Page 1

30 of 180 DOCUMENTS Christian Science Monitor (Boston, MA) June 26, 1989, Monday

US Asylum Policies Set a Bad Example

BYLINE: Bill Frelick. Bill Frelick is a policy analyst with the US Committee for Refugees in Washington, D.C. SECTION: OPINION; Pg. 18 LENGTH: 1000 words

THE Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) has instituted a series of deterrent measures along the United States-Mexico border, including detention of asylum seekers and quick deportation for those unable to show a well-founded fear of persecution if returned to their home countries. The message to the people of Central America is unmistakable: Don't come here. From an immigration enforcement standpoint, the message appears to have succeeded. The number of Central Americans applying voluntarily for asylum has dropped precipitously, and the number caught attempting to cross the border without proper documents has fallen as well. But the message has also been heard loud and clear by many other governments finding asylum seekers at their borders. They see the US willing to sacrifice principles of refugee protection in order to control immigration, and they are only too willing to follow that lead. Hong Kong has instituted a harsh detention policy and a widely criticized program to ''screen'' Vietnamese boat people to see whether they are refugees or economic migrants. In rationalizing his government's action, Michael Hanson, Hong Kong's coordinator for refugees, said, ''The US screens people in south Texas and holds them in a detention center and repatriates them in one day. They do the same to the people from Haiti on a boat off the coast of Haiti. They pick them up, screen them on board the boat, deny them refugee status and then push them off. Now why are the Vietnamese different?'' Good question. To its shame, the failure of the US government to pursue a just and humane policy for refugees on its doorstep encourages a breakdown of refugee protection worldwide. Since the interdiction program went into effect in 1981, only six persons out of a total of 20,421 Haitians caught by the Coast Guard have been allowed to come ashore to pursue their asylum claims. The rest have been deemed ''economic migrants'' and returned. They have no due process rights whatsoever. No access to legal counsel, no advising of rights, no appeal. Life and death decisions are made in a context that any fair-minded US citizen would reject out of hand. Refugees are among the world's most vulnerable people. Fearing persecution at the hands of their own governments, they flee and throw themselves on the mercy of other countries. At a minimum, international law recognizes that persons with a well-founded fear of persecution should not be returned to their home countries. But the international consensus for refugee protection is fragile. Few governments welcome taking on the additional responsibilities - and costs - associated with offering haven to refugees. In fact, given the opportunity, most governments would welcome an excuse not to admit them. It is all too common to reject asylum seekers by calling them ''economic migrants.'' The existence of any economic motivation has too often become a ground for vetoing an otherwise legitimate claim to

Page 2 US Asylum Policies Set a Bad Example Christian Science Monitor (Boston, MA) June 26, 1989, Monday

refugee status. It is a particularly insidious presumption, not only because at least some economic motive can be imputed to any refugee, but also because it plants the prejudice that all asylum seekers are queue-jumpers trying to circumvent ''orderly'' immigration procedures. The damage to the international consensus for refugee protection comes not just from the idea of economic migration, which, in itself, is not particularly novel - but from the way it is played out in action. By denigrating asylum claimants, it is easier to run roughshod over their rights to due process, so that they never are given a fair opportunity to present their claims. And when the US, a country known for its adherence to due process, violates those rights of refugees, it is taken as carte blanche for some other countries, most of whom are far less committed to due process principles in the first place. The US, by its example, has been the leader in establishing international standards for protecting refugees. For years the American people have recognized the plight of those fleeing persecution and been willing to help. As a consequence, Washington was willing to help, and to stand up on behalf of refugees, calling on other governments not to return them forcibly to situations where they would face danger. The US has backed up its words with deeds, contributing financially to refugee relief, and, in some cases, opening its doors to those with no place else to go. Without American leadership, the fate of more than 1.5 million Indochinese would have been in jeopardy following the Vietnam war. But the US took the lead in preventing Asian countries such as Hong Kong from turning refugees away. More than 800,000 Indochinese refugees were brought to this country - people whom no one else wanted. Other Western governments joined in the effort, but the US, in resettling more than half of the total, clearly established itself as the leader. At the United Nations conference on Indochina June 13-14 in Geneva, US Deputy Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger declared that ''the United States remains unalterably opposed to the forced repatriation of Vietnamese asylum seekers.'' But US actions with respect to Haitian and Central American asylum seekers spoke louder than his words. Key allies, such as Britain, called for the forced return of Vietnamese boat people determined by Hong Kong to be economic migrants. We have already witnessed what happened in the late '70s when Vietnamese boat people were pushed away and tens of thousands perished at sea. The US needs to be in a moral position to demand that boat people be allowed ashore to be given a fair chance to present their asylum claims. But for the US to make such a demand today smacks of hypocrisy. Lives hang in the balance, both in the Western hemisphere and on the other side of the globe. Without hesitation, without qualification, the time has come to bring US policies back in line with the country's traditions and values. LANGUAGE: ENGLISH Copyright 1989 The Christian Science Publishing Society