Speech #980043281

supports reform of the current administrative and judical process for determining the bona fides of aliens seeking entrance to the United States. We recognize that the current process is cumbersome and inefficient and that the growing administrative backlog of asylum cases is both a burden on the government and on those entitled to asylum who are forced to wait. often held in custody. for determinations to be made in their cases. However. we remain deeply troubled by the thrust of the asylum. exclusion. and deportation sections of S. 529 (sections 121 through 124) which attempt to achieve administrative efficiency at the expense of an aliens right to a fair hearing on his immigration status and judicial review of that determination. Asylum claims are literally matters of "life or freedom." No administrative burden or backlog of cases can justify summary exclusion or truncated administrative or judicial review in cases involving persons who may be threatened "on account of race. religion. nationality. membership in a particular social group. or political opinion" if returned to his home country and is therefore entitled under our law to asylum.. This law includes our treaty obligations to refrain from refoulement under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. a treaty to which we became a party in 1968.2 Most distressing. the underlying rationale for curtailing due process rights in asylum cases is the a twin set of assumptions (a) that clearing the current backlog of cases will contribute significantly to the "control" of illegal immigration and (b) that court cases brought under current law which the bill seeks to bar have created the backlog. Both assumptions are demonstrably untrue. First. the number of undocumented immigrants in the United States today is estimated by the Senate Report on S. 2222 to number betwen 3.5 to 6 million or more.3 The backlog of asylum cases is 140.000a very small percentage of the total illegal population assuming that all the asylum claimants are in the United States "illegally.4 Eliminating the entire asylum backlog would hardly make a dent in the number of illegal immigrants in the country. Second. court cases appealing or challenging administrative determinations and proFootnotes at end of article. cedures are not responsible for the current backlog. As the House Judiciary Committee Report last year stated: "The Committee is convinced that the abolition of judicial review of asylum determination would be unwise. Indeed. the facts support the position that administrative shortcomings. not judicial interference. has caused the enormous backlog in asylum cases .... Today. it takes the State Department four months to respond to an INS request for a country condition report. In turn. over 70.000 asylum petitions are currently awaiting decision by INS. Comparing the number of court cases. one finds that in FY 1981 INS received over 63.000 asylum applications. Yet in that year there were less than 500 court cases challenging exclusion or deportation orders. And of course. the vast majority of those court cases did not involve asylum at all. In short. it would be unfair to blame existing backlogs on the courts."5 The court cases not only do not justify curtailing due process rights. They underscore the need for more protection of those rights. The "pattern and practice" lawsuits which the legislation seeks to curtail would not have resulted in lengthy and burdensome litigation if the INS had not systematically violated the due process rights of aliens. including failure to seriously consider the claims of asylum applicants. denial of effective assistance of counsel. failure to notify applicants of their rights under the law. and failure to afford aliens fair and impartial hearings. See. e.g./. Haitian Refugee Center v. Civiletti. 503 F. Supp. 442 (S.D.Fla. 1980). modified on other grounds. 676 F.2d 1023 (5th Cir. 1982).