Episcopal Voices Join Protest Against Proposed Congressional Restrictions on Refugees
Episcopal News Service. March 27, 1996 [96-1422]
(ENS) Religious groups, opposed to legislation that would severely restrict access to the United States for asylum-seekers, claimed significant victories following recent Congressional votes, but still warned that other battles remain.
Episcopal Migration Ministries (EMM) joined other church-based immigration groups in the Campaign for Refugee Protection, a 10-month effort that used telephone calls, fax messages, and personal visits to Congressional representatives to support changes in immigration legislation before both houses.
The group achieved one goal when the House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly in March to delete an annual cap of 50,000 on refugee admissions that had been proposed by the Immigration in the National Interest Act of 1995 bill (HR 2202), introduced by Lamar Smith (R-Texas). The cap would have cut by more than half the number of refugees permitted to enter the country each year.
The House also voted to strike all proposed cuts in the "preference categories" that allow families of immigrants to reunite, as well as other proposed cuts in legal immigration. The House bill was finally approved March 21.
The Senate Judiciary Committee, meanwhile, considering a Senate immigration bill (S 1394) introduced by Alan Simpson (R-Wyoming), voted 15-1 to eliminate a proposed 30-day deadline on persons seeking asylum after arriving in the United States. The deadline, a particular target for the campaign's efforts, is still contained in the House bill, but "at least now it's a matter for negotiation" when the House and Senate bills are eventually merged, said Richard Parkins, EMM director.
After the full Senate considers Simpson's bill later this year, the House and Senate will confer on their respective bills and send a single piece of legislation to the President to sign, he explained.
The Senate committee also overrode a provision in that bill that would have restricted the President's current authority to offer special refugee status at his discretion for groups or individuals not covered by other existing immigration categories. The proposed restrictions remain in the House bill.
"Everyone involved in the Campaign for Refugee Protection is absolutely overjoyed at the events in Congress this week regarding refugee protection," said Elizabeth G. Ferris, director of the immigration and refugee program for Church World Service, the social outreach arm of the National Council of Churches. "After months of incredibly hard work by thousands of church advocates across the country, it's a true blessing to see these tremendous results."
While a wide range of groups participated in the campaign, "I think the religious groups played a big part in that success," said Parkins. "Our advocacy counted for something."
In spite of their enthusiasm, concerns about the bills remain, church advocates said. "We still have some battles to fight," Parkins said. "There's still some questions." And the Bishops' Committee on Migration of the United States Catholic Conference called the House bill "extreme," complaining that "some of its provisions will act to punish poor children, the most vulnerable members of our society."
Refugees who arrive at U.S. ports without proper documents could have little chance to claim asylum under provisions that remain in the House bill, Parkins said. The church groups also oppose extreme practices proposed to enforce laws against undocumented immigrants. And a current provision of the House bill would give states the right to withhold funding for education for children of undocumented immigrants. "That's just dreadful," he said. "Failing to educate any child as a matter of public policy is sheer folly."
Because the House bill "covers the waterfront" in addressing legal immigration and refugees as well as undocumented immigration, responding to it has been difficult, he said. More than 30 amendments were proposed, meaning that "we've had to be focused and targeted in our advocacy," he said.
Noting the Episcopal Church's past support for "a generous and humanitarian refugee policy," the Episcopal Church Public Policy Network, which communicates the church's stated position on social issues, also urged opposition to the bills' excesses. "Welcoming strangers is a response to our Christian imperative to care for those in need," a statement from the network said. "We are told that we may be serving angels when we open our doors to strangers."
In one region particularly affected by immigration issues, Protestant, Catholic and Jewish groups in Tucson, Arizona, called a press conference March 4 to voice their opposition to the bills, and especially to the proposed 30-day deadline for claiming asylum.
At the conference, a former refugee underscored the possibly insurmountable challenges the proposed legislation would pose for refugees fleeing real persecution. The man, who used the fake name of Manuel Ortiz and wore a mask to avoid endangering his family members still in Guatemala, said it took him two years to apply for political asylum once he arrived in the U.S.
"I knew no one here," Ortiz said. "I was so worried about finding food and a place to sleep I didn't know I had any rights. I didn't know anyone could help me."
Asylum appropriately is a human right, long embedded in Judeo-Christian thought and the history of our country, not an immigration issue," said Ila L. Abernathy, co-convenor of the Frensdorff Chapter of Episcopal Peace Fellowship in Tucson. "As citizens of a border state, we are also concerned that the proposed legislation fuels an unjust (and unjustifiable) xenophobia, at a time when our state is trying to strengthen cordial and profitable relationships with our nearest neighbors."
She pointed out that even at current levels, the United States offers resettlement to "only.5 percent of the world's 22 million refugees. Clearly we aren't pulling our weight among the nations."
The proposed bill "would pit the United States against the refugee and human rights standards of the civilized world," and would "destroy the U.S. asylum reforms that the Sanctuary Movement helped create," said the Rev. John Fife of Southside Presbyterian Church, who was convicted in 1986 for his role in the movement, which brought Central American refugees to the United States.
"Refugee concerns should not be mixed with measures aimed at addressing immigration control and enforcement," said Irena Chodacznik of Episcopal Community Services Refugee Resettlement Program, echoing a frequent complaint that the bills blur the distinctions between legal and illegal immigration. "Asylum-seekers fleeing persecution should not face unreasonable obstacles when they seek persecution in the U.S."
"We feel this opposition to and fear of immigrants is misguided," noted the Rev. Stuart Taylor of St. Mark's Presbyterian Church. "Research shows that immigrants do not cause unemployment but are necessary replacements for an aging work force. Immigrants do not rip off welfare services because on the average they pay in more in taxes than they receive in benefits."
The House bill "does not reform as much as it demotes the basic human dignity of all individuals who come to the United States for political asylum or as refugees," said the Rev. Tom Tureman of St. Cyril's Roman Catholic Church, Tucson.
![[thumbnail: Episcopal Groups Protest...]](/e-archives/ENS/photographs/thumbnails/96-1422_thb.jpg) |