"The US resettles more refugees each year than are resettled in all other countries of the world combined. This has been the case for years, including during the current administration. The 78,000 refugees we intend to resettle here in fiscal year 1999 will continue our global leadership in this vital humanitarian endeavor." Julia V. Taft - Asst. Secretary of State for Population, Refugees and Migration Letter to the Christian Science Monitor, November 17, 1998
To qualify as a refugee or an asylee, and alien must meet the following definition from Section 101(a)(42) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act:
The distinction between a refugee and an asylee is that the former applies for entry to the United States from abroad, and the latter is already in the United States, legally or illegally when the application is made. The distinction originally also required that a refugee apply for protection from outside his country. However, the United states has chosen to accept applications from persons while still in their homeland. Examples are in the former Soviet Union, in Cuba and in Vietnam.
BACKGROUND
The above definition was first adopted in the Refugee Act of 1980. It mirrors the internationally
adopted refugee definition. The 1980 legislation set up a system of consultation between the
Executive Branch (State Department) and the Legislative Branch to establish the annual number
of refugees to be admitted for permanent residence. Asylees are counted against that annual
ceiling. The ceiling is not on the arrival in the United States of new refugees, although it sets the
framework for that process, but rather the adjustment to permanent residence for refugees and
asylees who have already been in the country for at least a year.
The refugee definition was formulated to provide the criteria for screening applicants on a case-by-case basis. Spouses and children of refugees or asylees may be accorded derivative status as refugees even though they might not meet the definition in their own right. For example the spouse of a dissident politician might not have a well-founded fear of persecution in his or her home country but may be accorded refugee status to accompany the spouse who does face persecution.
Since 1980, the U.S. standard for screening refugees on a case-by-case basis has been distorted by other acts of Congress designed to confer refugee status on specific groups of aliens. Most of these distortions are a hold-over from the ideological Cold War. An example is the 1996 Cuban Adjustment Act. It provides for automatic adjustment to permanent residence for any Cuban who had been in the United States for one year. This measure invalidated the need to individually screen Cubans, most of whom entered the United States illegally by boat, to determine whether they feared persecution if they were returned to Cuba. Congress in effect decided that because Cuba under Castro was communist, in general no Cuban should be deported. The nationals of no other country have the same screening exemption.
There are, however, other provisions that have been adopted akin to the Cuban provision. In 1989 a provision named after its sponsor--Sen. Lautenberg (D-NJ)--was adopted that established a form of 'class rights' for persons behind the Iron Curtain and certain Communist- controlled countries of Southeast Asia who claimed persecution for their Jewish or Christian religious belief. Rather than having to substantiate a well-founded fear of persecution, the Lautenberg Amendment beneficiaries only have to demonstrate that there is a credible basis that they could be persecuted based on their adherence to a faith that has experienced persecution in the past. The Lautenberg provision has been extended year-by-year and is still in effect. Estimates of the number of beneficiaries who have come to the United States under this provision are 275,000 Jews and 100,000 evangelical Christians.
Another embellishment on the refugee definition came with Public Law 100-202, which provided for Amerasians, presumably whose parentage was due to American involvement in the Vietnam War, to enter as refugees. The argument for taking in the Amerasians was not that they were persecuted, but rather were social outcasts. In addition to the Amerasians, their parent(s) or others with whom they were living were also made eligible to be treated as refugees.
In effect the refugee definition and screening test established in 1980 has been bypassed in these cases. What each of these refugee program add-ons had in common was that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) would not consider any of them as refugees under international standards.
The United States accepts into its refugee resettlement program persons who have not been found to qualify as refugees in their own right, but rather are accepted because they are related to persons who earlier were accepted as refugees by the United States. However, unlike the regular immigration family sponsorship provision, the refugee who sponsors a relative as a refugee accepts no financial responsibility. The newcomer is in effect sponsored by the American taxpayer and becomes immediately eligible for public assistance programs such as food stamps and subsidized housing.
Fortunately, the Iron Curtain is no more, and the flows of "refugees" from the former Soviet Union and from Southeast Asia are dwindling. In fact some organizations are now lamenting that the number of immigrants is dropping and have called for increases to "maintain the international leadership profile of the United States." They correctly argue that there are millions of refugees and displaced persons in the world. But this argument ignores the fact that the United Nations, which provides protection for these refugees, judges that only a small minority should be permanently resettled in other countries rather than be provided temporary protection as near to their homelands as possible until they can return home. The resources of the United States can do much more to help those refugees in temporary assistance programs than if expended on bringing them for permanent resettlement in this country. Temporary protection is the preferred option of the UNHCR for refugees and displaced persons.
ASYLUM
Although asylum applicants are judged by the same definition as refugees, in practice there are
significant differences due to the fact the applicants are already in the United States and have the
advantage of access to counsel and the U.S. courts if the INS does not accept their request for
asylum status. In practice, a majority of the asylum applications each year are "defensive"
applications filed by deportable aliens attempting to use asylum as a means to avoid
deportation.
The asylum process has been so riddled with abuse, that recent reforms have been adopted to try to discourage the use of this provision as a "side door" for intending immigrants. There remain, however, major problems with the administration of this provision of the law. In addition the provision has been stretched by decisions of U.S. judges to accommodate new classes of aliens never contemplated by the legislation's authors. Some of these are persons suffering from spousal abuse, social customs such as genital circumcision, gays and lesbians, and even persons who have simply become "too Americanized" to be sent home.
Asylum adjustments, as part of the refugee program, were capped at 5,000 per year by the 1980 Act. However, a backlog developed in the late 1980s, and Congress raised the ceiling in 1990 to 10,000 in addition to a blanket admission of those on the waiting list. In FY'96 the INS once again found itself unable to accommodate all the favorable asylum claimants within the 10,000 ceiling, so a new waiting list has begun.
REFUGEE AND ASYLUM ADMISSIONS - 1980 to 1996
The following are the cumulative number of adjustments to refugee status for refugees and
asylees for the 17 years since adoption of the Refugee Act.
Vietnam 524,210 Sov. Union 334,501 Cuba 194,987 Laos 190,882 * Cambodia 124,331 * Iran 71,636 Thailand 48,447 * Romania 44,895 * Poland 43,895 Haiti 37,338 Nicaragua 35,186 Ethiopia 30,470 * Iraq 16,629 * P.R.China 13,564 Other 159,996 Total 1,870,684 * indicates that FY'96 refugee adjustments are not included
The 1980 Act contemplated a program for the admission of 50,000 refugees per year. However, the lowest number of adjustments since then was 84,288 in FY'98. The number has consistently been well in excess of 100,000 since FY'91, and the average FY'80 to FY'96 has been above 110,000. The agreed admission levels for FY'96 and FY'97, however, have registered a decline. In 1997 the authorization was for 90,000 and in 1998 it was for 78,000. Lower refugee adjustment data will not show up until the FY'97 and FY'98 statistics.
The pattern of refugee entry has varied among countries. Most of Haiti's total number of entrants occurred in one year, FY'88. Before and since then the flow has been largely a trickle, although the refugee admissions have been rising again since FY'94. The flow from Romania and Poland was steep until FY'93, and has leveled off. Refugees from Cambodia also have leveled off, beginning in FY'89. By contrast, the refugee flow from the former Soviet Union took a major jump in 1990 as a result of the Lautenberg Amendment--from an annual average of about 3,500 from FY'83 to FY'89--to an average of about 40,000 per year since then.
REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT PROBLEM AREAS
When the Refugee Act was adopted in 1980, authorization was given for a resettlement
assistance program to last for three years. During that period, the agencies that manage
the reception and settlement of new refugees would have funds for necessities--clothing, housing,
food--as well as English language instruction and job training. Appropriation of the funds
necessary to support this program was a different matter. As the number of refugees rose, the
funding per refugee declined, falling eventually to only enough for about 8 months of support
services. Refugees were not abandoned to sink or swim at the end of that period, though,
because food stamps, assisted housing, child welfare and other programs were available.
Unsurprisingly, the Department of Health and Human Services, which houses the Office of
Refugee Programs, found that many refugees became long-term welfare users rather than self-supporting.
The nationality and cultural background of the refugees tended to vary widely in studies of the transition of refugees into American life. Basically rural persons with little if any schooling, such as the Hmong have encountered a greater problem in becoming self-supporting than Eastern Europeans. Presumably similar assimilative problems will be encountered with Kurds, who have recently been admitted as asylees (bypassing the refugee screening process by taking them to Guam for asylum protection in the United States).
Another problem area is the admission of elderly refugees who are likely to be dependent on the American taxpayer for their support for the rest of their life. In part, this problem of elderly refugees is a result of organizing the refugee admissions criteria into a microcosm of the family preference system for regular immigration. A person who is a bona fide refugee, in the sense that she or he fears persecution if returned home, may sponsor other family members including not just immediate family members, but also parents and siblings. They do not have to wait until they become a U.S. citizen, like other immigrants, to begin sponsoring relatives.
REFORM OPTIONS
The Commission on Immigration Reform, headed until her untimely death by Barbara
Jordan, recommended that refugee admissions be scaled back to the 50,000 level contemplated in
the 1980 Act (although unlike the 1980 Act, asylum adjustments would be on top of that limit,
rather than part of it). That idea was incorporated in the 1996 reform effort (HR2202) but was
deleted along with other non-illegal alien measures.
A reform of the refugee system, in addition to reducing the overall admissions level, might require that applicants--other than immediate family members--qualify in their own right. They could still enter as an immigrant or a refugee if they met the requirement of the law. They would no longer be entitled to derivative status on the basis of the admission of an earlier refugee. This would significantly reduce the admission of persons likely to become permanent public charges. Similarly, among refugees who are not in imminent danger, priority could be specified for admission of those who have the greatest likelihood of being self-supporting after arrival. Asylum reform issues are more complicated and merit separate treatment.
FAIR, 11/99.
