1980, president jimmy jimmy signed the refugee act, annual ceiling for refugees allowed in america. The act also created a process for addressing refugee emergencies and established the state Departments Office of refugee resettlement. Next, on American History tv, former government officials who the acto implement discuss challenges they faced with refugee admissions. Of public opinion, and Lessons Learned in light of current refugee policy. The jimmy carter president ial library and museum and the assistance organization, hias, hosted this event. [indistinct conversation] welcome. Welcome back, everyone. Introduce the next panel, which is going to focus implementation of the refugee act of 1980. Is moderating that panel eric schwartz, former assistant state forof population refugees and under the obama administration. He was Senior Advisor for affairs during the Clinton Administration on the National Security council and most importantly, he is on the highest board. He also happens to be the refugees of international, and hes seated oft to the expresident Refugees International. So, eric . Thanks. Thank you, mark. Really is a distinct pleasure to be here today. To thank hias and the Carter Center for bringing us for this very important event. And needless to say, this is a time for us to be considering not only the refugee 1980 but also the very inure of refugee protection the United States. And around the world. At a time when the number of displaced by conflict, by byan rights violations, persecution, is at the highest number in recorded history, around the world and in the United States in using nativist appeal toesigned to peoples fear and to encourage hostility towards refugees and others who are forced to flee. Closing borders and making life more difficult for refugees. This panel and this daylong panelis timely, and our will consider refugee protection ofues in the context implementation of the refugee act of 1980. And we have three highly panelists. Ed its an added benefit for me are friends of mine, with whom ive worked over a variety of projects. David martin, who will be our first presenter, is a immigration,ar in constitutional and international law, and he is one of the foremost authorities on Immigration Law and policy. Immigrationto shape and refugee policy while serving in several key u. S. Government posts. While at the state department, legal deeply involved in and policy developments relating to the refugee act of 1980. Of todays discussion. He also held senior positions in departments of justice and homeland security. Inplayed major roles administrative and statutory asylum,ents related to during the decade of the 1990s and during the obama administration, he was deeply engaged in Administration Reforms relating to Immigration Enforcement priorities as well a range of immigration issues. Ambassadorspeaker, amanda frank lloyd, has had many businessman and nonprofit executive, as an attorney focusing on a range of from Environmental Issues to economic affairs, to International Humanitarianism and refugees and beyond. To list all of franks jobs. 1980 toll say that from 1981, he was director of the state Departments Bureau of refugee programs and with the personal rank of ambassador, and deeply involved in the issues were considering today. 2001, he served undersecretary of state for global affairs, giving him responsibilities that included overseeing the work of bureau. E departments the successor bureau to the bureau that hes directed during the Carter Administration. Final speaker is a former american diplomat, who spent of his career overseas in autheast asia, he is legendary refugee advocate. The northe midst of vietnamese takeover of vietnam, he was frustrated at the slow of u. S. Efforts to rescue vietnamese who had worked with government, he and a colleague made an unauthorized secure vietnam to help the rescue of some 200 individuals. As refugeeed coordinator at the u. S. Embassy the carter during keynistration and played a role, as well as in protection and assistance efforts of thegees remaining in region. 2001, he to 1990 to served as president of refugees thernational, establishing organization as a critical ally of vulnerable populations around world. And it is a high honor for me to serve as the current steward of an organization that lionel put on the map. Lionels legacy of service and impact is an inspiration to Refugees International. So our topic today, implementation of the refugee act of 1980, could cover a multitude of issues. Panelists tod our consider in no particular order the following questions. First, what were the 1980tations around the refugee act with respect to both admissions and asylum . Second, how did reality interfere . Both with respect to the cuban eventsand other requiring a response to protection needs that went contours or at least stretched the contours of the 1980. E act of third, how would you overallrize and assess implementation of the u. S. Refugee Admissions Program over the years . Finally, based on your observations, of each of these questions, what lessons can we draw and bring to bear on current policy challenges . Each panelist will speak for minutes. En well then move to questions from the audience. And rather than offer my own on these issues now, i will assume the andrators prerogative perhaps ask one or two preliminary questions. Me inh that, please join welcoming david martin. [applause] much. Nks very its a pleasure for me to be here. I want to say a special thanks for puttingto hias this together. And also, say a special word of tribute to president carter. I do wish he were here. On humans emphasis rights policy as a candidate and then in the early part of his inspired me to go to the state department to bureau. The human rights i didnt really know that refugees were part of the package at the time that i signed up for it. Was a small refugee office. This is 1978, in the human bureau. And but by the time i flow the boat flow was enormous and i got shapedinto that and it my career. And i felt very happy to have on opportunity to work both human rights policy and refugee policy. A few simplewith truths about the achievements of the refugee act. And then introduce a few complexities that became with implementation. And i want to say, first of all, the refugee act did achieve a very solidly, in ways that we dont think about very much anymore because theyre just not points of controversy. The refugee act did accomplish primary aims. And i really want to say that. Becauseto say that, theres so much cynicism about the effectiveness of government and legislation. And this is generally overall quite a Success Story and we need to say that. Now, to appreciate what im oneng, i want to emphasize distinction that oftentimes gets lost. With,fugee act dealt quote, refugees in two situations that are related but they really have very different dynamics. One is the overseas refugee program, selecting people in refugeesually camps, bringing them here after processing. And that was the main focus at time, because that was the crying issue, particularly in southeast asia. Is asylum. One obviously involving people who own. Get here on their it poses more challenging settings. N a lot of and it didnt receive top billing or major focus. The central focus initially. But its important to keep those separate, although theres some overlaps, because in analyzing about that, the Supreme Court failed to do that in a very important called stevi vs. Ins, which interpreting the refugee act position to set a more demanding standard than and when people are applying for asylum and they thely misquoted some of legislative history that went clearly to overseas refugees. Applied to asylum in reaching that decision. And i greatly regret that that happened. Thats part of our framework now. Anyway, there are four things that the refugee act achieved. First of all, it set the framework and procedures for and timely decisions on resettlement and admissions. Replaced conditional intro and patrol which all thewhich for reasons we are hearing about, presented their own problems. Forreserved a role congress. The last panel mentioned some providingut that, by a very structured consultation process with a demand for certain, very specific kinds of information that are extremely important for anybody trying to and understand the refugee program, those annual documents. N but it did not give congress a specific voting role. It left that power with the which thank goodness, largely avoids deadlock that we would have. Ofdidnt see the sort Political Climate we have now, but im glad we have it that way. The that puts the power in president. Can he do it badly . Yes, we have evidence. Recent evidence. [laughter] but legal design can take us far. So and im reminded of a comment james beaude about was widely regard, at least until recently, as the had. President we senator john sherman says the constitution provides for every accidental contingency, except for a vacancy in the mind of a president. [laughter] second, the act provided a framework for helping resettle replaced a lot of special legislation that had specific programs for this Group Expiration dates that had to get extended. It did it on a more abstract basis that applies broadly. And the assistance arrangement ngos and the role of engages the state. The statuteylum, provided Clear Authority to offer asylum both to people the United States and people at the border, excludable well as deportable aliens, as the old terminology used to have it. Clearly changed over to the use of the u. N. Definition of refugee. A lot of sense in the asylum area. Its been more problematic in the overseas program. More importantly, with regard to asylum, point number four, it provided a clear status for well as refugees, known as asylum and refugee. Before that, people got documents of various kind that mainly said parole. And if youre not a refugee, if not into Immigration Law, you look at a card that says on parole, you think of the criminal justice system. It didnt clarify. Voluntary departure. It provided clear statuses and a direct mechanism, authorization method for them to become lawful residents. Were significant changes. Mostly theyre routine now. Its significant for those reasons. Popular andact was celebrated and that lasted about four, five weeks, until the boat lift. As has been also mentioned. Reallyple were disillusioned, because they said, wait a minute i opember seeing some of those eds. Wait. We just passed a new refugee act. Why doesnt that solve the problem . It turns out there is no magic all of this. Theres no magic bullet to address situations when people come in very large numbers without advance notice or planning. Refugee issues are complicated. Response is not easy or straightforward. Rife with sudden emergencies that pose big logistical and operational challenges. And the whole business of protection gets entangled with politics, both international and domestic. So the boat lift caused that problem after a few weeks of not figuring out how to deal with it, sending mixed signals response. U. S. Eventually it became clear that the boat flow had to be stopped. To the decision was made stop the southbound flow, using various kinds of maritime authorities. All the boats down there were gonna be able to come back with the people that they had on board. But finally, it began to look like a finite problem and it people said, to 125,000 people coming. Meantime, the challenges of and accommodation upon arrival for substantial. A lot of people were housed processing atary the park, moved to the orange bowl. Various kinds of contrived tents. They were living outside. That sounds a bit like some things weve seen recently, along here or in mexico, the southwest border. Eventually many people were sent to military bases, especially fort chaffee in arkansas. A negative political impact. A young, progressive arkansas governor was defeated for reelection in 1980. Been attributed to backlash against the refugees at fort chaffee. Clinton. Bill he ran six times for governor, thefive out of six, by antiimmigrant candidate defeated him that one time. Perhaps that boat lift had a role in president carters loss 1980 election. Any any event, its not so much the numbers that pose the problem. Carters vietnam initiatives, to settle a lot of people there, readily. Pted much more its the perception of lost control that provides red meat antirefugee or antiimmigrant candidates. And we really have to pay that. Ion to weve seen that kind of reaction in europe, since the large movements of 2015 to 2016, the socalled merkel million as ive heard it called sometimes. Backlash that gets rolling in lostnse to perceptions of control leads not only to bad quitee policy but, dangerously, it also leads to the growing strength of openly authoritarian problems. A key example. Now, that really poses the todays challenge to refugee and asylum policy. We are really facing an enormous dilemma. Its somewhat hard to be optimistic. Figures, to put it in context, in 195051, when the Key International refugee instruments were being draft, 2. 5d population was about billion. In 1980, when the refugee act 4. 5passed, it was about billion. In 2020, the population, world is expected to be 7. 5 billion, triple the level at 1950 convention. There are going to be more people on the move, communications and transport are easier. Now today we are getting the mariel boat lift total each month, along the signwest border, with no of a significant end point. The coast guard cant be deployed to deal with this even to. Ou wanted so i think were at a very critical time and i worry that gonna tip, to be crucial in the election. I come one last word. I come to the mexico agreement recently announced with great wariness. I do hope its not clear whether thats going to be the case i hope there will be more, something in there that will really focus on they want, aays major aid and Assistance Program in central america. There are ways that that can work. Socalled martial plan for that area. Thats a critical component and clearly the u. S. Administration has no interest in that. Theyve gone in the other direction. But in addition to that, some in flow would ease logistical sheer challenges that are not fully appreciated along the southwest border. For governments and especially done as, who have heroic job meeting people at the bus station when they get off by dhs to help them move forward. So maybe some slowdown would ofp reduce the effectiveness antiimmigrant or antirefugee help hold us for a longterm and sustainable support for refugee protection. We have a long way to go. We have a real challenge today. Thank you. [applause] so this panel deals with the notementation of the act, its justification or its origins. Important tots that you can write an act that sounds pretty damn pretty good on paper, but when you try to implement have a hardoing to time. And let me just talk a little implementation problems that we faced the passage ofer the 1980 act. Want to be clear. I think president carters decision to push for that act was a hugelyent it important humanitarian decision. And he deserves every bit of the credit that weve heard here today. That said, we have to be that thatand say doesnt solve all the problems. And in fact it creates some. Some of thebout ones that we in the state Department Bureau of refugee faced in the immediate the passage of that act. The first thing was vietnam. Hugen vietnam, we had a moral imperative to act, protect vietnamese that had been working with us, withelped us, had sided him, and were in the kind of difficulty you can imagine after we pulled out. Were using the act to vietnamese who were eligible under the terms of the act. And what we found is that we interviewed in the field, we interviewed boat people and crossed borders. But what we found was that the storiesall sounded exactly the same. Was pretty clear that path of responses tot went from applicant one applicant two to applicant 25. So the actual identification a persons who have welljustified fear by reason of so forth. Gion and after a while, you realize its who had hard to tell that welljustified fear and who doesnt. Recognize that thats gonna be with us as long like that,standards written into the law, and we should. Means that youre going to have to make some very tough decisions. Be some of those may negative and with consequences to the individual. That, you dont do are likely to be overwhelmed applicants for status under the act that have questionable validity. Point. s the first the second point that weve dealt with, and the difficulty act, wasstering the the number of applicants and our ability to bring to the united under the law, certain number. But what do you do with the others . A lot of timet countries, hong kong, thailand, malaysia, singapore. Trying to and with some but notable success total success and not quick theess, trying to get country involved to accept some for statusicants that we had interviewed and found them credible, but we had numbers problems in the united for usthat made it hard to take all of them into the United States. So one of the things it seems to me, a National Refugee policy on the u. S. , isnt going to cut it. You need to have similar and similar policies in other countries, because youre going to need them as places where refugees can go if the unitedcome to states. Second problem i dont want to sound all that negative but is to identify problems that are going to have to be resolved. One of them was involved in cambodia. The pol pot regime was so irrational. The cambodian authorities were theyrational in whom that youd as enemies couldnt identify this person as having a wellfounded fear of going back by reason of their their statusy or or their religion, because that wasnt the test. Been whethert have you wore glasses or not. So that all of a sudden, the that we used in that not applicable. Again, you probably wont have happen very often, but you did have it h