Page images

membership in a particular social group, or political opinion." In the past we have not ignored the plight of those . who face a well-founded fear of persecution." Yet, the Refugee Act of 1980 underscores that we are unable to admit refugees who claim political persecution in order to gain entry to our Country, when in actuality they are merely seeking a better way of life. We should be certain that there is a sufficient justification before admission.

In closing, we all share a concern about the future direction we take in regard to refugee policies. This hearing will enable us to examine the important issue of refugee admissions for fiscal year 1991.

I look forward to the testimony we will hear today.

Senator KENNEDY. Thank you very much. We will look forward this morning to Deputy Secretary of State Eagleburger, but first Senator DeConcini.

OPENING STATEMENT BY SENATOR DeCONCINI Senator DECONCINI. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I realize we want to hear the Secretaries that are here.

I have quite a bit to say on this, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for conducting these hearings, and I am not going to read the full statement here. But I am gravely concerned about what appears to have been a policy of the State Department in its effort to,

guess you would say, educate the Immigration and Naturalization Service based on some news stories, which are always questionable, as to their credibility, but also on a tape that, to me, is not questionable and is most disturbing. I hope we can have some explanations today regarding that, and hopefully what I consider tactics that are very detrimental will no longer be used.


Second, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you very much for your strong support of legislation that would grant voluntary departure status to Nicaraguans and Salvadorans here. I cannot understand the State Department's continued reluctance to do this when there is every reason, in my judgment-and we see legislation having passed the House yesterday with Congressman Moakley's legislation affixed to it. I hope we don't have to have a confrontation with the State Department because I think it is not really worthwhile, Mr. Secretary. I have talked to Secretary Baker and you about this, there seems to be a tremendous inequity based on the amount of cases that are approved for El Salvador versus many other countries like Cuba and certainly Nicaragua before the last elections, however, I guess we are going to have to pass legislation and have it vetoed.

I will place the balance of my statement in the record, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for letting me have this moment.

Senator KENNEDY. Thank you very much. Your statement will be included.

(Senator DeConcini submitted the following material:)


OCTOBER 3, 1990

We are here today to consult with the administration on how many refugees this country will admit in Fiscal Year 1991. This consultation is a requirement of the Refugee Act of 1980. This Act was passed for the purpose of eliminating discrimination based on country of national origin. The intent of the Refugee Act was to emphasize that the plight of refugees themselves, as opposed to national origins or political considerations, should be the key to determining which refugees will be admitted to the United States.

Since the Refugee Act became law a decade ago, I, as well as numerous human rights groups, have questioned this country's policy of fairness in evaluating asylum claims of refugees. Of particular concern to me over the years has been the fate of thousands of innocent victims of war, random violence and widespread civil strife in El Salvador. I have worked diligently to pass legislation to temporarily suspend the deportation of Salvadoran nationals residing in this country. Although similar legislation has passed the House more than once, the Senate has been unsuccessful in final passage because of active opposition by some of my colleagues and the administration. Their argument has always been to address this issue on a case-by-case basis.

The United States recognizes that there are bona fide refugees from El Salvador. However, we don't, in this Senator's opinion, offer adequate protection. Foreign policy concerns, rather than the plight of the individual, appear to dominate the administration's asylum determinations.

"Since 1979, continuous violence and civil war has plagued tiny El Salvador, a country about the size of Massachusetts. Over that time, over 1 million, or a least 20 percent, of the country's 5 million inhabitants have been uprooted by conflict as government forces clash with those of the opposition Farabundo Marti Front for National Liberation (FMLN). In contrast, even at the height of the Vietnam war the number of inhabitants displaced never exceeded 8 percent of the population." (Senate Report 101-241)

The State Department's report on Proposed Refugee Admissions for Fiscal Year 1991 acknowledges that (page 16): "While precise data is lacking, the countries of the Central American region believe there are approximately two million

refugees, repatriates and internally and externally displaced persons in an area with a total population of 26 million."

However, only 3, 100 refugee slots have been alloted to Latin America and the Caribbean for FY 1991. of these 3, 100, 3,000 may be used for Cubans, which leaves 100 slots for the rest of the entire area. (Page 17)

In addition, according to the State Department's world Refugee Report, Central American countries provide refuge for a significant number of Salvadorans in need of protection and assistance. For example, Honduras accepted 13,300 Salvadorans in 1988 and 10,900 in 1989. By contrast, the United States accepted no Salvadoran refugees in 1988 and only 454 in 1989.

Furthermore, only 2.5% of asylym cases filed between June 1983 and September 1989, were approved for El Salvador. (1,004 cases were granted and 37,666 cases were denied.) In FY 1989, only 2.3% were approved. (337 cases were granted, 13,861 were denied and 19,929 cases were pending.) This pattern of overwhelming denial of asylum to Saldavorans has always been of great concern to me.

The administration maintains that asylum applications are decided on the merits and that no bias exists. Therefore, I was particularly disturbed by the allegations of bias presented in an article which appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle on June 30, 1990. This article refers to a December 1988 Administration videotape of a State Department official of the Bureau of Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs (Mark McCleggen), lecturing Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) task force employees on how to handle asylum cases. The tape is clearly insensitive to those who seek asylum in this country.

According to the tape, the State Department official specializes in Central American asylum cases and renders immediate decisions on 400 cases a day. Some of the State Department official's comments are as follows:

The State Department official states that "the most popular" claim Salvadorans make for asylum is "My cousin was killed by the guerillas... "We have a running joke back at the Bureau that there are no cousins left in El Salvador."

[ocr errors]

The State Department official states if you're not convinced about a claim, deny it. To deny is "easier and more correct." When asked about what percentage of applications are deniable, the official's answer was 99 percent.

The State Department official presumes asylum cases are frivolous and that those who are seeking refuge in the United States are here for purely economic reasons.

Clearly, the State Department official is insensitive to the plight of refugees seeking asylum, including thousands of Salvadorans who have fled El Salvador's decade long civil war. I believe that along with our necessary involvement in El Salvador, there come certain responsibilities. One of these responsibilities is a humanitarian concern toward the Salvadorans whose lives have been violently disrupted and endangered by war. I do not believe we should return these individuals to a country immersed in civil war in which we are actively involved. Moreover, I do not believe that Government officials who are entrusted with the responsibility of reviewing asylum cases should minimize the plight of victims of persecution.

In a related issue, I have received a number of report from human rights organizations expressing concern about the treatment of individuals, many of whom are refugees awaiting disposition of asylum petitions, at INS detention centers across the country. At a press conference held recently in El Centro, California, several reputable refugee rights organizations, including the Tucson Ecumenical Council and the El Centro Asylum Project, released detailed accounts of routine beatings suffered by detainees at INS detention centers. These beatings occur with such frequency that one account described it as having "become a sport" among detention officers.

Many of these incidents of abuse often involve minors, and the conditions under which children are detained are sub-standard and inhumane. While INS and the Office of the Inspector General have been asked to investigate these allegations, it concerns me that refugees have little hope of receiving fair and just treatment in this country. The rights of these detainees to due process and human decency must be restored.

I would like to submit for the record the following documents:

The San Francisco Chronicle article, "Contradictions in Asylum Tape", dated June 30, 1990

Two Immigration and Naturalization Service/United States Department of Justice asylum case tables reprinted on pages 17 and 18 of Amnesty International's report entitled "Reasonable Fear - Human Rights and United States Refugee Policy" dated March 1990.

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »