He also happens to be the president of Refugees International, and hes seated next to the expresident of Refugees International. O, eric . Thanks. Thank you, mark. T is it really is a distinct pleasure to be here today. And i want to thank hias and the Carter Center for bringing us all together for this very important event. And needless to say, this is a critical time for us to be considering not only the refugee act of 1980 but also the very future of refugee protection in the United States. Nd around the world. At a time when the number of people displaced by conflict, by human rights violations, by persecution, is at the highest number in recorded history, governments around the world and in the United States in articular are using nativist rhetoric designed to appeal to peoples fear and to encourage hostility towards refugees and others who are forced to flee. They are closing borders and making life more difficult for refugees. This panel and this daylong event is timely, and our panel will consider refugee protection issues in the context of implementation of the refugee act of 1980. And we have three highly distinguished panelists. Its an added benefit for me that all are friends of mine, with whom ive worked over decades on a variety of projects. Professor david martin, who will be our first presenter, is a leading scholar in immigration, constitutional and international law, and he is one of the countrys foremost authorities on Immigration Law and policy. Hes helped to shape immigration and refugee policy while serving in several key u. S. Government posts. While at the state department, he was deeply involved in legal and policy developments relating to the refugee act of 1980. The focus of todays discussion. He also held senior positions in the departments of justice and homeland security. He played major roles in administrative and statutory developments related to asylum, 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 as a range of immigration issues. Our second speaker, ambassador rank lloyd, has had many careers as a senior diplomat, as a businessman and nonprofit executive, as an attorney focusing on a range of topics from Environmental Issues to economic affairs, to international humanitarianism, refugees and beyond. And i wont try to list all of franks jobs. But i will say that from 1980 to 1981, he was director of the state Departments Bureau of refugee programs and with the personal rank of ambassador, and was deeply involved in the issues were considering today. Between 1998 and 2001, he served as the u. S. Undersecretary of state for global affairs, giving him responsibilities that included overseeing the work of the state Departments Bureau. The successor bureau to the Refugee Programs Bureau that he directed during the Carter Administration. Our final speaker is a former american diplomat, who spent much of his career overseas in southeast asia, he is a legendary refugee advocate. When in the midst of the north vietnamese takeover of vietnam, he was frustrated at the slow pace of u. S. Efforts to rescue vietnamese who had worked with the u. S. Government, he and a colleague made an unauthorized trip to vietnam to help secure the rescue of some 200 individuals. Lionel served as refugee coordinator at the u. S. Embassy in thailand during the Carter Administration and played a key role, as well as in protection and assistance efforts of refugees remaining in the egion. From 1999 to 1990 to 2001, he served as president of Refugees International, establishing the organization s a critical ally of vulnerable populations around the world. And it is a high honor for me to serve as the current steward of an organization that lionel put on the map. And lionels legacy of service and impact is an inspiration to us all at Refugees International. So our topic today, implementation of the refugee act of 1980, could cover a multitude of issues. And ive asked our panelists to consider in no particular order the following questions. First, what were the expectations around the 1980 refugee act with respect to oth refugee admissions and asylum . Second, how did reality interfere . Both with respect to the cuban exodus and other events requiring a response to protection needs that went outside the contours or at least stretched the contours of the refugee act of 1980. Third, how would you characterize and assess overall implementation of the u. S. Refugee Admissions Program over the years . And 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 about seven minutes. Well then move to questions from the audience. And rather than offer my own perspectives on these issues now, i will assume the moderators prerogative and perhaps ask one or two preliminary questions. So with that, please join me in welcoming david martin. [applause] thanks very much. Its a pleasure for me to be here. I want to say a special thanks to mark and to hias for putting this together. And also, say a special word of tribute to president carter. I do wish he were here. It was his emphasis on human rights policy as a candidate and then in the early part of his presidency that inspired me to go to the state department to work in the human rights bureau. I didnt really know that refugees were part of the package at the time that i igned up for it. There was a small refugee office. This is 1978, in the human rights bureau. And but by the time i arrived, the flow the boat flow was enormous and i got pulled into that and it shaped my career. And i felt very happy to have the opportunity to work both on human rights policy and refugee policy. Let me begin with a few Simple Truths about the achievements of the refugee act. And then introduce a few complexities that became apparent with implementation. And i want to say, first of all, the refugee act did achieve a great deal, very solidly, in ways that we dont think about very much anymore because theyre just not points of controversy. The refugee act did accomplish its primary aims. And i really want to say that. We need to say that, because theres so much cynicism about the effectiveness of Government Action and legislation. And this is generally overall quite a Success Story and we need to say that. Now, to appreciate what im saying, i want to emphasize one distinction that oftentimes gets lost. The refugee act dealt with, quote, refugees in two situations that are related but they really have very different dynamics. One is the overseas refugee program, selecting people overseas, usually in refugee camps, bringing them here after processing. And that was the main focus at the time, because that was the crying issue, particularly in southeast asia. The second one is asylum. Obviously involving people who would get here on their own. It poses more challenging problems in a lot of settings. And it didnt receive top billing or major focus. It was not the central focus initially. But its important to keep those separate, although theres some overlaps, because n analyzing issues about that, the Supreme Court failed to do that in a case that was very important called stevi vs. Ins, which wound up interpreting the refugee act position to set a more demanding standard than what applies and when people are applying for asylum and they really misquoted some of the legislative history that went clearly to overseas refugees. It was applied to asylum in eaching 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 regular and timely decisions on resettlement and admissions and thereby replaced conditional intro and parole, which, for all the reasons we are hearing about, presented their own roblems. It preserved a role for congress. The last panel mentioned some things about that, by providing a very structured consultation process with a demand for certain, very specific kinds of information that are extremely important for anybody trying to follow and understand the refugee program, those annual consultation documents. But it did not give congress a specific voting role. It left that power with the president , which thank goodness, largely avoids deadlock that we would have. We didnt see the sort of Political Climate we have now, but im glad we have it that way. Now, that puts the power in the president. Can he do it badly . Yes, we have evidence. Recent evidence. [laughter] but legal design can take us only so far. Nd im reminded of a comment that was made about James Buchanan who was widely at least until recently, as the worst president we had. 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 refugees, replaced a lot of special legislation that had specific programs for this group or that group, expiration dates that had to get extended. It did it on a more abstract basis that applies broadly. And the assistance arrangement recognizes the role of ngos and engages the state. Third, an asylum, the statute provided Clear Authority to offer asylum both to people already in the United States and people at the border, excludable aliens as well as deportable aliens, as the old terminology used to have it. And it clearly changed over to the use of the u. N. Definition of refugee. That made 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 asylumees as well as refugees, known as asylum and refugee. Efore that, people got documents of various kind that mainly said parole. And if youre not a refugee, if youre not into Immigration Law, you look at a card that says somebodys here on parole, you think of the criminal justice system. It didnt clarify. Extended voluntary departure. It provided clear statuses and a direct mechanism, authorization for a direct method for them to become lawful residents. Those were significant changes. Mostly theyre routine now. Its significant for those reasons. The refugee act was popular and celebrated and that lasted about four, five weeks, until the boat lift. As has been also mentioned. And people were really disillusioned, because they said, wait a minute i remember seeing some of those op eds. Wait. We just passed a new refugee act. Why doesnt that solve the problem . It turns out there is no magic bullet for 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. The field is rife with sudden emergencies that pose big logistical and operational challenges. And the whole business of refugee protection gets entangled with politics, both international and domestic. So the mariel boatlift caused that problem after a few weeks of not really figuring out how to deal with it, sending mixed signals about the u. S. Response. Eventually it became clear that the boat flow had to be stopped. And the decision was made to 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 led, as people said, to 125,000 people coming. Meantime, the challenges of screening and accommodation upon arrival for substantial. A lot of people were housed after preliminary processing at 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, either here or in mexico, along the southwest border. Eventually many people were sent to military bases, especially fort chaffee in arkansas. That had a negative political impact. A young, progressive arkansas governor was defeated for reelection in 1980. Thats generally been attributed to backlash against the refugees at fort chaffee. That was bill clinton. He ran six times for governor, won five out of six, by the antiimmigrant candidate defeated him that one time. Perhaps that boatlift had a role in president carters loss of the 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, were accepted much more readily. Its the perception of lost control that provides red meat for antirefugee or antiimmigrant candidates. And we really have to Pay Attention to that. 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. A backlash that gets rolling in response to perceptions of lost control leads not only to bad refugee policy but, quite dangerously, it also leads to the growing strength of openly authoritarian problems. And hungary is a key example. Now, that really poses the greatest challenge to todays refugee and asylum policy. We are really facing an enormous dilemma. Its somewhat hard to be optimistic. Some figures, to put it in context, in 195051, when the Ey International refugee instruments were being drafted, World Population was about 2. 5 billion. In 1980, when the refugee act was passed, it was about 4. 5 billion. In 2020, the population, World Population, is expected to be 7. 5 billion, triple the level at the time of the 1950 convention. There are going to be more people on the move, communications and transport are easier. Now today we are getting the equivalent of a mariel boatlift total each month, along the southwest border, with no sign of a significant end point. The coast guard cant be deployed to deal with this even if you wanted to. So i think were at a very critical time and i worry that this issue is 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 something more, something in there that will really focus on what mexico says they want, a 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 reduction in flow would ease some of the sheer logistical challenges that are not fully appreciated along the southwest border. For governments and especially for ngos, who have done a heroic job meeting people at the bus station when they get dropped off by dhs to help them ove forward. So maybe some slowdown would help reduce the effectiveness of antiimmigrant or antirefugee demagoguery and 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 implementation of the act, not its justification or its origins. Nd i think its important to recognize that you can write an act that sounds pretty damn right and pretty good on paper, but when you try to implement it, youre going to have a hard time. And let me just talk a little bit about the implementation problems that we faced immediately after the passage of the 1980 act. I say and i want to be clear. I think president carters decision to push for that act and to implement it was a hugely important humanitarian decision. And he deserves every bit of the credit that weve heard here today. That said, we have to be realistic and say that that doesnt solve all the problems. And in fact it creates some. Lets talk about some of the ones that we in the state Department Bureau of refugee programs faced in the immediate aftermath of the passage of that act. The first thing was vietnam. And in vietnam, we had a huge moral imperative to act, especially to protect vietnamese that had been working with us, had helped us, had sided with him, and were in the kind of difficulty you can imagine after we pulled out. So we were using the act to identify vietnamese who were eligible under the terms of the act. Nd what we found is that we interviewed in the field, we interviewed boat people and people who crossed borders. But what we found was that pretty soon all the stories ounded exactly the same. And it was pretty clear that there was a path of responses that went from applicant one to applicant two to applicant 25. Nd so the actual identification of persons who have a welljustified fear by reason of their religion and so forth. After a while, you realize its a little hard to tell who had that welljustified fear and who doesnt. And we have to recognize that thats gonna be with us as long as we have standards like that, written into the law, and we should. That means that youre going to have to make some very tough decisions. And some of those may be negative and with consequences to the individual. But if you dont do that, you are likely to be overwhelmed with applicants for status under the act that have questionable validity. So thats the first point. The second point that weve dealt with, and the difficulty of administering the act, was the number of applicants and our ability to bring to the United States, under the law, certain number. But what do you do with the others . And so we spent a lot of time with third countries, hong ong, thailand, malaysia, singapore, trying to and with some considerable success but not total success and not quick success trying to get the country involved to accept some of the applicants for status that we had interviewed and foun