Download Annual Refugee Consultation PDF

TitleAnnual Refugee Consultation
LanguageEnglish
File Size2.1 MB
Total Pages96
Document Text Contents
Page 1

S. HRG 98-677

ANNUAL REFUGEE CONSULTATION ^3 7'
^••=^=^=) 73

HEARING
BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON
IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE POLICY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE

NINETY-EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

OVERSIGHT HEARING TO REVIEW THE PROGRESS OF THIS YEAR'S REF-
UGEE RESETTLEMENT PROGRAM, FOCUSING ON THE CONSULTATION
PROCESS IN PROVIDING ASYLUM TO PERSONS FLEEING POLITICAL
PERSECUTION

SEPTEMBER 26, 1983

Serial No. J-98-69

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

30-929 O WASHINGTON : 1984

Page 2

•aVte

-v.; 1-.V- i- ••

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

STROM THURMOND, South Carolina, Chairman
CHARLES McC. MATHIAS, JR., Maryland JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware
PAUL LAXALT, Nevada EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts
ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
ROBERT DOLE, Kansas HOWARD M. METZENBAUM, Ohio
ALAN K. SIMPSON, Wyoming DENNIS DECONCINI, Arizona
JOHN P. EAST, North Carolina PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa MAX BAUCUS, Montana
JEREMIAH DENTON, Alabama HOWELL HEFLIN, Alabama
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania

VINTON DEVANE LIDE, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
DEBORAH K. OWEN, General Counsel

SHIRLEY J. FANNING, Chief Clerk
MARK H. GITENSTEIN, Minority Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE POUCY

ALAN K. SIMPSON, Wyoming, Chairman
STROM THURMOND, South Carolina EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts
CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa DENNIS DECONCINI, Arizona

RICHARD W. DAY, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
ARNOLD H. LEIBOWITZ, Special Counsel

ELIZABETH GREENWOOD, Counsel

(II)

g4-Q01G&

Page 48

44

English language and work orientation programs for refugees

before they arrive in the United States. Every item on this

list is important and will be difficult to achieve, but the

matter of repatriation deserves special comment.

The United States is by far the most generous country in

the world in accepting and helping refugees. At times, we may

even be generous to a fault. For years we have accepted for

permanent resettlement more refugees than all other countries

of the world combined. We also accept hundreds of thousands of

legal immigrants every year and an even greater number of

illegal aliens whom we make no serious or concerted effort to

apprehend and expel once they have dispersed across the

country. The United States also provides more assistance than

any other country to the United Nations, Red Cross, and other

agencies helping refugees. We should continue to be generous.

But there are limits.

Over the past eight years, the world has experienced

successive refugee crisis in the Far East, South Asia, and

Africa where voluntary and safe repatriation has been difficult

at best when not altogether impossible. We should bear in mind

that the Marxist and Soviet inclined governments in Indochina,

Afghanistan, and Ethiopia have been quite content to see masses

of their own people flee to become a burden on neighboring

states. Our task is to see that this historically very brief

hiatus in refugee repatriation does not become a new and very

dangerous permanent state of affairs.

Page 49

45

As an initiative of the Coordinator's office, the first

ministerial level meeting of the Consultative Group on refugees

• Australia, Canada, Japan, the United States, and the UN High

Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) • took place in August. The

important issue of voluntary repatriation recurred several

times during the talks. The UNHCR was strongly urged to press

vigorously to continue its program in the Horn of Africa and to

reopen the voluntary repatriation program in Laos which was

suspended earlier this year. With regard to Vietnam, while no

one projected quick positive repatriation developments except

for a limited number of humanitarian cases, it was recognized

by all as important to engage the Vietnamese authorities in a

continuing dialogue looking to the future.

Voluntary repatriation, even under UNHCR auspices, can be a

source of anxiety for the refugees themselves. We must be

reasonable and compassionate in the selection and

implementation of repatriation programs. But repatriation must

be rehabilitated as a moral and practically viable option in

the worldwide refugee picture, even though it will face us all

with difficult, at times even tragic, choices. Yet unless we

wish to see even larger resettlement flows or press countries

of first asylum to the breaking point, we have few other

options. One can only view with great disappointment the

failure of the community of free nations to come to grips with

the root causes of refugees.

A final note on the Consultative Group meeting. In light

of the improved situation in Southeast Asia, the United States,

30-929 0•84 6

Page 95

91

J*C* IROOtJ. 1U MtMr.TCiN F1$M. .A, It*.
•...,, *i '. i.'.:,',.i(i!i. v.-.s a-,osj -OOIWUO. CAU».
tO* [DW*«OS. CMC.
J-XHCCJtmS. J*_MTCH. THOUU M KMOMU, OHIO
JCI«.( J(X<*t.lHG. OHIO

OAN IUHGKCM. UU«.
WH.LH.W J. HUGntS. «J. f-JAMtS SCSlKtfNNtlt J*.

BILL MJCOU.UM. ft*.
win STKA*. OIL*. lCl>T5HAW. JK'K
r*iiMH icnotMn coio. G(C>:i>v. SOUL 'A.
E ••. '• . i Li i .. CAMS. MICH1II.<J,WI*E,OHIO
('".rr(« xiutsi
cio w tsocurn. JH, WICK
CHUJILlSLSt-IUMKlHT.
I*uc{ •. ">•< '.••• CCKH.
ISmUl KKBUM, OHIO

£!.£§>. gouge o£ J\cpr£^£ntattbc£f
Committtc on tfjc Jubiriarp

53as6initon, S.C. 20515
Etttptjont: 202-225-3951

September 27, 1983

The President
The White House
Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. President:

While I generally agree with the views expressed in the letter from the
consultative members to you, I wish to make some additional comments with
regard to the refugee level set for Latin America and the Caribbean.

I am particularly concerned that the refugee numbers from this region of
the world have been reduced from 3,000 during the last fiscal year to
1,000 for this year.

Recognizing the turmoil that currently exists in Central America and the
magnitude of the migration now occurring there, I am concerned that the
proposed level will not be adequate to meet the demand there.

For this reason, I would request to be kept apprised of the situation in
Central America and can assure you that I stand ready to consult on any
proposal to increase the refugee levels for Central America should it
become necessary.

MAZZOLI O U R0MANB. L. MAZZOLI
Chai rmah
Subcommittee on Immigration,

Refugees, and Intertnational Law

RLM:sej

Page 96

••*•! fcl<H«t»>3 C*oO
' ,M»rf)L MI,J;W w.
i-:;i'AUj Hui-XS.tU. f JAUtSS(»Il>'**<'>tlfll JR.WI*
i 'M t MALL. JR. TO. r , McCOUUM. HA.

1 ajki s«*i*. J«- n*
•-.-•..c.»se>wo(D!«.eoua
EM i...-. u.., UMS.
6»nniy nnm.uus.
tfo w i ' . -i •(...'•>.. UICH
C-«iK L ICHUMUl H.1.

UUMMHCt J SiiDtnA

f-..,,. r 1- ... OH, •.*.

92

®.al>. Pjouse of ftcprcficntatibtS
Committee on tfje Jubieiarp

SSasJinston. B.C. 20515

tEtlrpfcone 202-225-3951

September 28, 1983

The President
The White House
Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. President:

After reviewing the Administration's proposal for FY 1984
refugee admissions, I recommend a world-wide ceiling of 83,000
(compared with the proposed 72,000 figure) to allow adjust-
ments in the Administration's suggested allocations for East
Asia and Eastern Europe/Soviet Union. An 83,000 figure repre-
sents a 7,000 reduction compared with the FY 1983 ceiling of
90,000.

I applaud your policy of attempting over the next two
fiscal years, in concert with other receiving nations, to sub-
stantially reduce the Indochinese refugee camp population of
approximately 192,000. The FY 1984 allocation for East Asia
will have to accommodate approximately 15,000 Indochinese
refugees who already have been approved (in FY 1983) for admis-
sion to the United States but are undergoing recently lengthen-
ed English language and cultural orientation training programs
abroad. The remaining 35,000 will have to accommodate persons
coming under the Orderly Departure Program. The large num-
bers of refugees in transit, the administrative difficulties
in screening refugees earlier in this fiscal year, and the
continuing flows of refugees (estimated at 30,000 for next
year) justify an allocation of 58,000 for East Asia (compared
with the proposed figure of 50,000). A 58,000 allocation
represents a 6,000 reduction compared with the FY 1983 alloca-
tion of 64,000. /

The allocation for Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union,
in my judgment, should remain at 15,000 (the FY 1983 allocation)
because actual admissions this year have approximated this
figure. A lower allocation of 12,000, in my judgment, would
reduce the flexibility of our refugee program in that part of
the world.

Si ncerely,

HAMILTI0N FISH, JR.
Ranking Minority Member

o

P38 -85f

Similer Documents