in Haiti

is part of a systematic and pervasive oppression of political

opposition which uses prisons as its torture chambers and Tonton

Macoutes as its enforcers."

This judgement confirmed the finding of all respected human

rights organizations that the brutal regime of the late dictator

"Papa Doc" Duvalier and that of the current President-for-Life,

Jean-Claude Duvalier, have crushed any viable opposition through

a policy of imprisoning, torturing, and killing without legal

procedure some of its critics and forcing others into exile.

1. Cited in Haitian Refuqee Center v. Civiletti, 503 F. Supp. 442,

475 (S.D. Fla., affirmed in part 5th Cir. May 24, 1982.)

"Haiti has inverted a famous quotation: Haiti is a nation of

men, not laws... The law in Haiti on any given day is what

the President says it is.... Guilt is a determination made

exclusively by the person empowered to arrest. That person's

perception of what constitutes a crime, and what is necessary.

to commit it, controls. Arbitrariness is the rule. Guilt _"

is often founded on association." Ibid.

Please see Appendix #1 entitled, "Preconditions for Tragedy:

A Pattern of Human Rights Abuses in Haiti".

36-483 0-84
94

III. THE INTENDED BENEFICIARIES OF H.R. 4853 ARE A SPECIFIC

AND RESTRICTED GROUP OF CUBAN AND HAITIAN BOAT PEOPLE

The" immediate rationale for this essential and long overdue

legislation is discussed in the balance of this testimony with

particular reference to the plight of sub-groups of the affected

refugee population. The basic demographics of the population

demonstrate the carefully crafted and restricted nature of

this legislation.

Most observers are in agreement that the number of Cuban

boat people who would benefit from this legislation is approximately 125,000. The Cubans make up the majority of those refugees

to be granted permanent residence under this legislation and the

vast majority of eligible Cubans have previously received

the I.N.S. designation of Cuban-Haitian "entrant" (please see

the discussion of the Cuban-Haitian "Entrant" Program supra.)

The overwhelming majority of these Cubans arrived in mid-1980

during the period of the "Mariel flotilla."

As detailed below, the eligibility period for Cuban-Haitian

"entrant" status was arbitrarily fixed around the influx of

these Cubans. While it includes approximately 13,500 Haitians

who arrived at that same time, it is predominently a Cuban "entrant"

program.

It is clear from Federal and State Government statistics

that between 70-75% of the Cubans and Haitians covered by this

legislation were initially resettled in the State of Florida

and still reside there. The resettlement and integration into

the southern Florida community has proceeded remarkably smoothly

for the vast majority of both Cubans and Haitians.
95

A recent study commissioned by the Latin American and

Caribbean Center of Florida International University has

concludes that both the Haitian "entrants" and the Haitian boat

people released from long-term detention on the order of a

federal court are "highly motivated, hardworking, and anxious

to integrate into American society", despite their experience

of "prejudice and discrimination from all sectors of local

2

society." The study concludes:

"Permanent resident status for Krome Haitians and

Haitian "entrants" should be provided by the U.S.

Congress. Returning the Haitians to Haiti would

likely subject them to persecution by Haitian

officials. Moreover, permanent resident status

would assist in the adaptation of Haitians by

alleviating the psychological uncertainty they

currently face, promoting family development and

bringing many Haitians out from the underground.

Moreover, if a large population exists which is

afraid of the law because of their uncertain legal

status, then enforcing the law, including labor

law, becomes more difficult. It would further

deter others from exploiting Haitians because of

their uncertain legal status.

"Congressman Rodino with support from Greater Miami

United along with the National Coalition for Haitian

Refugees, the Congressional Black Caucus and others

have recently proposed legislation which would legalize

the status of both the Krome and "entrant" Haitians.

Passage of this legislation would significantly aid

Haitians in their efforts to adapt to and integrate

into U.S. society.... Excluding the Krome Haitians

from a legalization program would only be arbitrary

and inhumane."3

2. "Haitians Released From Krome: Their Prospects for Adaptation

and Integration in South Florida", Latin American and

Caribbean Center, Florida International University,

-Occasional Papers Series Dialogues, #24, March 2, 1984, ^.i.

3. Ibid, p. 34.
96

The Fascell-Stone Amendment to the Refugee Education

Assistance Act specifies that the Federal Government shall

reimburse the states and localities 100% of the costs of

social services and medical costs for the Cuban-Haitian "entrant*".

The numbers of "entrants" actuallv receivino anv federally

reimbursed cash assistance is dramatically low by all estimates.

According to estimates provided by the State of Florida's

Refugee Coordinator, the number of Cuban "entrants" receiving

federally reimbursed cash assistance totaled 5,418 as of

June 30, 1983, or slightly over 4% of the eligible Cubans.

For the same period 3,537 Haitian "entrants" received federally

reimbursed cash assistance, or 8% of those eligible. All

knowledgeable observers agree that these numbers are exceedingly

low given the limbo legal status and uncertain future of the

two refugee groups.

Appendix II of this testimony is a table of I.N.S. statistics

on Haitian arrivals "broken out" as post-October 10, 1980 arrivals

who "entered and were processed" and those who were classified a*

"entered without inspection." Although it is not easy to precisely

calculate the exact number of these Haitians who arrived before

January 1, 1982 and with respect to whom any record was established

before that date, the approximate number is 9,000 to 10,000

individuals. Again, the vast majority of these refugees reside

in Dade County, Florida, with smaller groups living in New York

•City and northern New Jersey.
97

IV. H.R. 4853 SHOULD BE ENACTED IMMEDIATELY BECAUSE IT CONFORMS

TO AND IMPLEMENTS THE PURPOSE AND MOTIVATING PRINCIPLE OF

THE CUBAN-HAITIAN "ENTRANT" PROGRAM

On June 19, 1980, the Department of Justice granted to

Haitians and Cubans who arrived in the United States before

that date and were "known to I.N.S.", a special status that

they called "Cuban-Haitian Entrant (Status Pending)" for an

initial six-month period. This immigration designation was

used to defer exclusion proceedings for these boat people and

to assure their status in the United States while Congress

enacted legislation to regularize this status. This legislation

was not enacted, and the Department of Justice later extended

the eligibility period to allow all Cubans and Haitians to

qualify who were in I.N.S. proceedings as of October 10, 1980,

regardless of their actual date of entry. On July 14, 1981,

the Department of Justice extended for an indefinite period

this special status because the anticipated legislation still

had not been enacted.

Through the use of the immigration designation of "entrant",

the qualified Cubans and Haitians were effectively paroled into

the U.S. with their immigration status promised but not specified.

The coverage of this status was clearly intended to be broad, and

both Cubans and Haitians who arrived during comparable periods

were to be treated equally. The Congressional Black Caucus and

a wide range of civil rights and religious organizations argued

against any discriminatory treatment of this small group of refugee

Unfortunately the I.N.S. narrowly interpreted the mandate of

the Cuban-Haitian "entrant" program, qualifying as "known to I.N.S.
98

only those persons who were encountered and placed in proceedings

before October 10, 1980. This restrictive interpretation arbitrarily 'eliminated a number of boat people who had presented

themselves before the Immigration Service but who were never

placed in deportation or exclusion proceedings.

Although the actual number of boat people so affected is

relatively small, H.R. 4853 directly and humanely eliminates

this practical inequity. Under the Cuban-Haitian Adjustment

Act of 1984 all Haitians who had any record established with

the Immigration Service are eligible, regardless of whether

actual deportation proceedings were initiated against them.

V. H.R. 4853 SHOULD BE ENACTED IMMEDIATELY BECAUSE IT WILL PROVIDE

LONG OVERDUE RELIEF TO A RESTRICTED GROUP OF HAITIANS AND CUBANS

WHO HAVE SUFFERED HARSH TREATMENT AND HAVE ACCUMULATED CONSIDERABLE EQUITIES IN OUR SOCIETY

Perhaps the most crucial aspect of Chairman Rodino's bill

is that it will grant permanent residence to a relatively restricted group of Cuban and Haitian boat people who arrived just

subsequent to the "entrant" program eligibility date of October

10, 1980, and before Janaury 1, 1982. The most important subclass included in this coverage is the more than 2000 Haitians

who were unlawfully imprisoned for up to eighteen months by

4. Telex of November 10, 1980 from I.N.S. Cotnmisioner to all

officers.
99

the Immigration Service and who were only released following

a federal court order. H.R. 4853 will also grant permanent

residence to several hundred Cuban refugees who arrived after

the Mariel boatlift and hence after the October 10, 1980 cutoff date for the "entrant" program.

The unique promise of Chairman Rodino's legislation for

the national civil rights organizations that have enthusiastically

endorsed it is its focus on legalizing these refugees who have

suffered a legal limbo and in many cases imprisonment. It is

now well-accepted that no group in recent history has suffered

from a policy as discriminatory and cruel as have the Haitian

boat people who arrived during 1981. The moral heart of this

bill is its central attention to make amends for the suffering

that this group has endured.

The record shows that Haitian refugees have repeatedly been

singled out for particularly harsh treatment by our government.

At a time when hundreds of thousands of refugees of various

nationalities were being processed into the United States, the

I.N.S. instituted in 1978 an accelerated processing program for

Haitians and only Haitians. This "Haitian Program" was subsequently found to be illegal in a variety of repects by several

federal courts. One expert on refugee affairs, Monsignor Brian

Walsh of Miami, testified that:

"...from 1972 until May of 1980 the consistent

practice of the Immigration Service was to

grant refugee status to any Cuban who came into

south Florida, no matter how he arrived ... and

at the same time to deny refugee status to the

Haitians who arrived on the same small boats at

the same time."*

5. Louis v. Nelson, 544 F. Supp. 1004 (S.D. Fla. 1982).

6. Louis v. Nelson, No. 81-1260-Civ.-EPS (S.D. Fla. 1981),

Transcript 260-64.
100

Walsh testified that discrimination against Haitians extended

to the granting of parole, the issuance of work authorization,

the length of detention and access to counsel.

This policy of discrimination against Haitians was confirmed by a federal district court in a case that challenged

the "Haitian Program":

"Those Haitians who came to the United States seeking

freedom and justice did not find it. Instead, they

were confronted with an Immigration and Naturalization

Service determined to deport them. The decision was

made among high I.N.S. officials to expel Haitians,

despite whatever claims to asylum individual Haitians

mighthave. A Program was set out to accomplish this

goal. The Program resulted in wholesale violations

of due process, and only Haitians were affected

This program, in its planning and execution, is

offensive to every notion of constitutional due

process and equal protection. The Haitians whose

claims for asylum were rejected during the Program,

shall not be deported until they are given a fair

chance to present their claims for political asylum."'

Perhaps the greatest discrimination suffered by the

Haitian boat people occurred with our government's decision

to indefinitely detain Haitian asylum applicants. I.N.S. policy

prior to the Spring of 1981 was routinely and regularly to

release virtually all aliens seeking admission to the U.S.

An unprecedented change in policy occurred beginning

in May 19B1. Haitian asylum applicants arriving

in the U.S. were placed in detention, first in the Krome

Avenue North Detention Facility in Miami and, as protest

concerning the overcrowded and unsanitary conditions there

grew, in ten federal prisons and I.N.S. facilities in five

7. Haitian Refugee Center v. Civlletti, 503 F. 2d Supp. 443 (1980)
101

states and in Puerto Rico. In July of 1981, Attorney General

William French Smith formally announced the Administration's

new immigration program and detention policy. By September

1981, over 2,700 Haitians, and only Haitians, were held in

ten isolated locations, far from attorneys, interpreters,

or any contact with the Haitian community. In all save the

most formalistic of worlds they were thus effectively denied

the right to apply for asylum in the U.S. In explaining the

policy, the Attorney General stated that "detention of aliens

seeking asylum was necessary to discourage people like Haitians

Q

from setting sail in the first place."

According to one court, indefinite detention appeared

"intended to treat Haitians as poorly as permissible during

their stay in the United States so that others would be

9

deterred from immigrating." Detention under inhumane

conditions that would never be tolerated for convicted criminals

was used to simply force the Haitians to leave the U.S. without

completing their asylum applications.

The punitive long-term detention of the Haitian refugees

was further exacerbated by the sub-standard conditions at

the prisons where they were detained for fourteen to eighteen

months. I have personally visited most of these facilities

as have representatives of our member organizations.

8 . New York Times, Oct 2 3, 1981, sec. 2 at 6, col. 2.

9 . Haitian Refugee Center v. Civiletti, 514.
102

Typically, these facilities • designed only for short

term detention • were overcrowded and underequipped, often

resembling concentration camps. While conditions at the

Krome North facility shocked many Floridians in the Fall of

1981, conditions at other facilities were indisputably worse.

Citing the Immigration Service and the Public Health Service

as authority, the General Accounting Office has concluded that

"the Haitian detainees, for the most part, were housed in

facilities that were unsuited for long-term care. In addition,

services and basic amenities were minimal. The mental health

of long-term detainees was perhaps the most serious problem

with which the Public Health Service could not effectively

10 deal." During the indefinite imprisonment many refugees

exhibited symptoms of physical and psychological distress

and there were twenty-nine suicide attempts reported by the

National Institute of Mental Health. Serious medical conditions like gynecomastia went undiagnosed and untreated.

At the Immigration facility in Brooklyn, Haitians who had

never been confined indoors for an entire day in their lives

were prevented from ever seeing the sun and sky for eighteen

months.

The Haitian detention program was predictably expensive

for the federal government, costing many times more than a

humane and orderly program providing for the release of the

Haitians, pending the final determination of their as-lum

10 . U.S.G.A.O., "Detention Policies Affecting Haitian Nationals",

Report No. GAO/GGD-B3-68, June 16, 1983, p.21.
103

claims. The General Accounting Office estimates that the

long-term detention of the Haitians cost the Federal Government about $49 per day per detainee, although the cost varied

between S35 and S65 depending on the detention facility.

Haitians were detained in remote regions in substandard

conditions not because they were likely to abscond or because

they were security risks. The Haitian boat people were detained without any consideration of individual circumstances

as a punishment to discourage them from asserting or pursuing

asylum claims and to deter their fellow nationals from seeking

refuge in the U.S.

VI. THERE ARE THREE AREAS OF POTENTIAL AMBIGUITY INVOLVING THE

COMPREHENSIVE AND SPECIFIC COVERAGE OF H.R. 4853

Simple technical amendments can resolve three possible

ambiguities and preserve the spirit of fairness and compassion

that is the foundation of this legislation. First, it is

beyond dispute that this bill, and previous government pronouncements, intend that persons receiving the immigration

designation Cuban-Haitian "entrant" (status pending) are to

be adjusted to permanent residence under this bill (subsection

(b) (1)). The clear intent of subsection (c) is to exclude

from coverage nonimmigrants who were lawfully admitted to the

United States and who subsequently overstayed their visas

while never making application for political asylum in the

U.S. Without further clarification, a rigid application of

11. Ibid. G.A.O. Report, p. 28
104

subsection (c) could completely undermine this clear mandate

because a number of those persons officially designated by the

Carter Administration as "entrants" were (in the language of

subsection -(cl) admitted to the United States as nonimmigrants

and they have not applied for political asylum. This unintended

ambiguity can be technically resolved by altering subsection (c)

of the legislation to read:

The benefits provided by subsection (a) shall not

apply to an alien who was admitted to the United

States as a nonimmigrant, unless that alien filed

an application for political asylum before January

1, 1982, or was accorded Entrant status by the

Immigration and Naturalization Service.

The second potential ambiguity in coverage under H.R. 4 853

involves the need to reinforce the Act's clear intention that all

otherwise eligible Cubans and Haitians "with respect to whom

any record was established by the Immigration and Naturalization

Serive before January 1, 1982" will receive the benefits of

the legislation. These benefits clearly should be granted even

if the files established for certain of the refugees were later

lost or misplaced by the Immigration Service. During the

Immigration Service's "Haitian Program" a significant number

of files were indeed "misplaced" as Haitian refugees were

transfered from prison to prison around the country. Justice

and basic humanity demand that the benefits of this legislation

must be available to those Cubans and Haitians whose files were

destroyed or lost through no fault of their own. We would ask

that report language reflect the clear sense of this legislation"

that all those who had a record established by the I.N.S. should

qualify, even if this record was subsequently lost by the
105

Immigration Service. Obviously, the I.N.S. will have to

promulgate regulations to govern a procedure whereby otherwise eligible applicants whose records were lost have the

ability to present proof of both their presence and of their

contact with the Immigration Service.

The final potential source of ambiguity involves a further

clarification of subsection (c). The clear intent of this

section is to deny benefits under this Act to persons who

were (lawfully) admitted to the United States unless they

also filed an application for asylum with the I.N.S. (or

unless they were eligible for "Entrant" status infra.) While

the intent of this wording does appear to be clear on its face,

we recommend that the Subcommittee specify that this disqualification makes ineligible only those persons lawfully

or formally admitted to the U.S. as nonimmigrants. By clear

implication it does not apply to the entry of an alien through

parole or inspection or some other form of admission. The

Subcommittee should clarify section (c) so that persons are

not disqualified from receiving the benefits of this Act if

they have never been lawfully admitted to the U.S. as nonimmigrants.

VII. THE SENSE OF JUSTICE AND HUMANITARIAN CONCERN FUNDAMENTAL TO

H.R. 4853 WILL BE NEEDLESSLY COMPROMISED IF INTERIM RELIEF IS

NOT GRANTED TO PROTECT CLASS MEMBERS FROM THE THREAT OF

IMMINENT DEPORTATION

This legislation has already been enthusiastically supported

in the House of Representatives, due to the sustained commitment

of the bill's co-sponsors. Concerned Senators have also supported
106

the necessity of granting permanent residence status to this

particular group of refugee boat people. Every present indication

points toward final passage of this bill during this session of

Congress, finally resolving this long-standing and aggravated

civil rights problem. Yet, today, we confront the tragic irony

that many intended beneficiaries of H.R. 4853 may be deported

during the period after the bill is approved in the House of

Representatives and prior to its final enactment into law.

Our member organizations respectfully request that the

individual Members of this Subcommittee express the appropriate

concern that intended beneficiaries of this legislation should

not be deported before the final passage of this bill. The

Haitian and Cuban boat people have suffered untold hardships

already. Let us assure them for once and for all a compassionate

welcome in our country.

CONCLUSION

Some immigration and refugee policy issues cause widespread

division among legislators, national organizations and the general

public. But in the case of the Cuban and Haitian boat people who

have suffered so many grevious hardships and who have languished

so long in uncertainty, a wide range of organizations and Congressional

co-sponsors are enthusiastically united on the necessity of

granting them permanent residence status. The broad spectrum

of national civil rights organizations belonging to our Coalition

clearly bears witness to the equally broad public consensus in

Florida, New York and nationally for granting residence to these

refugees.
107

There are minor areas of potential ambiguity involving the

specific coverage of H.R. 4853, but they can be resolved with

simple technical amendments. Then this landmark legislation

can be expeditiously considered by the entire House of

Representatives and finally enacted into law • providing long

overdue relief to these 125,000 Cuban and 31,000 Haitian boat

people.

The Statue of Liberty is widely known as the "Mother of Exiles.

The Haitian and Cuban boat people have suffered untold hardships

already. In H.R. 4853 we have the opportunity to honor this

proud heritage justly and humanely by granting to these boat

people the certainty of permanent residency in our country.
108

APPENDIX *1

PRECONDITIONS FOR TRAGEDY:

A PATTERN OF HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES IN HAITI *

by Michael S. Hooper, Esn.

Throughout much of its history, Haiti has suffered various

forms of authoritarian government, severe political instability,

egregious and systematic human rights violations, and related

economic deprivation and instability. The "Duvalier era" of two

successive Presidents-for-Life now in its 26th year did not initiate economic dislocation, poverty, starvation and disease, nor

is this the first ruling elite in Haiti to be classified as a

kleptocracy, a state bureaucracy of thieves that pursue policies

of malign neglect of the most elemental needs of the Haitian

citizenry.

The uniqueness of the Duvalier "political revolution" consisted of a crushingly violent political repression based on

complimentary means of creating stark terror in the Haitian

people. The precisely organized, "surgical terror" of the secret

police (Service Detectif) and the Military Police was perfectly

complemented by the random, arbitrary terror of an intentionally

uneducated, undisciplined and brutal force of people loyal only

to their benefactor Francois Duvalier, the infamous Tonton Macoutes

who are unpaid below officer fanks and who must prey on the population in an economic as well as political sense.

Human rights violations were so widespread and serious under

the regime of Francois Duvalier that they were virutally instituionalized during his rule from 1957 to 1971. Despite a much

publicized but ill-defined "liberalization" that was proclaimed

by his son, "President-for-Life" Jean-Claude Duvalier, the Duvalier

system of authoritarian government and political persecution based

on the military and the Tonton Macoutes has not been significantly

altered.

There is no substantial evidence to indicate that "liberalization" has produced reforms in the following areas: continuing

"states of exception" to and disregard of the rule of law; the

large-scale detention, abuse and torture of persons for political

reasons without the substantive provision of any due process

*The information contained in this Appendix is excerpted from

the following reports by the author:

"Election 1984: Duvalier Style , A Report on Human Rights Based

on a Mission of Inquiry", March, 1984.

"Haiti- Report of a Human Rights Mission", August, 1983.

"Violations of Human Rights in Haiti June 1981-September 1982",

November, 1982.

(C) 1984, Michael S. Hooper
109

protections; the repression of all opposition parties and trade

unions; and a total disregard for all fundamental freedoms of

expression or communication.

When nineteen-year-old Jean-Claude Duvalier formally succeeded,

his father in 1971, there was no meaningful distinction between

the total personal power of the Duvalier family and the Haitian -

Government; there were no institutions with even the slightest *•

degree of autonomy from this autocracy. The legislature was

reduced to rubber-stamping bills handed down by the Presidentfor-Life, the press was in all meaningful senses the mouthpiece

of the National Palace, and opposition political groupings and

labor unions were completely crushed. Under the Duvaliers,

democratic institutions have been completely stifled, while

Haiti has become a government dominated by personal corruption.

Even the State Department Report on Human Rights practices

published in February 1980 acknowledges:

Corruption is traditional at all levels of

society, and significant amounts of domestic

revenues usable for development continue to

be diverted to personal enrichment.1

The 1979 Report of the World Bank corroborates that in 1977, for

example, almost 40% of all expenditures and of total revenues were

channelled through special checking accounts held at the National

Bank that made it virtually impossible to determine their source

or eventual disposition (p.lv.) Similarly, a report by the

World Council of Churches documents that the Duvaliers receive

approximately S70 per head for Haitian cane cutters sold into

conditions of near-slavery in the Dominican Republic'

In addition to this pervasive pattern of corruption,

contemporary Haiti continues to experience the beating and torture

of political activists; severe beatings are the accepted way of

processing criminal cases and imposing discipline. It is a

routine practice in Haiti to arbitrarily detain a person without

arrest procedures or any due process protections. Free reign

is given to government security forces and there is a complete

absence of any system of disciplining them. Many of these people

depend financially on extortion and the expropriation of property

of "opponents of the regime". Seemingly mild by comparison are

other equally institutionalized practices of the Haitian Government: a highly restrictive press censorship law: an absence of

any tradition of government service to its citizens: a governmental structurethat is pervaded by corruption at all levels,

channelling significant amounts of domestic revenues and foreign

assistance into personal enrichment of associates of the Duvalier

U.S. Department of State, Country Reports on Human Riohts

Practices for 1979, p. 344.

Sold Like Cattle: Haitian Workers in the Dominican Republic,

World Council of Churches, Dossier Number 10, November 1980.

36-483 0-84-8
110

family; the governmental repression of opposition political

groups or labor unions; and most recently, the government's

disruption of the activities of the Haitian League for Human

Rights. -

Today Haiti has without doubt the most desperately poor

economy in this hemisphere, although it was once the richest

pearl in the French colonial necklace. The present political

regime of President-for'Life Jean-Claude Duvalier, run for and

by the dreaded Tonton Macoutes, coupled with a long-standino

tradition of official corruption, keeps this impoverished society

underdeveloped and its people in a stark state of deprivation

and terror.

In contemporary Haiti there is a striking relationship

between deteriorating economic conditions and continuing violations of basic civil and political riqhts. The government of

Haiti is formally committed to furthering the economic and social

rights of its own citizens both in its own Constitution and

through the ratification of the Inter-American Convention on

Human Rights on Sept. 27, 1978. However, it is extreraly dificult to quantify and analyze the pervasive property and economic

chaos that characterizes Haiti because of the almost total

reluctance of the Haitian Government to provide updated statistics. This indifference in systematizing reforms is matched

by corruption and official extortion that further destabilize

the entire economy and society. The economy of Haiti is entirely

politicized, and much of its chaos and devastation can be

attributed to the government's malign neglect and persecution

of its citizenry.

Haiti's economic picture is bleak. The average annual income is somewhere between $235 and $270, or less than half of

the next poorest country in this hemisphere, Bolivia. This annual

per capita income qualifies Haiti as the only country in this

hemisphere listed among the United Nations' thirty "relatively

least developed countries" (RLDC's.)* Accordino to the U.S.A.I.D.

Strategy Statement for 1984, "Even this figure fails to communicate

the level of poverty in Haiti, as income distribution is highly

skewed, and only the substantial wealth of the small urban elite

brings the national per capita income figure above the absolute

poverty levels. This income inequality is dramatic. In 1981,

0.4% of the population received more than 46% of the national

income while more than 80% of the people had an average income

of less than $100 per year. Ninety percent of the population

live below the absolute poverty level of $140 per capita."4

3. Country Development Strategy Statement, Haiti, F.Y. 1984,

January 1982, A.I.D., Washington, D.C.

4. Memorandum on the Haitian Economy, World Bank, Latin American

and Caribbean Regional Office, May 13, 1981, p. 6.
Ill

Approximately seven thousand Haitian families have incomes

exceeding $50,000. About three thousand of these live in the

Port-au-Prince area and have incones around $100,000 per year

(IHS:1977). This concentration of wealth and power in the hands

of a sma-Jl elite in the capital results in centralized decisionmaking that contributes to the underdevelopment of rural areas.

This institutionalized misery is partly the result of a

political system which has made no sustained effort to undertake

economic improvements. Under both Presidents Duvalier, there

have been continual reports of government corruption and mismanagement of public funds. The income that does return to the

public treasury is inadequate to meet the social needs of public

education, public health, or agricultural extension services.

The rural population is under-served and over 95% lack access to

safe water.

Foreign aid, allocated to ameliorate social problems,

appears to be ineffective. A 1980 report of the Inter-American

Commission on Human Rights of the Organization of American

States concluded that: "It is questionable whether badly needed

foreign assistance programs effectively reach their targets."

It is difficult to ascertain whether or not funds budgeted for

social purposed are expended on them. In 1978 a Congressional

Research Service report estimated half of these public funds

are kept in unbudgeted accounts, and these are subject to

diversion to private hands.6

Government statements of official policies in these areas

of income distribution and employment seem to be so diametrically

opposed to reality as to suggest intentional deception. For

example, in 1979 the government set a minimum wage for all workers

of eleven gourdes a day. This daily minimum, equivalent to an

annual income of 3234 gourdes, is attained by less than 5% of

all Haitian workers. The government has never explained this

discrepancy.

In conclusion, Haiti is a poor country with significantly

limited resources, but the Duvalier Government has offered

nothing but active neglect when confronted with the emergency

problems of illiteracy, malnutrition and disease. Furthermore,

the Duvalier regime has greatly exacerbated these problems through

land seizures, political instability, massive corruption that

siphons off meager public funds and much foreign assistance, and

an unwillingness to allow any necessary independence to international relief organizations. A recent Congressional Research

Service study concluded: "... the natural causes of Haiti's poverty

could be overcome, were it not for sociological and political

problems. Those problems are the manifestations of oppression,

their conseouence the economics of Duvalier." "V

5. I.A.C.H.R. Report, Dec. 1979, p. 74.

6. "Impediments to Economic and Social Development in Haiti,

Congressional Research Service, the Library of Congress,

Washington, D.C., June 19, 1978.

7. Ibid, pg. 115-116.
112

APPENDIX »2

HAITIAN ARRIVALS BY MONTH AND YEAR

(EP1 and EWI")

Monthly/ Cumu- INS INS

Yearly lative Exclusion Deportation

-.Total Total Cases (EPI) Cases (EWI)**.

1971-1979 5,912 5,912 1,830 4 ,082

19B0 24,530 30,442 13,136 11 ,394

1981 9,505 39,947 7,687 1 ,816

1980 Jan 1,063 6,975 502 561

Feb 919 7,894 164 755

Mar 1,947 9,841 869 1 ,058

Apr 2,165 12,006 1,004 1 ,161

May 2,719 14.725 1,081 1 ,63B

Jun 2,247 16,972 1,048 1 ,199

Jul 1,721 18,693 890 831

Aug 2,477 21,170 1,585 892

Sep 3,347 24,517 2,155 1 ,192

Oct 3,331 27,848 2,426 905

Nov 1,274 29,122 680 594

Dec 1,320 30,442 634 685

1981 Jan 1,147 31,589 664 483

Feb 637 32,226 332 305

Mar 1,095 33,321 610 485

Apr 949 34,270 460 489

May 825 35,095 769 56

Jun 1,481 36,576 1,481 0

Jul 1,559 38,135 1,559 0

Aug 869 39,004 869 0

Sep 555 39,559 5S5 0

Oct 294 39,853 294 0

Nov 48 39,901 48 0

Dec 4e 39.947 46 0

1982 Jan 41 39,988 41 0

Feb 9 39,997 9 0

Mar 11 40,008 11 0

Apr 14 40,022 14 0

May 0 40,022 14 0

Jun 5 40,027 5 0

• EPI: Entered and Processed Immediately EWI:Entered Without Inspection

••Changed INS processing/deportation procedures ended EWI registration in

June 19B1.

SOURCE: HHS/ORR
113

NATIONAL COALITION FOR HAITIAN REFUGEES

Rasanbleman Nosyonal pou Refijye Ayisycn

275 Seventh Avenue • Eleventh Floor • New York, New York 10001 • (212) 741*152.6153

EXECIT1VE COMMITTEE

Biihop Anihon> J BcvUftcqiia

CUrau. B-ihop of MatesI*

Katnaal CIATIM O< C JIN-U, Bnhopi

hvanl Rwjli*. Vkc-Ctuuriw

A PW« KwiMpk UUCMOMI F and

A P P E N D I X *3

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Mich**! 5. Hooper, Eut

ASSISTANT INRrXTuK

MafkM. Mwpfcy

VOLUME 1M.-No «

Wk toII IH IIX* ••.' *•» !•*» II

NEW YORK. WEDNESDAY. MAY J. !<M

Page 1, col. 1

Immigration

Law

By Stanley Mailman

Relief Offered

For Boat People

From Cuba, Haiti

At odds over the Slmpion-MauoU

bill, now headed for vote In the

House.' Hispanic and labor groups

have Joined In an effort to regulariee

the atatua of Cuban and Haitian

boat people The

vehicle la the

Cuban/Haitian Ad

Jualmcnl Act of

IBM, a bill Introduced on Feb I

by RepresenLA • "-•V ..-TJJ tatlve Peter W.

' A * " Wi Rodlno bill would

lrf% 'jr J allow more than

egfi S3L f 100.000 Marlel

Cubana and Hal

liana who arrived on the beachea of

Florida In the spring of 1M0. or even

by 1IR3. to apply Immediately for

permanent realdence. Having no Immigration atatua now. theae allena

cannol bring their tamlliea: nor can

they return If they leave the United

States on a vlalt.

The legalisation formula In

Repreaenl alive Romano L. Mauotl's

more comprehensive bill would grant

realdence generally to undocumented aliens In the United

States since before 1982.' No one

knows, however, whether that date

will aurvlve amendment from the

House floor or by compromise with

Senate confereea. (Equivalent provisions In the Senate-passed bill arc

decidedly leaa generoua.) Moreover,

there la no aaaurance that SlmpaonMaxzoli will come to a Houae vote,

given opposition to Its employer

aanctlons and temporary-worker

program. Undoubtedly, the uncertainty of relief for Cubans and particularly tor Haitians, under provision* now on the booka or pending,

was a factor that moved Congressman Rodino to Introduce his bill.

It la not clear, for example,

whether the Marieleloe are eligible

for relief under the Cuban Adjustment Act of l »66 * On Its face, this law

qualifies Cubana who came after

Jan. 1. 1M9. to adjust their atatua to

permanent residence after they arc

here for at least a year. Although

designed for Cuban political refugees

paroled into the United Stales after

the Castro revolution, it requires no

ahowlng that they are In fact

refugees.

The problem la that adjustment under the 1066 Act may require a visa

number. In July, lifts, the Immigration and Naturalliation Service

(INS") adopted the policy of charging a number to the Uien Western

Hemisphere quota for every Cuban

so adjusted* This diverted approximately 143.000 visa numbers from

use by other Western Hemisphere

natives and cauaed a severe backlog.

After challenge in the eourta. the Attorney General reexamlned this

•'charging'" policy and concluded PLEASE SEE OVER
114

that Cuban* who Adjust their status

under Ihr acl art not to be counted

against the quota. Hla order of Aug.

31 1976, to char>(e the policy aecor-

•dini-i, waa followed by INS on Oct 1

1976"

On Oct 20. 1ST* the Cuban Adjustment Act waa amended to drop the

"charging" requirement lor those

physically here before It* effective

date f Jan l. 1177).' This suggests a

Congressional assumption that, absent the amendment and for those

coming sfler the critical date,

"charring" Is required Indeed. Ibis

la confirmed by •tslemcnta la the

leglslstlve history* Congress was apparently unaware of the Justice

Department's view, taken Just days

earlier, that the "charging" waa error.

Suit Brought

On Nov. 16. 1976. one Refuglo Sllva,

complaining of this error, aued to

.make those visa numbers, formerly

aaalgned to Cubans, available to

natives of other Western Hemisphere

countries who applied for Immigrant

visas between July 1. lt>M, and

December 31, 1976. and whose eases

were still pending. SUva'a claim waa

austalned In s Court of Appeals decision. 5ift<a v. BtU, elaborating •

aystem for the recapture and distribution of the numbers.* •

Implicit Is the court's reliance on

the Attorney General's earlier ruling, and later court concession, that

It was error to charge numbers for

use under tbe 1966 Cuban Adjustment

Act. Significantly, the Justice

Department could have defended In

Siti a by pointing to the Implication In

the i»;e amendment thai lbs

"charging" had been correct The

concession, on the other hand, and

the massive SiUa program of

redistribution thai followed arc

significant precedenta for reading

the act to dispense with charging.

even now.

Whether numbers are needed for

relief under the 1966 Act Is critical

Stho numbers nave by now run out.

And the annual, now worldwide, allocation of 270,000 numbers la heavily

oversubscribed. Its nonpreference

portion has been unavailable for

years. The 196* Act Is therefore a

dead letter for post-1976 entrants If

vtaa numbers are required. If they

' are not. the 1M6 Isw remains a useful

vehicle for sdjustlng virtually any

non-Communist, noncrlmlnai Cuban.

No other provialon appears to Umlt

the rights of Cubans under ihc 1MI

Act. The 1W0 Refugee Act. Iff seeking

to provide "a permanent and

systematic' procedure" for the admission of refugees," does not seem

to affect the 1906 Act which baa no

"refugee" requirement.

Moreover, the 1966 Acl provides

relief to most Marie) Cubans which la

otherwise unavailable. Whatever

"refugee" rights might have accrued

lo Cubans or Hsitiana under earlier

law were extinguished by tbe

Refugee Act of 1010 " And under Ihc

19M Act. they have been alngularly

unsuccessful In their efforts to show

that they are refugees • Few of them

can meet the labor certification and

viaa number requirements of the

basic ImmlgTsllon and Nationality

Act." And Cuban/HaJllan entrant Mil

Introduced on behalf of the Carter

Administration mustered little support."

No INS Action

At least for the Cubans, therefore,

efforts lo gsln residence have

focused on the 1966 Adjustment Act.

but have so far failed. For years INS

look no action on their applications

and avoided taking a public position

on their eligibility, apparently

counting on the passsge of SimpsonMattoll to cover both the Cubans and

Haitians.

Earlier this year, the Reagan Administration tentatively resolved the

Issue in favor of the Cubana. According to Robert Pear of tbe »u?

York Time*, referring to a Service

memorandum and quoting INS Commissioner Alan C. Nelson, the Service "had concluded that the Cubans

'have an entitlement to some relief

under the 1966 law' and that It would

be 'very unfortunate' if the Government got Into protracted litigation

leading to a court-directed legalisation program."11 {The American Immigration Lawyers Association had

earlier auggested to INS that a ault.

then threatened by Florida lawyers

and now brought." might result In a

court Imposed timetable that could

dlarupt routine immigration services. >

Informed' of the INS position.

Representative Rodlno, chairman of

the House Judiciary Committee and

long identified with Immigration

reform, objected to this treatment of

the Cubans separately from the Haitians. In a Feb. 1 letter to Attorney

General William French Smith he

wrote: "Any program lo adjust

Cuban entrants must also Include

Haitian entrant*, who have entered

this country under similar, it not

identical, clrcumstsncea."*1

AFL-CIO Support

Representstlve Rodlno put a bill

behind his position on Feb. t.

Benefiting Cubans and Haitians

alike, the Cuban Haitian Adjustment

Act of 19M has been strongly endorsed by the AFL-CIO (in a letter by

Lane Kirkiandi. the United States

Catholic Conference, the National

Association for the Advancement of

Colored People, the Americas

Jewish Committee, the New York

Time* and the Mtami BeraU " It haa

alao been Incorporated verbatim In

HR 4909. Introduced aa a comprehensive alternative to Simpson MauoII

by Represenlellve Edward Rev ha I of

California, a leader of the Hispanic

Congress!onsl caucus.

The Rodlno bill is scheduled for

hearing by the Houee Subcommittee

on Immigration on May I At this

writing It Is still uncertain when

Simpson Maxioli will be heard on the

House floor, slthough It la widely

believed that a two-tiered rule wUK-'

ahortly be Issued by the Rules Committee chaired by Repreaentatlvei

Claude Pepper of Florida This would

festure Representstlve Maxioll's

bill, as reported out by the Judiciary

Committee, with amendments by

other committees to be heard first la

s second tier of emendmenls. taken

from the floor, the Rodlno bill would

presumably alao be offered Tbe

Roybal bill is poised for preeentallon

aa a alngle amendment aa well aa

piecemeal. Whatever the fate

however, of Simpson MsztoU and the

controversial lasuea of sanctions and

• fgeJUatlon. there la s growing sense

thai legislative relief should be

raahfoned at least for the Cuban and

Haitian boat people.'

II) SlnpMM-Matiolt u th* MaUs us, far

.»- kwaaassshn a.f.r. eaffisSiS -

K&SmjSZShKM Sass.wiVtt

•••••it • RMH HMM u •:,::.

' BS •••" • • w" W9 mumm

• Lin"*•>•* r»B,|4"«"««> ••«. i

l «t# i. cm i i

n*tua»» a ciulunatilp Forum feat III No I

'!' FA!11' •Swa sii 14 lllui lilt

(ll K»l ,.,,

(41 ISSut 1141

"I S» SIN.

' isfij *•* •

1

'*»""awi-m ne ITI m* cw

(file .tin

(II IU* HMM fu» Ho 44-1141 IIULM.

(») a*, wpn HMI l

• ptjESfiniS r.'I"ri,i:',~"•-'••••

• ":ti-,"a?",:£r .'.,";•• ' •"

*Iw vat i. ivac at j rot I _ ya,i

((>. E7iL.

114) III . ..• i

i *~* ISA 111"

> 114 Cvna R*c . .

i aawiVwcviu »IH7I,I NM ' - -.

Pta! AprTlL •..

(III N ' Tlam C41>.,!.! r*t If HI, I.

Sunley MsJtman. whose sssssswl -

Is a regular feature sf tbe Law Jn,r.

**l H a member of tbe Urns of ~

Mallmaa A Ruthlaer, a FrsIestleBsJ

Osrporatlss. He Is a paal president ol

the American ImRilgratlsa Lawyers

AasacUUoa.
115

NATIONAL COALITION FOR HAITIAN REFUGEES

Rasanbkman Kasyonalpuu Rcfijyc Ayisycn

275 Seventh A*nur • Eleventh FW • Nr» Yuri. No> York lOMJl • GUI 741-6152.6LVI

APPENDIX #4

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Bitmap A»f W*t J. Rrvllaciju*

Ci*i«uii. Bhhap »f ^m.bur(h

WMMWt Iwlnm. of Ctftafa UnM«i

h^' R«*K V k.-Ch...«u>

F*W? AnlotM Airtr*

HMwiCnMCMiMU

H Wlc HrwIrrMMt. Em

U*«c4 Sutn C*thalM CanlttrKi

A4-•r•M - C*Wrt P«>(*

HA Th« MUM Hct.y / Mo.d.». Ftb 11. ISM

Sbc JHiami Hcratfi

EXRlTtVE UIHtXTOH

Miriurl s H ••»«». EH

••nun IHKLCR*

Krfe Pt. M.rpV J

KMMS KNH-.HT (tlMlHI) MMUL KWlCK7.Cup~v.fl f•M.I

RICHAU>C CAFIK auo•• Ml •sssstsss

KVtNLY • CA*TTH JIM HAMPTON

•sat*

HI A TM J Mt K1 *IT IK•

C«ialfM Utter

JOANNA WIAGG- AMOCMIr LAW PtTt WCITUL Man^** UiW

The Rodino Bill

CREDIT Rep. Peter Rodtno of New

Jersey for a major legislative

breakthrough whose Impact ID

Sooth Florida would be large and beneficial. The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee propose* to provide a

separate legislative remedy for the Immigration status of ao estimated 150,000

Cubans and Haitians who entered the

United Slates before Jan. I. 1982.

Mr. Rodino properly asserts that this

particular Immigration problem should

not have to await the long-delayed passage of an omnibus Immigration-reform

bill such as Slmpson-MazzoIL It can •

and should • be solved separately.

The Cubans who embarked on the

Marlel boaUlft ought to be accepted.

They did not enter the country Illegally

or surreptitiously. Quite the contrary:

Jimmy Carter opened America'• arms to

them. And the Haitians who entered during that period likewise arrived quite

openly and submitted themselves to ll.S

law.

The Cubans rightly are eligible (or

legal-resident status under the 1966

Cuban Adjustment Act anyway. The Immigration and Naturalization Service Is

preparing to process them under that

law. But what of the Haitians, the other

members of the "Caribbean entrant"

category that the Carter Administration

established in response to Marlel? Are

they to be left behind in permanent legal

limbo simply because they are poor and

black and fled the poverty of a rightwing dictatorship Instead of the depriveUon* of communism?

Mr. Rodino says no. Good for him. His

Mil would keep the Haitians and Cubans

yoked together by granting both groups

the opportunity to apply for permanent

US residence. Further, adding compassion end common sense to fair play, Mr.

Rodino would extend the amnesty to Include those post-Marfel Haitians who

were confined for ao long at the Kromc

Avenue camp.

Nicknamed for the Federal judge who

ordered them freed them from Krome

while their asylum claims were processed, the so-called Spellman Haitians

have paid dearly to stay in the United

States. Numbering only 1,800, they have

survived on private charity and on their

own unsurpassed eagerness to work.

Mr Rodino's proposed legalization

program would not encourage further Irregular immigration from Cuba or Haiti.

The Reagan Administrations campaign

of interdiction on the seas has virtually

halted the arrival of Haitian boat people.

And a MarieMype bostllft from Cuba

depends more on Fidel Castro's whim

and on Washington's reaction than on

any immigration law.

Resident status is important, however.

for those who are here and for the communities tn which they live. It will enable the Immigrants to claim homestead

exemption, to obtain travel documents,

and to seek permanent employment. It

opens the hope of eventual naturalization as U.S. citizens And the Rodino bill

provides for reimbursement to Uie

states, notably Florida, that have Invest-'

ed In the entrants' adjustment to American society.

Congress should move quickly to

forge this separate peace for those Individuals and their communities. It Is long
116

' MCnUHOVHUKIITCSlMION

wUHnaT<y>0Ffcc

Hay 1, 1984

Dear Representative:

H1I.ILP

>*• , . B«rnw>

DffflOE UAOMf

Ut»*tMot«*y

The American Civil Liberties Union is committed to

Nwm*n DorMn

preserving the rights of due process and equal protection of mt^SStilS*

law guaranteed by the Constitution and federal legislation. Jg""' J» '°°*

No recent example of government action more dramatically

demonstrates the importance of these rights, or their

frailty, than the experience of Cuban and Haitian refugees na

here in the United States. These refugees came to this "•

country seeking freedom and political asylum, but have

suffered substantial abuse.

For the past several years, the ACLU has worked with other

civil and human rights groups, labor and religious organisations

in seeking fair treatment for the Cubans and Haitians. Given the

history of prior abuses, we believe that legal status for these

two refugee groups must be established as the only satisfactory

solution to their unique plight and suffering. He write today in

strong support of H.R. 4853, the 'Cuban-Haitian Adjustment Act of

1984" which was introduced by Rep. Peter Rodino (D-NJ), and we

urge you to join the effort by co-sponsoring this essential

legislation.

The refugees who fled by boat from Cuba and Haiti in the

past few years risked their lives to seek protection in the

United States. The great majority of these groups were

originally welcomed here under a temporary "entrant" status which

carried the promise that lawful permanent residence through new

legislation would soon follow. In 1981, our government's policy

toward these groups changed dramatically. Shortly thereafter,

over 2100 Haitian refugees were detained in federal prisons and

immigration detention centers pending processing of their

applications for political asylum. Federal court decisions in

recent years have forced the inescapable conclusion that the

policies of the federal government resulted in serious violations

of due process of law in the treatment of Haitian and Cuban

refugees.
117

The Haitian refugees in particular have suffered at the

hands of our government They have been improperly denied their

statutory and treaty rights to a hearing before an immigration

judge in exclusion proceedings on their claim for political

asylum, as well as their right to be notified of the procedures

that the government intended to use against them. They have even

been denied the right to present their asylum claims. Although

most of the Haitian refugees have been released from detention,

the status of Cuban and Haitian refugees remains in limbo. The

inequities involving the treatment of both groups impells the

enactment of legislation providing permanent residence.

The Rodino bill would finally rectify the injustice in our

treatment of Cuban and Haitian boat people. The ACLU strongly

endorses the specific language of the legislation, and we agree

that the bill's definition of this distinct group of refugees

must benefit from its provisions. H.R. 4853 is a modest step

toward a humane and just solution to this dilemma. He urge you

to co-sponsor and support this important legislation.

SiQ£ej:ely,

John Shattuck Hade J. Henderson

Director Legislative Counsel
118

NATIONAL COALITION FOR HAITIAN REFUGEES

Rasanbhrnan Nasyonal pou Refyye Ayisycn

275 Sooth Aocnue • Eleventh Floor • New York. New York 10001 • QT2) 7414152.6153

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

•take* A.tW»» J. Mitqu

Ck*(r«»»« Buhup at PKUfcwfk

APM»KM! »> j>••!f*4

Tuktt AMatat Adrim

Camat tmemj•**) Fow

H«M«nUr SfcMry CMM*

JMfhElfcmt

Hiiiiui CrMrn lowd

w*>ii c•• U OmM

Unm ta*K J W ViUajrr Mntn

Ira GoOoM*. E«,

lUnuaCMl L*m*i

Mil ilUWL•IT IM

April 23, 1984

EXECITIVE WRECK*

Nfcfcftri S Hoo^r, EH

ASSIST** 111KUTOK

Dear Representative:

On behalf of organizations traditionally concerned with

fundamental civil and human rights, and as representatives

of the forty-five national member organizations of the

National Coalition for Haitian Refugees, we are writing

to strongly urge your active support and co-sponsorship

of the Cuban-Haitian Adjustment Act of 1984, H.R. 4853.

This legislation, introduced by Judiciary Committee Chairman

Peter Rodino, would end the tragic plight and aggravated

legal limbo of a restricted class of Cuban and Haitian

boat people. It would grant to approximately 125,000

Cuban and 31,000 Haitian boat people permanent residence

in the United States. This bill has already been endorsed

and co-sponsored by a bi-partisan group of your colleagues

including Representatives Mazzoli, Pepper, Fascell, Conable,

Barnes, McKinney, Fauntroy, and the overwhelming majority

of the Congressional Black Caucus. The Chairman of the

Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and Refugee Policy,

Alan Simpson, has also supported the need to "end the

Cuban and Haitian legal limbo" and grant them permanent

status.

Every major civil rights, trade union, religious, and

voluntary organization familiar with the plight of Cuban

and Haitian refugees has enthusiastically endorsed the

Cuban-Haitian Adjustment Act. This legislation finally

accords justice and due process to these Cuban and Haitian

boat people, the great majority of whom have suffered in

a legal limbo for an intolerable period. At the same

time, the number of people who would benefit from this

legislation is well defined and limited.

The Cuban and Haitian boat people fled to our country

seeking shelter from repression and misery, and their

situation is unique because of the treatment that they

have been subject to. Beginning four years ago the great

majority of this group was granted an "entrant" status

and has been promised repeatedly by our government that

this status would be converted to permanent residence

through legislation. The small group of Haitian and Cuban

boat people who arrived subsequent to the grant of "entrant"

status but prior to January 1, 1982, have in many cases
119

suffered more than their predecessors. A large number of them

were imprisoned for up to eiahteen months as part of a universally

condemned detention program. This long overdue legislation will ~

grant permanent residence to both groups. -

We sincerely request that you join us in correcting the intolerable

civil rights plight of the Cuban and Haitian boat people, by cosponsoring and actively supporting the Cuban-Haitian Adjustment

Act of 1984. Thank you in advance for your assistance in this

most urgent request.

Very Sincerely

Bayartt Rustin

President

A. Philip Randolph Institute

/ice Chairman

QMA^

John E. Jacob

President

National Urban League

Execu,tiyp CommitfcBe

<// ' ///;

The Hon

Executi

^/!J)"/u!^

Ralph G. Neas

Executive Director

Leadership Conference

on Civil Rights

Executive Committee

/

/Dale S. de Haan

Chairman

Committee on Migration and

Refugee Affairs, A.C.v.A.

Executive Committee

Most Reverfhd ,Xhthony J. TJevilacqua

Bishop of Pittsburgh

Chairman

Benjamin L. Hooks

Executive Director

N.A.A.C.P.

Executive .Committee

able Shirley Chisholm

Committee

Lane Kirkland

President

A.F.L.-C.I.O.

Executive Committee

Bahhi MarcftVHN Tanenbaum

American Jewish Committee

Executive Committee

/Michael S. Hooper, Esq

/ Executive Director
Mr. MAZZOLI. Thank you very much, Mr. Hooper. I appreciate

your willingness to work with us this morning.

Mr. Padron, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. PADRON. My name is Eduardo Padron; I am cochairman of

Greater Miami United, an organization that brings together the

civic and economic leadership in the Miami area.

Our organization strongly supports immediate enactment of the

Cuban/Haitian Adjustment Act of 1984. The welfare of the south

Florida community requires that the legislation of the limited

group of Cubans and Haitians defined in Chairman Rodino's legislation be guided by the fundamental values of equal treatment and

justice for all and be accomplished as quickly as possible.

We ask that the mass of this group of Cuban and Haitian refugees, who risked their lives to flee to our country from misery and

repression, be granted permanent residency and an end to the

tragic plight and legal limbo. The unique and desperate situation of

the Haitian and Cuban refugee boat people has been repeatedly

linked by Government election in the public mind. The great majority of the Cuban refugees from the Mariel flotilla and the comparable and smaller group of Haitian refugees of long ago have

been promised that their entrant status would be converted to permanent residency through legislation.

Southern Florida has long prided itself on being a vital multiethnic community where our citizens suffer from too much divisiveness already. Introduction of the Cuban/Haitian Adjustment Act of

1984 represents a long overdue and equitable step toward solving

the tragic plight of these two refugee groups. Our community is

united in support of its early passage.

Our organization also endorses the specific language of the

Cuban Adjustment Act of 1984 that defines the group of refugees to

benefit from its provisions as absolutely essential to humane and

equitable solution to this dilemma.

The handful of Cubans and Haitians who arrived subsequent to

the granting of entrant status but before January 1, 1982, has suffered more than the prior arrivals :n many cases. Thousands of

Haitian refugees were detained for up to 18 months as part of the

detention program that Federal courts have held to have been illegal and discriminatory.

As Chairman Rodino emphasized, no group in recent history has

been subjected to more injustices by the Immigration Service. Both

the Cuban and Haitian refugees have established additional and

substantial equities in our society and their presence here should

be legally confirmed immediately. Our organization is in support of

this just and humane legislation, and we urge you to endorse this

bill in a bipartisan commitment to end the plight of these refugees

and to renew the sense of unity in our community.

Let me propose to you that the administration's suggestion that

the Cuban Adjustment Act be repealed is illogical and irrational. If

you eliminate the Cuban Adjustment Act, you will be in essence

saying that the Cubans are no better or worse than any other

people, however, the fact is that Cubans are really in an inferior

position because they are the only ones who cannot come to the

United States legally. From the preferential treatment in the
121

1960's and the 1970's, Cubans have been placed in an inferior position in the 1980's.

As you know, since 1980, the United States has closed the doors

for legal migration from Cuba. This, in my opinion, is the most effective way of provoking another Mariel, since there is no legal or

emotional outlet for Cubans at the present time.

At the present moment, the only avenue for Cubans to come to

the United States is by way of third countries. This is a very difficult and time-consuming process.

In Costa Rica alone, there are over 20,000 Cubans waiting to

come to the United States. As is true in most countries, they are

not allowed to generate income. This is draining the south Florida

economy. There are millions of dollars sent every year from U.S.

citizens to their relatives in third countries. Sometimes it may take

as much as 5 years before they are granted U.S. visas.

I would like to end by relating one of the cases I come in contact

with every day in the Miami area. This is a lady 27 years old who

came by way of the Mariel flotilla. She works about 12 hours a day

at a local restaurant. At the time she was leaving Cuba on the

boats, she had her 3-year-old girl, daughter, that she was ready to

bring with her.

The Cuban Government told her not to bring the girl on that

boat because there was no more space; that they would put the girl

on the next boat and she would arrive safely to the United States.

The girl never came.

It has been 4 years; the girl is 7 years old, hardly remembers her

mother at this point, but both are anxious to reunite. This is one of

just many cases that are happening and I think it is cruel. Only

you can bring about a solution to this problem.

Also, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask your permission to enter

this, which is a very comprehensive report of the Miami Herald on

the third anniversary of the Mariel exodus, which really documents all the contributions of these people to the United States of

America, and I would like to enter it as an official part of the

record.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Without objection.

[The document is on file with the committee.]

Mr. PADRON. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Padron follows:]
122

PREPARED STATEMENT OF EDUARDO PADRON, COCHAIRMAN, GREATER MIAMI UNITED

Greater K1am1 United strongly suDports the Immediate enactment of

the Cuban-Haitian Adjustment Act of 1984, Introduced on February 9. 1984

In the United States Congress by Judiciary Committee Chalnt.an Peter Rodlno.

The welfare of the Scjth Florida community requires that the legalization

of the Hinted group of Cubans and Haitians defined in Chairman Rodino's

legislation be guided by the fundamental values of equal treatment and

justice fcr all and :•- accomplished as quickly as possible.

Justice de-.ands that this group of Cuban and Haitian refugees who

risked their lives to flee to our country from misery and repression be

granted permanent residence and an end to their tragic plight and legal

limbo. The unique and desperate situation of the Haitian and Cuban

refugee boat people has been repeatedly linked by governmental action

and in the public mind. The great majority of the Cuban refugees from

the Karlel flotilla and the comparable and smaller group of Haitian

refugees have long ago been promised that their "entrant" status would

be converted to permanent residency through legislation.

Southern Florida has long prided Itself on being a vital, multiethnic community, but our citizens have suffered from too much d1v1s1veness already. The Introduction of the Cuban-Haitian Adjustment Act of

1984 represents a long-overdue and equitable step towards solving the

tragic plight of these two refugee groups, and our community 1s united

in support of Its early passage.

1«H M Wr. SUM 5tO. tin. Fiona* 331W 1305) aM-«JW
123

Our organization also endorses the specific language of the CubanHaitian Adjustment Act of 1984 that defines the group of refugees to

benefit from Its provisions as absolutely essential to a humane and

equitable solution to this dilemma. The handful of Cubans and Haitians

who arrived subsequent to the granting of "entrant" status but before

January 1, 1982 have suffered more than the prior arrivals 1n many cases.

Thousands of the Haitian refugees were detained for up to 18 months as

part of a detention program that federal courts have held to have been

illegal and discriminatory. As Chairman Rodino emphasized: "No group

1n recen'. history has been subjected to more injustices by the Immigration

Service."

Both the Cuban and Haitian refugees have established additional and

substantial equities in our society, and their presence here should be

legally confirmed imnediotely. Our organization 1s 1n support of this

just and humane legislation, and we urge the Democratic and Republican

parties to endorse this bill in a bi-partisan coimitment to end the

plight of these refugees and to renew the sense of unity in our community.
124

Mr. MAZZOLI. Thank you very much, Mr. Padron.

Gentlemen, we appreciate your testimony. Let me ask Mr.

Padron, you brought up a subject I was going to mention and that

is the possible repeal of the Cuban Adjustment Act which is done

in H.R. 1510, the Immigration Reform and Control Act. You said it

was irrational, illogical.

Why would it be that way? Why would there need to be a law on

the books for one classification of people when we have people here

from Salvador, people here from Afghanistan, people here from

many other sectors of the world?

Mr. PADRON. There are historical reasons and I will not go into

that, but from the practical point of view, as I said in my statement, it is basically the only avenue left for Cubans to be adjusted•as you know, there is no legal migration from Cuba.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Could they not come as refugees? I mean, wouldn't

a Cuban who leaves that government have a pretty fair chance of

being termed a "refugee"?

Mr. PADRON. YOU mean by the U.S. Government?

Mr. MAZZOLI. Yes.

Mr. PADRON. Well, that is one of our concerns right now. We

have had cases, as many people present here will document, even

people who are detained today at the Krome Avenue Detention

Center. There are about 30 Cubans that are detained there.

The problem that we have is that it is discriminatory. Up to that

time, it was a completely different story and what you have right

now is that there are people who are coming with special permission to visit relatives, especially old people, in the United States.

Sometimes if they decide to stay, the only way they have to do

that is by appealing through the Cuban Adjustment Act, and I feel

that, of course, the great solution would be to treat the Cuban

people no differently and to start legal migration. In my opinion,

what the Government is doing is depriving these people of any

kind of outlet and I personally happen to feel that was the major

reason for the Mariel boatlift and it would be a major incentive for

people to try to come into the United States illegally.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Good. Let me ask the other panelists this question:

There is a second section•the first section you have dealt with elo-

^uently and the second section deals with the issuance of visas in

iuba to people who would otherwise be cleared to come to the

country, except for the policy of the Government not to issue visas

except for close family reuniting.

Have you a position, has your organization taken a position on

that phase of the bill?

Mr. Mazur, for example, have the Ladies Garment Workers

spoken on that?

Mr. MAZUR. We take a broad view of the Simpson-Mazzoli bill

about liberal policy of immigration to this country

Mr. MAZZOLI. That second section is not in the immigration bill,

Mr. Mazur.

Mr. MAZUR. I know that, but consistent with that policy, Mr.

Chairman, as indicated by a number of the speakers this morning,

we would take the same kind of liberal view with respect to allowing visas and allowing those people to come to this country as well.

Mr. MAZZOLI. But obviously, our
125

Mr. MAZUR. It is notMr. MAZZOLI. Implicit in that is that your organization doesn't

have the same fealty and devotion to phase 2 as they do to phase 1.

Mr. MAZUR. I think we can draw a distinction. I think there is a

distinction between those two phases, obviously.

Mr. MAZZOLI. OK.

Mr. Hill. And let me mention that you are well-served at home

by Booker Webster, who is our local Louisville A. Philip Randolph

Institute chapter president and has done a very fine job for us in

your congressional district.

Mr. HILL. Thank you very much. We look forward to good cooperation with you in the continuing future.

We have a similar view, as Jay Mazur has indicated, in our own

attitude. We are generally open to measures which are conducive

to uniting families, to bringing about and creating best possible

living situation for people who come here.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Thank you.

Mr. Hooper.

Mr. HOOPER. In your introduction to your question, I think you

in some ways implied the answer, that our coalition would have,

and that is that we are most concerned about the first section of

the bill. Our principle motivating concern is the first section of the

bill.

As all other speakers, except the administration, however, have

indicated, we completely support the granting of those visas. We

believe it should be done.

Mr. MAZZOLI. I understand, but I guess the administration draws

a very sharp line against phase 2, but they are not adamant about

phase 1 and I think if we are trying to get a piece of legislation

passed, it may be that we perhaps should make some adjustments

in this thing.

Let me ask you all in what little bit is left of my time, I am sure

in this bill there is a retroactive grant of time toward permanent

residency. It goes back to 1982 so that anyone here has 2Vi years or

so applied to the 5 years of residence for naturalization. Do you see

this as right? Do you see this as selecting out people? We don't do

this for Salvadorans; we don't do this for any other group. Is there

some reason why we should do this for this particular class of

people?

Mr. Hooper?

Mr. HOOPER. Well, I think there is because this class is a very

discrete, identifiable group of people. They have suffered particular

and unique hardship in this country. Their situation is well known.

Really, the process that we are looking at is the process of adjusting people, the majority of whom have already been promised legal

status long ago.

The larger question of the legalization of a general undocumented population, involves entire series of far more•are well aware•

of far complicated questions as you, more than most of us.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Well, in the Simpson-Mazzoli bill, the H.R. 1510,

we do about what this bill does with respect to Cubans and Haitians, but we don't grant retroactive application toward the 5-year

requirement and I just wondered how you saw that, whether that

36-483 0-84-9
126

was something that is absolutely irreducible minimum in this bill,

or whether that is something which is

Mr. HOOPER. YOU are asking a delicate question, but I don't think

it is an irreducible minimum.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Thank you.

The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I first want to say that I appreciate the comments of all the

members of the panel. I certainly sympathize. Being from Florida,

it is a problem which obviously many have shared, but for Florida,

it is a uniquely difficult problem to deal with on a day-to-day basis.

I want to compliment my friend, Eduardo Padron, who is here

today. He and a number of others have done an excellent job of not

only trying to champion the cause of the Cuban and Haitian refugees who are in this nonstatus class, but in addition, have galvanized most of the community around it so that where it was a divisive issue previously, to a large degree, it is no longer such.

The justice and the fairness of the situation, for the most part

now, are acceptable by the people in the community, especially in

the south Florida area. They have done an excellent job in doing

that and I am very proud of that.

It strikes me odd, and it is too bad the administration isn't

here•President Reagan is very well received in the Cuban community in south Florida. The Haitians tend to be Democratic; the

Cubans tend to be Republican. Interestingly enough, it is this administration that has not chosen to provide status to any single

Marielito under the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966, and while the

President seems to be so personally popular, I wonder if they knew

his policy that was being carried out if he would be so popular.

I think it is unfortunate there is an opportunity under the law to

do this, and they have not been doing it. That is why I feel that

this bill is extremely important to provide that kind of a basis on

which to do it.

I also feel that it is important that we do examine the repeal in

the Mazzoli bill of the Cuban Adjustment Act. I agree, frankly, and

I discussed this with the chairman of the Rules Committee yesterday and he and I have agreed to file a joint amendment which

would be in order, I hope•his name is going to be on that

Mr. MAZZOLI. Sure will be.

Mr. SMITH. It might be possibly in order to

Mr. MAZZOLI. I would say it is a pretty good chance that•the

chairman of the Rules Committee might have an opportunity to

make in order. [Laughter.]

Mr. SMITH [continuing]. To remove that provision so that the

CAA, in fact, would not be repealed. There are some, I think, some

very compelling arguments of the fact that this is an identifiable

group who has been here for a very long time, over 20 years, many

of them. I think people tend to lose sight of the fact that the Mariel

boatlift and the Haitian boatlift people, in fact, represent only a

small portion of the total number of a large class of people that

came here, Haitians as well, previous to the boatlift.

As a result, I think that there is a very compelling reason for us

to be able to examine them independently of whatever else other

classes, in fact, have arrived here subsequent to that time. I would
127

just like to close•I don't really have any questions for the panel

because obviously we agree on most of these issues•just by saying

that I think it is important again, and the chairman certainly

knows I have done this many times•it is interesting to note that

in the south Florida area, the people who we are talking about

today, the Cuban and Haitian boatlift people, but also the Mariel

refugees' predecessors, and that is, the Cubans who have come

since the unfortunate demise of Cuba to Castro, have become very

much a strong, integral, very well-received and very important

part of the community.

Aside from those few people who were shoved over with the

others when Castro emptied his jails, there has been very little

negative impact and only positive impact on the community. To a

large degree Miami and. Miami Beach today would not be what

they are if it was not for the Cuban entrants who came here after

1959.

In the Haitian community, I doubt whether there has been•out

of all of these years since all of the people have come•whether

there has been a hundred reported cases of criminal element activity as a result of it. They are extremely industrious, hard-working

people. Almost all of the people that have come here, both Cubans

and Haitians, only want one thing: A chance to make a living and

to have a decent place to live and raise a family and where they

come from, not only could they not have that economically, but politically they had no chance either. That is really what it boils

down to.

There is no turmoil in those communities today. There are no

problems with those communities. None of them are seeking to go

back and I think that the bottom line is that this bill, as well as

the Mazzoli bill, does serve them a good deal of justice. Obviously,

this deals with them slightly more independently of any other

group. It is unfortunate that some people have chosen to campaign

around this country on the grounds that they do not allow for

others to have come here when, if they would look up their own

family trees, they would find that just a short time ago, they

wound up here in one way or another with an open-door policy.

The bell has rung; my time is up, but I wanted to congratulate

the chairman again for the series of hearings and bringing this bill

up. I would hope that we have an opportunity to vote on it rapidly.

Mr. MAZZOLI. I thank the gentleman for those comments and I

certainly share them. It was my experience when I did come to

Florida•I think when I first met Mr. Padron 2 or 3 years ago•

even though many of you have fairly negative statements about

the Government and about the Immigration Service, I think that

my experience in talking with the Immigration Service was exactly

as the gentleman said, and that is, with respect to the Haitians,

there was, you know, literally no violence and no problems.

With respect to the great bulk of the Cuban entrants, and of

course, anyone who has been here for a while, they have actually

added a flavor and a substance to south Florida which it just didn t

have for a long, long time.

We want to thank all of you very much. I hope you have a safe

trip back home and thank you for your indulgence. We had a very

hopscotch day here, but we want to thank you and wish you well.
128

We call our last group forward: Mr. Ira Kurzban, legal supervisor of the Haitian Refugee Center; and Mr. Jerome Audige, the executive director of the New Jersey Haitian/American Cultural

Foundation.

Gentlemen, you can array yourselves as you wish.

Mr. Kurzban, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

TESTIMONY OF IRA KURZBAN, GENERAL COUNSEL, HAITIAN

REFUGEE CENTER; AND JEROME AUDIGE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR NEW JERSEY HAITIAN/AMERICAN CULTURAL FOUNDATION

Mr. KURZBAN. Thank you, Congressman Mazzoli.

On behalf of the Haitian Refugee Center, Inc., and the Haitian

community in south Florida, I would like to thank you for giving

us this opportunity to speak before the committee today.

The first thing I would like to point out is that we strongly support H.R. 4853. We think it is a humane, just, and long-needed alternative to the situation that has existed in south Florida for both

Cubans and Haitians.

I would like to call to the committee's attention three beneficial

aspects to the bill that are not presently covered under any other

legislation. I think they are important for the committee to note.

First, this bill•unlike any other bill•reverses the narrow interpretation that the Immigration and Naturalization Service has

given the Cuban/Haitian entrant status by including people who

are not only in proceedings, but people for whom a record was created on or before October 10, 1980.

Second, the bill addresses the question of coverage of persons

whose files were lost. As I know you are well aware, and I am sure

many of the other committee members are the Immigration Service in 1980 established a Haitian program during which time they

centralized all the files of Haitians in south Florida. That whole

process was found to be illegal by Judge King in Haitian Refugee

Center v. Civiletti, but during that process, many files were lost.

Subsequent to that time, Haitians were placed in detention

camps and forcibly relocated throughout the United States. Their

files were transferred with them. Many files were lost at that time,

so we presently have a problem trying to estabish that dates of

entry of the existence of files for Haitians.

This bill addresses that problem by providing that a person

would be covered if a record was created, even if, in fact, the Service now does not have that record, so long as the petitioning party

can establish that the file should have been created. The contours

of what this includes and excludes, will have to be addressed either

by this committee or by regulation.

The third aspect of the bill and the one, I of course, am most familieu- with, is the coverage of Haitians who were involved in Jean

v. Nelson and the coverage of Haitians who were detained which

not only covers those people who were detained for a period of a

year, but also covers those Haitians who were detained for lesser

periods and who were not members of the class in Jean v. Nelson.

So the affected group is not just the approximately 2,000 Haitians class members in Jean v. Nelson we are also talking about
129

other Haitians who were detained who certainly have significant

equity.

I would like to call to your attention some technical changes that

are needed in the bill with respect to subsection (c). I certainly

don't think it was intended by Congressman Rodino, but subsection

(c), if left in its present form, would substantially undermine even

the Cuban/Haitian entrant program. It does so by having required

that Cuban/Haitian entrants file an application for political

asylum on or before January 1, 1982 to be eligible for residency

benefits.

This provision should be modified, at least as to those people who

arrived before October 10, 1980. Many of the pre-October 10, 1980,

refugees, particularly Haitians who came into the country, did not

file political asylum applications because of their belief the INS

would not give them a fair hearing. This occured during the period

of the litigation in Haitian Refugee Center v. Civiletti and during

the period of the Immigration Service's Haitian program when INS

was mass-processing and mass-denying Haitians asylum claims.

After the Carter administration established the Cuban/Haitian

entrant program, there was nothing that any of those people

needed to do in order to affect their status in the United States so

they were advised, I think quite appropriately, by competent attorneys, that they need not file an application for political asylum because they already had the status of Cuban/Haitian entrants.

This bill, I think unintentionally, would penalize those people if

they never filed an application for political asylum before January

1, 1982. This provision certainly is not in the present 1510 bill, or

even in the bill presented by Senator Simpson.

Finally, I would like to turn to something that I think is of critical importance and a matter the committee should seriously consider advancing at this time; that is the question of what the committee should consider doing to protect the Haitians during the

pendency of the passage of any of the current immigration reform

bills. I would hope that you, Congressman Mazzoli, and the rest of

the members of the committee, would call upon the INS to stop deportation hearings against Haitians pending a final determination

of this legislation.

I am not sure if committee members are aware of it, but the INS

has stepped up, since the introduction of this bill in February•proceedings to deport Haitians. There was some comment made by

Mr. Nelson initially that the Service didn't discriminate. I think

the record speaks for itself. The task force of the Black Caucus has

eloquently spoken on this issue for a number of years and has

found that there was discriminatory treatment. Moreover Federal

litigation that dates back to 1973 has raised the discrition treatment of Haitians. The panel of the court of the 11th Circuit Court

of Appeals found a stark pattern of discrimination with respect to

the Haitians. I don't think there is any question, but that discrimination goes against the Haitians and I would even say that there is

no question of racism here. I think we have proven that.

In closing we do point out that if these bills are not passed this

term, and if the Service continues there expedited processing of

Haitian cases, what we will see by next year is a situation where,

on the one hand, Cubans are going to be adjusted under the Cuban
13U

Adjustment Act; on the other hand, many Haitians outfitted to

benefit under H.R. 4853 will be deported. It will effect particularly

those people who have the most equities, which are those Haitians

who were detained for long periods of time.

I would certainly call upon you, Chairman Mazzoli, to bring this

matter to the Government's attention and see, in an equitable and

sensible way, given the thousands of other cases that the Immigration Service can certainly process, that we obtain a moratorium,

either through legislation or through discussion with INS as to the

deportation hearings of Haitians.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kurzban follows:]
131

PREPARED STATEMENT OF IRA J. KURZBAN,1GENERAL COUNSEL,

HAITIAN REFUGEE CENTER,

The Hait tan Refugee Cen ter, Inc., on beha If of the Haitian

refugee communi t y in the United States* is grateful for the

introduction of HR *S53 by the Honorable Peter Rodino and for the

opportunity to appear before this committee.

The bill in its proposed form is a humane, just and equitable

solution to a problem of long standing in the South Florida area.

•V, early as 1963^ and more regularly beginning 1972 Haitians have

fled the dictatorship of the Duvalier family in Haiti. Despite

the brutal* repressive nature of that regime,' Haitians have been

systematically maltreated by the Immigration and Naturalization

Service since their arrival in our country.*

fMr . Kurzban is a partner in the law firm of KURZBAN, KURZBAN

A WEINGEK, p.A. of Miami, Florida, a member of the Board of

Governors of the American Immigration Lawyers Association and

Adjunct Professor of Immigration and Nationality Law at the

University of Miami and Nova University School of Law.

2See House Commit tec on Immigrantion Citizenship and

Internatlonal Law, U.S. House of Representati ves, Commit tee on

the Judiciary, 9ft Cong. 2nd Sess. Hai t tan Emigration.

'See, H.R.C. v. Civiletti, 503 F. Supp. ftft2 (S.D. Fla. 1980)

*For over a decade, Haitian refugees seek ing asylum in this

country have been systematically denied their right to the fair

and impartial administration of our immigration laws at the hands

of immigration officials. They have been improperly denied their

statutory and treaty rights to a hearing before an immigration

judge in exclusion proceedings on their claims for political asylum. Sannon v. United States. 427 F. Supp. 1270 (S.D. Fla.

1977), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 566 F.2d 10ft (5th

C»r. 1978). They have been denied their right to notice of the

procedures that the government intended to use against them in

exclusion proceedings. Sannon v. United States, ft60 F. Supp. ft58

(S.D. Fla. 1978). They have been denied the right to work during

the pendency of their asylum claims. Nat iona1 CounciI of

Churches v. Egan, No. 79-2959-Civ-wMH TS.D. Fla. IsTTTi They

have been denied access to information to support their asylum

1
132

HR 4853, therefore, is a welcome and long awatted effort to

provide a solution to over a decade of misery to persons who have

so long and earnestly sought freedom on our shores.

HAITIANS COVERED BY HR 0853

The coverage of HR 4853 of course, is of great concern to the

Hai t lan coinmun ity. At present the bill would cover Haitian

entrants and all Haitians who arrived in the United States before

January 1, 1982 and with respect to whom any record was

established by the INS. The latter section is critical and

provides impor tant relief to Haitians neglected under the present

version of the Simpson-MazzoIi bill. It achieves broader

coverage in two ways.

cI aims. NatlonaI CounciI of Churches v. Immigration and

Naturalization Service, No. 78-5 I63-Civ-JLK (S.D. Fla. 1979).

They have been denied the very right to be heard on their asylum

claims. Hat t ian Refugee Center v. Civiletti, 503 F. Supp. 442

(S.O. Fla. 1980), af firmed H.R.C. v. Smith 676 F.2d 1023 (5th

Or. Unit B, 1982). They have been denied their right to counsel

and to fair process in their exclusion hearings by being shipped,

like cattle, to remote areas of America. Louis v. Meissner, 530

F. Supp. 924 (S.D. Fla. 1981). They have been subjected to

discriminatory incarceration based on race and nationality in

concentration camp-like settings, Jean v. Ne1 son, 711 F.2d 1455

reversed on other grounds er^ banc 767 F.2d 957, petition for

rehearing pending (1984) [The court en banc found the

Constitution inapplicable to Haitian asylum seekers but did not

disturb the panel's findings as to discrimination].
133

COVERAGE OF HAITIAN ENTRANTS NOT IN PROCEEDING

First, the Cuban-Haitian entrant program, originally envisioned to provide broad coverage to both Haitians and Cubans,5

has been narrowly interpreted by the INS to include only Haitians

who were encountered and placed in proceeding before Oct. 10,

1980.* This interpretation has eliminated a substantial number

ol Haitians who voluntarily appeared at INS before Oct. 10, 1980,

who were given parole documents or told to return and who were

never placed in deportation proceedings. HR $853 remedies that

problem by including all Haitians who had any record at INS,

whether before or subsequent to Oct. 10, 1980, irrespective of

the initiation of deportation proceedings. This broader coverage,

particularly as it pertains to Haitians arriving here before Oct.

10, 1980 is more in keeping with the original spirit of the

entrant program.

COVERAGE OF HAITIANS AND CUBANS WHOSE FILES

WERE LOST OR MISPLACED

Significantly, this broader provision would also apply to any

Haitians whose records were established even if INS subsequently

lost them, ["to whom any record was established"]. Although it

is not possible to ascertain the number of Haitians in this

"lost" category, it is well known that a significant number of

Haitian files were lost due to INS actions during the "Haitian

'""Cuban-Ha i t tan Arrivals in U.S." Current Policy No. 193.

U.S. Department of State, June 20, 1980.

6

Telex of 11/10/80 from INS Commissioner to all INS officers.

3
134

Program," where Haitian files were centralized,7and to the subsequent transfer of many files to remote areas of the United

States with the Haitians by the INS*. The broader coverage of HR

4853 || more equitable than that found in other pending legislation in this area in that it alone provides protection to

Haitians and Cubans whose files were lost through no fault of

their own. The bill, therefore, would protect both those

Haitians who arrived before Oct. 10, 1980 but who were not in

proceedings and therefore not designated as entrants, and those

Haitians and Cubans whose files were lost or misplaced by the

INS.

COVERAGE OF POST-ENTRANT HAITIANS AND CUBANS

Secondly, HR 4853 also covers Haitians who arrived subsequent

to Oct. 10, 1980 including the approximately 2,000 Haitians who

were incarcerated unlawfully for almost one year by the INS," and

several thousands who were unlawfully incarcerated for lesser

periods. In addition to this group there are a substantial

number of both excludable and deportable Haitians who entered

after Oct. 10, 1980 but before May, 1981 and are therefore

neither Haitian entrants nor class members in Louis v. Nelson.

This group, numbering in the several thousands would also be

covered by this important legislation. In addition, the bill

"""^SecT'H.R.C. v- Civilelti. 503 F. Supp. »»2 (S.D. Fla.

affirmed H.R.C. v.'Sm'ith, 676 F.2d 1023 (5th Cir. Unit B. 1982).

g

Louis v. Meissner, 530 F. Supp. 92* (S.D. Fla. 1981)

Louis "v.Nel son, 5»» ~F. Supp I00« (S.D. Fla. 1981).

'These Haitians were released from detention by order of

the Honorable Eugene P. Spellman in Louis v. Nelson, 5*4 F. Supp.

1000 (S.D. Fla. 1982).

4
135

would cover post-Marie! Cubans who entered the U.S. prior to Jan.

1, 1982 and who number, at a minimum, in the high hundreds.

The coverage of both of these groups is of great concern to

the South Florida community. Both groups entered or sought entry

into the United States at a time when our country welcomed them.

The Haitians who arrived subsequent to Oct. 10, 1980 had no

reason to believe they would not be treated as their predecessors. Indeed, it was not until May, 1981 that the INS dramatically changed its position and began to incarcerate Hattans,

and did so without the legally required public notice for such a

change of policy mandated by the Administrative Proceedure Act.+"

Moreover, only very recently, in late 1983, has INS seriously

initiated depor tation proceeding against the post Oct. 10, 1980

Haitians. It would, therefore, be inequitable to tell this group

of Haitians, now three years later, that they are not welcome in

our country.

The same can be said of pos t-Mariel Cubans. At though

President Carter, by May, 1980 attempted to stop the flow of persons from Mariel, post-Mariel Cubans have been welcomed to the

United States and have been adjusted to permanent residency under

the Cuban Adjustment Act.

APPLICATION OF SECTION 2*3(g) TO CUBANS

One other provision of the bill is of great importance to the

rcjean v. Nelson 711 F,2d 1*55 vacated as moot 727 F.2d 957

( 198*).
136

Cuban community in South Florida. Many Cuban-Americans have made

diligent efforts to obtain immigrant visas through the quota

system tor their spouses, children and brothers and sisters. As

a result of the Attorney General's anouncement in 1983 invoking

section 213(g) of the I.N.A., many United States citizens and

residents of Cuban heritage have been unable to be reunited with

their family members. Section 2 of HR 4893 would relieve that

problem by requiring consular officers to issue visas under our

quota system to persons who have waited and are entitled to such

visas so that they may be reunited with their families.

AREAS OF CONCERN IN NEED OF CLARIFICATION OH REVISION

Although HR 4833 is a positive equitable solution to a long

standing problem for Haitians and Cubans, this solution is in

substantial jeopardy of being rendered meaningless unless the

bill is modified and clarified in several respects.
137

SUB5ECTION "C" OF HR 4853

MUST BE MODIFIED OR ELIMINATED

Subsection "c" of HR 185 3 provides an except!on to the

coverage of the bill which if maintained in its present form

would negate the substantial benefits of the bill. Indeed, if

it was left in its present form, i t would provide less coverage

than the Cuban-Haitian provisions of the Simp son-Mizzo1i bill.

Subsection "c" as presently written provides that no Cuban or

Haitian who is either a Cuban/Haitian entrant or who arrived

before January 1, 1982 may be adjusted to permanent residency

if he or she "was admitted to the United States as a noni 'n n i grant, unless [he/she] filed an application for asyl urn. . .

before January 1, 1982."

HAITIANS IN LOUIS V. NELSON COULD BE SERIOUSLY AFFECTED

It is important to note that many of the Haitian asylum

seekers in the class of plaintiffs in Lou i s v_. Ne 1 son sought to

enter the United States through airports and seaports with visas*

were inspected but were not admitted, and were thereafer incarcerated in a discriminatory manner. Although they were subsequently paroled into the United States by virtue of the order

of the court in Lou is v. Nelson, they have never been admit ted

into the United States.

If subsection "c" is read to require actual admission [and

overstay] and not just inspection, parole or unsuccessful

admission, it would not, therefore, seriously affect this group.

Alternatively, if subsection Mc" is read to include any Haitian
138

who sough t admission by the presentation of a non-immigrant visa

[whether fraudulent or not], who was inspected or paroled, it

would affect a I I of the Haitian class members in Louis v. Nelson.

The committee should state clearly in its report that subsection

"c" does no_t_ apply to Haitians who sought admission (but were not

admitted), and does not apply to any Haitian who was inspected

or paroled but not admitted.

EFFECT OF SUBSECTION (c) ON HAITIAN ENTRANTS

The effect of subsection Hc" on Haitian entrants is more

serious and more problematical. Many of the Haitians who were

later designated Haitian entrants entered the United States as

non-immigrants and thereafter overstayed their grant of admission

into the United States. Many of these people did not file claims

for political asylum. The number of persons in this category is

easily in the thousands. Their failure to file claims may not be

attributable to their lack of desire to seek political asylum,

however, but rather to a course of events which occurred between

19 78 and 198 2. In 1978 after the Immi g rat ion Service began i ts

Haitian program, which ultimately resulted in the litigation

known as Haitlan Refugee Center v. Civiletti, many of the

Haitians were in fear of appearing at INS and did not believe

that they would obtain a fair opportunity to present their claims

for asylum. The reasonableness of these fears was ultimately

confirmed by Judge James Lawrence King* s f ina I decis ion in that
139

cast, which was upheld by the Court of Appeals in Hait tan

RefuRec Center v. Smith. During the course of these events, the

Haitians were designated as Haitian entrants in Dune, 1980 which

was later extended to October, 1980. They were then told that

legislation would be submitted to make them residents.'' There

was, therefore, no perceived need to go to INS to file an application for asylum because the Haitian entrants were assured that

legislation would be submitted to make them residents.

Indeed, it has been common practice for immigration lawyers

to advise Haitians, who would now fall within the parameters of

subsection "c", that it was unnecessary for them to apply lor

asylum or to take any other steps concerning their immigration

status. This is the advice that competent, skilled immigration

lawyers have consistently given to Haitian entrants since the

Carter administration's decision on June 20, 1980 and later on

October 10, I9S0 and since the original submission of President

Regan's proposals and Simpson-Mazzoli.

The modification proposed by subsection "c" of the Haitian

entrant program would seriously undermine the original grant of

entrant status and would now retroactively affect a substantial

number of Haitians who were lulled into the belief, as early as

1980, that they did not need to take any additional action to

eflect their status. This retroactive effect upon persons who

did not know and had no reason to know [and were often given

"•indeed, the present Simpson-Mazzoli bill does not contain any

provision limiting the Cuban-Haitian entrant group as does subsection (c).

9
140

advice not to take any action], is unfair and I do not believe

this outcome was intended by Congressman Rodino. I would therefore strongly recommend that subsection (c) be modified so that

it does not apply to persons designated under subsection (b) (t)

[Cuban/Haitian Entrants] of the bill and under (b)(2) if they

arrived on or before Oct. 10, 1980. This latter aspect is to

cover persons who should have been designated Haitian entrants

and could be designated for coverage under the more liberal provisions of section (b)(2) mentioned above.

Alternatively, the committee may wish to consider eliminating

subsection Mc" in its entirety.

TEMPORARY RELIEF IS NEEDED TO MAINTAIN THE STATUS QUO

The Haitian Refugee Center, Inc. and the Haitian community,

strongly endorse Congressman Rodino's bill with the modifications

suggested hereinabove. Congressman Rodino's leadership and

direction of HR 4853 is an important factor in securing the

passage of this significant and long awaited legislat ion.

The timing of the passage of HR 4853, however, is also of

critical importance to the Haitian community. Subsequent to the

introduction of HR 4853, the INS began calling to exclusion and

deportation hearings large numbers of Haitians who arrived in the

United States subsequent to Oct. 10, 1980 (i.e. post-Haitian

entrants) but who would be covered by HR 4853. The efforts of

the INS to deport these people before they obtain the benef its of

Congressman Rodino's bill is yet another shameful example of the

i nsens i 11 v i ty and bias of the INS in the treatment of Haitians.

10
141

We have asked the INS voluntarily to cease deportation and exclusion hearings tor the persons covered by this legislation and to

concentrate its limited resources on persons who would not be

covered by HR 48 53. We have made this suggest ion not on 1 y

because it is fair and equitable but because it would represent a

sensible use of the limited resources of the INS in bringing proceeding, and the Haitian Refugee Center, Inc. in representing

indigen t Ha i t i ans.

As the INS has not voluntarily ceased to initiate and

conclude deportation and exclusion hearings for persons covered

by HR 4853, we believe that this committee should consider

seriously emergency legislation, or an amendment to legislation

or appropriationsnow in the process of passage, to maintain the

status CJJJO through the temporary cessation of deportation and

exclusion hearing of Haitians covered by HR 4853. Without this

requested emergency relief hundreds of Haitians who are presently

at the final stages of the administrative appellate process are

likely to be deported within the next several months. Their

deportation or exclusion, given the existing repression in Ha ill,

wi I I mean their persecution, HRC v. Civiletti, 503 F.Supp. 442

(S.D. Fla. 1980) and possibly their torture or death upon return.

We strongly recommend that you consider some emergency action to

prevent these grave consequences and to perserve the s tatus quo

pending the passage of HR 4853.

Thank you.

IRA 3. KURZBAN, ESQ.

KURZftAN, KURZBAN & WRINGER, P.A.

700 Brickell Avenue, Suite 901

Mi 4iami, Fttirida 3"B I 3 1

BY: ^Y: r A• U / , ,

U /

36-483 0-84-10
142

Mr. MAZZOLI. Thank you.

Mr. Audige.

Mr. AUDIGE. It is privilege for me to be here todayMr. MAZZOLI. Thank you very much. It is a privilege for us to

have you.

Mr. AUDIGE [continuing]. Mr. Chairman, and members of the

committee.

My name is Jerome Audige, as you may know, founder and director of New Jersey Haitian/American Cultural Foundation. I appreciate being asked to provide comments on H.R. 4853.

You are aware, there has been continuing advocacy, notably

from the religious community and other concerned citizens to bring

into reality a status of legitimacy for Cuban and Haitian immigrants.

I have been a part of that movement for nearly 10 years and in

that course of time, thousands of refugees have been helped by our

services. The foundation, through grants and voluntary contributions, gives away food and clothing to needy applicants.

We also have contacts for emergency and long-term housing,

medical health care, and education. We provide assistance with immigration forms, social security, and refer persons to employment.

However, the most difficult problem faced by refugees is not

having documented credentials, certifying registration, and the designation of an official immigrant classification by the Department

of Immigration and Naturalization.

Without such documentation, many abuses occur. The most serious has to do with employment. The recent law which imposes a

stiff financial penalty against an employer who knowingly hires an

unregistered immigrant has made the already difficult task of finding a job for refugees even harder.

Also, even if hired, once layoffs occur, without documentation,

unemployment benefits cannot be received.

It is also necessary to produce a valid registration when enrolling

children for school, seeking subsidized housing, or applying for

technical training.

Therefore, I view the bill, the present bill, as an important first

step toward recognizing the immense social and economic problems

which result from current restrictions. I have been somewhat more

expansive in my printed remarks and I invite you to refer to them.

Mr. MAZZOLI. I will, thank you.

Mr. AUDIGE. On behalf of the persons who will be benefited by

this bill, I extend my thanks.

I hope it is the first of the pieces of legislation which will eventually raise the immigrant community to full citizenship with the

rights and responsibilities that apply to it.

I think you, Mr. Chairman, you are an expression of God's love

and I owe you a debt of gratitude for that.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Audige follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JEROME AUDIGE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NEW JERSEYHAITIAN/ AMERICAN CULTURAL FOUNDATION
143

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JEROME AUDIGE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NEW JERSEY

HAITIAN/AMERICAN CULTURAL FOUNDATION

My name is Jerome Marc Audige and I on a political refugee from

the Republic of Haiti. At present, I an Executive Director of the New

Jersey Haitian/American Cultural Foundation, Inc., Newark, New Jersey.

I would first like to corrtnend my long time supporter, the

Honorable Peter Rodino, for his care and interest in the plight of Refugees.

The esteemed Congressman is intimately aware of the obstacles faced by persons seeking residency in the great democratic Republic of America; where

the ideals of freedom and liberation have long been cherished.

As the international media has reported, thousands of my excountrymen heroc been forced to flee for their lives from a brutal police

state which sid.ll operates in Haiti. A corrupt government which daily

violates human rights and iaposes its governmental will through militarized

enforcement squads, under such tyranny, pleas for moderation and equity

have been answered by increased repression. And as a consequence, many of

ray people hone elected to face the dangers of flight, rather than remain

-in • a state off virtual taendage. Again, the media has recorded for all the

wemld to see the agony and travails of the Exodus. How unknown numbers

dftxd at sea; now multiple hurafc-eds of others were tricked out of their

T&stfvc resources and afterwards abandoned by cruel mercenaries.

And) ence ashore, soee- suffering continued. Instead of finding i

tba 'i.Teedom foe which they came, many spent endless months of captivity

in pdWBB cells and detention canters. Even as X speak, a residue of

Haitians remain* imprisoned. Their offence, individually and collectively,

is that, they took: the risk of entering a nation with a world wide reputation COT fairness and opportunities and not the anomaly of selective imprisonment and rejection.
144

I give this background, Mr. Chairman, as a preface to my comments on

the pending legislation before this Committee which would authorize the creation of a record of admission for permanent residence in the case of certain

natives of Cuba and Haiti, and for other purposes. With due respect to those

who have prepared House Representative 4852, I am of the opinion that it represents a helpful first step toward clarifying the inmigrant status of many

Haitians. If enacted, it may be possible for persons whose records have been

misplaced or lost to cut through endless red tape and gain recognition of the

actual immigrant status earlier applied for and in some cases approved, but

for which at present no records exist.

Moreover, it permits the case by case review of persons classified

as "Entrants Status Pending".

I remark that this Bill represents to me a valuable first step, Mr.

Chairman, because in my view there still needs to be a more flexible, amnesty

oriented policy, since much discretion remains with the Attorney General as to

who shall or shall not be made eligible to have a record created upon which

further processing for residency status may be possible.

Nonetheless, I am joyous that this legislation has the potential to

bring legitimacy to the lives of many of my people.

Without thr3 stamp of state approved, as represented by official

credentials Haitians and other refugees must remain in the shadows of the

society. Chey shall remain an exploited class and shall eventually have the

potential if being a burden .?»n society. Also, hundreds of my people do not

earn the minimum wago aid ar>> forced to work under 18th century conditions because they ire taken fritantuje of by greedy charlatans. Another component

cannot af f ;crd. health ore, thereby not only endangering themselves as individjals, but aJ!« placing others at risk.

Ct » daily basis I see men and women who plead for assistance and

bicause thev as "undocimented" chey are synonymous to nonpersons and more

often than not annot be helped. I believe this Bill will be helpful to many

06 them.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I plead for your support and for the support

of all Conmittee Members. As I said earlier, I believe the focus of this Bill
145

and the context in which it will interconnect with existing legislation offers

the humanitarian possibility that Haitian applicants will be reviewed with

sensivity, objectivity and with a sense of equity as compared to other nationals who have immigrated in the past.

I am grateful to the Ccntnittee for having given me the opportunity

to testify. I believe the action taken by you in the passage of this Bill will

have an historic impact on succeeding refugee legislation and 1 again ccrrnend

you for your steadfast courage in seeking a fair solution to a problem which

many have indicated has substantial, social, economic and political considerations.

I sincerely thank you for your attention and interest in the plight

of Haitian Refugees.

Jerome Marc Audige,

Executive Director/Founder
146

Mr. MAZZOLI. Well, Mr. Audige, we owe you a debt of gratitude

for that fine statement and for your taking time to come see us

today.

Mr. AUDIGE. I would like to, in reaffirmation, present this certificate of appreciation.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Thank you very much. On behalf of our subcommittee and committee, I accept that gratefully.

I don't have any substantial number of questions. Let me just

ask Mr. Kurzban to tell me just a little bit about why you think

section 3 is such a bad provision in the bill.

Mr. KURZBAN. Section C. Because what C does, in effect, is to say

unless you were admitted•if you were admitted in the United

States and you overstayed and you did not file an application for

political asylum before January 1, 1982, you would not be eligible

for the benefits of this bill, even if you were a Cuban/Haitian entrant or if

Mr. MAZZOLI. Yes, but if you were named, if you came forward as

a Cuban/Haitian entrant, or if you came forward for asylum between the time you came in and January 1, 1982, you are covered

by this

Mr. KURZBAN. NO, you are not, no. If that is the reading you are

giving the bill•and I think that is clear in its legislative history•

then that is OK. But the way that the bill is written now on its

face, it modifies both section B(l), which is the Cuban/Haitian entrant section, and section B(2), which is the section about records

being created prior to January 1, 1982. C is a modifier of both sections and in that respect, it really undermines•and I don't think

intentionally•the Cuban/Haitian entrant program. I think it is

clear from your comments, Mr. Chairman, that it wasn't intentional. However, in its present form subsection C undermines the

Cuban/Haitian entrant program and would, in fact, result in a

Cuban/Haitian entrant program that is far more restrictive than

the present bill H.R. 1510.

Mr. MAZZOLI. I have to express a little bit of frustration when

you complained about the way the deportation process is going because in our bill, 1510, we, of course, rewrite totally the whole process by which the questions of asylum and deportation will be decided with a lot of appeal rights, and yet organizations like yours have

dumped on our bill and I really feel like it is kind of hard for us to

accept much of what you are saying in the spirit in which you are

saying it simply because an effort was well made by this subcommittee at some fearful cost to put forth a measure which does solve

some of those problems. Obviously, your lack of support has not

helped it.

Let me ask you, what is your position•or your attitude about

the second phase of the Rodino bill, which deals with the issuance

of visas?

Mr. KURZBAN. Under 243(g)?

Mr. MAZZOLI. Whatever it is, yes.

Mr. KURZBAN. Well, we support that provision of the bill. We

strongly support it. We think that it is a very serious problem in

south Florida and one that was really minimized, I think, by the

Immigration Service's testimony.
147

There are many, many Cuban Americans who have been in the

United States for years now not just people who came from Mariel.

American citizens for 10 or 15 years who wish to bring their brothers and sisters under the fifth preference, for example, and they

are not able to do it.

I also think it is worth noting that the rationale of not preferity

reunification because money would be going to Cuba is unusual.

The fact is that money is going to Cuba anyway because at present

Cubans who cannot get visas to come to the United States, as Mr.

Padron pointed out, go to third countries. There are, for example,

20,000 Cubans in Costa Rica. Money is sent to their relatives

anyway to get them out of Cuba so they wind up going somewhere

else. So the money is still going to Cuba. The rationale, therefore,

doesn't make any sense.

Mr. MAZZOLI. IS it fair to say that your group, Mr. Kurzban, is

not as devoted to section 2 as section 1?

Mr. KURZBAN. I think that is a fair statement.

Mr. MAZZOLI. Thank you. I appreciate it very much.

You all notice that we now have a vote on the floor so I have to

go on over. I appreciate very much your help and we, as a subcommittee, stand adjourned.

Thank you.

[Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, to

reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]

APPENDIXES

APPENDIX 1•CORRESPONDENCE

THE AMERICAN JEWISH COMMITTEE,

New York, NY, March 5, 1981

Hon. PETER RODINO,

Chairman, House Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, DC.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN RODINO: I want to thank you on behalf of the American

Jewish Committee for introducing the Cuban-Haitian Adjustment Act of 1984 to

right the grave injustices in our treatment of Cuban and Haitian boat people who

sought safety on our shores before 1982. The unique plight and legal limbo of this

restricted number of refugees can only be satisfactorily resolved through a grant of

permanent resident status as you propose.

The American Jewish Committee strongly agrees that fundamental principles of

justice and humanity demand that both the Cuban refugees from Mariel and the far

smaller group of Haitian refugees who arrived slightly later must have their legal

status regularized not only because of the tragic nature of their plight and the treatment they have received but also because they have been repeatedly linked in the

public mind and in government actions, beginning with the Cuban-Haitian program

of the Carter administration. The great majority of the class of Cubans and Haitians

who would benefit from the Rodino legislation long ago have been granted a temporary "entrant" status and a promise of legal residence.

We join you in your continuing concern for the particular plight of the Haitian

refugees, many of whom were jailed for up to 18 months under a detention program

that has been found to have been illegal and discriminatory by federal courts. This

group still faces the prospect of forcible deportation to the Haiti from which they

fled over three years ago.

The American Jewish Committee is particularly supportive of your legislation

precisely because it does contain a comprehensive class definition which is necessary to fully correct this discriminatory treatment, and it is not restricted to the

narrow formality of the "entrant" definition. In addition to endorsing the spirit of

fundamental fairness and humanitarian concern in your legislation, the American

Jewish Committee agrees with the language of your legislation that it is absolutely

essential to grant permanent residency to both (1) "entrants" and (2) persons with

respect to whom any record was established by the Immigration and Naturalization

Service before January 1, 1982. A more restricted class definition will not correct

the injustices suffered by the Haitian boat people.

Again, please accept my deep appreciation and heartfelt thanks for taking this

significant step to address the plight of the Cuban and Haitian boat people.

Sincerely,

Rabbi MARC H. TANENBAUM,

Director, International Relations.

UNITED STATES CATHOLIC CONFERENCE,

Washington, DC, February 22, 1984.

Congressman PETER W. RODINO, Jr.,

Chairman, House Judiciary Committee,

Washington, DC.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN RODINO: I am pleased to learn of your introduction of H.R.

4853 which will provide the opportunity for many nationals of Cuba and Haiti to

obtain permanent residence in the United States.

(149)
150

The thousands of Cubans who came to the U.S. during the Mariel boat lift of 1980

have made a remarkable record of adjustment since their entry. Despite this, they

have been deprived of any opportunity to obtain the benefits accorded permanent

resident aliens. Among such benefits is the right to send for family members including spouses and children from whom they have been separated for well over three

years. This legislation will make it possible for families to be reunited, a cornerstone of our basic U.S. immigration policy.

In addition, the plight of the Haitian brothers and sisters who have fled poverty

and persecution, only to find imprisonment and deprivation upon arrival in this

country, will finally be relieved. These good people are of special concern to the

Church which has sought for so long to relieve their misery and to open the door to

a life filled with hope rather than despair. The action which you have taken will

make it possible to achieve that goal.

I wish to commend you for the introduction of this legislation and pledge support

for your efforts.

Sincerely yours,

Rev. Msgr. DANIEL F. HOYE,

General Secretary.

AMERICAN COUNCIL OF VOLUNTARY AGENCIES FOB FOREIGN SERVICE, INC.,

New York, NY, March 20, 1984.

Hon. PETER W. RODINO, Jr.,

Chairman, House Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, DC

DEAR CONGRESSMAN RODINO: The member agencies of the American Council of

Voluntary Agencies for Foreign Service, listed below, wish to take this opportunity

to thank you for introducing the Cuban-Haitian Adjustment Act of 1984 (H.R. 4853),

which would end the tragic situation in the United States of the Cubans from

Mariel, and the Haitian boat people who arrived shortly after them. We commend

and affirm the principles of justice and humanity in your bill, which speak to the

best in the United States tradition as a haven to newcomers seeking refuge on our

shores.

As members of a national organization of major private and voluntary organizations engaged in international assistance and humanitarian programs, we share the

deep concern expressed in the February 21 letter to you from the ACVAFS Committee on Migration and Refugee Affairs, over the personal hardships and legal limbo

of the two groups of refugees. Passage of your legislation would bring to fruition

legalization of the Cubans and Haitians, thereby ending the suffering that the two

groups have endured. In addition, the voluntary agencies' goals in their long-standing tradition of advocacy for the clients they serve, whether they be immigrants,

refugees or asylum-seekers, would be realized.

We support early passage of the bill, and the granting of permanent residence to

the two groups, which would avert deportation to the countries from which they fled

to the United States. We also support the components in the bill, that it is essential

to legalize both entrants, as well as those persons with respect to whom any record

was established by the Immigration and Naturalization Service prior to January 1,

1982.

Passage of the Cuban-Haitian Adjustment Act would mark an important step and

example, worldwide, in humane treatment of persons who seek safe haven and permanent solutions in countries of asylum. Be assured of our firm support in your

courageous actions in presenting, ana pursuing passage of the bill.

Sincerely,

DALE S. DE HAAN,

Chairperson, Committee on Migration & Refugee Affairs on behalf of the

member agencies of the ACVAFS.

MEMBER AGENCIES OF THE ACVAFS

American Council for National Service.

American Friends Service Committee.

American Fund for Czechoslovak Refugees, Inc.

American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee, Inc.

American Jewish Philanthropic Fund.

American ORT Federation.

Baptists World Aid.

The Pearl S. Buck Foundation, Inc.
151

Buddhist Council for Refugee Rescue and Resettlement.

CARE.

Catholic Relief Services•United States Catholic Conference.

Christian Children's Fund

Christian Reformed World Relief Committee (Cooperating Agency).

Church World Service.

CODEL, Inc. (Coordination in Development).

Community Development Foundation, Inc.

Experiment in International Living.

Foundation for the Peoples of the South Pacific.

Goodwill Industries of America, Inc.•International Department.

HADASSAH, The Women's Zionist Organization of America, Inc.

Heifer Project International.

Helen Keller International.

HIAS, Inc.

Holt International Children's Services, Inc. (Cooperating Agency).

International Human Assistance Programs.

International Rescue Committee, Inc.

International Social Service, American Branch, Inc.

Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service.

Lutheran World Relief.

MAP International (Cooperating Agency).

Meals for Millions/Freedom from Hunger Foundation.

Mennonite Central Committee.

Migration and Refugee Services•United States Catholic Conference.

Near East Foundation.

PACT (Private Agencies Collaborating Together, Inc.).

Polish American Immigration and Relief Committee, Inc.

The Presiding Bishop's Fund for World Relief (The Episcopal Church).

The Salvation Army.

Save the Children.

Seventh-Day Adventist World Service, Inc.

Tolstoy Foundation, Inc.

United Israel Appeal, Inc.

United Lithuanian Relief Fund of America, Inc.

World Concern Development Organization.

World Relief Corporation.

World Vision Relief Organization.

Young Men's Christian Association of the U.S.•International Division of the National Board.

Young Women's Christian Association of the U.S.A.•International Division of

the National Board.

NATIONAL COUNCIL OK LA RAZA,

Washington, DC, February 28, 198i.

Hon. PETER RODINO,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, DC.

DEAR CHAIRMAN RODINO: The National Council of La Raza (NCLR), a national

Hispanic organization, wishes to take this opportunity to congratulate you on the

introduction of the Cuban-Haitian Admustment Act of 1984 (H.R. 4853). We agree

with the philosophy, embodied in the bill, that the principle of equal justice for all

demands that Cuban and Haitian "Boat people" who arrived in the U.S. subsequent

to the granting of "entrant" status but before January 1,1982.

We appreciate your particular concern for the thousands of Haitian refugees who

were illegally detained•some for up to 18 months•as part of a detention program

that the federal courts have ruled to be discriminatory and unjustified. These individuals, as well as the somewhat larger group of Cuban arrivals, were promised that

their status would be adjusted to permanent residency through legislation. We are,

therefore, pleased that you have developed specific language in the bill that addresses the grave injustice perpetrated on these two groups of people.
152

If we can be of any assistance in expediting the passage of this legislation, please

do not hesitate to call on me or our Policy Analysis Director Charles Kamasaki at

628-9600.

Sincerely,

RAUL YZAOUIRRE,

President.

LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS,

February 28, 1984.

Hon. PETER W. RODINO, Jr.,

U.S. House ofRepresentatives

Washington, DC.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN RODINO: On behalf of the League of United Latin American

Citizens (LULAO I write to inform you of our endorsement of the Cuban-Haitian

Adjustment Act of 1984 (H.R. 4853), and to express our appreciation for your initiative in introducing this legislation, which will provide proper and just treatment of

Cubans and Haitians who nave sought safety in our country before 1982.

The plight of Cubans and Haitians fleeing their country of origin for political freedom and survival has received much attention. In risking their lives they fled expecting just treatment by the democratic institutions of this country. Unfortunately,

both these groups have been poorly treated and have had misrepresentations made

to them regarding their legal status in the U.S. by being promised that their "entrant" status would be converted to permanent residency through legislation. Regretfully and unfortunately, this promise has not been materialized and as a consequence major undue hardships have resulted.

As you well know, a small number of Cubans and Haitians who arrived prior to

January 1, 1982 but unfortunately after the granting of "entrant" status, have

clearly suffered illegal and discriminatory treatment as evidenced by the imprisonment of thousands of Haitians for up to 18 months. This situation continues today

and despite previous promises, many of these persons still face deportation, which

clearly presents life threatening consequences.

It is for these reasons which we applaud your effort which includes provisions

that any person "who is a national of Cuba and Haiti, arrived in the United States

before January 1, 1982 and with respect to whom any record was established by the

Immigration and Naturalization Service before January 1, 1982." This language

specifies the group of persons who should benefit from your adjustment program

and thus rectify the current situation. Your bill serves to underscore the need to

have legislation benefit both groups and is a message to those who wish to divide

blacks and Hispanics that such efforts will be resisted.

Again, we express our appreciation and support for H.R. 4853. We hope that this

legislation will be approved by both houses of congress and stand ready to assist you

in this effort.

Respectfully,

ARNOLDO S. TORRES,

National Executive Director.

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE,

February 17, 1981

Congressman PETER W. RODINO, Jr.,

House ofRepresentatives,

Washington, DC.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN RODINO: The NAACP has joined with a number of national

civil rights and religious organizations in long advocating that Haitian boat people

should be granted legal status in our country. I am extremely pleased therefore to

take this opportunity to thank you on behalf of the NAACP for introducing the

Cuban-Haitian Adjustment Act of 1984.

Refugees fleeing by boat from Cuba and Haiti have risked their lives to reach our

shores. The great majority of the Cuban boat people and many of the Haitians were

originally welcomed here under a temporary "entrant" status, which carried the

promise that permanent residency would soon follow through legislation. Today,

both groups of refugees remain in this status limbo, waiting for permanent residence.

In many cases, the restricted group of Cubans and Haitians who arrived after this

"entrant program" and before January 1, 1982, have suffered even more than their
153

predecessors. Over 2,000 of the Haitian refugees were detained for over a year under

an Immigration Service detention program since found to have been illegal and discriminatory by federal courts. Now, after having endured in some cases eighteen

(18) months detention having committed no crime, Haitian boat people still face the

imminent threat of deportation to the Haiti they fled over three (3) years ago. Legal

status is the only just solution to right this grave mistreatment.

The NAACP has long advocated comprehensive coverage in legalizing Cuban and

Haitian boat people, and we strongly endorse the language of the Cuban-Haitian

Adjustment Act which includes any person "who is a national of Cuba or Haiti, arrived in the United States before January 1, 1982, and with respect to whom any

record was established by the Immigration and Naturalization Service before January 1, 1982." This class definition is essential to the spirit of your legislation. We

sincerely appreciate your sensitivity in resisting any attempt to divide these refugee

groups against each other.

Thank you again for introducing the Cuban-Haitian Adjustment Act of 1984 to

end the suffering of Haitian and Cuban boat people who sought safety on our shores

before January 1982.

Sincerely,

BENJAMIN L. HOOKS,

Executive Director.

NATIONAL COALITION FOR HAITIAN REFUGEES,

New York, NY, February 15, 1981

Hon. PETER RODINO,

Chairman, Judiciary Committee,

Washington, DC.

DEAR PETER: I want to thank you personally and on behalf of the National Coalition for Haitian Refugees, for introducing the "Cuban-Haitian Adjustment Act of

1984", H.R. 4853. From our telephone conversation of February 9, I am extremely

pleased to learn that you agree that the bill should benefit not only Cuban and Haitian "entrants", but all the Cuban and Haitian boat people who arrived in our country before January 1, 1982 with respect to whom any record was established by the

Immigration and Naturalization Service before January 1, 1982•including all those

who were subjected to dreadful detention.

Legalization for this entire group of boat people is essential as the only satisfactory solution to their unique plight and suffering. We shall do everything possible to

encourage the early enactment of your legislation, and I sincerely appreciate your

strong insistence on this class coverage and your opposition to any attempts to

divide these two refugee groups against each other. We appreciate your particular

concern for the Haitian refugees, and support your statement that "no group in

recent history has been subject to more injustices by the Immigration Service."

Thank you again for taking this major step forward in seeing that justice is done

for the boat people. The introduction of the "Cuban-Haitian Adjustment Act of

1984" represents a long overdue and equitable step towards solving the tragic plight

of these two refugee groups.

Very sincerely,

BAYARD RUSTIN,

Vice Chairman

LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE ON CIVIL RIGHTS,

Washington, DC, March 27, 1984.

Hon. PETER W. RODINO, Jr.,

Chairman, House Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, DC.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN RODINO: We are delighted to have this opportunity to strongly endorse the Cuban-Haitian Adjustment Act of 1984 (H.R. 4853), and to personally

thank you for your courageous initiative in introducing this legislation. Our

member organizations have long been concerned with the tragic civil rights plight of

the Haitian refugee boat people, and we agree with you that this situation can only

be resolved satisfactorily by granting this restricted number of Haitian and Cuban

refugees permanent residence status.

We further applaud this legislation because it embodies the fundamental principles of equal justice for all and respect for basic human rights. The unique and desparate situation and aggravated legal limbo of the Haitian and Cuban refugees has
154

been linked repeatedly by government action and in the public mind. The vast majority of the Cuban refugees from the Mariel flotilla and the parallel and far smaller group of Haitian refugee boat people have often been promised that their temporary "entrant" status granted by the Carter administration would be converted to

full permanent residency through legislation.

The small group of refugees who arrived subsequent to the granting of this "entrant" status have in many cases suffered far more than their predecessors, with

many being detained for over fifteen months as part of a detention program that

federal courts have found to be illegal. We have long advocated the necessity of comprehensive coverage in granting in granting permanent residence to this restricted

group of Haitian and Cuban boat people, so we strongly support the specifics of the

comprehensive class definition in your bill which is not restricted to the narrow formality of the "entrant" definition.

We would again like to thank you for having the vision to continue to play a leadership role in recognized and correcting the intolerable plight of the Cuban and Haitian boat people through the introduction of Cuban-Haitian Adjustment Act of 1984.

As a member of the Executive Committeee of the National Coalition for Haitian

Refugees we will continue to work closely with you to ensure the early enactment of

this important legislation in both the House and the Senate.

Very sincerely,

BENJAMIN L. HOOKS, Chairperson,

RALPH G. NEAS, Elective Director.

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR AND

CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS,

Washington, DC

Hon. PETER W. RODINO, Jr.,

U.S. House ofRepresentatives,

Washington, DC.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN RODINO: The AFL-CIO strongly endorses the Cuban-Haitian

Adjustment Act of 1984 (H.R. 4853) that you have introduced to right the grave injustices in our treatment of Cuban and Haitian boat people who sought safety on

our shores before 1982. Legal status for these two refugee groups must be enacted as

the only satisfactory solution to their unique plight and suffering.

Justice demands that this group of Cuban and Haitian refugees who risked their

lives to flee to our country from misery and repression be granted permanent residence and an end to their tragic plight and legal limbo. The unique and desperate

situation of the Haitian and Cuban refugees has been repeatedly linked by governmental action and in the public mind. The great majority of Cuban boat people from

the Mariel flotilla and the comparable and smaller group of Haitian refugees have

long ago been promised that their "entrant" status would be converted to permanent residency through legislation.

The handful of Cubans and Haitians who arrived subsequent to the granting of

"entrant" status but before January 1, 1982, have suffered more than the prior arrivals in many cases. Thousands of the Haitian refugees were detained for up to 18

months as part of a detention program that federal courts have held to have been

illegal and discriminatory. Their suffering continues, and after 18 months imprisonment they still face forcible deportation to the Haiti they fled three years ago. As

we have often emphasized, no group in recent history has been subjected to the

harsh treatment and discrimination endured by the Haitian refugee boat people.

The AFL-CIO strongly endorses the specific language of the Cuban-Haitian Adjustment Act of 1984. We agree with the bill's definition of this restricted group of

refugees who must benefit from its provisions, as absolutely essential to a humane

and just solution to this dilemma.

Thank you again for taking this important step in recognizing and ameliorating

the plight of Haitian and Cuban refugee boat people.

Sincerely

LANE KIRKLAND,

President.
155

LUTHERAN COUNCIL IN THE USA,

New York, NY, March 1, 1981

Hon. PETER RODINO,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. RODINO: On behalf of the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, a

cooperative agency of the major Lutheran churches in the U.S. which together represent some 18,000 congregations, I want to applaud your recent introduction of the

Cuban-Haitian Adjustment Act, H.R. 4853.

LIRS has long advocated for the humane and just treatment of the Cubans and

Haitians who have come to our shores. As you know, our congregations assisted in

the resettlement of several thousand Cuban and Haitian entrants and again came

forth to help when 1,800 Haitians were released from INS detention under an order

from Judge Eugene Spellman. Therefore, we support your effort to grant legal

status to entrants as well as those known to INS prior to January 1, 1982, a date

which would include the Spellman Haitians. It is time that the threat of deportation

be removed for this group which has suffered immensely since their arrival in the

U.S.

Thank you for taking such a significant step to alleviate the unjust situation of

these Cubans and Haitians, people who have no homes to return to. Once again, we

strongtlv support and endorse your legislation and hope for its prompt passage.

Sincerely yours,

Mrs. INGRID WALTER, D. Hum,

Director,

Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service.

AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS ASSOCIATION,

Washington, DC, March 3, 1981

Hon. PETER W. RODINO, Jr.,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, DC.

DEAR CHAIRMAN RODINO: On behalf of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, we would like to express our sincere appreciation and support for your introduction of the Cuban-Haitian Adjustment Act of 1984 (HR 4853).

We commend you for this courageous and humanitarian proposal in behalf of

Cuban and Haitian refugees who have arrived on our shores and become a part of

our society. Our association's recent participation in the effort to secure volunteer,

pro bono lawyers to represent Haitians recognized in Judge Spellman's order in

Louis v. Nelson has made us all the more aware of the need for the legislation you

have introduced.

We thank you for taking the initiative in sponsoring this legislation and will

commit our every effort to support its enactment.

Sincerely,

WARREN LEIDEN,

Executive Director.
APPENDIX 2•STATE DEPARTMENTS EFFORTS REGARDING EXCLUDABLE

CUBANS

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

Washington, DC, June 18, 1984-

Hon. ROMANO L. MAZZOU,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and International Law, Committee on the Judiciary, House ofRepresentatives.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I write with reference to the Subcommittee's hearing of

May 9, 1984, concerning H.R. 4853, "a bill to authorize the creation of a record of

admission for permanent residence in the cases of certain natives of Cuba and Haiti,

and for other purposes."

At the hearings I provided to the Subcommittee a classified document entitled

"U.S. Efforts to Negotiate the Return to Cuba of the Mariel Excludables." I am

pleased to inform you, Mr. Chairman, that the Department of State has now been

able to declassify most of the information in that document. An updated and unclassified version is enclosed. I request that this unclassified document be made part of

the public record of the proceedings of your Subcommittee on H.R. 4853.

Sincerely,

JAMES H. MICHEL,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Inter-American Affairs.

Attachment:

U.S. EFFORTS TO NEGOTIATE THE RETURN TO CUBA OF THE MARIEL EXCLUDABLES

The abrupt and illegal migration of some 129,000 Cubans from the port of Mariel,

Cuba, to the United States in 1980 has caused serious problems in the United States

at all levels of government and for the general public. A small percentage of these

persons•approximately four percent of the total•admitted to having been institutionalized in Cuba for the commission of serious crimes or for mental disorders or

else committed such crimes after their arrival in the United States.

The Department of State, in an effort to effect the return of persons from the

Mariel Boatlift who were ineligible to remain in the United States for substantive

reasons•such as the commission of serious crimes•sought in December 1980 and

January 1981 to negotiate the return to Cuba of these persons excludable under

U.S. law. In turn the Department of State informed Cuban negotiators that such a

solution would make possible the resumption of normal immigration visa processing

in the U.S. Interests Section in Havana, which had been suspended following the

Mariel events.

The talks with Cuba in 1980-81 were unsuccessful. The Cubans stated that they

would consider accepting only persons returning voluntarily and, among those, only

on the basis of a case-by-case review. This position of the Government of Cuba was

unacceptable to the United States. Very few Cubans have indicated a desire to

return to Cuba.

Inquiries in 1981 and 1982 through diplomatic channels confirmed that the position of the Government of Cuba on this subject had not changed.

Despite the foregoing the Department of State decided in 1983 to probe the Government of Cuba again in order to see if it would accept the return of the Mariel

Excludables.

On May 25, 1983, the Department of State delivered to the Cuban Interests Section of the Embassy of Czechoslovakia a diplomatic note that:

"informed the Government of Cuba of the notification by the Attorney General of

the United States that, due to Cuba's failure to accept the return of excluded individuals, Section 243(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act precluded the issuance of immigrant visas in Cuba by the Government of the United States;

"requested that the Government of Cuba agree to the return of all Cuban nationals who came at the time of Mariel who were ineligible under U.S. immigration law

to remain in the United States and whom the U.S. wished to return to Cuba;

(156)
157

"presented a list of 789 such persons and indicated that other lists would follow;

and

"advised that the Department of State would be prepared to reestablish normal

immigration procedures at the U.S. Interests Section in Havana once Cuba fulfilled

its obligation to accept the return of persons excluded from the U.S."

On June 17, 1983, the Cuban Foreign Ministry responded with a diplomatic note

that:

"rejected the U.S. proposal as "an unacceptable act intended to impose upon Cuba

unilateral solutions"; and

"stated that Cuba 'did not refuse' to discuss the 'restablishment of standards

which would permit normalization of migration conditions between both countries,

conditions which would include norms to follow with respect to persons who, having

committed illegal acts in one of the two countries, travel illegally to the other.'

On July 7, 1983, the Department of State delivered a diplomatic note to the

Cuban Interests Section of the Embassy of Czechoslovakia that:

"inquired why the Cuban note had not responded to the specific request by the

United States or to the list of 789 persons given to the Cuban Government in May;

"reiterated the U.S. request of May 25;

"reiterated its willingness to reestablish normal immigration procedures at the

U.S. Interests Section in Havana once these persons had been returned to Cuba; and

"stated that if the Government of Cuba were prepared to take back the Cuban

nationals ineligible to remain in the United States, the U.S. Government would be

pleased to explain in appropriate detail the measures concerning migration to the

United States it would be willing to reinstate once those persons had been returned."

On September 22, 1983, the Cuban Foreign Ministry responded with a diplomatic

note that:

"stated that the Government of Cuba was prepared to initiate conversations with

the United States Government on 'the migration between the two countries'; and

"added that the possible return to Cuba of persons 'who traveled from the port of

Marie!' could be one of the matters discussed and resolved through the establishment of the above-mentioned standard."

On March 20, 1984, in a diplomatic note delivered to the Cuban Ministry of Foreign Relations by the U.S. Interests Section in Havana the United States:

"stated that the United States was prepared to meet with Cuban representatives

to discuss the return of the Mariel excludable? to Cuba and to discuss the resumption of normal migration procedures;

"proposed that the talks be held March 30 in a specified location; and

"requested an early response."

On March 27, 1984, the Ministry of Foreign Relations orally informed the U.S.

Interests Section in Havana that it could not reply to the U.S. proposal because the

time-frame was too short; the Foreign Ministry official indicated that a formal reply

would be coming in due course.

On May 2, 1984, the U.S. Interests Section in Havana delivered a diplomatic note

to the Ministry of Foreign Relations in which it:

"called attention to the fact that no Cuban response had yet been received to our

note of March 20, 1984;

"recalled the stated willingness of the Cuban Government to discuss migration,

including specifically the return to Cuba of persons whom the Government of the

United States wished Cuba to take back; and

"proposed that the two countries send representatives to a specified location to

meet May 21 and 22."

On May 22, 1984, the Ministry of Foreign Relations presented a diplomatic note to

the U.S. Interests Section in Havana in which it:

"viewed 'positively' the willingness of the U.S. Government to begin negotiations

with Cuba 'about normal migratory procedures';

"complained of other U.S. Government activities such as 'military exercises in

waters adjacent to Cuban territorial waters';

"asserted that the 'pre-electoral situation in the United States' is not the appropriate moment to begin talks;

"stated it would be convenient to postpone beginning talks until after November

6;

"indicated no objection to an announcement by the U.S. Government that 'there

is mutual agreement to begin these talks in this period after November 6'; and

"stated that if this Cuban willingness were to De interpreted publicly as a sign of

weakness on the part of Cuba, it would constitute in this case a total obstacle to

realizing the planned talks.' "

36-483 0-84-11
158

On the basis of this response the Department of State assumes that it will not be

possible to initiate talks with Cuba on the return of the Mariel Excludables and the

restoration of normal immigrant visa processing until after November 6. However,

there is now a prospect for such talks at that time.
APPENDIX 3•STATE DEPARTMENT'S RESPONSES TO SUPPLEMENTAL

QUESTIONS

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

Washington, DC, June 1, 1981

Hon. PETER W. RODINO, Jr.,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,

U.S. House ofRepresentatives.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am replying to your letter of May 15, requesting responses

to several questions concerning H.R. 4853 that could not be asked because of time

constraints during the May 9 hearing of the Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees, and International Law. The responses are enclosed.

Let me take this occasion to thank you for having been invited to appear before

the Subcommittee to present the views of the Department of State on this legislative proposal.

Sincerely,

JAMES H. MICHEL,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Inter-American Affairs.

Enclosure: Questions and Answers Re: to 9th Hearing on HR 4853•Cuba.

IMMIGRANT VISA ISSUANCE

Question. When and why did the Department of State make the decision to stop

issuing visas to persons holding approved immigration petitions?

Answer. The issuance of immigrant visas was suspended on May 2, 1980, after a

pro-Castro mob attacked a group of Cubans seeking to be admitted as refugees into

the United States Interests Section in Havana.

Question. How many Cuban nationals for whom a perference petition has been

filed are awaiting immigrant visas in Cuba? How does that number break down for

each preference category?

Answer. Based on the Department's January 1984 Annual Report of Qualified

Visa Applicants the total numbers of preference immigrant visa petitions on file in

Havana are as follows:

First preference 651

Second preference 2,704

Third preference 0

Fourth preference 3,289

Fifth preference 19,597

Sixth preference 4

Total 26,245

Question. How many immediate relative visas have been issued to Cuban nationals during the past year?

Answer. During FY 1983 679 immediate relative immigrant visas were issued to

Cuban nationals worldwide. During the first quarter of FY 1984 98 immediate relative immigrant visas were issued to Cuban nationals.

Question. At one point, the Department stated that it would be necessary to increase personnel at the U.S. Interests Office in Havana if immigrant visas were to

be issued. What it the personnel situation at present? How many additional persons

would be required to be assigned to handle the situation if the decision were made

to issue visas? Would the Cuban Interests Section in Washington ask for a corresponding increase in their staff here?

Answer. The Interests Section is currently staffed by twenty full time American

employees, which is the limit provided in the 1977 Memorandum of Understanding

establishing the two Interests Sections. This figure includes three consular officers.

The Department estimates that three additional American officers would be required to handle the anticipated volume if the USINT resumed full scale immigrant

visa processing. The local staff would also have to be augmented to handle the in-

(150)
160

creased workload. Unless the additional positions for American consular personnel

were taken from positions now assigned to other functions in the Interests Section,

such an increase would require the consent of the Government of Cuba. In this case

it seems likely that the Government of Cuba might seek a corresponding increase of

its staff in Washington. This problem might possibly be avoided if the Cuban Government were willing to allow the Department to send a sufficient number of consular officers on a temporary duty basis, but this would require us to rotate consular personnel indefinitely to handle the workload.

Question. What is the present State Department policy with regard to issuing immigrant visas to Cuban nationals with approved petitions who appear at an American Embassy in another country? Does the individual post have the authority to

refuse to deal with the case?

Answer. Department regulations provide that an application shall be accepted

from an applicant physically present in the consular district and expected to remain

in the consular district throughout the time that it normally takes to process an

immigrant visa application. This policy applies equally to all nationalities. An individual post may decline to accept a case for processing if the applicant cannot

obtain permission to remain in country for the duration of visa processing.

Question, What effect would the adjustment of 100,000 Cuban entrants have on

the future demand for Cuban immigrant visas?

Answer. It is inevitable that the adjustment of 100,000 Cuban entrants would be

followed by the filing of a substantial number of petitions by those granted resident

status•first, for immigrants in the second preference (spouses and unmarried sons

and daughters of alien residents) and later, as adjusted entrants became naturalized, in other immigrant categories as well. The Department has no data which

would permit it to estimate the specific numbers of potential additional petition

beneficiaries, but believes it is reasonable to anticipate there would be many thousands of additional cases.

Annual immigration in the numerically limited preference categories cannot

exceed 20,000 applicants from any particular foreign state, per Section 202 of the

INA. Demand for visa numbers by applicants in excess of this annual country limit

would result in chargeability oversubscription. According to the most recent January, 1984 tabulation of active immigrant cases at consular offices abroad, there were

34,742 registrants chargeable to Cuba, about two-thirds of whom have priority dates

within present visa availability cut-off dates. If all of these registrants were ready

and able to pursue their visa applications, this demand alone would be sufficient to

oversubscribe the Cuba chargeability.
APPENDIX 4-ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

MIGRANT AND SEASONAL FARMWORKERS ASSOCIATION, INC.,

Raleigh, NC, May 22, 1984-

Chairman ROMANO L. MAZZOU,

Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and International Law•Judiciary Committee, Washington, DC.

DEAR CHAIRMAN MAZZOU: AS Director of the North Carolina Cuban/Haitian Entrant Program for 1981-1983 and as the writer of a doctoral dissertation on the Haitian immigrants, I would like to submit the enclosed testimony regarding the legislation to grant lawful status to Cubans and Haitians who have sought safety and

freedom in the United States.

I request that the statement be enclosed in the hearing record.

Sincerely,

TTro CRAIGE,

Director, Cuban/Haitian Entrant Program, Farmworker English Language School.

Enclosure.

TESTIMONY REGARDING LEGISLATION TO GRANT LAWFUL STATUS TO CUBANS AND

HAITIANS

My name is Ernest Tito Craige. I am director of a series of pre-employment programs that work with Haitian Entrants and am a doctoral candidate at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, North Carolina.

As Director of the Cuban/Haitian Entrant Program and the Farmworker English

Language School, I have headed programs that have enrolled over 500 Haitian Entrants. They have been English-as-a-Second Language students, recipients of translation and interpretation services and participants in our outreach, information and

referral program. In addition, as author of a dissertation on Haitian immigrants, I

have conducted extensive interviews with a number of Haitians who have settled in

North Carolina. In preparing for the research, I visited Haiti, Krome internment

camp and the Haitian communities in Miami, Washington, D.C., and New York

City.

From my experiences, I have reached the following conclusions: (1) Haitians have

made enormous contributions to the economy and social fabric of the United States;

(2) Haitians have been hampered by the discrimination t.iat results from their temporary status, and (3) Haitians and Americans would benefit from Entrants being

lawfully admitted for permanent residence.

HAITIANS BECOMING SELF-SUFFICIENT

Most of the Haitians who came to our Association's offices in 1983 sought training

and employment. But very few, even with their migrant incomes, received public

assistance. In fact, of 589 Haitians enrolled in 1983 only 16 (2.7%) received such

monies.

Many Haitian Entrants have procured entry-level jobs in states on the eastern

seaboard. When they are given the opportunity to become economically self-sufficient and independent of any public assistance, they make the best of such a chance.

For example, a large company named a Haitian Entrant as its first "Employee of

the Month.' Based on an evaluation of "promptness, attitude, productivity and

craftsmanship," the personnel director gave a $25.00 gift certificate and noted that

Jean "has been quick to learn . . . and has demonstrated the ability and

skill to perform tasks." A news release thanked Jean "for being such a dedicated

and well-liked employee."

One of the teachers in our school wrote of the interest that Haitian Entrants took

in their English class. The teacher praised the students' efforts to make a classroom

out of the farm labor camp setting. "After the first class they dragged in buckets

and stumps and made seats. They carefully made the space into a classroom. They

(101)
162

put a nail in the tree to hold the flip chart. They made a woven ceiling over the

class area."

Virtually every Entrant has told me of the desire of the skills to procure work,

make friends and participate fully in American life. Typical comments are those of

Fritz: "I want to go to school. I want to learn for a better job, for talking to people,

for talking to nice people. I want to stay in North Carolina. Everybody friendly. I

want to be an American citizen. I love the United States. I be in the United States

for my life."

HAITIANS HELD BACK

Our outreach, information and referral services have been sorely taxed because of

the denials of services to Haitians. Again and again we tell schools, employers, and

social service agencies that Haitian Entrants are legally here and that they are entitled to opportunities that are accorded to others who meet eligibility guidelines.

But since there is wide ignorance of the meaning of the term "Cuban/Haitian Entrant (status pending)," denials of work and benefits occur routinely. Since 1981 we

have been frustrated by the lack of clarification memos from the Department of

Justice and the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Pell Grants, food stamps,

employment opportunities, and driver's licenses have been denied to our clients.

Only after extensive intervention do agencies understand the special nature of this

type of 1-95 card. Perhaps most problematical of all is the explicit exclusion of

Cuban/Haitian Entrants from the list of eligible clients for the Legal Services Corporation.

HAITIANS ARK IMMIGRANTS

Haitians are suspended in an uncomfortable place between citizen and deportee.

They cannot plan their futures because they are fearful of eventual deportation. Although they work hard in the least desirable jobs our country has to offer, they are

rarely accepted as equals because of their peculiar status. In spite of the many

strikes against them, they, like other immigrants before them, are proud of their

newly adopted country. They have an enviable record in our state. Like the Indochinese who came before them, the Haitians have established themselves as men and

women who are becoming economically self-sufficient and who are proud to be in

the United States.

THE ARCHDIOCESE OP MIAMI,

May 3, 1984.

Congressman ROMANO L. MAZZOLI,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and International Law, U.S.

House ofRepresentatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC

DEAR CONGRESSMAN MAZZOU: This will acknowledge your letter of April 25 addressed to Monsignor Bryan O. Walsh, the Archdiocesan Executive Director of

Catholic Community Services, relative to his testifying before the House Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and International Law on May 9.

Monsignor is presently out of the country and not expected to return until around

May 16.

As Archbishop of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami, I am enclosing for

your consideration a statement to be included in the hearings on the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1984 (H.R. 4853).

As you know, the Archdiocese of Miami has been very active in the resettlement

of refugees in South Florida for over twenty years. It is imperative that justice be

done for all refugees who come to our shores.

With every good wish, I am

Sincerely yours in Christ.

EDWARD A. MCCARTHY,

Archbishop of Miami

Enclosure.

STATEMENT BY EDWARD A. MCCARTHY, ARCHBISHOP OP MIAMI

My name is Edward A. McCarthy, I am the Archbishop of the Roman Catholic

Archdiocese of Miami.

The Archdiocese of Miami has a long history of involvement with refugees and

their problems. Our mission with refugees dates from 1957, when we helped a group
163

of Hungarian Freedom fighters to establish themselves in this country. Later, the

Archdiocese was confronted with the monumental task of providing for 14,000 children fleeing from communist oppression and seeking the right to live freely and

avail themselves of a life full of opportunities in this great country of ours. In 1980,

we were once more challenged by the Mariel boat people and by the Haitians who

arrived at our shores seeking, like so many before, the privilege of living in the

truest democracy in the world.

It is because of our past experience that we now express our opinion on the merits

of the Rodino Bill which aims to adjust the status of the Cuban-Haitian entrants.

For the past four years our community and similar communities throughout the

United States have seen the suffering of the thousands of Cuban-Haitian entrants,

who came to our shores ignorant of the consequences of our "open arms policy".

The end result has been the cruel enforced separation of families over a prolonged

period of time; separated spouses and children growing up bereft of the love and

protection of either parent, and for others, enforced detention for long periods of

time with the uncertainty of not knowing their fate. The consequences are manifold:

Cuban-Haitian entrants are plagued by instability, hostility, depression and mental

and physical alienation.

Cuban and Haitian refugees have risked their lives to reach our shores. They

were welcome here under a temporary "entrant" status which carried the promise

that permanent residency status would soon follow through legislation. As of today,

they continue to be in a legal limbo, and some are facing a constant threat of deportation.

Denying the passage of this bill will take hope away from them, the only hope

they have, and as a result, a repetition of history will take place. A sad story that

we all experience: a third Camarioca or Mariel, and many others dying at sea while

trying to reach our shores.

We also fear the consequences for their continuous frustration and their inability

to solve this problem.

At this time I feel it is necessary to point out the cultural and economic values

that these people have brought to our community. The great majority of them have

proven to be hard working, law abiding, responsible people who are desperately

trying to adjust and succeed in our society.

If, as expected, the Cuban-Haitian Adjustment Act of 1984, H.R. 4853 is passed,

our community will profit in many ways: their full integration into our society will

occur; they will become more stable, more productive and they will be able to

achieve the fulfillment of their potentialities as human beings.

For all of the above mentioned reasons we, in the Archdiocese of Miami, strongly

support the passing of the Cuban-Haitian Adjustment Act of 1984.

We cannot pass up the opportunity to express our concern for the omission of

similar legislation for other asylum seeking peoples in similar plight who have left

their countries in the Caribbean and Central America.

In Miami at present there are approximately 40,000 seeking asylum who have

been forgotten by all levels of government, and are struggling against incredible

odds to survive, and who are hoping that similar legislation as the one we are supporting today will soon be proposed on their behalf.

PREPARED STATEMENT OP THE HONORABLE WALTER E. FAUNTROY, CHAIRMAN,

CONGRESSIONAL BLACK CAUCUS, TASK FORCE ON HAITIAN REFUGEES ON H.R. 4853

I want to express my appreciation to the Subcommittee and its Chairman for

holding this hearing on H.R. 4853, a bill which would grant lawful permanent resident status to Haitians and Cubans who have sought safety and freedom in the

United States. The leadership of the Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary

and the Chairman of the Subcommittee in sponsoring and co-sponsoring this legislation is testimony not only to expertise in the area of immigration and refugee policy

but is reflective of the fairness and compassion with which they have approached

the difficult issues that abound in immigration and refugee matters.

The treatment and absence of legal status of the Haitian refugees has long been a

concern of the Congressional Black Caucus generally, and our Task Force on Haitian Refugees in partricular, as evidenced in the support of the co-sponsorship of

this legislation by the Congressional Black Caucus.

The Congressional Black Caucus Task Force on Haitian Refugees has been concerned for many years with the denial of due process and equal protection under

the law afforded the Haitian refugees. We have been alarmed and appalled by the

inhumane treatment and detention of this class of refugees. While, I do not wish to

J^
164

judge the intent of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Department

of State in its treatment of the Haitian refugees, the result has been a determined

effort to exclude the first significant class of Black refugees to come to our shores.

The result has been racist in effect regardless of intent.

H.R. 4853, seeks a constructive solution to a harmful and disturbing episode in

the history of immigration to the United States. It would also and most importantly

provide relief to a limited class of Haitian refugees who have developed equity in

our country and have provided themselves to the communities in which they reside,

to be hard working and law abiding.

While enthusiastic about the solution embodied in H.R. 4853, I am concerned that

the Immigration and Naturalization Service appears to be committed to moving

ahead with deportation and exclusion hearings against persons who would benefit

from this legislation. I would urge the Chairman of the Subcommittee to intervene

with the Immigration and Naturalization Service to obtain a moratorium on these

proceedings.

As the Chairman knows, for the past two years I have been seeking a relationship

with people at all levels of Haitian society to see if there is some way that we can

improve the human rights situation and the political economy of Haiti so that refugees would no longer feel impelled to risk their lives on the high seas to escape to

our shores. This discussion has involved the Haitian Government, private voluntary

organizations working for development in Haiti, the business sector, the Haitian

League for Human Rights, our Embassy, and many others. The road has been rocky

and often characterized by one or two steps forward and one, two, or three steps

backward.

Most recently, the Committee on Foreign Affairs in Section 803 of the International Security and Development Act of 1984 addressed the Human Rights situation

in Haiti which should be considered in evaluating the need for H.R. 4853. I quote

now from section 803:

"While the Committee is encouraged by the Haitian Government's cooperation in

curbing illegal emigration and in implementing fiscal reform and U.S. development

assistance programs, the human rights situation in Haiti, which had shown potential for improvement, has in fact deteriorated. As the Department of State's most

recent annual human rights report to the Congress states, "Haiti's political history

has been one of authoritarian rule characterized by periods of political instability

and human rights abuses . . . Freedom of speech, press, and association is restricted

by the Government, and due process guarantees relating to judicial procedure are

frequently disregarded." For example, in May 1983, the Government arrested without charge, several political opponents during the municipal elections process and

held them in jail until the elections were over. The leader of the Haitian Christian

Democratic Party, Sylvio Claude, continues to suffer house arrest and other abuses

of his rights under Haitian law. Prior to Haitian legislative elections on February

12, 1984, the Government prevented the participation of known opposition parties

and individuals by intimidation, harrassment, and by refusing the reentry into

Haiti of Eugene Gregoire, leader of the Social Christian Party. Also, during the legislative election supporters of candidates not sanctioned by the Government were

physically beaten by security forces and the military in the towns of Cavaillon, Gros

Morne, and Petit Goave.

"The Committee is seriously concerned over such unwarranted intimidation of the

nascent political opposition in Haiti and other continuing human rights violations

attributable to the Government. For that reason, the Committee has eliminated any

new authorization for military assistance and sales to the Government of Haiti for

fiscal years 1984 and 1985 in order to apprise the Government of the implications of

the lack of progress in the promotion and protection of human rights."

More recent events reflect some indication of a change in a more positive direction, one that I hope would enhance the effort to improve the human rights environment in Haiti. However, that remains to be seen and I could not in good conscience

rest, assured that any and all Haitians that might be returned to Haiti would not

suffer programmed or arbitrary abuse.

There has been much discussion that the Haitian refugees are simply economic

refugees and therefore not entitled to refuge in our country. This simplistic and distorted assertion emanates from a theoretical assumption that economics and politics

are separable. This was not asserted nor could it be in the case of the Indo-Chinese

Refugees. In Haiti, this is especially true, where wealth can only be accumulated

through a "franchise" from the Government of Haiti. Nevertheless, I think it important to put on the record the situation of the economy in Haiti and the impact the

economy has on the people of that country.
166

By the end of 1983, Haiti's real per capita income will have dropped 8.5% below

the corresponding 1980 level:

"8,000 families comprising 1% of the population take 44% of the national income

and pay only 3.5% of their income in direct taxes.

"In Haiti there is roughly one doctor for every 11,000 people.

"More than one third of Haiti's children die before the age of five.

"The vast majority of the population exist in absolute poverty (on an income of

less than $140 per year).

"The population of metropolitan Port-au-Prince has doubled to over one million in

the last ten years due primarily to the migration of peasants from the rural areas.

"As may as 60,000 people crowd in each square kilometer of urban slums such as

Cite Simone.

"Only 20% of Haiti's population can read and write.

"There are nearly 700 people per every square kilometer of arable land in Haiti

as compared to 381 in India and 53 in the U.S.

"41% of Haiti's population is under the age of 15.

"Once nearly 70% of Haiti's land was covered with trees. Now less than 10% of

the country is forested."

FISCAL PERFORMANCE

While the Government of Haiti has fully complied with its 1983 fiscal reforms in

macroeconomic terms, for example Government revenues rose at an annual rate of

over 10%, there are some real questions as to who is paying for this compliance and

who is not. For example, the new general sales tax, while successful in raising about

1% of the Gross Domestic Product for the fiscal year, imposed a severe hardship on

the poor, because this tax was levied on basic products which the peasantry produces and consumes, such as flour, sugar, and vegetable oil. The fiscal system still

continues to operate so that the 80% rural population pays for about 85% of internally generated revenues while receiving less than 20% of total government expenditures in return. Additionally, there is some question as to whether or not those

close to the Government, such as Ernest Bennett, the President's father in law, are

paying back outstanding Government loans. On a positive level, the fiscal program

raised Government revenues as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product and seems

to have given greater confidence to the private sector. Real private investment grew

in 1983, capital flight was greatly reduced, and foreign arrears virtually eliminated.

AGRICULTURE

While there was a bumper coffee crop in 1983, this does not appear to have led to

a corresponding sector wide expansion of agriculture generally because of a severe

drought. Additionally, while the volume of coffee exports increased by 65%, this

gain was minimized by the low prices on the world market. The coffee crop is projected to be some 25% lower in volume than last year, but the unit price is expected

to be 5% higher. The system of coffee production and marketing is still dominated

by middle men who live in small towns in the countryside. These middle men, who

are also merchants from whom the peasants borrow money or food, are one of the

key constituencies of the Duvalier regime and are directly linked to the upper administration of the Duvalier regime. One Haitian scholar has estimated that up to

40% of the personnel in the upper levels of the Government owes its origin to families engaged in agricultural speculation. However, the largest profits are made by

the exporters at the end of the chain. This exporter segment of the coffee industry

is controlled by 27 export houses dominated by mulattoes and persons of European

background. The three largest are Madsen of Danish origin, Brandt of British and

Jamaican origin, and Wiener of German origin. In 1982, Ernest Bennett joined this

elite group. These exporters are in a position to set a price to pay to the middlemen.

The peasant producer is relatively powerless, has no control over prices, and alone

pays the tax levied by the Government on coffee exports. The result is that the

coffee producer pays the highest taxes in Haiti. That tax being equal to an income

tax of 35 to 40%.

Small peasant agricultural producers continue to suffer from a lack of access to

credit. It is estimated that the cost of credit in Port au Prince is at 18% per year for

those in the dominant business sector. In the peasant agricultural sector, the rate is

estimated at 18% per month or over 216% when compounded.

Due to low agricultural productivity, Haiti's domestic market is limited in the extreme by low-purchasing power and market size. The real market for most products
166

is less than 50,000 persons. The result is monopoly or oligopoly in the domestic

market and export industries based on cheap labor for the international market.

The assembly industries appear to have expanded somewhat as "economic expansion" increased in the U.S. According to the international financing community,

Haiti's export of light manufactures are projected to increase by 20% on the assumption that the recovery of economic activity in the United States continues.

These firms enjoy the advantage of U.S. Customs Code Sections 806 and 807: "which

permit goods assembled from U.S. made components to reenter the U.S. with duty

paid only on the value added abroad." These companies, which can be established

with minimal capital investment are able to profit from labor priced at $2.64 per

day. The industry employs anywhere from 45,000 to 60,000 workers, and it is generally understood that the Government will repress strikes and break up independent

trade unions. The principal contribution of these plants is the $30 to 40 million in

wages which "support" between 260,000 and 325,000 people, approximately one

third of the population of Port au Prince.

TOURISM

Tourism was extremely depressed in 1983. Visitors, primarily from Canada and

the United States, are numbered at 300,000 per year, but 60% of these arrive on

cruise ships and spend only a few hours in Port-au-Prince or Cape Haitian. Tourist

expenditures in Haiti are this very low compared to the number of visitors. The

300,000 figure is also only VH of the number that visit Jamaica or the Dominican

Republic. Given the image of Haiti, caused by human rights abuses, the unfair labeling of Haitians as carriers of A.I.D.S, and the lack of Government activity in promoting tourism, the outlook is not encouraging.

DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES

The absorbtive capacity of the Private Voluntary Organizations engaged in development is being questioned seasoned and respected observers of Haiti. Specifically,

there is a quesiton as to the numbers of quality PVOs and projects that can be undertaken. There is a general feeling that USA ID. should exercise more care in

funding projects through P.V.O.8. This criticism was one of the secondary arguments against an increase in Economic Support Funds for Haiti.

Perhaps, the most inhibiting factor in undertaking serious, coherent, and coordinated development activities is the continuing lack of a partner in the Government

of Haiti. According to Mats Lundahl, an economist, who has written extensively on

Haiti: "The future appears bleak for the Haitian peasant . . . The Government's

lack of commitment to agricultural development forces the peasants to rely on their

own efforts. It is here that the major obstacle to economic development would seem

to be." .

CONCLUSION

Legislation such as H.R. 4853, is not unique in our Nation's history. We have in

the past compassionately and wisely responded to Hungarian refugees, other Eastern European refugees, the initial wave of Cuban refugees, and to Indo-Chinese refugees through special legislation. There is a clear humanitarian need for H.R 4853

as well as a compelling national interest in the passage of this legislation. Let us

correct the record and put our Nation squarely in support of the principles of equal

justice as reflected in the passage of the Refugee Act of 1980. Again, I congratulate

the Chairman and the Subcommittee for holding this hearing, the sponsor, and all

of my colleagues who have cosponsored this legislation.

FLORIDA ORGANIZATIONS STRONGLY ENDORSE PASSAGE OP CUBAN-HAITIAN

ADJUSTMENT ACT OP 1984

STATEMENT OP GREATER MIAMI UNITED NATIONAL COALITION FOR HAITIAN REFUGEES

SPANISH-AMERICAN LEAGUE AGAINST DISCRIMINATION

Our member organizations based in Florida and nationwide strongly urge the immediate enactment of the "Cuban-Haitian Adjustment Act of 1984 , introduced on

February 9 in the United States Congress by Judiciary Committee Chairman Peter

Rodino. The welfare of our community requires that the legalization of the limited
167

group of Cubans and Haitians defined in Chairman Rodino's legislation be guided by

the fundamental values of equal treatment and justice for all and be accomplished

as quickly as possible.

Justice demands that this group of Cuban and Haitian refugees who risked their

lives to flee to our country from misery and repression be granted permanent residence and an end to their tragic plight and legal limbo. The unique and desperate

situation of the Haitian and Cuban refugee boat people has been repeatedly linked

by governmental action and in the public mind. The great majority of the Cuban

refugees from the Mariel flotilla and the comparable and smaller group of Haitian

refugees have long ago been promised that their "entrant" status would be convertr

ed to permanent residency through legislation.

Southern Florida has long prided itself on being a vital, multi-ethnic community,

but our citizens have suffered from too much divisiveness already. The introduction

of the Cuban-Haitian Adjustment Act of 1984 represents a long overdue and equitable step towards solving the tragic plight of these two refugee groups, and our communities are united in support of its early passage.

Our oganizations also endorse the specific language of the Cuban-Haitian Adjustment Act of 1984 that defines the group of refugees to benefit from its provisions as

absolutely essential to a humane and equitable solution to this dilemma. The handful of Cubans and Haitians who arrived subsequent to the granting of "entrant"

status but before January 1, 1982, have suffered more than their predecessors in

many cases. Thousands of the Haitian refugees were detained for up to 18 months

as part of a detention program that federal courts have held to have been illegal

and discriminatory. As Chairman Rodino emphasized: "No group in recent history

has been subject to more injustices by the Immigration Service."

Both Cuban and Haitian refugees have established additional and substantial equities in our society, and their presence here should be legally confirmed immediately. Our organizations join together in support of this just and humane legislation,

and we urge the Democratic and Republican parties to endorse this bill in a bi-partisan commitment to end the plight of these refugees and to renew the sense of unity

in our community.

For further information please contact:

Greater Miami United, Dr. Eduardo J. Padron, Cc-Chair, (305) 577-6730

National Coalition for Haitian Refugees, Michael S. Hooper, Esq., Executive Director, (212) 741-6152

Spanish-American League Against Discrimination, Manuel Diaz, Esq., Chairman,

(305) 576-1500

CUBAN-AMERICAN COMMITTEE,

Washington, DC, May 17, 1984.

Hon. PETER W. RODINO, Jr.,

Chairman, Judiciary Committee, House ofRepresentatives,

Washington, DC.

DEAR CHAIRMAN RODINO: We would like to ask your permission to introduce the

enclosed statement in the record for HR 4853 ("Cuban-Haitian Adjustment Act").

The issues covered by the bill are extremely important and we trust that the points

we made in our statement will contribute to its favorable consideration.

We would also like to thank you for taking a leadership role in addressing this

matter. We strongly support the bill and we will be happy to assist your office on

this matter in any way we can in the weeks to come.

Sincerely,

MANUEL R. GOMEZ, President.

STATEMENT OF MANUEL R. GOMEZ, PRESIDENT, CUBAN-AMERICAN COMMITTEE

I am Manuel Gomez, President of the Cuban-American Committee, an organization concerned with a broad range of domestic and foreign issues affecting Hispanic

interests. We are thankful to Judiciary Committee Chairman Peter Rodino and to

the staff of the Immigration Subcommittee for the opportunity to introduce testimony into the record which reflects our views on the Cuban-Haitian Adjustment Act

of 1984" (HR 4853).

We strongly support both the adjustment aspects of the proposed legislation and

the section which addresses the issuance of immigrant visas to qualified individuals

under section 203 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, without regard to Section

243(g) of such act. We would like to outline the basis for our support and also offer
168

some comments which concern the underlying causes of the "Cuban" issues covered

by this legislation.

With regard to the issue of adjustment of the status of both groups to permanent

residents, it is clear that the Cuban and Haitian groups have similar origins and

characteristics; and that both are strongly deserving of the change of status. Both

are correctly linked in the public mind as one issue, and they have both received

implicit assurances from past government actions and statements that they would

be adjusted from "entrants" to permanent residents.

The proposed legislation will thus result in a long-overdue legalization of two

groups that have been in an unjustificed legal limbo for several years. The measure

is just and consistent with the equal treatment principles of our society. It is the

only acceptable solution to a problem which has been allowed to fester for too long.

The comprehensive coverage of the proposed legislation is particularly important.

Deportation is not a realistic threat for most Cuban entrants, yet many of the Haitian entrants, if not adjusted, would face such a prospect, followed by almost certain

persecution, and even death. It would be unacceptable and shameful, to say the

least, if the first voluntary massive emigration of Black people to our shores•a

heroic emigration, we might add•were to end with such a tragic chapter. The treatment that may of them nave received in detention camps and other contexts is already a stain on our civil rights values. The equal treatment of both groups by the

proposed legislation is therefore essential.

Our support for Section 2 of the bill, instructing consular officers to issue visas to

certain qualified individuals, is equally straightforward. For more than two years

now, some 15,000 spouses and children of Cubans who are permanent residents in

the US, and who are thus eligible for preference immigrant visas, have been stymied in their desire to emigrate to the US by an Administration policy which is as

callous as it is hard to understand. The State Department is refusing to issue visas

until the Cuban government accepts the return of the small group of excludable*

who came with the Mariel exodus.

Yet there is every indication to suggest that Cuban officials, in fact, have offered

to negotiate the return, but the Administration has refused any meaningful discussion. At least one high-ranking government official with first-hand knowledge of the

discussions•Wayne Smith, former head of our interest section in Havana•is of the

strong opinion that the matter is amenable to fruitful negotiation. Whatever the details of the dispute, however, the reunification of Cuban families is needlessly being

held hostage to a policy of confrontation with Cuba. We cannot fathom the goal of

this heartless policy. The Cuban immigration problem is perfectly amenable to bilateral discussions between the two governments, quite apart from other sources of

conflict.

This brings us to the last point we would like to bring to the attention of the Subcommittee, which is the need to understand the underlying causes of the two

"Cuban" problems this bill addresses, so as to prevent similar situations from arising in the future. Otherwise, the piecemeal approach which HR 4853 must today

embody to resolve a pressing and specific problem may well have to be repeated in

the future.

Both the explosive Mariel exodus and the continued division of thousands of

Cuban families are the result of incessant hostility between Cuba and the United

States. Similar instances of emigration without agreed-upon rules have occurred in

the past and would come up again in the future, so long as both governments feel

compelled to use the issue as a political weapon. That pattern has gone on for too

long, and it should stop.

There is simply no reason why bilateral discussions between the two countries

cannot set the basis for a humane and mutually agreeable resolution for many current immigration problems, and thus prevent the kinds of crisis we now confront

from occurring in the future. Indeed, a relaxation of tensions between the two countries offers the only real prospect of meaningful family reunification.

It is now clear that neither country desires a repeat of the massive exodus pattern

which has been the case until now. A relaxation of tensions, coupled with immigration agreements between the two countries, should pave the way for reunification

mechanisms which need not always demand definitive emigration, but should have

an expanded meaning which includes a range of contacts, such as easier, more relaxed, and extended visits of relatives in both countries, better phone and mail communication, and the like. For countries which are so close, maintaining close contact between loved ones need not always mean emigration, any more than families

with members in New York and Miami must all choose the same city in which to

live in order to remain close. To reach such a state of affairs will require the earnest effort of both governments. It may seem like a dream today, but we urge our
169

Congressmen to consider it. From our point of view, such a state of affairs is the

only real solution to the type of "Cuban" immigration problems we are today faced

with resolving in an urgent but piecemeal fashion.

In conclusion, we join the wide coalition of organizations and individuals which

support this legislation. The plight of the Cuban/Haitian entrants is a very specific

and well-defined case of injustice which deserves an equally specific redress. We

have stated only briefly the reasons for our support because we are well aware that

many other witnesses have presented testimony that amply documents these and

other arguments in support of the legislation. Finally, we trust that the points we

have made about the "Cuban" aspects of this immediate problem contribute to policies which will prevent their repetition in the future.
APPENDIX 5: MICHAEL HOOPER'S RESPONSES TO SUPPLEMENTAL

QUESTIONS

Question. Mr. Hooper, you are concerned by the effects of Section C of this legislation because of the exclusion of certain admitted nonimmigrants who overstayed

their visas. Can you explain this concern and do you have alternative language to

suggest?

Answer. We are concerned with the exclusions of Section C to the extent that it

directly contradicts the clear intent of Section B. There are two groups of otherwise

eligible beneficiaries who might be excluded from coverage if Section C is not technically amended.

Any application of Section C to Section B would result in the disqualification of

Haitian and Cubans who were previously assured of protection through the granting

of "Entrant" status by the Carter administration. Since they were (in the language

of Section O admitted to the United States as nonimmigrants and have not applied

for asylum a formalistic application of Section C could result in their exclusion from

coverage in direct contradiction of the spirit of this bill.

Secondly, we are concerned that the legislation be clarified to indicate that the

class of persons intended to be excluded from the benefits of this legislation includes

only those persons who were inspected and lawfully admitted to the U.S., and does

not apply to an alien paroled and inspected or otherwise allowed entry into the U.S.

"Admitted" is a term of art in immigration law, and those persons who were detained or who were placed in proceedings when they presented themselves at the

border have not been admitted. We would hope that the Committee report would

indicate that the clear intent of this legislation is that anyone who was not "lawfully admitted" to the U.S. would be eligible for the benefits of Section B.

We would recommend that Section B(2) could be modified so as to preserve the

spirit of Section C which would be eliminated from the text. This minor modification in language would also resolve the two ambiguities noted above. Section B(2)

would then read:

(2) "who is a national of Cuba or Haiti, who arrived in the U.S. before January 1,

1982, with respect to whom any record was established by the Immigration and Naturalization Service before January 1, 1982 and who (unless the alien filed an application for political asylum with the INS before January 1, 1982) was not lawfully

admitted to the U.S. as a non-immigrant."

Written in this fashion this bill is only intended to exclude Haitians and Cubans

who are not Cuban-Haitian Entrants, who were lawfully admitted to the U.S. on a

valid temporary visa and who did not apply for political asylum.

Question. It is intended that this legislation apply only to otherwise eligible

Cubans and Haitians "with respect to whom any record was established by the INS

before January 1, 1982." What would be included in the restriction "with respect to

who any record was created by INS"?

Answer. Included in the restriction "any record created by INS" would be any

document or computer entry prepared or accepted by the INS or the Executive

Office of Immigration Review, including but not limited to the documents described

on the list which follows. Any record would also include any petition or application

submitted by the alien. The contact requirement would be fulfilled for any persons

placed in deportation or exclusion proceedings, those who have final orders of deportation entered against them, those who have sought to exhaust their administrative

or federal court remedies and those given parol documents or their equivalent even

ftw *ii they were never placed in deportation proceedings. A nonexhaustive list of

this kind of "record" of contact which placed the INS on notice as to the presence of

the alien includes but is not limited to:

1-39 decision of an immigration judge.

1-94 document of entry.

1-102 application for a lost 1-94.

1-72 Call-in-Letter (request for information or to come in to INS in person, applies

only to those persons already at the attention of INS. Other call-in letters included

1-210 and G-56.

(170)
171

1-122 notice that alien is under exclusion proceedings.

1-221 Order to Show Cause, the equivalent of 1-122 for deportation.

1-166 "Bag and baggage" letter informing alien that has been ordered deported

and setting date of deportation.

1-213, 1-214 statements and declarations taken from aliens usually at time of

entry.

1-200 warrant for arrest.

1-290 Notice of Decision by Immigration Judge.

1-292 Notice of appeal.

1-246 request for a stay of deportation.

1-342,1-352 notice of bond from IJ or District Director Respectively.

1-286 Notice of Decision.

1-589 Notice of application for political asylum.

1-506 Application for a change of status.

1-539 Application for an extension of stay.

1-6 Execution of Parole Agreement.

A Writ of Habeas Corpus in Federal Court.

A notice of docketing of an appearance in a Circuit Court of Appeals.

Finally I would like to emphasize that the "any record" limitation refers to any

record that was established by the INS before January 1, 1982. As long as this

record was created, the clear intent of this legislation is that benefit eligibility

exists once any record was established, even if the refugees files were later lost or

misplaced by the Immigration Service. Justice and basic humanity demand that the

benefits of this legislation must be available to otherwise eligible Cubans or Haitians whose files were destroyed or lost through no fault of their own. This is not an

abstract concern, as during the Immigration Service's "Haitian Program" a significant number of files were indeed misplaced as the refugees were transported from

prison to prisons around the country.

Question. While there is a continuous residence requirement appearing at (aX4) of

this legislation, there is absolutely no physical presence requirement in determining

eligibility. How would a continuous residence requirement affect these Cubans and

Haitians?

Answer. As with certain other common-sense limitations, a carefully crafted and

flexible continuous residence requirement would be very reasonable, but a rigidly

applied requirement could be used to defeat the entire purpose of this legislation.

Should any continuous residence requirement be included in the bill, it would be

very important for the Committee to give the INS specific guidance in order to

avoid the use of this requirement to undermine the legislation's intent.

We believe that continuous residency and derivatively, eligibility for this legislation's benefits, means that the applicant for adjustment remained in the U.S. and

does not require continuous physical presence. The interests of justice are not

served if an otherwise eligible applicant is disqualified just because he left the country once for two days. Continuous residence as a term of art means just what it implies, that the concerned individual did not reside elsewhere it does not require continuous physical presence. If an applicant resided outside the U.S. he should be disqualified however if he traveled or visited outside the U.S. he clearly would continue to qualify for the benefits of this legislation. Naturally the more difficult problem

concerns what will be considered acceptable documentation and evidence to establish continous residency. This matter will also be resolved by regulations, but we

would urge the Committee to clearly go on record as favoring the use of reliable

witness affidavits as a sufficient form of documentation.

Question. Section 2 of this legislation mandates the issuance of immigrant visas to

qualified Cubans without regard to the availability of visas. Why has your Coalition

made this a major priority?

Answer. Our Coalition is composed of 45 national organizations deeply concerned

with the problem of these refugees, and we have also organized affiliated Coalition

working groups in Washington and Miami. Our Miami group included many CubanAmerican organizations and Civil rights organizations committed to resolving the

dilemma of the Haitian and Cuban boat people. Although many of our member organizations were not aware of this problems of visa issuance prior to our contacts

with the Cuban community, we now include this policy as a priority essentially because of the importance which our colleagues place on resolving the issue.

Question. In your testimony you stressed that there is a possibility that a significant number of othewise eligible beneficiaries of this legislation faced immient deportation. How serious is this problem and how many people are you talking about?

Answer. The problem is very grave and it is very immediate. Today we are confronted by the tragedy irony that persons may be deported just days before this con-
172

turning civil rights tragedy is finally resolved. Whether this legislation is approved

in late 1984 or in early 1985 it is essential that these refugees who have suffered in

innumerable ways already should not be shunted out from under the protections

that they have waited for so long. Finally there is no opposition to this bill. Everyone agrees with its spirit, including key Senators and administration as we have

seen this morning, although there are certain differences as to eligibility date. The

beneficiaries of this legislation should be assured that the untold hardships that

they have suffered already will not be multiplied by the ultimate penalty of deportation to the countries from which they fled.

H 363 85 4