Speech #970224424

Mr. President. I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak on behalf of the many Senators who oppose this amendment offered by my distingushed colleague from Kentucky which would place refugees under the overall cap on legal admissions to the United States. I understand Senator HUDDLESTONS motivation for placing refugees under the 425.000 ceiling. He is concerned with the total number of entrants to the United States each year. and he wants to have refugees included with asylees and general and special immigrants to the United States. I share with him the concern that our domestic resources are dwindling and our resource needs are growing. and that our countrys infrastructures cannot withstand an unregulated flow of immigrants. That is why I have supported the 425.000 cap. I think it strikes a fair balance between the interests of family reunification. which is primarily why we accept immigrants to the United States. and the awareness of the limitations on our countrys ability to assimilate newcomers into our economy and our society. But there is a fatal flaw in the logic of the Huddleston amendment. The amendment totally ignores the distinction that is drawn between why America accepts refugees and why America accepts general immigrants. There are two separate policies involved here. As I mentioned. America has traditionally accepted immigrants for the purposes of family reunification and "special" immigrants for particular job opportunities. That is why we have preference categories and an unlimited acceptance of "immediate family members." However. when you talk about "refugees." you are not talking about family reunfication any more. We met 17 months ago and passed the Refugee Act of 1980. Section 101 of that act states that it is the "historic policy of the United States to respond to the urgent needs of persons subject to persecution in their homelands." This historic policy is why America stretched out its arms to the refugees from Hungary in October of 1956. the refugees fleeing Castro in 1961. the Vietnamese refugees in 1975 and subsequent years. and to the other refugees who have found America as a shelter from persecution. This historic policy is the cornerstone of our commitment to human rights and to the individuals inalienable right to be free from the grips of tyranny and political persecution. This commitment is what distinguishes the United States from the other world powers and is what gives us moral leverage in negotiating international disputes. It is important. therefore. for all of us in this Chamber to keep in mind that there are two separate policies involved with respect to general immigration and to refugees. The issue is not what happens to these foreigners once they are settled in the United Statesthat is the argument being offered by the proponents of this amendment. The issue is why we admit refugees to this country. People who are fleeing from a wellfounded fear of persecution are not coming to the United States for family reunification purposes. And the decisions to admit these refugees involve very delicate and volatile international considerations that comprise our Nations foreign policy. The Senate and the President understand that the United States cannot become a haven for the worlds 12 to 16 million refugees. That is why we passed the Refugee Act of 1980 that requires the President to submit to appropriate consultation whenever the President feels that it will be necessary to accept more than 50.000 refugees in a fiscal year because of humanitarian or national interests considerations. I have seen literature being circulated by the proponents of this amendment which points to 1980 when 808.000 people were admitted to the United States. Conspicuously absent from their analysis of refugee and immigration issues are two crucial considerations. First. since 1980. the number of refugees has steadily dropped. from 159.000 in 1981. to this years 75.000 figure. Second. the 808.000 number was inflated by the influx of Cuban and Haitian entrants. I say "entrants" because that is the title the Carter administration gave them. I want to emphasize that these Cubans and Haitians were not refugees but merely applicants for asylum. and without proof of a wellfounded fear of persecution. they could not be considered refugees. My point is that if this amendment is a response to the problems encountered with the stream of immigrants from Haiti and Cuba in 1980. or if it is designed to prevent similar occurrences. then this amendment is not necessary. Senator SIMPSON and others have instituted in S. 2222 various provisions which will address and prevent those types of occurrences. There are summary exclusion provisions. asylum procedure changes. and penalties for transporting an illegal alien to this country which. with the other initiatives in S. 2222. will bring order to the admissions process. All the Huddleston amendment would do is abridge the Presidents powers to respond to international crises which involve refugees. This is precisely why the administration vehemently opposes this amendment. And while I disagree with numerous elements of the administrations refugee policy. I join with them in their opposition to an amendment which would restrict Americas ability to negotiate and respond to international matters with human rights overtones. There is another serious flaw in the amendment offered by my colleague from Kentucky which I feel should be considered by the Members of the Senate. What the amendment will do. quite simply. is put the interests of those seeking to immigrate for family reunification purposes against those seeking to immigrate to flee political persecution. This type of confrontation is unhealthy and unwise. Refugees admitted in year 1 would be deducted from the immigration visas granted in year 2. In effect. a year which sees a large number of refugees would mean that those individuals in the reunification preference categories would be out in the cold the following year. Unmarried adult sons and daughters of U.S. citizens. as well as spouses and unmarried sons and daughters of permanent residents. would be displaced because of the number of refugees admitted in the previous year. This is not what S. 2222 wants to happen. We dont want the interests of those coming in for family reunification purposes to be in direct conflict with those seeking refugee status. To be blunt about this. the amendment being considered by the Senate at this time is a backdoor approach to cutting family reunification visas. The present total of aliens issued immigrant visas or adjusting their status to lawful permanent residents. excluding refugees. is approximately 425.000. The SimpsonMazzoli bill is designed so that there is no reduction in the current level of legal immigration to this country. This 425.000 is a figure which has survived the scrutiny of committee after committee after committee. What Senator Huddlestons amendment would do is to cut that number to a figure well below 425.000. In effect. the amendment is saying. "We only want 425.000 foreigners per year admitted to the United States. and whatever number we dont use for refugees and immediate family members. well apply to whoever else is in the pool." This flies in the face of our history and heritage as a country. The Huddeston amendment from year 2 on will cause nothing but chaos in this country. And it will send out a bleak message to the international community on the future of Americas role in refugee protection and on human rights issues. If proponents of this amendment really wish to allow the President the flexibility to deal with the refugee matters. then they should be upfront about what this amendment will do. This amendment will drastically reduce the number of visas available for family reunification. The proponents of this legislation have clouded the issue by muddying the waters with the inclusion of refugees in the admissing pool. The Huddleston amendment will reduce nonrefugee admissions by a number anywhere from 90.000 to several hundred thousand. depending on the number of refugee admissions. The tension between refugee admissions and family reunifications is built into this amendment. and this tension will breed tremendous adverse consequences. I think the United States should have control of its borders. We do have tough economic problems that are exacerbated by the flow of illegal aliens. That is why S. 2222 is so badly needed. We must rid our country of illegal immigration practices. and we must bring order to legal immigration. We will have a proper forum to address refugee issues when the Senate takes up the reauthorization of the Refugee Act. The challenge before this body is to bring order to legal immigration and to put an end to illegal immigration. We can do these things without crippling our countrys commitment to humanitarian principles and to reunifying families. But we must not impair the Presidents powers in the area of foreign policy. and we must not blunt our countrys duty to allow for an orderly reunion of family members.