The Department has continued efforts to maintain a strong international
response to the problem with particular emphasis on maintaining
resettlement offers at the highest possible level. We expect that the
international community will permanently resettle in 1978 a total of
almost 18,000 refugees from camps in Thailand and other countries of
temporary safehaven.
We have continued discussions with the Congress on the most appropriate
means for accepting Indochinese on a continuing basis. The Eilberg bill2 is one
possibility. A revised Department position on the bill is being
discussed with relevant executive agencies. If a new executive position
can be developed and agreed to by Eilberg and the Subcommittee, the bill might be a means
of admitting Indochinese. On the basis of discussions we have had with
the Subcommittee staff, they appear to be reconsidering some key
aspects. Unless and until legislation is actually passed, parole remains
the most practical means of admitting Indochinese.
Further thoughts on the longer range including suggestions about defining
a national refugee policy for all groups are incorporated in the
attached paper.3
Attachment
Paper Prepared in the Department of
State5
Washington, undated
The Status of National Policy On
Indochinese Refugees
The Department of State has continued to review the Indochinese
refugee situation along the lines recommended in Dr. Brzezinski’s
memorandum of November 9, and has taken certain steps suggested
therein to deal with this situation. In terms of the interim program
suggested in the referenced memorandum, the following actions have
been taken:
(1) We have made a continuing, strong, and partially successful
effort to maintain and increase the degree of international
participation in assistance to Indochinese refugees. In the
multilateral sphere, we have obtained resolutions in the Executive
Committee of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
(UNHCR) and the Council of
the Intergovernmental Committee on European Migration (ICEM). We have also raised the
subject in the NATO Council
meeting. We have made a large number of bilateral approaches,
including visits by American officials to Paris, Ottawa, Geneva and
most Southeast Asian capitals. These approaches included a visit to
Thailand and other Southeast Asian countries by Assistant Secretary
of State Patricia Derian,
who also stressed the importance of strong UNHCR attention to this problem to
the new High Commissioner Poul
Hartling in Geneva.6
International participation in resettlement of Indochinese refugees
is actually substantially better than is generally understood.
Leaving aside the initial evacuation and its aftermath in the summer
and fall of 1975, the record for the last two years has seen a total
of 74,000 Indochinese resettled; 31,000 in the United States and
43,000 in third countries, not including Thailand.
The bulk of this resettlement has been accounted for by the programs
of France, Australia, and Canada. All three have active ongoing
programs and both Australia and Canada have recently made fresh
commitments to assist these refugees. We estimate that resettlement
in third countries in 1978 will accommodate over 18,000
refugees.
[Page 418]
(2) We have also found it necessary to deal with the emergency
created by the sharp increase in the numbers of refugees leaving by
boat; with the President’s approval, the Secretary of State
recommended that the Attorney General parole an additional 7,000
“boat” refugees into the U.S. This authorization was granted on
January 25 following a hearing before the House Subcommittee on
Immigration on January 24.7
This parole was intended to deal only with the immediate
emergency—to buy a few months time during which we expect to discuss
longer term policy with the Congress.
(3) We have continued to attempt to establish reliable estimates of
escape rates for Indochinese refugees over the next few years but
this has proven most difficult. Our best judgement
is that these refugees will continue to leave Indochina at least
at present levels over the next year or so and their numbers may
increase somewhat, though probably not greatly. It seems
clear that the process of excluding the former Vietnamese middle
class from participation in the life of the nation will continue to
be a major impetus in maintaining the rate of escape. Former members
of this class find it very difficult to obtain permission to work
and many survive by selling their possessions, a process that only
provides relief for a limited time. In addition, it is increasingly
plain that not only are these individuals branded as “class enemies”
and permanently disadvantaged in the new society, but also their
children and children’s children. Countering this strong pressure on
large numbers to leave are the active efforts of the Vietnamese
government to prevent such departure; it is plain that this outflow
is embarrassing to Hanoi. Increasingly, we hear of heavy prison
sentences for those attempting escape.
A straight line projection of escape rates of the past six months
would forecast an annual outflow of about 18,000 “boat” refugees and
about 26,000 refugees escaping by land. The number of these that
might be taken into the United States would depend on the nature of
the commitment made to these refugees.
The Interagency Task Force report8 recommended that the
commitment of the U.S. Government to assist Indochinese refugees be
expressed not in terms of numbers but in terms of classes of
refugees. It further recommended that these classes of refugees
be:
—refugees escaping by boat and with no other offer of resettlement,
and
—refugees escaping by land who meet the criteria established in
previous programs.
[Page 419]
Of the 18,000 escaping by boat, we hope that approximately one third
will be accepted by third countries, leaving about 12,000 boat
refugees needing resettlement opportunities in the United States. Of
the refugees escaping by land, our experience has been that about
one third, or 12,000–14,000, meet the criteria established in
previous programs for acceptance into the United States; i.e., close
relatives in the United States, former employment with the United
States Government, or other close association with the United
States.
Thus, a projection of past experience would provide a total of about
12,000 “boat” refugees and 12–14,000 refugees escaping by land for a
total of 24–26,000 Indochinese refugees annually which we would need
to accept into the United States. This total for all three countries
is somewhat less than the number that entered the United States
under normal immigration procedures annually from single countries
such as Korea or the Philippines.
(4) In relative terms, therefore, the number involved is not very
considerable. The problem has been that there is no provision for
such a continuing flow of refugees under the present Immigration and
Nationality Act except for continued resort to the Attorney
General’s parole authority. Not only has this situation been the
subject of criticism by some Congressmen but also it has been most
unsatisfactory because it has required us to wait until we faced a
serious emergency before acting. The results of utilizing the parole
have been quite discouraging. Some lives have been lost. Though we
have been very generous in our final response, increasingly our
public image, both here and abroad, has become one of very grudging
acceptance of these refugees. The uncertainty of our program leaves
countries of first asylum fearful that they will have to absorb the
refugees themselves and, unwilling to do that, they grow more
hostile towards accepting refugees on even a temporary basis.
The need, therefore, is clearly to establish longer term, more
orderly and predictable programs and procedures. Our goal in
assisting these refugees could quite easily and efficiently be met
by a more open-ended use of the Attorney General’s parole power with
advance consultation on refugees expected over the coming year. This
would be the type solution favored by Senator Kennedy. It is, however, anathema
to some members of Congress, including Congressman Eilberg, Chairman of the key House
Subcommittee on Immigration. Congressman Eilberg has introduced his own bill providing
refugee legislation which would codify present procedures on the
group admission of refugees as well as adding some additional
features of his own. The Department has reviewed this bill within
the framework of the future admission of a continuing flow of
refugees of special concern to the United States. Such refugees
would include those from the Soviet Union and Eastern [Page 420] Europeans as well as
Indochinese. We have made recommendation to OMB regarding acceptance of the Eilberg bill with minor (but
important) amendments and are awaiting OMB’s approval at this time. Congressman Eilberg has scheduled hearings on
his bill, H.R. 7175, on February 22. The Administration needs to
complete a review of the bill as soon as possible in order to allow
the bill to move forward with Administration support during this
session of Congress if it is found acceptable.
(5) The Department has also begun informal consultations with the
Congress to try to resolve the question of what authority should be
used in admitting Indochinese in the future and which Indochinese
refugees should be the beneficiaries of a commitment by the United
States Government. The Department believes that it is exceptionally
important to try to bring this matter to a conclusion as rapidly as
possible. The longer it drags on, the more views on the appropriate
handling of this problem polarize between those who think we have
done enough and those who believe our commitment should be broader.
If we can reach agreement on a long term program relatively quickly
and structure it in such a fashion that the future implementation of
the program is seen as within the broader context of overall United
States efforts to assist refugees, we will meet the desires of most
of the proponents of refugee assistance with minimum aggravation to
those opposing such a program. Congressman Eilberg intends to question us
about long term policy at the February 22 hearing. As Assistant
Secretary Derian noted
during the January 24 hearing before Eilberg on the parole of 7,000 “boat” refugees, that
parole would only buy about three months time, during which a long
term policy needs to be agreed upon. Otherwise, circumstances will
probably force us to go to the Congress once again with an emergency
parole request for a further short term respite.
(6) The Department has also begun a review of overall refugee
programs.9 In each of
the following aspects of refugee policy, it is important to move in
the direction of a more uniform policy. Whatever legal authorization
is used to admit refugees of special concern to the U.S., these
arrangements should include all such groups and not only Indochinese
refugees. The options outlined in the InterAgency Task Force report
or a revised Eilberg bill
could be used to accomplish the objective of uniform treatment of
such refugees. In terms of payment of resettlement grants to
voluntary agencies, we should also seek uniformity as soon as
possible once the outlines of a future program becomes clear. A
supplemental appropriation to the 1978 Migration [Page 421] and Refugee Assistance budget would
make it possible to integrate Indochinese and other refugee programs
in this respect. Finally there is a requirement to review the
appropriate level of domestic support to be extended to additional
Indochinese refugees. This is, of course, a matter to be coordinated
with HEW. We note, however, that PL
95–145 passed in 1977 extended reimbursement to the States for
welfare expenses incurred for the resettlement of Indochinese
refugees on the following basis:
FY 78–100%; FY 79–75%; FY 80–50%;
and FY 81–25%. Thereafter the
Federal Government does not reimburse any of the States’ shares of
domestic assistance because the alien came as an Indochinese refugee
but only provides assistance on the same basis as to other citizens
and residents of the United States.
Some form of continuing assistance to States to meet costs incurred
as a result of continuing flow of refugees would seem appropriate.
The Department believes, however, that we should seek to provide
such assistance to States on a uniform basis for all refugees. At
present, there are, in addition to the Indochinese program, a
special program of assistance to Cuban refugees, as well as an
Administration proposal for FY 79
for additional assistance to voluntary agencies for the resettlement
of refugees other than Indochinese or Cubans. A priority concern,
therefore, should be to attempt to develop such a uniform method of
providing domestic benefits to refugees. The goal should be to seek
such uniformity in the FY 1980
budget cycle.
In view of the above, the Department of State proposes to proceed
along the following lines:
(a) While implementing the new parole for 7,000 boat refugees, we
will coordinate closely with other countries and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees so
that maximum utilization can be made of third country resettlement
programs. We will continue to vigorously press for international
participation, recognizing, however, that substantial increases
above present levels are not likely.
(b) We will continue consultations with the Congress to seek
agreement on a future commitment to Indochinese refugees defined in
terms of classes as follows:
—refugees escaping by boat who do not have offers of resettlement
opportunities elsewhere, and
—refugees escaping by land, who meet the agreed upon criteria of
close association with the United States.
(c) We will also consult with the Congress on appropriate authorities
for the admission of such groups of refugees.
(d) We will continue to seek agreement within the Administration on a
more forthcoming position towards the Eilberg refugee bill in the [Page 422] hope that it might provide an acceptable
framework for dealing with this problem. But we should be prepared
to admit refugees under the parole authority until any legislative
mechanism is passed.
(e) We will coordinate with HEW to
seek to develop a more uniform policy for the resettlement and
provision of domestic benefits to all refugees accepted into the
United States.10
