Speech #980214316

The church groups found that many of the Haitians had bona fide claims. Yet when INS officers interviewed the same group through an interpreter a few days later. the Haitians emphatically denied that they intended to apply for asylum. Only later was it discovered that the interpreter had used the Creole word referring to mental institutions rather than political asylum in questioning these refugees. This is just one example of the kind of abuse that might occur if the right of summary exclusion is granted to border officials. Section 123 of the bill. dealing with judicial review. is also problematic. This section could significantly diminish access to the courts by refugees. For example. the bill limits the scope of judicial review in asylum cases by precluding review of whether the facts of the case are supported by substantial evidence in the record. The courts have played an extremely important role in recent years in protecting the rights of asylum seekers. and it is essential that access to the courts remain unencumbered. Finally. the bills provisions with respect to asylum adjudication are highly disturbing. Strict time limitations are placed upon refugees seeking asylum in our country. Given the extremely vulnerable situation of asylum seekers. who are unfamiliar with our language or our legal system. it is essential that we provide these indivduals with enough time to secure legal assistance and present their claims. The amendment of my colleague from New York would do nothing but retain the current protections which we have seen fit to provide to refugees who come to our country seeking freedom from their suffering. It is essential that we maintain our Nations historic commitment to these victims of persecution by approving this amendment. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this essential amendment.