Speech #970224406

Mr. President. I intend to oppose this amendment to the Immigation Reform and Control Act of 1982 that would place under a single numerical ceiling both refugee and immigration admissions. S. 2222 places a limit on all legal immigration into this country with the exception of refugees. This bill leaves in place the refugee admissions system created by the Refugee Act of 1980. I strongly endorse a separate refugee admissions system and will oppose the amendment. The present law provides for a "normal flow" of up to 50.000 refugees a year. It allows the President to increase this number after appropriate consultation with the Congress if it is justified by humanitarian concerns or is otherwise in the national interest. This system recognizes that immigration and refugee admissions serve different purposes. Immigration policy in large part reflects family reunification. Refugee admission levels are generally set in response to critical humanitarian situations or foreign policy considerations. The Huddleston amendment will reduce considerably the ability of the U.S. Government to respond to refugee emergencies. The loss of this flexibility could have the unfortunate effect of undermining various foreign policy objectives. As we all know. our Government offers assistance to refugees not simply out of compassion. but because large refugee populations can threaten the stability of countries of first asylum. This is especially true for developing nations which are illequipped to cope with large influxes on their own. The presence of refugees can raise serious tensions between sending and receiving countries in a particular region. and the refugees can come to fear mistreatment in the first asylum country as much as they might fear persecution in their homeland if they were to return. At the height of the Indochinese refugee crisis in 197980. the previously generous countries of first asylum in Southeast Asia adopted desperate measures in the face of new waves of refugees. Thousands of Khmer and "boat people" from Vietnam lost their lives after being pushed back across land borders or back out to sea. In time. however. many receiving countries were able and willing to offer refuge with assurances of support from the international community. The granting of first asylum provides time for the development of humane solutions to refugee problems. These include voluntary repatriation when conditions in the homeland permit. settlement in the region or. as a last resort. resettlement in third countries. Africa is a good example of an area where first asylum countries have traditionally offered hospitality to refugees. where refugee problems have been resolved through regional cooperative efforts. and where requests for outside support have come only recently in response to rapidly increasing refugee populations. It is to the credit of the international community and to the United States that its response has helped ease many African and other refugee situations in the last few years. After decades of ad hoc arrangements. there are now international mechanisms to help first asylum countries provide immediate humanitarian relief. longer term maintenance. and voluntary repatriation or resettlement where appropriate. The Geneva conference on Indochinese refugees in July 1979 and the conference on African refugees in April 1981 underlined the need for greater coordination and broader international participation. One of the major reasons for the success of these efforts has been the leading role of the United States in pledging support and having the ability through the Refugee Act to accept large numbers of refugees in times of crisis. Our support at the 1979 and 1981 Geneva conferences set examples that many countries subsequently followed. Our lead also reassured the countries of first asylum in Africa and Southeast Asia that their plight would not be ignored by the international community. The cooperation has led to an alliance between donor countries. recipient countries. and international organizations that has made it possible to manage refugee problems of unprecedented scope. While much remains to be done. the emergency stage is behind us in assuring the survival of Afghans in Pakistan. refugees in the Horn of Africa. and the Khmer people. What worries me is that this relief network is fragile. Any precipitous decrease in the ability of the United States to meet an unforeseen refugee crisis could lead to the unraveling of the system. Receiving countries may again believe their only recourse is to deny asylum to new arrivals and to treat harshly those who have already arrived. No one. including the United States. gains from a return to chaos and brutality. As responsible members of the international community. we must work to resolve the root causes of refugee flows. We must also recognize the urgency of responding to refugee problems as they arise. In some situations. thirdcountry resettlement of some refugees may be the only solution. The Huddleston amendment would eliminate our ability to respond to international emergencies. It would also undermine our efforts to encourage more nations to assist in refugee resettlement and to accept a larger share of the financial burdens associated with refugee care which bears so heavily on the United States. The Huddleston amendment which combines immigrants and refugees under one ceiling would undermine our position of leadership in the international community with respect to the humane treatment of refugees.