Speech #1040272589

She. too. came to the United States with false documents. In her case she obtained a false British passport in order to escape mutilation in Togo and traveled from Germany to New York. On June 13. the Board of Immigration Appeals granted her application for asylum from female genital mutilation in Togo. After 2 years in detention. in a case that was initially opposed by INS and rejected by an immigration judge. she finally was freed and granted asylum. Her case established new law. For when the INS was called upon to file a brief with the Board of Immigration Appeals it took the position for the first time that fear of female genital mutilation should present a sufficient cause to seek asylum in the United States. Hers was a precedent setting case. Does anyone doubt that she would have been returned to Togo if the summary exclusion provision of the bill had been the law? Does anyone honestly think that the immigration agents with whom she came in contact at the border or the immigration judge who denied her claim would have established such a precedent as a case of first impression and rescued her? It is ironic that in this immigration bill we require that aliens from certain countries be advised prior to or at entry into the United States of the severe harm caused by female genital mutilation and we create a criminal statute against female genital mutilation on children in the United States. Unfortunately. neither of those measures will help the young women who are being subjected to this practice in other parts of the world. In addition. this bill would amend our statutory definition of refugee to include persons forced to abort a pregnancy or to undergo involuntary sterilization or who are persecuted for refusing such procedures. It will do no good to amend these definitions if we do not have fair procedures and a real opportunity for refugees to establish the circumstances from which they flee to America. Summary exclusion is wholly incompatible with these expansions of the grounds for asylum. I am glad to see that the bill excludes Cuban refugees from the harsh provisions of the new exclusionary asylum procedures. I believe that this exception should be the rule. Indeed. this exception shows that the majority does not trust the procedures that they are imposing on refugees from all other countries in the world. Let us examine briefly the Cuban exception and how it might or might not apply. First. we should notice that it only applies to those who are wealthy enough. lucky enough. or skilled enough to arrive by aircraft at a port of entry. Thus. not all who escape from Cuba would be covered by this narrowly drafted special exception. Further. let us consider how the exception might or might not work in a reallife situation. Not so long ago Fidel Castros own daughter came to the United States using a disguise and a phony Spanish passport to seek asylum. Under the provisions of the bill. she might well have been turned away at the border after a summary interview if the INS agent who confronted her did not believe that she was Cuban or Castros daughter. Would that INS officer or the immigration judge reviewing the summary decision within 24 hours think that this disguised person with false documentation had established a "significant possibility" that she was Castros daughter? Think about what would most likely have happened. Next.