Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for the opportunity to present written testimony and share the views of Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service (LIRS) on fiscal year 1992 refugee admissions to the United States. We are glad to be part in this very important consultation process, as intended in the Refugee Act of 1980. I am the Executive Director of LIRS, a cooperative agency of the Lutheran churches in the United States, working with refugee resettlement, unaccompanied refugee minors in need of foster care services, and asylum seekers and immigrants coming to this country. LIRS has 26 regional affiliated resettlement programs, in addition to 17 foster care programs, and helps fund 48 projects that assist asylum seekers and immigrants in social and legal services. The strength of LIRS lies in the involvement of the private sector, through congregational sponsorships and countless other volunteers that work with our professional staff across the country. I want to express the full support of LIRS to the statement prepared and submitted by Committee on Refugee and Migration Affairs of InterAction, of which we are members. The voluntary agencies active in refugee resettlement have shared this statement with officials of the Administration, in their consultations meetings with private and public agencies last spring, 1991. Let me highlight a couple of the specific recommendations that are in the InterAction statement, of specific interest and concern to LIRS. AFRICAN REFUGEE ADMISSIONS We are very pleased that in the past three years there has been an improvement in the admission numbers of African refugees, even though there have been many difficulties in the processing systems for the U.S. program. From an average in the 1,500's per year in the 1980's, African admissions went up to 3,450 in fiscal year 1990, and are expected to go up to over 4,200 in fiscal year 1991. Although the ceiling of 4,900 in the current fiscal year will probably not be reached, it is primarily due to extraneous circumstances such as the temporary closure of the Khartoum processing site because of the Persian Gulf war. Africa still has more than six million refugees, more than any other region. LIRS urges the U.S. Congress to press for higher admissions figures for Africa. We recommend an African admissions level of 8,000 refugees for fiscal year 1992. LATIN AMERICAN REFUGEE ADMISSIONS LIRS concurs with the InterAction recommendation for 6,500 refugee admissions from the Western Hemisphere. Developments in Cuba indicate that the U.S. needs to sustain and increase refugee processing for these refugees, to assist those who may otherwise take to the open seas in boats and rafts. Let me make a couple of other observations regarding the U.S. refugee admission program and the Latin American region. We continue to hear that some in the Administration would like to open up a direct departure program for haitians out of Port-au-Prince. In fact, such ideas were proposed by the former chair of the House subcommittee two years ago. The situation of Haitians, however, is much more complex than a simple direct departure program from Haiti itself. The three components of the Haitian diaspora must be addressed in balance of a sound U.S. refugee and immigration policy. First, Haitian interdiction, known as the "Alien Migrant Interdiction Program," must end once and for all. Recent reports from southern Florida regarding the unfair and patently discriminatory treatment given Haitian asylum seekers who rescued Cuban boat people are but a reminder of a long and shameful history. While the Cuban boat people were allowed to enter the U.S. to pursue their claims, the Haitian boat people who rescued them were sent back summarily without due access to a fair proceeding to explore their claims for asylum or other forms of relief. Second, the prolonged detention of asylum seekers at the Krome detention center in southern Florida must also end. While the population is not exclusively Haitian, the majority of those who are detain for long periods of time are of Haitian nationality. Voluntary agencies, community groups and many others stand ready to work with the Immigration and Naturalization Service to develop an on going "parole project", similar perhaps to the once that has been tried in the past year but was limited to only 200 persons in exclusion proceedings. Third, refugee processing for Haitians should be viewed as an issue for the entire Caribbean region, and not only as a possibility for direct departure from Haiti. Given the internal instability and difficulties in asserting refugee claims while persons are in their own country, we do not see that very many potentially eligible persons would make themselves available to the U.S embassy in Port-au-Prince. Also, it is our understanding that while the new government of President Aristide is making great strides to bring Haiti around, the fact remains that the difficulties persons are experiencing in Haiti at the present are precisely in rural and distant areas from Port-au-Prince, making it almost impossible for persons to make themselves available for such processing if it were made available. Direct departure processing from Haiti should only be considered in the broader context of a third country processing for Haitians from a Caribbean region. LIRS has consistently raised with the Administration the lack of attention of the U.S. refugee admissions program to other potential refugees from the Latin American region, in particular those from El Salvador and Guatemala. While many of the refugee creating situations in Central America seem to be heading towards durable solutions, Salvadorans and Guatemalans continue to leave and seek safe haven outside of their countries. We would specifically bring to your committee's attention the situation for refugees and asylum seekers in Mexico. While Mexico has finally enacted a statute defining refugee status (adopting a more generous definition of refugee status in accordance with the Cartagena declaration) the implementation of the statute leaves much to be desired. In fact, recent reports from non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and other partners in Mexico tell us of increased detention and expulsion of Salvadorans and Guatemalans by the Mexican federal police and other enforcement bodies. In contravention of international law, the Mexican authorities regularly "refoule" potential refugees back home by the hundreds of thousands each year. It is also understood that these activities, if not sanctioned, are done with the nod and wink of the U.S. government. We propose that the U.S. government, in cooperation with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) NGOs active in Mexico, set up a process to identify a modest number of cases of humanitarian concern to the U.S., particularly those who may fall into processing priorities three and five. Such a "safety valve" may very well encourage the Mexican government to bring their border enforcement policies in line with international standards of refugee protection and "nonrefoulement." REFUGEES AT RISK It is a well known fact that the current U.S. refugee program is dominated by direct departure processing from basically three countries, Vietnam, Cuba, and the Soviet Union. These refugee admissions comprise about 80% of the total number of refugees admitted to the U.S. This characteristic of the U.S. admissions program is by and large salutary, as those refugee groups with which the U.S. has a special relationship and concern can and should avoid the perils of flight to a host country. However, the U.S. must also retain a capacity to participate fully in the international response to cases from other countries--cases where resettlement is necessary as the option of last resort. The needs of refugees in first asylum camps across the world cannot be ignored, and resettlement of such vulnerable populations must continue to be a priority in the U.S. admissions program. We applaud the efforts of the Bureau of Refugee Programs to try to respond to the needs as presented by the UNHCR in their resettlement assessments each year. Yet, for 1992, unofficial estimates from the UNHCR state that about 65,000 refugees will need a resettlement opportunity. In the recent past, many of those identified as "refugees at risk" by the UNHCR do not fit the collective resettlement guidelines and priorities of the respective resettlement countries. In the case of the U.S., by limiting and constricting the use of priority 1, most of these cases would fall under priority 6, which is unavailable across the world with the exception of Soviet Pentecostals processed directly out of Moscow! We recommend that the U.S. processing priorities be expanded to include a category of "refugees at risk", to be referred only and through the UNHCR headquarters in Geneva. This way a balance of priority cases and geographic needs can be achieved. Also, this would provide the needed flexibility on the part of the U.S. to process such persons without delay even if they are nationals of countries which have not made the |