Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

tion be nationality specific, since it depends upon an assessment of the advisability of returning persons to a particular national situation of civil war.

Furthermore, it is clear that not all Salvadorans will qualify for asylum under the narrower grounds of eligibility for that relief. This does not detract from the very real dangers which will nevertheless await them upon their return to El Salvador. Nor is it desirable that they be encouraged to apply for asylum in order to protect themselves from deportation. The asylum adjudications system is seriously backlogged. It is practical to remove inducements to ineligible persons to use the asylum process to protect themselves from deportation, particularly when the compelling nature of their fear of deportation suggests that they will use any available device. It should also be noted that asylum, which can lead to permanent residence one year after it is granted, is a less flexible expedient than is the temporary relief from deportation provided by HR 4447. Not only do many Salvadorans not qualify for asylum, but many have no interest in remaining in the United States except for temporary protection. Indeed, the enjoyment of such temporary protection would encourage persons to make themselves known to the authorities, thereby facilitating the enforcement of their departure when conditions in their country improve sufficiently to make that appropriate.

That the administration presently has the authority to grant Salvadorans the temporary relief provided by HR 4447 is indicated by its own use of this authority to benefit deportable aliens of other nationalities. Such authority is derived from Sections 103, 242 and 244 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended. Congress is called upon to act in this instance only because it is clear that the administration has refused to exercise its authority to benefit the Salvadorans. Congressional intervention is necessary to rectify discrimination in the administration of our immigration laws and to ensure that the national honor is not disgraced by the plainly inhumane practice of sending people back to the kind of terror and danger which characterize life in El Salvador today.

We have witnessed in the last few years the spectacle of respectable, law abiding U.S. citizens violating the law because of their perception of duty to a higher moral and humanitarian imperative. The existence of "sanctuary" churches for the benefit of Salvadorans seeking safe haven indicates the extent to which failure to act on compelling humanitarian claims will continue to breed disrespect for the laws. The combined effect of this and of the deleterious consequences of the existence of a large "underclass" of Salvadorans in our midst suggests that HR 4447 offers an opportunity to do well by doing good; to serve the national interest while maintaining our proud humanitarian traditions.

HR 4447 accomplishes its essential humanitarian and pragmatic purposes in the most modest manner. It requires no longer term commitments. It contains a sunset provision. It requires that the already substantial premises upon which it is based be studied and corroborated in a joint effort of the administration and the Congress. The three year period of protection from deportation constitutes a maximum. The administration is at liberty to act sooner than absolutely required in submitting its studies. The Congress may choose to hold hearings earlier than the outside limit of two years which is provided, and it may at that time reconsider the issue in the light of new information. The terms of the legislation would allow for reconsideration as soon as the administration completes its studies and the Congress decides to act again.

The American Civil Liberties Union urges prompt favorable action on HR 4447.

Selected statistics on Salvadorans in the United States, Salvadorans returned to El Salvador

[Compiled from figures released by the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service]

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

Salvadoran asylum applications pending as of January 1984: 11,965.

[Base estimate of total Salvadoran population in the U.S.: between 300,000 and 500,000.]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL, USA

The United States section of Amnesty International appreciates this opportunity to present written testimony before the Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and International Law of the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives on the question of immigration policy towards Salvadoran refugees.

This statement addresses the question of U.S. refugee policy towards Salvadoran nationals and more specifically provides support for the principles embodied in House Resolution 4447 which would allow for the temporary suspension of deportation of Salvadoran refugees from the United States.

Amnesty International is a worldwide human rights movement which works impartially for the release of prisoners of conscience, men and women detained anywhere for their beliefs, color, ethnic origin, sex, religion or language, provided they have neither used nor advocated violence. Amnesty International opposes torture and the death penalty in all cases without reservation and advocates fair and prompt trials for all political prisoners. Amnesty International is independent of all governments, political factions, ideologies, economic interests and religious creeds. It has consultative status with the United Nations (ECOSOC), UNESCO and the Council of Europe, has cooperative relations with the Organization of African Unity (Bureau for the Placement and Education of African Refugees). Amnesty International was the recipient of the 1977 Nobel Prize for Peace.

Since its inception in 1961, Amnesty International has repeatedly expressed concern for the plight of refugees. This concern stems from the provision in its Statute requiring it to assist persons "who might reasonably be expected to become Prisoners of Conscience . . . if they were to return to their own countries." Amnesty International believes that refugee status and asylum should be granted to such persons and that "in no circumstances" should any persons be expelled or extradited to any country "if there are reasonable grounds to fear that they would be executed or summarily killed or tortured and imprisoned for reasons of conscience, or face other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.'

It was within this restricted mandate of concern for actual and potential prisoners of conscience that Amnesty International testified in hearings preparatory to passage of the U.S. Refugee Act of 1980.

Amnesty International maintains that the following principles should guide refugee law and asylum practice. First, no one should be returned to a country where he or she faces the risk of persecution. Second, refugees from all different countries are essentially equal; thus, all refugees should be accepted on the basis of humanitarian need and not political expediency. In this regard, each person requesting refugee status, regardless of country of origin, should be given equal opportunity to present his or her own case and a fair hearing of that case. This requires that refugees have access to attorneys and or community groups who can assist them in understanding the legal and social situation and the rights and expectations which are legitimately theirs, and who may assist them in presenting their case in the most favorable manner. And third, that U.S. law with regard to refugees and asylum should be consistent with international standards for the protection of refugees.

Amnesty International has a continuing concern that guidelines and procedures implementing the 1980 legislation do not contradict or undermine these principles. Further, we are concerned that there be no erosion of acceptance of the international definition of refugee as incorporated into the Refugee Act of 1980.

In recent years, Amnesty International has expressed concern regarding recent practices and proposals by the U.S. Government which call into question the continuing acceptance and implementation of these principles.

In addition to monitoring the formulations of U.S. Government policies and the implementation of existing policies that relate to Amnesty International's refugee

concerns and trying to influence U.S. refugee policy in general, Amnesty International USA has undertaken action aimed at influencing policy towards specific groups of refugees.

A case in point has been the experience of Salvadoran refugees.

Amnesty International has received persistent reports of considerable pressure being brought to bear on Salvadorans to depart voluntarily from the United States. We view such pressure and the ever higher burden of proof required of them and certain other groups to overcome the presumption of economic, as opposed to political, motivation, as indications that certainly the spirit, and arguably the letter, of the law is being violated by present practices in the United States. Further, reports of procedural irregularities in the handling of asylum petitions of Salvadoran nationals in the United States raise concerns as to the fair application of national and international laws regarding the non-refoulement of political refugees.

We have attached to this testimony for inclusion in the record a communication of Amnesty International of the U.S. Government seeking extended voluntary departure for Salvadorans in the United States. Although the attached statement was communicated on the U.S. authorities in 1981, it continues to be the position of our organization that Salvadorans be granted "extended voluntary departure" status. This recommendation is based on abundant evidence of a persistent pattern of government-sponsored human rights violations in El Salvador. The danger for Salvadorans is heightened by a general context of pervasive violence within the country. We note that in the past "extended voluntary departure" status has been granted to nationals from a number of other countries including Ethiopia, Nicaragua, Poland, Uganda and Lebanon. Amnesty International urges that similar protection be exercised by the U.S. Government in the case of Salvadoran nations.

In conclusion, the United States section of Amnesty International believes that the United States Government should maintain its leadership role in facilitating the resettlement of legitimate refugees by means of consistent policies regarding refugees everywhere including those entering our own territory.

We thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, for the opportunity to present our views and respectfully request that consideration be given to these views in your deliberations on the proposed legislation.

Hon. WILLIAM FRENCH SMITH,

Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice,
Washington, D.C.

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL,
INTERNATIONAL SECRETARIAT,
London, England, July 31, 1981.

DEAR ATTORNEY GENERAL: I am writing to you to express Amnesty International's concern regarding citizens of El Salvador who are fleeing to the United States to escape events in their country or have already so fled to the United States and are unwilling to return to El Salvador for fear of persecution there. According to persistent reports, El Salvadorans in this situation may be exposed by United States government administrative measures to the risk of forcible return either directly or indirectly to their country of origin.

Amnesty International' concern is grounded in internationally accepted standards in international law (with which we understand United States law would not conflict) prohibiting the refoulement of any refugee in any manner whatsoever to a country where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.

According to first-hand testimony, as well as reports by lawyers in California and Texas, El Salvadorans are subject to intense pressure to leave the United States and accept "voluntary departure" from the United States, usually to Mexico where the risk of deportation is high. For example, reports suggest that those refusing to leave on the grounds of well-founded fears of persecution in their own country apparently are often not informed of their right to petition for asylum or to legal counsel.

Moreover, we have been advised that El Salvadorans have been discouraged from making asylum petitions by threats of high bail and consequent long-term detention in immigration service facilities while their petitions are being considered. In some instances, such threats have apparently been implemented, obliging would-be refugees to remain in immigration centers for extended periods to await the outcome of their asylum application. Conditions of such facilities are reportedly maintained at a low standard, a further inducement to the El Salvadorans held there to accept voluntary departure rather than remain in custody.

Finally, of most serious concern are reports from United States lawyers handling such cases that their clients have been sent back to El Salvador while their asylum applications were still under consideration.

Although we understand the strain on United States resources caused by the inflow of large numbers of El Salvadorans, we are concerned that United States practices may have the effect of contravening national and international laws regarding the non-refoulement of political refugees.

There is abundant evidence of a serious and persistent pattern of human rights violations in El Salvador, in the form of kidnappings, torture and extra-judicial executions, with a high degree of government involvement in these practices. The many victims have come from various segments of the population, one consequence of this being that it is difficult to exclude any category of persons from concern that they may be subjected to these violations. Amnesty International's concerns regarding human rights in El Salvador are summed up in the attached letter which we addressed to United States Secretary of State Alexander Haig on 11 May 1981.

Amnesty International believes that the situation in El Salvador requires the greatest caution possible in the treatment of citizens of that country who are abroad and reluctant to return there.

We understand that if El Salvadorans in the United States were granted the status of "extended voluntary departure" the risk would be reduced, inasmuch as it would enable them to remain legally in the United States long enough to present asylum pleas. We also understand that this status has been given in a general manner to nationals of a number of countries. Amnesty International urges that this option, or other options which would offer similar protection, be exercised in United States government treatment of El Salvadorans reluctant to return to their country.

We would be most grateful if, after considering the concerns set out in this letter, you would reply to us indicating the intentions of the United States government in these matters and the standards being applied. Respectfully and sincerely,

Hon. ROMANO L. MAZZOLI,

THOMAS HAMMARBERG,
Secretary General.

NATIONAL COUNCIL OF THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST
IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Washington, D.C., April 11, 1984.

U.S. House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR CHAIRMAN MAZZOLI: Enclosed please find our statement in support of H.R. 4447, introduced by Representative Joe Moakley.

The statement represents the views of 36 national Protestant denominations and we ask that it be made part of the record of the upcoming hearing on H.R. 4447 of the Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees, and International Law.

We also enclose a letter in support of H.R. 4447 from national church leaders which we request be entered into the hearing record as well.

We wish to express to you our appreciation for your leadership in convening a hearing on this important piece of legislation. Please contact us if we may be of further assistance on this bill.

[blocks in formation]

Director, Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service.
DALE S. DE HAAN,

Director, Church World Service, Immigration and Refugee Program.

NATIONAL COUNCIL OF THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST

IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Washington, D.C., April 11, 1984.

DEAR REPRESENTATIVE: We, as religious leaders and concerned citizens, urge your support and cosponsorship of H.R. 4447 which addresses a tragic product of the current turmoil in El Salvador-the displacement and uprooting of the country's citi

zens.

The measure, sponsored by Rep. Joe Moakley, requires the President to examine security and humanitarian conditions as they pertain to displaced Salvadorans in

their home country and elsewhere in the hemisphere. Importantly, pending the outcome of this White House study, the bill temporarily suspends the deportation of Salvadorans currently in the United States, an action which has been advocated by our churches for many months.

There are few aspects of the turmoil and violence in Central America which evoke more concern among churches than what is happening to the people of that region. An estimated twenty percent of the Salvadoran population alone has been displaced in the past few years, both inside and outside the country. Recent reports by churches, human rights groups, and the State Department have indicated that the conditions which the displaced face-both with respect to their physical needs and their safety—are among the most compelling in the world. These conditions must be examined and appropriate responses devised.

It is in this light that our religious commitment to the care of the homeless and the protection of the needy leads us to ask for your support for H.R. 4447 as an imperative first step in dealing with the situation of Salvadorans here and elsewhere in the hemisphere.

Thank you for the consideration of our concerns.
Sincerely,

BISHOP PHILIP R. COUSIN,

Ninth Episcopal District, African Methodist Episcopal Church,

President, National Council of Churches.

THE MOST REV. JOHN M. ALLIN,

Presiding Bishop, The Episcopal Church, USA, Chairman,
The Presiding Bishops Fund for World Relief.
BISHOP ANTHONY BEVILACQUA,

Bishop, Diocese of Pittsburgh, Chairman, Ad Hoc Committee on
Migration and Tourism, United States Catholic Conference.
REV. DR. CHARLES W. BUTLER,

President, Progressive National Baptist Convention.
REV. DR. ROBERT C. CAMPBELL,

General Secretary, American Baptist Churches U.S.A..
REV. DR. JAMES R. CRUMLEY, JR.,

Bishop, Lutheran Church in America.

WALTER FARRELL, S.J.,

President of the Jesuit Conference.

REV. DR. WILLIAM H. KOHN,

President, The Association of Evangelical Lutheran Churches.

REV. DR. EDWIN G. MULDER,

General Secretary, Reformed Church in America.

ROBERT W. NEFF,

General Secretary, Church of the Brethren.

FATHER JAMES P. NOONAN,

Superior General, Maryknoll Fathers and Brothers.

REV. DR. RANDOLPH NUGENT,

General Secretary, United Methodist General Board of Global Ministries.

H.A. PENNER,

Director, U.S. Mennonite Central Committee.

REV. AVERY D. POST,

President, United Church of Christ.

DR. DAVID W. PREUS,

Bishop, American Luthern Church.

ALBERT VORSPAN,

Vice President, Director of Commission on Social Action.

RABBI DAVID SAPERSTEIN,

Director and Counsel, Religious Action Center,
Union of American Hebrew Congregations.
REV. J. RANDOLPH TAYLOR,

Moderator of the 195th General Assembly, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).

KENNETH L. TEEGARDEN,

General Minister and President, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ).
REV. DR. PAUL WEE,

General Secretary, Lutheran World Ministries.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »