Speech #1040206035

I am also especially grateful for the support of Bishop Cummins. the chairman of the Committee on Migration of the U.S. Catholic Conference. I had received an earlier letter from Cardinal Law in which he noted his opposition to the provisions in the bill that would have virtually eliminated the United States commitment to help refugees seek protection from persecution. I am proud that the U.S. Catholic Conference supported the Leahy amendment. even though our amendment does not get as far as they would like. I want to thank Anne Willem Bijleveld. the Representative of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. for all her support on this matter. In signing the antiterrorism law last week. the President included the following in his message: "The bill also makes a number of major. illadvised changes in our immigration laws having nothing to do with fighting terrorism. * * * The provisions will produce extraordinary administrative burdens on the Immigration and Naturalization Service." I believe that the President was referring to the requirements for summary exclusion that the Senate Immigration bill would amend. In a February letter the President sent to Congressman BERMAN. he noted his concern that "we not sacrifice our proud tradition of refugee protection and support for the principles of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees." The President noted: "This critically Important Treaty. which responded to the displacement that followed the Second World War. has enjoyed broad bipartisan support in the Congress. Moreover. our efforts to urge other governments to comply with its provisions has been a major element of our diplomacy on international humanitarian issues." Specifically on the matter of summary exclusion. the President favors a "carefully structured standby authority for expedited exclusion." That Is what our amendment. in contrast to the bill. now provides. With regard to the overall proposals for summary exclusion. the President wrote that they were "too broad and would also result in considerable diversion of INS resources." He noted that: "These provisions seem particularly unnecessary in view of the successful asylum reforms we have already initiated." Human rights organizations have documented a number of cases of people who were ultimately granted political asylum by immigration judges after the INS denied their release from INS detention for not meeting a credible fear standard. Under the summary screening that was proposed in the bill. these refugees would have been sent back to their persecutors without any opportunity for a hearing. I included many such examples In the RECORD on April 17. I now have collected many. many more. I urge my colleagues to consider how the bill will impact refugees seeking asylum here and not just consider the theoretical possibility that they might be treated as the exceptional case. Furthermore. the bill would have denied the federal courts their historic role in overseeing the implementation of our immigration laws and review of individual administrative decisions. The bill would have allowed no judicial review whether a person was actually excludable and would have created unjustified exceptions to rulemaking procedural protections under the Administrative Procedure Act. These proposals would have signaled a fundamental change In the roles of our coordinate branches of Government and a dangerous precedent. I urge my colleagues. especially those who did not support the asylum amendment. to think further about these important matters. While doing so. please do not continue to confuse asylum with illegal immigration. Do not vote with regard to circumstances that no longer exist after the recent reforms of the asylum process. Refugees who seek asylum in the United States are not causing problems for America or Americans. They come to us for refuge and for protection. Let us not turn them back.