Speech #960183677

I rise in opposition to this amendment. It was carefully considered by the full Committee on the Judiciary and it was rejected. If we adopt this amendment. we will be saying to U.S. citizens that their close relatives must wait to emigrate to this country because we have responded to a refugee crisis. It would be saying to a U.S. citizen that his son from China. who must now wait over 4 years for a visa. will have to wait longer yet because we have accepted a refugee. Persons who will suffer if this amendment is adopted are U.S. citizens who are seeking to be reunited with their families. the basic objective of our immigration law. And. of course. as the gentlewoman pointed out. this would not occur. and what we have instead is a backhanded way of putting a ceiling of 50.000 on the number of refugees. We are told that this amendment would encourage other countries to accept more refugees. and I am at a loss to see how that would work. The only countries in the world today who are not current in the majority of the preferences under which immigrants come to the United States are China. India. Korea. Mexico. and the Philippines. So that the entire Western Europe and the entire South America places that are currently receiving refugees or places that we would like to encourage to do more could not possibly be pressured by us. because they are undersubscribed in their preferences today. and anybody in their country qualified under our immigation law can receive a visa. Furthermore. it is highly questionable whether a native of France or Germany who is now a U.S. citizen could lobby effectively the government of their native land to make visa numbers available to immigrants under our present system. I think also we have already adopted sufficient guarantees of congressional control over numbers. We have the congressional veto. which ultimately is the weapon that will control the excess admissions over the 50.000 normal flow. I want to take a few more minutes. Mr. Chairman. at this time. because I think this brings us to another related issue that is in the mind of many. many Members. and that is that there are reports that worldwide there are some 14 mllion refugees. I am sure that many of our colleagues fear the pressures on the United States as a major receiving country from these millions. I believe this fear is at the root of the amendment now before us for consideration. I take this time to discuss who are these 14 million refugees and how their problems are being addressed today. The largest part of the worlds refugees are the upward of 8 million in Africa. most of whom are not candidates for resettlement. 3 to 4 million Palestinians. There are also refugees in Bangladesh. Pakistan. and in Latin America. For most of these refugees. repatriation or local resettlement in a neighboring country rather than resettlement abroad in receiving countries like the United States are the best solutions and the solutions most desired by the refugees themselves. Because of political and military upheavals in Africa. the refugees there in many cases have received asylum in adjoining countries. Some countries have responded generously and with the help of the UNHCR and voluntary agencies. particularly the Lutherans. many refugees have been resettled successfully in this local or adjoining country resettlement. Model examples of this process are Zambia and Tanzania which have accepted and made land available for refugees from Burundi and Rowanda. As for repatriation. Zaire has taken back those displaced after the Congo upheaval.