[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 83 (Thursday, June 20, 2002)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1112]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   MARKING INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE DAY

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. JOHN CONYERS, JR.

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 20, 2002

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, while Western nations mark and celebrate 
International Refugee Day today, the 3.3 million people who make up 
Africa's refugee population probably do not know that this day is for 
them. They are too busy eking out a living, a bare existence, in 
refugee camps and villages where they have found temporary safety.
  Despite being the world leader in refugee resettlement, the U.S. has 
barely opened the door to African refugees. Helping Africans resettle 
here has not been a priority of U.S. policy since the end of the slave 
trade. In 1988, the Reagan Administration capped African admissions at 
just 3000, and fewer than 1600 Africans were actually admitted that 
year. From 1995 to 2000, 28% of the world's refugees were African, but 
only 11% of all the refugees resettled to the U.S. were Africans.
  One policy of refugee resettlement was being applied to the world, 
while another policy with fewer admissions was being applied to Africa. 
I and my fellow members of the Congressional Black Caucus pressured the 
Clinton Administration to increase the admissions allocation for 
Africa, to rectify this imbalance, and to address the dire needs of 
people fleeing political persecution and violence in Africa.
  By the end of the Clinton Administration in 2000, African admissions 
had climbed to 20,000 per year, largely due to the CBC's efforts. Our 
doors were opened to admit 22,000 African refugees this year. Despite 
this important victory--we are unlikely to see the fruits of our labor. 
Nowhere near 22,000 refugees will arrive from Africa this year, due to 
policy changes in the refugee program implemented after the September 
11th attacks.
  African admissions are down for several reasons. The Bush 
Administration imposed additional security checks--known as Special 
Advisory Opinions--on all men between the ages of 15 and 55 from 
certain Arab and Muslim countries, including some North and East 
African nations. They will not publicize this list so it is impossible 
to tell whether any male African refugees are exempt from this review, 
but processing has been very slow.
  INS personnel stopped conducting circuit rides through Africa to 
conduct interviews of refugee applicants due to security concerns. 
Interviews were also stopped at processing locations in Kenya and Ghana 
for almost 6 months for security reasons.
  The INS is also cracking down on ``major inconsistencies'' in the 
petitions of relatives seeking to join asylees already resettled in the 
U.S. In the worse cases, these differences include applications for 
parents who the resettled refugee originally claimed were murdered for 
political reasons, and applications for children who the refugee did 
not identify when they first applied for their refugee status. The 
rates of these inconsistencies are undeniably troubling. For some 
nationalities, more than 50% of family relative applications are 
inconsistent with the original applications filed by the resettled 
asylee.
  Yet American and international voluntary organizations that assist in 
identifying refugees for resettlement tell us that in some places 
refugees are bribed by middlemen who hold up their paperwork if they 
indicate that they have living relatives who can assist them. The fact 
that the vast majority of African applicants seek entry as relatives 
suggests that other categories of entry may not be effective ways of 
entry for Africans. A myriad of processing and filing errors, or fraud 
on the part of the anchor relative or a third party, may be to blame. 
Rather than seeking explanations and contacting the applicants, the INS 
assumes that one such inconsistency means that any other claims of 
persecution, no matter how brutal, are untrustworthy lies.
  For all of these reasons, many of the most vulnerable populations 
children, amputees, widowed women, and those who languish in refugee 
camps--are not getting admission to a program that exists to protect 
them.
  I remain deeply concerned that huge refugee camps still exist in 
Africa where thousands of people await a chance at a decent life for as 
many as 10 to 15 years. In that time children are raising themselves, 
and each other, to adulthood while living in the camps. Eighty percent 
of refugees in these camps are women and children--both vulnerable 
groups who are in need of protection and durable solutions. Families 
are under dire strain, reunification is difficult and resuming a normal 
productive life is impossible. The United States must do more to 
address these tragedies that are plaguing refugees in Africa.
  It is also time for us to turn around the horribly unjust policy that 
the INS recently instituted to keep Haitian asylum seekers locked up 
like, and sometimes with, violent criminals. For years, the INS Miami 
office has paroled asylum seekers into the community, once they show 
credible fear of persecution, while they await the adjudication of 
their claims. That policy still applies to people from any nation in 
the world--except Haiti. The INS has decided to discriminate against 
Haitians, holding them for months without access to translators and 
lawyers, while they await a decision.
  The INS has said that the purpose of this policy is to deter Haitians 
from risking their lives to flee Haiti by boat. If that were the case, 
the policy would have been applied to Cubans, and any other people that 
come to the U.S. by boat, at the time it was instituted. And what 
evidence exists to show that locking people up will keep those risking 
their lives and fleeing persecution from coming? The real goal appears 
to be to keep Haitians out of the United States and once again I must 
question whether race is a factor in this discriminatory policy.
  About 250 refugees are now being held in Miami. Men are separated and 
put in the grossly overcrowded facilities at Krome Detention Center. 
Women are placed in a maximum security county jail with violent 
criminals. And children are being detained with one parent in a 
facility where they receive no education, no play time or trips 
outside, no special programs geared towards their needs.
  It is bad enough that there are millions of refugees around the world 
who come to us for refuge from persecution. It is even worse that we 
are then persecuting some of these refugees when they arrive by placing 
them in these inhumane conditions. There is no political, strategic, 
security or moral justification for this policy. I call on the Attorney 
General to immediately parole Haitians--just like all other asylum 
seekers.




                          ____________________