Question No. 13: How many Cubans have been found by Answer: The Immigration and Naturalization Service reports the following information in answer to the Question. As of midnight, November 16, 1980, immigration judges have entered orders of exclusion on 923 Cubans. Of that number, a total of 478 have become administratively final. A majority of these aliens have been found excludable pursuant to section 212 (a) (20) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (which excludes aliens without proper documentation); and section 212(a) (9) (which excludes aliens who have been convicted of, or admit the commission of a crime of moral turpitude). Cuban aliens ordered excluded and who have been ordered detained pending removal are being held at the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) Federal Correctional Institutions (FCI) at: Atlanta, Georgia; Talladega, Alabama; Leavenworth, Kansas; and McNeil, Washington. However, a committee has been established within the Department of Justice to review all detained cases and establish specific criteria to determine continuation of custody. In addition, Cuban detainees now detained at several BOP facilities, will be consolidated at the FCI Atlanta, Georgia. Consolidation will take place after January 1, 1981. Question No. 14: Are the estimated 600 Cubans who remained Answer: Only a few cases in this group were processed as immigrants. The overwhelming majority were documented as refugees under Sec. 207 of the 1980 Refugee Act. INS and State Department officials travelled to Cuba to process the group for admission. The FBI participated in the "name check" or security clearance process. Question No. 15: What is the State Department's position Answer: The Department has determined that, in the absence of a real threat of forcible repatriation, the applications for entry into the U.S. of these Cubans should be handled under normal immigration procedures, rather than under the 1980 Refugee Act. Meanwhile, we expect that the Government of Portugal would grant refuge to this group as provided under legislation on asylum recently enacted by the Portuguese parliament. Question No. 1: Refugee Act of 1980 In view of the requirement in Section 207 (d) (1) that the President provide for "periodic dicussions" between his designated representatives and Members of the Judiciary Committee, why wasn't the Committee advised concerning the decision to admit new Khmer refugees? Answer: The decision to admit new Khmer refugees was not viewed by the Department as a new decision, but rather as a change in the operative conditions affecting the implementation of the Indochinese refugee program. Consultations had been completed with the Congress on a level of admission of Indochinese refugees of 14,000 per month and specific criteria had been provided as to how these refugees would be chosen. There was no indication in this consultation procedure that Khmer refugees would be treated differently from other Indochinese refugees. It should be noted that initially Khmer refugees in holding centers in Thailand, totalling over 160,000 persons, were not considered by UNHCR and the Royal Thai Government as eligible for third country resettlement. Efforts were made by the UNHCR and the Royal Thai Government to carry out a voluntary repatriation from these centers, and some of the new Khmer agreed to return. Following the June incursion by Vietnamese forces into Thailand, the voluntary repatriation effort came to an end and, at that time, the UNHCR and the Royal Thai Government requested resettlement countries to begin limited resettlement of new Khmer. Essentially this appeared to us to be much the same as the arrival of new refugees from Laos or new Vietnamese refugees by boat. While the new Khmer had been in Thailand for some time, they had not been available for resettlement. Now, at the request of the Thai Government and the UNHCR, we faced to a limited degree the same necessity to move these refugees as we did other refugee groups in Thailand. Thus, the decision to begin to include new Khmer into the United States Government caseload was seen by us as a response to this fact rather than a new substantive decision which changed the character of the program upon which we had consulted. With respect to the new Khmer in Thai holding centers, our current policy is to limit acceptances into the United States program to those who have family or other ties with the U.S. such as employment by the U.S. Government or U.S. firms, or roles in the government and society formerly supported by the U.S. We believe these might eventually number about 20,000 persons, though our inability to take a full census of the population in the holding centers makes projection somewhat more difficult than in the case of regular camps in Thailand. For the others without such ties, we will support a voluntary repatriation plan now being developed by the UNHCR. Question No. 2 Response Question No. 2(a): Response : Under Section 207(c)(3) the Attorney General is required : The Application for Waiver of the Grounds of Excludability, of various copies is noted at the bottom of each page. : Are there any blanket waivers being granted, or are The only true blanket waivers are those contained in |