Transcripts For CSPAN3 Origins Of The Refugee Act Of 1980 20240714

Annual raised the ceiling for refugees allowed in the United States, established the office of refugee asettlement and created process for addressing refugee emergencies. Tv, an American History group of former government officials and Refugee Rights ofocates discuss the history refugee policy prior to 1980 and the legacy of the refugee act since 1980. Carter president ial library and museum and the organizationtance alliance s alliance hosted this event. We are going to start with our first panel, and i will introduce the moderator and she will introduce the panelists. Introduce monica , currently with the raving goat raving. Time ononica from her the Judiciary Committee, the house Judiciary Committee, where she focused on immigration and refugee issues. Reason is her fromr was a refugee uganda, resettled to new orleans by my organization. Monica thank you for being here. Thank you for putting on this wonderful event. I have a very personal connection. Ive been in the immigrant space a while. We want to diverge from the morning stand up panel and get to a more intimate conversation about the lead up to refugee act. And really want to take a look at how the refugee act came to be and take a step back and take a look at where we are today and see if there are any lessons we can learn from that time and how we could move forward as the morning speakers talked about a difficult time we are in right now. But what lessons we can also take from a difficult time. I will let skip introduce himself. I was chief counsel to the subcommittee for 15 years. They retired from there and went off to enjoy the privacy of railroads. I want to thank mark for inviting us to participate in this event. As an honor to join distinguished group of speakers and panelists. These are some of the finest Public Servants i have ever met. My first introduction came some 40 years ago as i was talking last night. I was hired by the Judiciary Committee. He had been chairman of the committee for 22 years. And congress promised 48 years. One week on the job he calls me into his office. He regaled me with stories of all his encounters. Then he gave me my first assignment. He said i would graph them some remarks. And on his activities over the years. Found out it was a wonderful end of active humanitarian organization dealing with refugees around the world. I learned that firsthand when i ,eveloped Close Relationships who my advisors i called them up and got safe advice and returned quickly. That was my first assignment. Learned washing i with president roosevelt over the immigrations immigration restrictions imposed during the holocaust. The most important thing i his speech in the 1924 house floor. Very restrictive, very racist. Wasas when the system placed on eligibility for immigration solely on place of birth. Southern europe, not so fine. If you had to be from africa, middle east asia, it was that was mentioned earlier today as well. For the first time place of birth went out the window and replaced by system. The 65 act was a tough thing to pull off. Someone was able to stack the committee with all the allies. The reason i mentioned that is it is all a restriction nest period, based on cold war mentality. It was even in the 52 act, perpetuated that all National Origins are assisted. They were able to finally eliminate that. Reason i show that is there is such a restriction nest mentality in the 60s even to the 70s. Ways of birth and things like that determine where its been. Actuld say the refugee replaced what was an ad hoc system. In addition to that, attorney generals emergency authority. The mechanism for bringing in refugees because there was no basis for the law otherwise. It was kind of an administrative creation to supplement what was a nonexistent refugee system. Used in the 60s, all during the 70s for the soviet unions. Was one of the primary attorney generals to exercise that. Now i detail where we can talk , but a situation in the indochina refugee access. Why it was there in place in time. As tois always a conflict who had power over immigration and refugee laws. That persists to this day as we know. He Supreme Court made it clear we see cases up and down the circuit court. The president has that authority. Thats going to continue to go on for years and years. Jewish the soviet situation and the indochina situation, it was kind of an equivalency. There was actually cooperation between the executive, the president s refugee team and the executive. Between those two and the reagan years, that process worked. Jim testified a few times. It was a torturous process. Alwaysend of the day we came up with an agreedupon , which continued through the geneva beating in july of 79. Two things happened of significant import, when was 1972. He was the election of the decade, maybe the century. The longestserving member of the house of representatives there was a tremendous upset. Spent quite a few years on that subcommittee. From 1979 to 81. Was one of the early communications. Off doing the refugee act. She recognizes there is a systematic and orderly system for handling the refugee problem. It was piecemeal and in some cases a response to an emergency crisis like in china. She recognized the refugee definition. Sure that to make ideology, geography, none of those came into play and it was a fair and humane process that eliminated the idea you had to be escaping communism or communist dominated countries to qualify. That was one of the problems after china. All the people floating around the south china sea. Within a month she gets 400 million, reprogramming previously appropriated funds to take care of that indochina migration and refugee system. Jim took care of refugee programs. It was a milestone. It is a landmark legislation. We can talk through greater detail. And establishment of what we are going to talk about here today. So much is the same in our Political Climate, and yet so much is different. I can say that they were not collaborative and this was pretrump. Its easy to say the current climate is different because of our president. I think those of us who have can working for a long time say its been a slow degradation. Hows fascinating to think much is similar and how much is different. Was mentioned my father settled by the highest. When i work in the house Judiciary Committee, i cut it out and set it on my office door. I can attest i am here because they were responding to the crisis. Segue, its a good talking about the legislative branch and those challenges. Youuld love to hear from and also talk about your role as itfugee act in 1980 relates to the executive. I was designated by the secretary to leave a really good andin the state department go up to the refugee bureau, which was not a desirable place to go at the time. Violated theureau antideficiency act. There were three committees investigating them. Told to get things set up because june of 1979 was really difficult for our government. We had the highest flow of refugees over that long period coming into thailand. They could stay in asylum camps. There wouldnt be anymore, nor crossing our borders. In indonesia they were pushing back boats. Thailand, they pushed 40,000 cambodians across the border. This is the back story of what has been happening the past couple of months. I try to take the remnants of the old Refugee Organization and create something new. Of studying. I didnt want to do it. Reports of the refugee, the committees of the refugee act. I read one where they had the secretary of hew. Dont you think it would be better to take the state departments resettlement and consolidated all . Heres the report from the House Appropriations subcommittee, recommending we take all of our program and send it over easy. If i take my relief programs and settlement, there is nothing left. I had another meeting with christopher. I said i will do it for a week. Be hard. Oing to its like you are asking me to rearrange the deck chairs on the titanic. I will do it. Week has been the rest of my career. I work with my colleagues there with these events. Weve got to do something. We started a Resettlement Initiative that would be big enough to get the governments attention and quick enough to avoid disaster. We were told we got a word, start doing work on a Resettlement Initiative. Or four options for resettlement. And by the way we had no money. Committees have done zero action on the appropriations. The bank was dry. Im sure many of you need many of you know about the up center. How many people are we going to take in . After 35 minutes of discussion between me and the assistant secretary for the station hobart wanted to go big. Congress is not even giving us money for present operations. Now youre talking about quadrupling our program. We had to negotiate to come out with the decision. I eventually agreed with 10,000 per month. Thats probably going to be to break the bank. We got no word. We got no decision. President carter announced he was going to tokyo on this economic summit. He wanted to make an announcement on refugees. We went back and had our options ready. Over, flight on the way holbrook was banging away at carter the whole trip. On the plane, i searched the record, there is no indication they made any decision. The next day at this economic summit, president 2001, nonounced before money has ever done that before. I a career bureaucrat couldnt do that. I came to greatly respect jimmy carter for having the guts to make the right call, he ignored all this noise down here. He said this is what it needs. And he made the right call. We came back from geneva. This one thing on Vice President mondale. His speech is absolutely brilliant. It was so accepted by the delegates. Left out one little thing, a test of civilization. After the delegates left and a few weeks later, the night closed in. That really struck people. Who wants to match what we did . 290 million new dollars, which doesnt sound like much now. My job was to carry it out. I was just heartsick. We did not have the competence to do this. Had were alle we on geneva. Whos going to review it . Back and i call all of the ngos in the United States. We spent three difficult days there. Letting them was treat them as reliable partners. Highest is your predecessor. Days we satt 2. 5 down there and said what is the responsibility of an ngo to resettle a refugee in this country. Vehiclee set the legal was contract. Its a cooperative agreement. This mayou working note the cooperative agreement is still here. It has been refined and improved. The United States is safely successful in over 3. 5 million refugees. Created english is a second created an english as a second leg which program. We sat down and we carved it out. It ended up being one of the Worlds Largest english language we did a lot of other improvements that flow from the act. I had the privilege to stay in the state department during president carters term. I was asked to stay on. When George Schultz came in he was my running years before. He asked me to be the permanent director for the last four years. Secretary schultz nominated me the u. S. Candidate to go to geneva. I spent 10 wonderful years there. I had the chance to see in every virtually complex or significant the world was involved in. I could see the change made. They would strengthen and improve the program. But i keep coming back. After all this work i say, what started it off . Thatwas the seminal event made all this possible. At thatimmy carter economic summit in tokyo. I salute you. And Vice President mondale, you were terrific. We were talking about the importance of leadership, the importance of elected officials. It is also the importance of leadership at the staff level. It is also the importance on president s and members of congress to make sure they are putting hardworking dedicated people in those positions. Thats where the work gets done. Thats the benefit of this conversation, opening the curtain behind the scene and figuring out how the refugee act of 1980 seems to be. It was a particularly in the worldime and climate. Refugee act out of the picture and at the indochina crisis, you take all of that out, the fact that the was ablewas evil to be passed and signed into law is really a remarkable achievement and an attribute in and a tribute to president carter. Was president carter the catalyst . Thatelse was happening allowed it to be seen from a legislative side . Was three. Ent one was the indochina rescue crisis and the constant communication required between the executive and the legislative. They respected the legislative views on this thing. It was a tough time getting there. This was constant. Process ation there were regular consultations. Im trying to find people all over the world. This work. Those were different times. Thats what the executive why the executive legislative branches could Work Together and Work Together very well. The indochina refugee crisis is one of the events. In 70, 79. S and in the senate you have the retirement of the senator known for his opendoor policies in mississippi. Over the chairok of the Senate Judiciary committee. Had the continued leadership to the process. With regard to some of the chairs of the subcommittee, he was very watchful. He continued to watch the subcommittee chairman. He said he had complete confidence. There to help if she needed it. Generally she didnt. Interest inng emigration over all those years. , kennedy taking were events that made it possible. At this time senator kennedy and president carter were politically opposed. Yet they were able to Work Together on this. In the current Political Climate it is sometimes hard to imagine two political opponents coming together. Was it seamless . I can tell you president ial politics never entered into the equation of passing the refugee act of 1980. And it helped us in the process as well. A little known fact, reading always on the shortlist of being jimmy carters running mate. He was running high after watergate and impeachment, so he was taking a close look. Carter was very good at that period of time. I think events were propelling us to do a better job on refugees. , i only was it indochina look at my cable traffic and lo and behold the soviet union had invaded afghanistan. 3. 5 to 5 million refugees going to pakistan. The new africa chief comes in somalis havee invaded ethiopia. And then castro starts emptying out all of his institutions and marielle. Ve we have the indochina, we have a cambodian holocaust. That was the first of many african crises that occurred. We needed to do something. Needed a better way to say once your input in parole you are in a designated category. We had to have a new legal mechanism. Propelling. Ere i think it is wise. Some wise leadership on the hill. Jimmy carter just recognize what was happening. I think the events propelled as they mentioned we had great Cooperation Amongst the branches of government, which normally doesnt happen. A lot of backandforths give and take. My perspective is a little more take then give. What came to my mind is we talk about refugee, resettlement refugee policy and landed in the immigration contest. What you are reflecting back is an entire different worldview, Foreign Policy worldview, american identity worldview. Right now there is in a movement that is very isolationist, restriction asked worldview. While some of that is related to immigration, at the end of the day it is who are we as a country. If it takes the indochina carry it through , at the end ofs the reagan years we have made enough headway that we needed to start looking at an end game for southeast asia. I assembled a little group called the igc, a Consultation Group of americans and canadians, australians and japanese. We start thinking about end games. Got governor bob from iowa. Some very illustrious americans. Leaving, i had an except an expanded meeting in tokyo. It had things like a return to vietnam. That package was given to the unc r. He took that package and maneuvered it through the u. N. Bureaucracy. That became the comprehensive plan of action for indochinese refugees. It took another 10 years, and that was very difficult. A lot had to go back home, a lot of vietnamese had to go back home. We took the tough steps by 1997. Given that the whole region was , we dealt with some thorny issues over many governments. Model in my book i call that the indochina model. It is based on global cooperation. Active american leadership, partner collaboration, burden sharing. Recognition that all this flows from human rights. That every person is entitled. I think that model is very successful. Ive described what weve got now. Its a National Interest model. Whats good for me and what will help my country and pressure groups. This can only be solved humanely with Global Corporation global cooperation. I think my characterization of todays model is pretty much current. A global worldview. As you mention the current Political Climate i was harkening back to what was said earlier today about the climate in the 50s. Its very restriction is immigration law. Which was quickly overwritten by the congress. Climate isction is returning. Asked,s very restriction very anticommunist and all the rest. Are going through that same process of looking in. Remember clearly that conference in geneva and 79. There the problems was was fatigue setting in. They became chairman of the Judiciary Committee a little later, who at that point in time was worried about spending all that kind of money on the resettlement process. We are going to open it up to the audience. One thing im curious to know is someone who was instrumental in drafting and passing the if you knew what you know today, would you have done anything different . We talked to kelly quickly. Persecuted or displaced by conflict or by civil disorders or violence or terrorism. Should we have done something independent of the u. N. Definition of refugees, we were making such a giant leap forward going with the u. N. Definition, we didnt think we can go beyond that at the time. Whether we need to go beyond that to take care of the Central American situation, even people displaced by natural disaster. Thing i wish we could have worked could have looked at more deeply. Talked about this, the consultation process has become a farce. I dont forget was a farce back then. That was the point, and we did try to codify some of the consultation process in the refugee act. Some delineations of what congresss role in admission levels i think needs to be restored. House vetoes, committee vetoes, two house vetoes, and whether we could substitute it done with closure issues. We just couldnt come to resolution on how to make congresss roll continue to be meaningful in this admissions process. About en thought congress has a stronger role in setting the refugee ceiling. One of the challenges is the branchve is actually the that implements refugee resettlement. I understand the refugee consultation was more collaborative than it is currently. Givingthe challenges of the legislative branch more authority is it makes it harder for the executive to respond in terms of crises of the day. The executive is the one who was processing. Im curious to know if you have any thoughts on how we can improve. If you look at the refugee the refugee act made a fundamental decision. It took major policy decisionmaking. And gave it to the president. I think there was a very wise decision. The hearings would identify issues. I remember a cambodian skip. I testified up there, i was the lead administration witness, because there were no political appointees back then. We are not going to launch a big Resettlement Program for cambodians. Unless the situation deteriorates and the u. N. High commission makes a request to us. Deteriorated, the high commissioner came in with this outrageous large request. We cant do that. To be modest, i decided to launch a small cambodian Resettlement Program. I had a new boss that came in at that time. We pretty much told the committees that we werent going to be resettling cambodia. I argued that point for days and we agreed on simultaneous implementation. There ands went up talk to the house and simpson in the senate. It has started, we really have no choice. That took some time. Ive got thousands of letters. The secretary of state got them. The consultation gave us a context. I think we learned from that lesson that once we establish a new program we want to not breach the trust that we build up. Really interferes with your implementation of the program. I think we had a pretty good record. I have a hard time myself talking about some of these issues. I poured a lot of my heart and soul and life into this bureau. And to see whats become of it is frightening. To give you a figure. You take the 2020 budget and look under population and 3. 5 billion. 2020 is 400 million. That has been taken out, shrunk and transferred over, where it will be combined with other aid moneys in a new humanitarian Assistance Program under their jurisdiction. This decision is trying to eliminate the state department from the refugee program. It is such a tragic mistake. Root at the root causes. What is happening now is a tragedy. I have been working with a group that is trying to let all of our relevant congressional committees no that we think its a disaster. So far we havent heard much on the others. I know there is great support for that up on the hill. Will need to be letting their people know that we dont agree with this decision. They are destroying one of the most important human rights arms we ever had. I think refugees are flip sides of the same coin. You mentioned the cambodia situation. One of the major policy decisions made wasnt discussed a lot. Policymaking for refugees in the state, to reflect the appropriate humanitarian concerns and to leave in the in permit of justice the final say for who qualifies. We talk about whether this is the right decision or not. We thought it was important to to divide Security Issues to provide Security Issues i think that was the right way to go, and we talked about that last night, whether that the was that was the right way to go. In terms of executing the guidance delivered from the people above to the people below. The refugee training became part of the department of justices officer training program. Maybe we should have that earlier. Once they started to understand the guidance we went through that. I want to go back to your question. I think we need to look at the definition again. Instancesund many where we have to expand that definition. We got the president to agree to that. This morning 70 million people. We are missing the elephant in the room. The consultations were an educational device. If you consultative on refugees thesed the idp American Public needs to know about it and Congress Needs to know what is underway. They are helping these internally displaced persons. About what is actually occurring in this country. And what are american citizens ought to be aware of. They create a position of u. S. Corn eight for affairs. It was a good idea at the time. They didnt want to last long and he was really useful in getting the refugee act through congress. Particularly when it got out of the democratic viewers was it was politicized. We got political folks at the far end of the re at the far end of the extreme. Phil was an hhs. Talk to eachus other constantly. This is an unneeded position. It complicates our life. We have to watch what actions are taken. I want to open it up to questions, but i have a burning question. Important for me to reflect on it has been 40 years. One of the common arguments that happened is the current refugee consultation. It is really a question of assimilation. Question in the minds of congress about whether we allow large numbers of refugees. You go up and down the coast of california. A valedictorian is a sign of assimilation. We resettled so many refugees. Our country is not broken. Country has an enrichment from your perspective. And the American People who fear wouldefugee resettlement lead to a degradation of our identity or a lapse in assimilation. . Ow would you respond to that we had commission after quick commission after commission. Every state, they are the contributors. They contribute much more to the system, whether talking about undocumented or documented refugees. Weve tried various methods of doing it. In aery one of those cases period thats been successful, the cuban thing was explored in great depth. Numbers, most of those were successfully resettled. We decided should we leave them in miami where there is a tremendous network of support . In every study ive ever read, assimilation has not been a problem. Especially during our time. I do not want to imply i can talk about current times much. We put a lot of thought into his simulation. Into assimilation. Englishy refugee, linguist training, cultural orientation, vocational skills. We worked with partners here, where refugees are going to go like the 3m corporation minnesota. They were receptive and very helpful. Days,se early indochina we had a lot of indochinese and we try to make sure we had good geographical distribution around the country. But you could go to any church, parish, temple, what not, and is alsod find, and this true with a secular organizations, you would a refugee in that church group, and the people in that church would be hard at work helping them to assimilate. Think,said before that i for the American Public to reset large numbers of indochinese and a poor their heart and into helping them, we had more american learning during that indochina period, than any i can remember. We were learning what it was like to have a foreigner dependent on you. How you helped them. Did really make a deliberate attempt to be sensitive to both the needs of the refugees being resettled and to communities in which they were being resettled. I think that deliberate intent was very successful and i do not want to pad ourselves on the back. Who i want to pat on the back , the ngos, organizations like all these other ones, they are the ones on the frontline n a they are the ones that can affect assimilation. The ones thate can affect assimilation. That is another area which we see valentin. We see vanishing. Voluntary agencies. Because they have been cut back drastically. I dont believe we fully appreciate what a loss this is going to be our society. If we dont have these voluntary agencies on the firing line. I think of a dozen different ways they can be helpful. But you have got to have an appreciation and a sympathy to them. We have time for one question. My apologies for taking up with the burning questions. A microphone is coming to you. Tv. Ink its for purcell correctly pointed out that the refugee act from 1980 transferred authorities from the attorney general to the president which we all think it was a good thing. At least at that time it was. Not so sure about today. If i remember correctly the act also took away the authority of the president to parole or the executive to parole large groups of people like we did with the enemies refugees from saigon, etc. Not three weeks after the act was signed, we had the cuban boat lift. I remember because i was the only immigration lawyer in atlanta. Few politicale a asylum cases for soviet pentecostal christians, jews, and a few Chinese People that wanted to have more than one baby. A federal judge knew me as having dabbled in immigration law. A close friend of the president appointed me. Judge, i dont know anything about immigration law. Three nights later the judge and i were on nightline debating this hard nosed attorney from the Justice Department named rudy giuliani. My Career Change from beinga mergers and acquisition lawyer to an immigration lawyer for the last 50 years. As a result of that, or 40 years. But my question is, when the boat lift happened, the ink wasnt even dry on the refugee act, did it send shockwaves through you judgment . Did it seem like it was being turned upside down by this event . All, president carter said i welcome them with open heart and open arms. It wasnt exactly giving them parole. How did that affect you . You know, parole is based on a concept we call presumptive eligibility. If you are a member of a designated class, you are presumptively eligible for refugee status. There are many people in this country felt that was not adequate. The refugee act requires an individual determination of persecution. Verys been bery, very, controversial over the years. The transition from parole to that refugee act scenario was not easy. It was very, very difficult. I was there during the muriel. The white house did not know whether this was a refugee crisis or an immigration crisis. Do we give it to justice or state . They decided then they could not decide. So they asked the coordinator to take it over. We had a new cornet. A new coordinator. He had the cuban issue. Needed to that we bring in the ngos. We had meetings in miami and all over the cubans were coming. But we had to use the refugee system. Wed sort of cheated little bit. We used, because the refugee act hadnt totally come into effect yet. We used a combination of parole and refugee, but we did examine them. We had a very dangerous element who came into the country with the cubans. We put them as a temporary place at the air force base. I got a call, said, a lot of these cuban guys have broken out and are making a beeline for the children. I said, you get the mps and police and arrest every one of them. The then confiscating. And had knives and guns whatnot they had found on this camp. We had to transfer these kids, and gave them to the Justice Department Community Relations service and they resettled them somewhere else under a different guise. But resettlement under the refugee act is really hard. It is a strenuous test. And the cambodians, the issue came to head really in cambodia. Many of the people we were reviewing were enemies of the khmer rouge, which would make them ineligible for refugee status. When we sent them to the ins with all of the files they were getting turned down in large, large numbers. We could not do that and a bunch of people including the nsc staff and our jva in thailand and justice. We worked and got a hybrid, that came through with the National Security decision memorandum just for cambodians. And it allowed us really sort of reinsert the categories. Wasnt popular. But there was no way otherwise that we could do it. So, but, its hard, the transition from parole to refugee act was really, really hard. By design, we did not repeal the Parole Authority in the refugee act of 1980. We had learned our lessons earlier. Rd,emember the story i head, that Lyndon Johnson when he signed the 1965 act into law at the statue of liberty, the legislative history was very clear. We had numbers at that time. Walder,k to francis again, that wanted to make sure parole is not utilizes for groups or classes of refugees. Very clear. As soon as he signed that law, johnson announced we will take any and all cubans. So, we figure, why get into that again . We let it go. Did not repeal parole. Muriel came about. We are overtime. But thank you. [applause] so, we have gotten a congressional perspective. And state department perspective. But we also are going to get a white house perspective. Eisenstat, who was president carter semester policy advisor throughout the Carter Administration could not join us today, but i did manage to sit down with him two weeks ago at his law firm in washington and talked to him about the refugee act. His role as domestic policy advisor under president carter. Clip]o im the president and ceo, the hewbrew immigrant aid society. The American Jewish communities Refugee Organization. Im here with ambassador eisenst the domestic policy adviser to president carter throughout his president ial campaign and his white house years. The ambassador was a key actor in the implication of the refugee act of 1980. Thank you so much for joining us today. I also want to know that the ambassador recently released a book called president carter, the white house years. The refugee act plays apartment a prominent role. Thank you very much for letting me do this by interview process because i have a conflict timingwise. My grandson is graduating from high school the day of this conference. Which is the only reason i would not be here. Great supporter personally and financially, and because he did an important job with helping with one of the Untold Stories of this administration and that is how we helped get 50,000 iranians jews out in the midst of the radical revolution. The Carter Administration was confronted with four refugee crisis without a legislative framework to address them. How did that work . In 1952, Congress Passed the immigration and nationality act. U. S. Seated to a u. N. Protocol on refugees that set some framework. But, from that time until the 1980 act, president s acted under what was called Parole Authority. Act, parolee 1952 authority was not intended by congress to take the role that it did. The first major test of that forddurin g the administration, when the vietnam government fell in the south. The north started butchering anyone who collaborated with the south vietnamese and u. S. Governments. The boat people started. T h. The Ford Administration began to use Parole Authority. Then decided to stop it and seek comprehensive legislation. When we came into Office President carter saw that this was such a gigantic humanitarian crisis that we simply could not wait for the legislative process. So, we started again the parole process. The passage of the 1980 act, over 200,000 vietnamese refugees came in. In the end, between 1975 and 1980, 360,000. Vice president mondale gave a very important speech in july of 1979 at geneva in which he convened a number of countries. And he gave a remarkable address, which would be very important. Because he reminded the governments there that we had f avianin 1938 at the Conference Call by president roosevelt when one country agreed to lift a very restrictive immigration quotas been lifted,y wouldve saved hundreds of thousands of jewish lives from nazi germany. Thats a signal to hitler dispensable. And that was the catalyst for getting 20 countries to agree to take their share of vietnamese refugees. To a number of countries in europe and the United States. Ll stretching sti the Parole Authority which is how the individual they individualize to almost the breaking point. Senator kennedy had been working on legislation and he introduced 79. With our support in 19 and it was signed into law by president carter of march of 19980. As for the first time we moved from this ad hoc policy, using parole authorities, to a legislative framework. For the first time, believe it or not, we defined what a refugee was. There was a number set of up to 50,000 for 1982. The president , has some discretion with congress to do it. There was a day munition of the the paroleon of authority in individualize cases. It set a framework but we quickly learned that even that framework could not accommodate what we faced very shortly thereafter. You mentioned senator kenny. Kennedy. What was remarkable and so hard to imagine in todays environ is the refugee act passed the senate unanimously. Passed the house nearly unanimously with bipartison support. Senator kennedy challenging senator carter in the primary campaign was the lead advocate in the senate. How did everything managed to come together to pass the refugee act in that kind of political environment. It is a terrific question, and it shows how much we have lost in todays world with the bitter partisanship. This was a humanitarian crisis, which republicans and democrats agreed on. In the midst of what was an extremely bitter primary campaign that divided the party, we were still able to cooperate because the problem was so important. One other added jo. After we lost the election, senator kenedy asked me if we would appoint Stephen Breyer to the First Circuit court of appeals which was the second a stepping stone to the Supreme Court. I said there has been Bitter Division between you two. Dont worry about kennedy asking. Stephen, it will be a tribute to you. He agreed. I called kenedy and i said how about strom thurmond, the incoming chairman of the Judiciary Committee . Aagan can appoint conservative republican. Stom supported stephen even though he and kenedy were opposites. Whichas an era, in people with partisan divisions worked together for the common good. Another political question. 19 80. Nt carter in he admitted a lot of refugees. He admitted more refugees than any president in history has ever admitted before our sense. Or since. How did that work . Again, before the legislation, the socalled Parole Authority which was being stretched for sure to its maximum, but we included in that number you mentioned and a great tribute to the president and one of the underappreciated parts of the vietnamese boat. People. It also included a number of soviet jews. We actually doubled the number of soviet jews who came in 50,000r from 25,000 to 50,000. We saved a mans life by the president saying he was not a u. S. Spy. So, there was a bipartisan consensus that after all this country stood for helping those who suffered greatly abroad. We were a hope, a light. It was the statue of liberty, all of the things that were important there at that time. And i hope we can return to that at this time. But we were challenged almost immediately, mark, when the act crises therey with were not anticipated by the new act. 50,000mple, only refugees would be allowed. From cuba, inift the space of a couple of months, 125,000 cubans came in, oftentimes by rickety boats from muriel harbor to florida. We also face the iranian jewish crisis. Of issueshole raft that confronted us that had not been anticipated by the 1980 a ct. And we had to deal with those i n a more ad hoc way. So, for example, for iranian jews, after our hostages were taken, november 4, 1979, in tehran. President carter issued an executive order expelling all iranians. There were hundreds of thousands, students and Business People and visitors. I had a delegation of young iran ian jewish students who came to seen in the white house and they said, if we are subject to this expulsion it is a death sentence to go back to this radical regime that has just come in power. The head of our community has been killed and his bodyy strewn through the streets of tehran. You cant allow us to be included. We had some emergency interagency meetings. Some of the people on your panel were involved, the head of the ins, was involved, the state department. And, after a lot of difficult negotiations, we came up with a very unusual process, and that is we used the structure of the 1980 act what was, which was a fear of persecution based on race, religion and national origin. But we were going over the limit. We had those students, jews, and questions who are in the United States file asylum petitions for a wellfounded fear of persecution but because we did not want to risk their families having said they did, i got david and doris and others to agree to simply sit on those petitions and not act until the shah came back on the phone which we knew had been never. They were able to resettle. We also were able to construct our consulates in europe at a time when jews and christians could still get out of iran to apply the same principles to assume, because they were religious minorities, they were in effect covered by the 1980 act had a well founded fear of persecution. Sn the end, 50,000 iranian jew and christians were able to come in. We kept them from being expelled. We used the framework of the act, but we had to do in ways that stretch the definitions. This shows the importance of the president having a certain amount of discretion. It can be abused, as weve seen in the current administration. A commerce cannot keep passing occur. New crises you have to give the president a certainly way and that was critical in getting 125,000 cubans in. Critical in getting soviet jews in. Critical to getting the iranian jews in. So, you know, and it was critical in getting the vietnamese in. All four required certain amount of discretion on the president s part, but also bipartisan support. Have today,as we people getting on a bandstand and saying we do not want these foreigners, we could not have done it. We cannot of exercise that discretion. But, as you mentioned, the 1980 act, was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, something so sadly missing today on this issue. If you can talk a little bit more about the boat lift. As you mentioned, the boat lift happened almost exactly one mo nth after president carter signed the refugee act. If the timing had been different, if the boat life had happened first, do you think that the refugee act would have looked different . That is a very good question. One of the reasons my book has gotten reviews is its honest. Im candid about the fact that we were very slow off the mark in dealing with this unexpected harbor. From mureil iel we did not have places to resettle people. We werent sure we could turn boats back and risk people drowning. The policy took more time than we should have to come to terms with it. But, having said that, i still believe that had muriel preceded the refugee act, if anything it would have given further encouragement and indicated how bankrupt our policy was and how it relied on this Parole Authority that had never been intended going back to the 1952 immigration and naturalization act to deal with these mass numbers of refugees. I dont think it wouldve been, if anything wouldve been a reason to support it. Remember, please, that for the you had anlift, extremely active cubanamerican community in south florida. And there our biggest problem was that, Shirley Chisholm and other members of Congress Said we have a crisis also in haiti. Were going to allow you just to get cubans in. So, we came up with a special cubanhaitian Immigration Program which also allowed a number of patients haitians to come in. Under the umbrella of the cubans. The cubanamerican community was heavily republican. That led to a buy in for this bipartisan process. My less question view is looking at the last 39 years of the refugee act in action, what do you think should have been done different, or how should it be amended today . There needs to be a clarification. About how you apply the refugee status. So, the difference between a refugee and asylum applicant is that a refugee is applying to come in on a wellfounded fear of persecution from outside the country. An asylum applicant is doing so inside the country. A situation on our southern border in which people are coming over and claiming asylum and there is not a very clear process of how that is being done. To forcedent is trying them to go back, which i think is not permitted under the act. That should be defined how do you apply it . What happens during that time . Now because there are tens of thousands in up to 100,000 centraloming from america, their overwhelming the process until they can get a hearing. This was not intended. Should be veryt clear that while the president has to have discretion, that that discretion should be bounded by a very clear legislative process. Im sorry. My last lied about question. One of the reasons the refugee act has gotten so bogged down in its implementation. Our security concerns, concerns the refugees have to be extremely vetted, because they represent security threats. But the refuge is brought in under the Carter Administration were from the soviet union, our sworn enemy, from vietnam, a country where we had been at war. And where there could have been north vietnamese sympathizers coming in. As a lee, and cumin and not to mention iran where the Real Security concerns. How are the concerns of security addressed during that time, especially looking at a few the lens of today . First, i think history has nown that there wrere security concerns. The closest one to could come to it, of the 125,000 cubans that came in, 3000 were criminals in jail. That is where the controversy came in. What our history showed is there wasnt a security issue. All these people had become contributing american citizens. Theres no security issue that has been shown by any study that the tens of thousands of people coming in on our southern border from central america. None. No indication they are motorists, murderers, rapists. You can get one or two perhaps but the vast number are coming because they want a better standard of life. Now, having said that, we also have to define who is a refugee or an Asylum Seeker with a wellfounded fear of persecution and who is simply an economic migrant. If youre coming purely for economic reasons, that is an abusive system. Then you should state in stay in line with others who are legally seeking to come in. And, as much as we want to have people come seeking a better not claimingbut persecution, we are not in a position to let every economic migrant come in. It should not be our policy. But separating out the massive a fearrom those with of persecution and economic migrants is a huge burden. We need additional resources, huge number of resources, more immigration judges, more Border Patrol people who can do the initial vetting to determine who is an economic migrant and who is not. Certainly if there is some person has a criminal record, but that is not the real problem. Overwhelminglem is a system that the 1980 acted not anticipate in terms of people claiming thank you. [applause] you are watching American History tv get all weekend, every weekend, on cspan3. This july marks the 50th anniversary of apollo 11, when astronauts a buzz aldrin and Neil Armstrong walked on the lunar surface while Michael Collins orbited the moon alone. Prelunch interview with the three crew members who described their individual responsibilities. Neilis asked or not armstrong, command pilot for the