FY 2004 Refugee Admissions Program

Deputy Assistant Secretary Kelly Ryan hosted a public outreach event on February 6, 2004 at the Refugee Processing Center in Rosslyn, VA. At this meeting, Dr. David Martin of the University of Virginia met with representatives of resettlement agencies and refugees to discuss and invite comments on his draft report, The U.S. Refugee Admissions Program: Reforms for a New Era of Refugee Resettlement.

MS. RYAN:  Well, let me start by introducing myself. My name is Kelly Ryan. I am a Deputy Assistant Secretary of State in the Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration. I'd like to welcome you to our Refugee Processing Center here in Rosslyn.

The purpose of today's meeting is to continue our work with Professor David Martin and to hear from you all your thoughts as to a report he has undertaken at our request.

This is a report that we've mentioned in the report to Congress. It is a part of the reforms we identified as we look at the structure of the review of the United States Refugee Resettlement Program with an eye to identifying improvements, and an eye to looking at where our success is in order to make it even, you know, perhaps even more successful than we've been.

And David has, I know, interviewed some of you himself. We welcome your written comments as well as what you may say today. This is sort of a pattern that we developed as we did Asylum Reform, now ten years ago, and we found NGO and public participation in the process to be very, very important to the process. We don't want to impose structural changes and reforms to our system if they're not welcomed by our key partners in the government and in the public.

So this is a very important piece to us. We take it very seriously, and we welcome your thoughts on both big grand-scale ideas and on little adjustments that you think we could make that would further improve and refine the program.

So I will just briefly tell you that David comes to the program and to us as a consultant with a long history of working in immigration, including a stint at the Department of State when the Refugee Act was being constructed and enacted.

So he's had long and valued participation in the process. He was my supervisor as the General Counsel at INS, and I'm sure that was a difficult undertaking. I'm very grateful to him for having been my boss and having gotten the opportunity to work with him. He --

DR. MARTIN: Now she's my boss.

(Laughter.)

MS. RYAN: Yeah, it is kind of nice, actually.

(Laughter.)

And he and I have had a long and -- long and productive discussions on the program, and he is doing this as an independent consultant, so these are his views that we will take and incorporate as we deem appropriate, and that's the nature of the relationship.

So I might not agree with something that's in there. Gene Dewey might not, but he's giving us his best and most thoughtful and constructive advice as to how to proceed with our program, and that's what we want novus from David.

So, could I ask before we begin -- David's going to give an overview of what he's done, and I hope everyone's had the opportunity at least to read his overview, if not the full report. But can I ask how many today would like to make interventions or suggestions or comments? Could you raise your hand if you're going to do it?

Okay, then, perhaps we were -- David will do an introduction of the program, and perhaps we'll have more give and take and that may spark other comments. So we had thought maybe, if there were so many, we would just let you all speak and then he would speak at the end. But I think given back might actually encourage others to speak. And I will tell you, too, that we received written comments. We're grateful to you for those.

We are looking -- and he will tell you the timing of it, but we're looking to get this report finalized. It's been going on for some time, and I'm sure he will be very glad to, you know, type out the final -- dot the "i's" and cross the "t's."

So without further ado, let me introduce Professor David Martin.

Thank you.

DR. MARTIN: Thank you very much. I'm not sure I need to use this. Can everybody hear me okay?

MS. RYAN: Oh yes, I'm sorry. I forgot to tell you, we are tape-recording this so we have a permanent record for it so I wanted sure everybody was comfortable with that. But we did that this summer and we found it to be useful.

We put our -- the transcript of this summer's public meeting on our web. So we are going to perhaps do that with this as well.

DR. MARTIN: Thank you very much, Kelly.

I really -- I see a lot of friends and acquaintances around the room, many people who have been very helpful in the course of the interviewing that I did along the way, and many others that I have not talked with. So I do really look forward to your feedback today.

As Kelly indicated, this is a program that I've had some involvement with in various roles for a long time. It's almost -- it's almost 25 years now. It's a very important program. It's one I certainly believe in. And I was glad to have the opportunity to make this contribution, to have a chance to look at the program, to learn in some detail about how it operates now and where it sometimes doesn't operate so well, and to pull together suggestions on what might be done better.

I have read at least some of the written submissions that have come in. I'll certainly have a chance to study those more closely and will take them into account very carefully, along with whatever we talk about here today.

I am at work on a -- the next draft. Several pieces of -- particularly a couple of the later chapters are a bit skeletal here. I have worked on those. I have made some changes in light of earlier sessions, conversations I've had. Some of you have been involved with that. And so in that way, I want to emphasize this is a preliminary draft and the same is true of the one that's now on my computer.

There are a lot of hard questions in this process, many difficult choices. It's a difficult and challenging business and those who've been involved in it deserve a lot of commendation, both on the government side and the NGO side, for all that has been done.

On some of the recommendations that I make, I'd have to say I'm probably pretty dug in on that. I feel pretty confident about those judgments. But there are other areas where there really are tough questions and it's a close call as to which way we ought to go on one item or another. So I just -- I say that by way of indicating that I'm really -- I do encourage you to be quite candid and full with your comments and I will take them into account.

As Kelly said, it's ultimately going to be my own report, my views. I will offer them. I'll make judgments about suggestions people have, but ultimately, and this is just one part of a longer process that is well underway to look at the operations of the program and to make changes.

I think I'll just -- I'll try to be very brief here so that we can maximize the time for the interchange. There are four main elements in the report:

The first one is to try to discuss, as comprehensively as I can, the real dynamics of the Resettlement and Admissions Program.

For a lot of people in this room who are very familiar with the program, that section won't be, perhaps, as useful for you as for others. But there are a lot of generalizations that are made about the program that reflect, I think, an incomplete understanding of the real challenges there. It's embodied in comments such as: "Well, there are 12 million, 14 million refugees in the world. Surely it should be an easy thing to find 70,000; 50,000 -- whatever the number is -- to resettle.

It's not easy because each situation has its own dynamics and the act of resettling, or the very act of talking about resettling, changes those dynamics. Any decisions about resettlement, about designating new groups, about beginning an initiative in a certain area, has to take full account of those dynamics. And I -- I want in that part of the report, I want for people who maybe are not too familiar with this process to understand the difficulties, the difficult choices and the good reasons, oftentimes, not to initiate a resettlement program or a resettlement initiative in certain circumstances.

But I also try to emphasize in those situations, although those are reasons and there are difficulties and challenges that have to be taken into account, they're rarely decisive arguments against resettlement. We have relatively few situations where it's just so clear that resettlement should begin, but we have many instances where resettlement could provide an important contribution. And one concern that I have about the overall process is that sometimes our process, at least in recent years, has seemed to operate in such a way that it magnifies the reasons against resettlement and doesn't provide for an adequate airing of the reasons in favor of resettlement.

So the first part of the report discusses that overall context, and suggests the importance of resettlement to U.S. tradition, in history, as a reflection of our values, as a reflection of the interests, the strong interests, on both the Hill and in the Executive Branch.

And we really -- we need to take that into account, but we need -- and we need to move in that direction -- but we need to do it with our eyes open to the challenges and difficulties. And I think that part is also perhaps -- has a message, sometimes, for the NGO community.

In the suggestions that are made for expanded programs, it's going to be most helpful in suggesting particular resettlement initiatives, to do the best to think hard about those kinds of challenges, and not just to say there are a whole lot of worried stares in such-and-such a place, but to try to wrestle with issues about defining the group and making it finite; how good is the registration or not; what can we do to improve the processes for the future so that we will lay the groundwork better for a solid resettlement decision. That's part one.

And I guess part of it does reflect the importance of what I heard from a great many of you about a good registration system early in the process, and ideally, well before anybody's talking about resettlement, so you get as good a picture as possible of the population, if you have that connected up with registration documents that are put forward, so there's at least a photograph, and you have a kind of base of information that can work well to make decisions later on.

And we're likely to do the best for resettlement in this new era if we can pick out and define finite situations, well-demarcated groups that will provide certain kinds of guarantees against either fraud or an undue magnet effect.

The second part of the process focuses on access, or the pipeline development process. And here, we clearly are in a new era of refugee resettlement. We -- the tradition for the United States was to have many of our resettlement spaces filled by certain large populations as to whom we're making a major initiative: the Indo-Chinese Program, the Soviet and East-Bloc Program, then for a while in the '90s, very large programs out of the former Yugoslavia.

It's not impossible that we'll see situations like that in the future, but primarily our group-based component of resettlement is going to be, I think, comprised of smaller groups in different locations, oftentimes difficult locations -- more difficult for processing -- that will have to be dealt with through shorter-term initiatives.

That creates a whole host of new challenges, and that's what I try to focus on as the second element: Trying to develop a better way to deal with the need for identifying groups and proceeding with group actions.

Now, I don't -- I don't ignore, certainly, the other two important components: individual referrals -- there are some suggestions in there for that; and the family issue, which really I found one of the most difficult ones to wrestle with. We may want to talk about that for P3 or beyond on families.

But groups, I think, are going to be key in having a healthy program for the future, and so I'm urging some different processes, some that take into account in particular the needs and demands here. What we're looking at is a situation where we may have to make some solid decisions. We may need to be developing, adding into the, at least in the consideration process, one or two new groups a month. It would vary some if there are some large groups that are located.

But we need to think about the capacities of the system in those terms. And then there was something of a frustration or a discomfort that many expressed during the interviews about the lack of clarity about the process for doing that, or uncertainty about the exact parameters: How does the group process work?

And if -- there are, certainly, it is structured and it has moved forward, and there have been a number of new groups that have been added in recent months, but I think that the system can benefit from an even more clearly defined process that involves the regional bureaus of the State Department, as well as PRM in the lead role, for regular meetings of a Refugee Admissions Committee to be chaired by the Assistant Secretary of PRM; and to look at that regularly in that way to develop a sort of a shared body of experience in wrestling with this process, and a little bit better definition of how to proceed through the various stages of consideration that are needed.

So the suggestion is for this Refugee Admissions Committee to meet at least bi-monthly. I suggest three stages for group consideration during that time, and one could certainly subdivide that. There's nothing magical about this or the stages, but I think somehow to define it better would be very useful and I suggest we have a list of potential groups, a fairly broad net that would be looked at through the Refugee Admissions Committee, focus in -- as some information has developed about those potential groups -- focus in, pick those that are candidate groups that seem to be good possibilities, but we're not yet ready to make a decision that we're going to go forward with a resettlement initiative. And then at that point, initiate several steps to look much more closely at the possibilities and the drawbacks with that particular group.

I suggest that DHS have a role on a team to investigate at that time. Some have suggested maybe their role would come in a little bit later, but certainly well before the circuit ride team arrives in the location.

Anyway, with candidate groups, we're looking seriously at them. Field visits may be appropriate if we're using targeted response teams -- those will be appropriate in some circumstances, at least. That would probably come in there, although there may be some role with at first stage as well.

So -- and then the information from that would come back, and a decision would be made about designating a group or not. So the first stage of a visit, of course, is to designate a group for the P2 process.

Now, alongside of this, there are some very encouraging developments within UNHCR, for UNHCR to begin to think -- to move away from its traditional thinking about resettlement as an individual protection tool, which leads to P1 individual referrals, and to think more about it in its capacity as a durable solution. So the current High Commissioner has been pushing that, and they have been developing in the Department of International Protection, a new group methodology for UNHCR to do a lot of this same kind of work. And I think there's a lot of room for cooperating with that, and as that takes greater form, I think that will dovetail very nicely with this particular process for groups. So, enough talk about that.

Process changes, a sense about the magnitude of the challenge of proceeding in this new era, where we're probably going to be resettling a number of smaller groups than what we've seen in the past. And then in addition, then, some attention to improvements with regard to families, family admissions, which I hope would include some improvements in the Visas 93 process, although I have a new sense of some of the daunting challenges to make that really work smoothly. We need to focus on P3, and I'm thinking through some more about that, and then also with the individual referral process.

The third portion of the report deals with, I guess to speak very broadly, deals with certain kinds of operational improvements. And I think it's especially needed that we give attention to that because of the division of responsibility between the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security. I thought for a while, several people suggested, gee, it should all be under one umbrella. And for certain managerial purposes, that's sort of the old-school management way of lining it up a hierarchical arrangement.

But I -- but that's not in the cards and I don't think that's appropriate, because there's very much a foreign affairs element to this process, and then the Department of Homeland Security, of course, plays a key role in reviewing, and certainly in this climate, I think, needs to retain that role to look closely at people who are coming in and do the security screening and provide assurances along those lines.

So we have two major players, governmental players, involved. I talk about the Department of Homeland Security, make some suggestions for -- that go, really, beyond the refugee issue for improved attention to resolve broad immigration policy issues that affect more than one of the bureaus over there.

I strongly endorse the idea of a Refugee Corps. I think that can help provide a framework for dealing with many of the issues that have arisen in the past which are spelled out more in the report.

Among the other operational improvements, several suggestions for closer cooperation with the voluntary agencies and the OPEs, including carefully designed use of targeted response teams. I don't think those should be necessarily lodged in, or blessed in legislation. I think that can be appropriately used in a way that's tailored to specific situations.

I do think it's important that this be done in a quiet way because broad talk about resettlement, the notion of a resettlement possibility in the air -- at least if you don't have a really solid system for registration or verification in place yet -- can really change the dynamics locally. So I think there's a role for involvement, but I think it, it should be a quiet involvement.

Ultimately, I'd like to see more work on well-considered standard operating procedures that would cover a whole lot more of this very complicated process. There are pieces of that that are in place. There certainly have been steps that have been taken that have made progress on those issues, but I think it's important so that things don't fall through the cracks. And early on -- an earlier involvement of, for example, DHS in the preparations for starting up a resettlement initiative, I think, will help to make sure we notice some issues that now often don't really crystallize until the circuit ride team arrives at the location.

We can surface those issues earlier and prepare for them; we can make allowances for them and resolve whatever. It may be legal questions that arise, certain kinds of operational issues, and that can help the process considerably.

I'd like to see a much more managerial approach taken toward the overall process, not just solving particular issues that arise on an ad hoc basis, but trying to build into the system a capacity that can locate. That's an issue that arose here. It's probably going to be that or some variant of it that will arise in other places, so let's build it into a kind of timeline or checklist of the things we need to look at as we are thinking about candidate groups, to make sure we can resolve those along the way.

Now back -- it's not at though this is brand new. This is certainly, you know, -- a great many steps that have been taken along these lines, but I think that's the kind of orientation that needs to be thought about, both through greater involvement of many players a bit earlier in the process, and then really trying resolutely to enshrine that in these kinds of well thought out checklists and operating procedures.

In the fourth section, finally, I talk about statutory changes -- potential statutory changes. There are a number of them that I think are pretty clearly good ideas, and it's -- there's a sort of historical and political reason why, for example, we have the ceiling of 10,000 asylee adjustments. That's not technically a refugee -- resettlement or refugee admissions issue, but if we're going to be playing with the statute, we should change that because that's causing an enormous backlog.

I remember when that entered in to the discussions back in the legislative debates at -- well, actually, a little bit before I got there. It was in there in a bill in 1977 and everybody was afraid to take it out because it would raise some concerns about mushrooming numbers coming in. In fact, it hasn't played out that way.

So anyway, I think there should be changes eliminating some of the ceilings. The most important statutory change, and the one that is likely to raise the largest set of issues, is to add a capacity to resettle people who, without having to make the individualized finding that they have a well founded fear of persecution on a count of one of the five grounds.

That well-founded fear of persecution, of course, is an important part of the refugee definition of the 1951 Convention. The Convention is a very important part of overall refugee practice, and I don't want to cut away from that entirely. That would still remain a major portion -- that would -- it would still govern a major portion of our resettlement, and I believe it should continue to be applied very carefully and closely in the asylum process.

But for overseas resettlement, the dynamics are different. Sometimes it's not worthwhile putting in the time requiring our DHS officers to spend a lot of the interview time determining exact details of the individual story.

When we know that the overall situation is such that it's fraught with various kinds of perils for this group, and they could come in, we need the individualized determination in asylum because people there basically are self-selected. With the overseas resettlement program, we have lots of other ways to do selections. This could be one of them. Sometimes we will want to apply the refugee definition closely. Other times it may not be worth the effort to put that in.

And other times, there may be reasons why the refugee definition does not entirely exhaust the range of this nation's humanitarian concern. There are times when there are people who may have difficulty proving a well-founded fear of persecution -- the whole country in a kind of targeted way that we usually expect in asylum -- and yet have very good reasons why they're outside the country. In fact, they've been outside their country for ten years. If there weren't a good reason, they wouldn't have lived in that awful refugee camp for those ten years. That's not the kind of generalization you can make about someone who came to the United States or to France or Germany to seek asylum.

Anyway, for all those reasons, I believe that we should go beyond that. But I realize that's a somewhat delicate issue that needs to be argued carefully. I've been agonizing over the introductory paragraphs of which you only have a small portion here, to make the case there and not raise concerns, undue concerns on behalf of people that this is becoming too wide open, that we're getting beyond settling "real refugees," which is a concern I heard from some people who have been critics of the refugee program.

So that needs to be handled very carefully. I do believe that it's worth pursuing that. I think in order to make it clear that that's being done in a limited and carefully circumscribed fashion; I would include that possibility in the annual presidential determination process. And the presidential determination would be the designation of particular groups who could take advantage of this broader power, who could be admitted without the individual findings.

And there are a couple of options in the back. Actually, I've got a whole third way for you that I'm playing around with now as to how to do it, but it would try to accomplish that particular purpose.

So, statutory changes, there are a few others in there as well, which I'm pretty sure I'm going to go forward with and I'm working hardest on the exact framing of the possibility to go beyond the refugee definition in carefully circumscribed situations. I think that covers it.

MS. RYAN: All right. We'll take comments or questions now. If you could identify yourself before you speak, that will be helpful for the record.

And you're welcome to come up here and use our -- we have a -- or if you're loud enough, we can do it from where you are.

DR. MARTIN: This is a very intimidating device, I must say (laughter.)

MR. HADFIELD: Thanks, Kelly. I'm Mark Hadfield with the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. I have a few comments from the Commission on David's paper or questions I'd like to ask, and I've submitted these in writing, but this is a condensed version.

The Commission recently endorsed the Specter Amendment, the inclusion of Iranian religious minorities under the Specter Amendment, to kind of clarify the adjudication standard that DHS is to apply when adjudicating refugee applications for Iranian religious minorities. As you may know, a number of them have been stranded in Vienna after being denied refugee status.

And I think this is somewhat relevant to the legislative change that David proposed on allowing certain groups to enjoy -- to get refugee status without having to meet an individualized refugee status determination under the '51 Convention, which would allow DHS to concentrate more on security concerns and visibility issues and not re-adjudicate a refugee claim when it's obvious that either State Department or UNHCR or somebody else has already decided that this person belongs to a group that is a group of refugees in need of resettlement.

So while the Commission has not explicitly endorsed the language that David raises, we did endorse the Specter Amendment, and I think it's an interesting proposal. And if there are people who are opposed to that idea, and I'm sure there are, I hope that they can express some of their concerns about that here and -- so that we can have a vigorous debate now and afterwards, so we'd be very interested in looking at this some more.

The second concern, quickly. The International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 had a number of requirements on the refugee program. These are briefly mentioned by David in his paper. One of these was to -- a number of these pertain to training, but one of these required that guidelines be established to ensure that applications for refugee status are consistently prepared and submitted to DHS for consideration, and also to ensure that those who are employed by the refugee program, whether it's in embassies, consulates, or by OPEs are free of hostile biases against the applicants they're dealing with.

These guidelines have not yet been developed, and we would strongly urge that they be developed in accordance with the legislative requirements that we've had in place since 1998.

Finally, I would like to mention that the Commission did endorse another idea, which goes to one of David's proposals on group identification, and that is that when a country is designated by the Secretary of State as being a Country of Particular Concern for severe, egregious and systematic violations of religious freedom, that should systematically trigger consideration of nationals from that country as to how they can get better access to the refugee program, whether this would be for a P1, a P2, a P3 or even a P4.

We feel very strongly about this. If you look at the refugee program, there are some persecuted religious groups that do have access, and others -- other very prominent ones that do not. I guess what this -- I can best speak to this through an example: There is a Pakistani Christian woman we know of who we've known since 2000. But after September 11th, 2001 her family started having some very serious problems in Pakistan, which is not a Country of Particular Concern designated by the State Department, but was recommended for designation by my Commission.

She had serious concerns, desperately wanted to get out of Pakistan, and she finally managed to get a tourist visa to come to the U.S. Her family members were all rejected for the tourist visa. She came to the U.S. and with the help of HIAS, she applied for asylum and got it rather easily because she did have a very strong case. The problem is that she had to resort to that method in order to get here; otherwise, she would not have had any access to the refugee program. As far as I know, UNHCR has not been referring Pakistani Christians for consideration under P1.

And now she's stuck with a new problem, which David also speaks about, which is, her family members that are now stuck in Pakistan. Even if they were to get out of Pakistan and go to Turkey, et cetera, they would still not have access to the refugee program. Of course, her husband and her minor children can apply to the Visa 93 process, which they have done, but Nebraska Service Center informed her that it will take them 13 months just to adjudicate that application. After Nebraska Service Center adjudicates that application, it will take additional time for the visa process -- the National Visa Center in New Hampshire, to process the paperwork, and then for the consulate to process the paperwork in Pakistan and eventually get her to the -- get the family members to the U.S.

All told, for her to reunite with her family, it's going to take probably a couple of years, from the time she arrived until the time that she gets to see her husband and kids again. There must be a better way to do it. And either Visa 93 process -- Visa 92, Visa 93 process should be expedited or -- or the P3 process should be applied universally, or at least to countries where we know there are serious human rights issues, such as in Pakistan.

Furthermore, one of her daughters is aged out. Her daughter is 22-years-old, and to leave a single daughter in Pakistan when the rest of the family has left to be protected, is not a good thing, and puts that daughter at some risk. And right now the refugee program and the Visa 92, Visa 93 program offers her no protection whatsoever. And even if there were to be universal P3, she would still not get protection, because the P3 only applies to unmarried, minor children, not to 22-year-olds.

So again, I think that when we talk about P3, we shouldn't be stuck in thinking that it applies to P3 as it's currently defined. We should really expand the definition or consider expanding the definition. I mean after all, the priority system was established to prioritize the refugee caseload. And when you're falling so far short of your refugee admissions targets, it's time to start promoting family reunion. Thank you.

MS. RYAN: Thank you very much, Mark. Does anyone have any comments directed at Mark's comment first, too? And then we'll give it to David -- about anyone's opposition?

MR. HADFIELD: Or support or refinement or --

MS. RYAN: Or support. Yeah.

MR. MARTIN: Okay. Well, let's see.

First of all, on the Specter Amendment, I do think it's better if we would have an overall process for that to be done through presidential designation than by adding to the Lautenberg Amendment, just because that the legislative process has tended to -- it has its own dynamic and it's a little -- it's more difficult for that to adjust as things change over time. I know it's sunsetted, but in fact, that gets routinely extended.

So -- but it's concerns of the kind that you've mentioned that, I think, feed into the suggestions that I'm offering here.

With regard to the guidelines and requirements under the International Religious Freedom Act, I do mention that. I'm not going to get deeply into those particular details of the statutory requirements. There are some steps that have been taken and I'm sure the Commission will continue to be looking at that very closely.

On group identification, I didn't specifically mention the so-called CPCs, Countries of Particular Concern. I mean, that's -- it's certainly one of many important sources for -- areas to which we should be looking. I'm not quite as interested in thinking, though, that there's a particular hierarchy or a particular way of spotting countries, per se, because it's not just a matter that there are real needs. There are real needs in a lot of places. It's also a matter of instances where some of the other difficulties and challenges in dealing with an overall resettlement initiative can be dealt with. I don't know the specifics about what went into the decision or not with regard to Pakistan.

But I -- I mean, there clearly should be attention to that. The Commission's work provides an important source of information. It should be looked at. It needs to be looked at in connection with a variety of the other factors as well.

The family situation -- I'll think about that some further on the age groups that could be included. With regard to the Visas 92 or Visas 93 issue, there are a number of difficulties in that process. It works reasonably well when it can be handled in an area where there's an OPE and a regular DHS presence. Otherwise, a lot of consular officers are very intimidated by it, in addition to the delays that exist in the service centers.

I'm not going to solve the problem in the service centers. There are other things underway. That's a much larger issue about getting back to the historic processing time. I certainly support that, but I think that one's not necessarily specific to the refugee program.

I have been learning more about Visas 92 and 93. I won't have more to say about that process. And also, on P3, well, I would really love to hear more discussion about that. As I was focusing on that in the draft that you have, the major components, of course, of the P3 process are spouses and minor children. In almost every case, these would be people that seem to me, as a practical matter, who could also take advantage of a Visa 93.

There's some exception to that, of course. But in most cases, that would be the situation. And it struck me that there would be advantages if we could get the Visas 93 process to work. This is for spouses and minor children of those who are admitted as refugees under Section 207. The main advantage is that they don't have to make an independent showing of meeting the refugee definition. It's specifically designed, Congress meant that in the statute, that part of Section 207 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Congress meant that to keep the nuclear family together, and we ought to be able to use that.

Now, you know, if that's the case, then, that is universal. That already is universal. That applies to everybody. What we're looking at, then, are some of the processing advantages that might come from P3 as compared to Visas 93 and I'm giving some more thought to that. And then also, of course, P3 includes parents.

Some concern was raised for me that there may be some greater issues with regard to concerns about manipulation of that category, particularly with -- not with regard to parent, per se, but a new spouse for the parent. I don't know how extensive that is. I'd love some more reactions with regard to that. And then, there certainly may be others. Like I say, I hadn't thought about the specific situation of something like the aging out one that you had mentioned.

I was not pushing the P4 and P5 categories as such. In fact, I think those probably should drop out. But I would definitely think that among the tools that we might use with regard to specific P2 groups would be a selection criteria that would give a priority to people who have even more distant family relationships. I'm not inclined to think that that's a good thing to do or to even hold open as though it might apply in a wide range of countries. But I do think we might use those -- that range of family relationships more selectively with regard to certain designated groups.

MR. FRANKEN: Greetings. My name is Mark Franken and I'm the Executive Director of Migration Refugee Services of the U.S. College of Catholic Bishops, but today I'm representing the Refugee Council USA, which is a coalition of NGOs who are committed to the protection of and durable solution for refugees. And while some of our individual members have had opportunity to engage David in the discussion, this is the collective perspective on the report and we very much appreciate the opportunity.

I need to begin by expressing appreciation to PRM for this initiative. It demonstrates that the PRM leadership is very interested in learning what the challenges in the admission program are, and that's an important starting point. And we want to assure PRM and others involved in implementing the program that we stand ready to partner with you to work through some of these recommendations.

We also want to thank Professor Martin. You have provided a very excellent blueprint for much needed reform in the admissions program. And your insightful, and I would underscore balanced, report renews our hope for restoring the admissions program to its traditional leadership position in the world.

If the paper that we submitted from Refugee Council could be part of the record, I'll limit my comment to just two areas. One deals with refugee access and the other deals with managing the admission program.

And to put my comments in some context, I think it would be well if we had in mind kind of this context, a pre-9/11, 2001, context and post-9/11. And I think this is important because in the ten years prior to 9/11, there were chronic shortfalls in admissions relative to the authorized ceiling. And in fact, during that period of ten years, there were some -- more than 100,000 refugees who could have come here but didn't because the admission fell short of authority.

Professor Martin correctly acknowledges that much of this is due to the changing nature of the U.S. Resettlement Program in a changing world, going from large populations in clearly designated areas to a much more diverse program. That's clearly led to some of the problems, but we must acknowledge also, and I think the report could be even more helpful if it acknowledges that not so coincidentally, during that same ten-year period, there were very specific things that the managers of the admission program did to restrict access to refugees.

For instance, the eligibility criteria for determining which refugees could be considered for resettlement were restricted during that period. The UNHCR was placed, during that time, in a position of being the primary and often the exclusive gatekeeper for accessing the U.S. program. And I underscore not exclusive, but predominantly, UNHCR was playing that role.

Also, the overseas processing entities, the scope of their involvement with refugees during this period became much more restrictive. They are now in a position of being more or less clerical folks who prepare documents for the people that make the adjudications-level process, whereas in the past, they had played a more prominent role in identifying refugees who met the criteria and helped them access the program.

And the NGO role during this period was also limited and made more restrictive. And it seems to me, until we, kind of, deal with those issues front and center, some of the things that are being suggested in the report will have somewhat limited impact.

There is much in the report that we agree with and wholly endorse, and those are reflected in the notes I submitted. What I'd like to do is highlight a few things that we would encourage to be included in the report, that speak to both the access questions and the management questions.

With regard to access, though the draft argued for gradual expansion of the use of family reunification as a prerequisite for access to the U.S. program, Refugee Council USA believes strongly that the processing priority 2, 3 -- excuse me -- 3 should be applied universally. We would endorse what Mark was suggesting earlier. And moreover, that the access through P3 not be limited to refugees who have family members in U.S. who came here as refugees or were given asylum status.

Another access that also relates to family reunification would endorse what Mark had to say about the more distant relative, not a universal application, but a strategic use of that, particularly in a refugee context, that the family composition provides strength in helping them in the transition to their new lives. So in some instances, those family members should be considered, particularly if there's underutilization of the numbers.

We would also argue that PRM should revamp the scope of the so-called overseas processing entities, encouraging their use as identifiers of prospective refugees in need of qualifying for U.S. admissions and as advocates for resettlement, to be a voice for PRM advocating resettlement on the ground.

Also, another access issue is that, though the report suggested NGO referrals overseas, the prospective refugees . . . 

We believe that if there's a properly constructed NGO program of referrals, certainly it will lead to those urgent cases, but it could also lead to significant numbers of referrals in some instances.

And the other access point that I would make is that UNHCR's capacity for identifying and referring refugees to the admissions program needs to be strengthened, and we're very appreciative of some specific initiatives PRM has done in recent years to strengthen UNHCR's capacity. One example of this is the so-called UNHCR NGO Deployment Scheme. That program could be strengthened further and enhanced in value.

A couple of quick things on management of the admissions program: We feel that there are two elements in particular that ought to included in the report or considered in the report. One has to do with the development of pipelines -- these are refugees getting ready for admissions. And given the aspects of the program that are described in the report, where unforeseen barriers present themselves in the dynamics that are out there, it means, therefore, that we've got to have, we suggest, a three months' pipeline of travel-ready folks at any one time so that we can deal with contingencies that inevitably arise.

The other thing is that there should be, sort of taking off on David's point of sort of a more strategic management approach to admissions, that there always be planned-for contingencies: If this situation works out so that we can't move the refugees we felt we would in a timely way, we've got ready recourse to other populations to move on.

And finally, the -- another kind of management issue would be that we believe it will be very important for PRM to have established timelines and benchmarks describing outcomes expected, so that at any given time, the managers of the program will know what is to be expected in terms of what populations and how many and when, and they can be held accountable for those kinds of numbers. Thank you very much.

MR. MARTIN: Thanks very much, Mark. And I did have a chance to look rather quickly at the written submission and I'll look at that more thoroughly as well.

Some of the suggestions you had with regard to the pre-9/11 events, I do say a bit more about that -- about UNHCR's role, for example, and its expanded role as a kind of a gatekeeper in the 1994 and '95 changes in the priorities. And it's taken a while, probably, for them to get staffed up. Well, they're still not (inaudible), for them to play that kind of role and for PRM to keep pushing them to do more along those lines.

I am working on the section on OPE roles, and you're right, it has changed over time. I think there is more that could be done and that PRM should look to to try to expand that kind of a partnership and make use of some of the talents and skills there in OPE, so it shouldn't just be to process.

I'm not -- I don't see it necessarily as going back to the kind of role that existed for a while in the Indo-China program, for example, in identifying refugees. Maybe in some circumstances, with very carefully defined parameters, that might work. But I think we're in a different situation where there's going to be much more of a premium on careful delineation of the groups that are going to be designated for resettlement initiative. And an awful lot of that is probably going to be based on registration or other information that's available.

There may be exceptions and there may be room for this sort of an additional role for OPEs. But I do think that there is room for improvements in the overall ways in which OPEs and PRM relate to take more advantage of the expertise and talent that exist there in OPEs, and to have more of a free flow of information, but sometimes it won't be accepted. I mean, it's part of that dialogue to get more of that surface.

I do think -- there's an issue that I ran into a lot in the interviewing, a kind of a -- many different ideas about what is the appropriate OPE role with regard to the particular cases. Advocacy is sometimes the term that's used, or advocacy with regard to broader issues. That needs to be worked out very carefully, and I think -- and even -- and no matter who is the, who serves the OPE role, whether it's the International Organization for Migration or an OPE that comes out of the, the aid background, I think we need to have some collective efforts to think much more carefully about exactly what is the appropriate role, both for OPEs to do screening and advice; what is their role in developing a case; what is their role for helping to spot cases where they think things have really gone off-track, that there were mistakes made by DHS.

And there's certainly a wide range of openness on the part of government officials to hearing at least some of that information, but also concern that sometimes that role gets out of hand on behalf of OPEs, or at least in certain locations. This may have to do with the use of the request for reconsideration or other kinds of things.

So I've got -- I'm working on a chapter that really is going to try to lay out a lot of those, and not necessarily try to resolve those, but I think there could be a process whereby whatever organization plays the OPE role, we could get a lot better idea about just what are the appropriate -- what the appropriate range of things that can be expected from OPE. And I think it is a kind of tool that managers in PRM can use more to get a good sense, an array of pictures of how things are working in a particular location and draw upon that more effectively.

But those are a number of sensitive issues, and I think it's important for OPEs also to think about the range of boundaries of their role and to try to get a better sense, a better shared sense among OPEs as to the variety of approaches taken. That was my impression around the world. But I think we can -- I think we can do more on that and I will have a lot more to say about that in the report.

The Universal P3 issue, I am seriously giving that more thought. I'd love to hear more from various people about the poss -- about the procedure that's in place this year whereby it’s refugees and asylees who are the ones who can file for P3. It's my understanding that that is based largely, and I'd be happy to be corrected on that, it's based largely on the greater access to family tree information than may be available for those of you who (inaudible) petitioners so you have a little more to check against when someone files an Affidavit of Relationship for P3.

If that's giving us that kind of assurance, maybe that's -- at least for those groups -- there should be a universal P3 being used. But for those kinds of petitioners, it would be a universal P3; that is, those who have themselves, the family members here who are refugees or asylees should be in that (inaudible). And then who were selected with regard to using that category in other circumstances. I'd welcome thoughts on that.

Let's see. With regard to pipeline development, I think that really is what people are aiming for, to have -- well, let me say a couple things about that. It'll be a while to get over all the difficulties that we've encountered in the last two years, a lot of them which -- a lot of them having grown out of the adjustments required in the post-September 11th environment.

That process was a difficult one for a lot of agencies concerned. And many of the hang-ups in the, for example, in the security screening, they had to do with the enormous new demands that were placed on several of the agencies involved. PRM did a lot, the PRM officers did a lot to volunteer their own time to help deal with their end of the processing part of that, and I give them a lot of credit for doing that.

But it just took the FBI and other agencies a long time to sort out their process, and they certainly weren't dealing only with refugees. They had a huge new range of procedures and they were pretty candid with me that there were real difficulties in getting that system up and running; and it took a long time. We're just getting to the point now where I think many of those procedures are getting to be a bit more of normal science worked into the process adequately for the new cases. There's still some old cases that are either difficult to locate or still present some problems.

But with all those difficulties piled onto the process, we're now -- I think, many of those are getting back to an appropriate operation and now is the time that we can begin to build up the pipeline capacity. So certainly to have some cushion there to deal with contingencies, to be able to move a different group if this group hits some kind of unforeseen snag, I don't think there's a lot of question, that that's a desirable goal and it should be there as I mentioned, and I'll try to be more explicit about that.

There is a caution involved in that, though. We -- I think we can't get too far out in front of that, and I don't think that's what you're suggesting. Resettlement offers and possibilities create whole new dynamics in the camp and the location, as many of you here know, and it's not good for anybody to have that thwarted for too long. So if, -- well, your talk was about a three-month, a sort of a three-month cushion I think that wouldn't present those kinds of problems.

But this is going to have -- it's a tricky thing to monitor that in a kind of way that we don't exaggerate expectations in certain locations that can't be met for a very long time, but that we still have -- that we're still positioned it in such a way so that we can begin to draw a little quicker on one group, you know, if there are unforeseen planning problems elsewhere.

So your point is well taken. I think -- it's a tricky thing that we're talking about there to manage that appropriately in the kind of dynamics that often exist on resettlement suggestion programs.

MR. YOUNG: Kelly, can I just -- on one particular point of that on the P3 is just a comment in that UNHCR has universal P3s. It's just a comment on the paper itself, on that --

MS RYAN : And also on the Universal P3, did you endorse it just for refugees and asylees, or for a broader immigrant group? And also, did you look to expanding beyond children, minor unaccompanied children and parents?

MR. YOUNG: I would say -- I just have two comments --

MR. MARTIN: For the record, this is Larry Young from UNHCR. Sorry.

MR. YOUNG: I'm sorry. I'm Larry Young from UNHCR. It's odd. The language of the thing is one thing that -- because we haven't had a chance, really, to check this with everyone's issues since we really just got it recently. But on that point, I think a fairly big thing that any -- the P3 issue, there'd be some concerns in its presentation because there's a reference that as greater numbers increase, the clamor for P3 will decrease.

I think looking at the P3 issue, it's an issue of principles, particularly, I think, and family reunions. The principle we're basing it on, I would say, is in the, first, the relationship, which, in most cases, nuclear family or another proven dependency from our point, but it doesn't necessarily stop at some line. But -- and where the dynamic is one of the two split people is a refugee -- either the person overseas or the person here -- so that would include, for example, cases where the person who might be a green card. And I would point out, where would that happen? That happens in new situations: Liberia, Vietnam in the early days could have been where you had lots of people here in some other status because there was usually a problem, and a situation developed where you had a refugee flow. So you have many people here, close relatives there, who are now refugees. So there are moments, chronic cases like long-term might not have that as much, but it does come up.

So I would just say, I think, looking at it again more in the family reunion principle issue, I had a sense there was a little bit of the paper wrapped up with the numbers management issue. I think it's a separate issue. And I think there are many management issues about how to establish and validate the linkages, and that would probably be things that contribute later on, you know, because of different scenarios. For example, greater or lesser information might need different procedures to validate along the way whether you process or not, but that was one thing I think that stood out from, again, it's a little different place looking at the universal family reunion as opposed to necessarily calling it P3 or not.

And we don't, again, for the, sort of, for UNHCR, trip parents aren't normally part of our P3 family, or nuclear family concept when it's parents of adults.

MR. MARTIN: Okay, just, well, let me just speak briefly to that.

For -- as far as the family reunification for the nuclear families, that really should be universal. It actually should be. And that's the design of the provisions in the law that provide for spouses and minor children under the so-called Visas 93 process.

MR. YOUNG: But there are very big exceptions to that, again. Because many, again, I -- for example, early on (inaudible) Asians to the U.S. in the late '80s. Traffic began. There was a large flow out, but there were many people who did not arrive in the U.S. as refugees.

And the Immigrant Visa Process, yes, exists. It's a question, again, the family reunion being -- keeping that situation split when one of the people is a refugee for six or seven years. Which, it could be resolved in Immigrant Visa, it's just a matter of time, and that person remains in a refugee situation, or do you see that as a problem different than other immigrant visas? And I think, from my point of view, I would think that that is different in an immigrant visa situation where one relative is in France and the other is in the U.S., and it's maybe on one hand a refugee camp, but the other is a U.S. aid group.

You're falling for the idea that you're putting forward those refugees and families who get back together. There may have been a few instances where that knitting can be done somewhere else, back together. And if that actually existed, you might say, well, they actually all could go back. And again, I think it's a factual issue of looking.

DR. MARTIN: Okay. Sorry. Well -- and, I mean, I did wrestle there and not very successfully in this draft, with the broader issue about what I call functional families, and what I think you said to deal with in the framework of dependency. And there's a very strong claim there. There are steps that are taken with regard to that to address those sorts of situations, primarily through the Case Composition Guidelines. So that there are ways in which that functional family can, in fact, be kept together or maybe be included in a refugee movement, but not necessarily under the P3 framework.

Now I don't -- whenever you expand beyond that and use a concept like dependency, you do raise more difficult issues about the fact-finding and possibilities for manipulating the categories. And that's the big trade-off. I think that's going to have to be -- that is the dilemma. And I would like to reach these sorts of situations of dependency -- I do believe very much that family -- the family situation is a critical part of helping refugees successfully build a new life after they've left the immediate circumstances of the plight of the refugee camp.

But a lot of that, I think, is -- maybe is going to have to be done case by case through the case composition guidelines because of the countervailing concerns.

But, I mean, but I take your point. And I do think that we need to look beyond that, and certainly you've raised some good scenarios to think about that go beyond the situation where the individual who is in this country, filing the Affidavit of Relationship, beyond the current requirements where that person would have to have entered as a refugee or an asylee. Thank you.

MR. KERRY: Thank you. My name is Gaylon Kerry, Policy Director of World Relief. I submitted also some written comments, but would just like to highlight a couple of things.

First of all, I'd like to join my colleagues who commended PRM for commissioning this report, and especially commend Professor Martin for the excellent and insightful work that he has produced already. I believe this will be a major contribution to moving forward in the revitalization of the refugee program.

I would like to especially highlight our support and agreement for the fundamental idea which you present in the report of looking at the refugee program in the -- with the presidential determination as a goal to be achieved as part of the president's program. We certainly see it that way, and in line with that, believe, then, that it is incumbent on the government and, in particular, on PRM, I believe, to have a proactive management role in moving the program forward.

As you correctly point out, there are many points along this -- stages of development of a refugee potential resettlement group where the process can be vetoed. And getting all of the people together, as you recommend, in a refugee committee that would then be able to take positive decisions, looking holistically at the strengths as well as the drawbacks of any particular caseload; I believe that's a very important decision, or recommendation, and we hope that that could be implemented.

As I mentioned, World Relief represents the Evangelical Christian community, and among our community, our involvement with refugees in resettlement has been a very important part of development of our community support, as well, for refugee assistance and protection overseas. And I believe the same thing is true for my colleagues, as well.

I believe one of the real geniuses of the U.S. refugee program is the way in which it engages broad sections of our, our human society in response to refugee crises. And I believe that's something that needs to also continue and even be strengthened. And in that light, we welcome your recommendation to -- for a fuller engagement of the NGO community on the overseas side, as well as domestically.

I, myself, have just returned from a trip to Africa with colleagues from here and in UNHCR and that, I believe, was a very positive and successful step toward identifying some new populations for resettlement. And as you point out, in this new age in which we will be needing to identify a lot of groups like this, trips such as the one we took probably need this to happen at least once a month. If we, perhaps, identify 4 to 5,000 refugees who may eventually be resettled here, that's about how many you say would need to be identified every month. And I believe that that's something where a lot more attention is going to be needed if we are going to achieve the promise and potential that the U.S. Refugee Resettlement Program has.

And in that regard, I'd just like to emphasize that -- I think you mentioned this, but it perhaps could be emphasized even more -- that the U.S. capacity to resettle a large number of refugees is very much a unique asset in the whole -- in the world. And it's one that I think we can celebrate, and in a very strategic role in the overall international community's response to refugees. And so in that regard, it's definitely our hope that the refugee program can continue to meet the needs of substantial numbers of refugees.

And then finally, we also endorse your recommendation regarding the refugee corps, and we were disappointed to note in the President's budget, which came out this week, if we read it properly, that there is not any money allocated for a refugee corps within the DHS budget. But if that's wrong, I'll be happy to be corrected. But we hope that that is something that can be implemented as well. Thank you.

DR. MARTIN: Good. Thank you very much. Yeah, we're clearly in agreement on several of these key points. The refugee corps is going to require funding. It's my understanding that the proposal now is to -- that there's already a published proposal in the Federal Register to adjust the fees in immigration -- or immigration filings, generally, and part of that is to generate the funding needed for a refugee corps, so there is a provision for a refugee corps. I guess the idea is going to go ahead. I need to learn more about it. I only saw this in the Federal Register yesterday or a couple days ago.

They will go ahead with the idea. I'm quite encouraged by that. There's certainly room for argument about whether it should be funded in that fashion or some other fashion, but it would -- the cutbacks that we're seeing in a number of areas in this budget, the fact that the idea survives and is moving ahead is certainly something to build on.

MS. RYAN: Kathleen, did you want to say anything about the funding?

KATHLEEN: No, I was just going to note that in the Federal Register published on Tuesday, there is specific reference to (inaudible) so that the feeling is (inaudible) support a refugee corps. I think that's a very positive development and I hope that some of you will make comments about that.

MS. RYAN: We can get comments of the Federal Register announcement to you all before you leave if you'd like to get -- did you bring copies? Or we can get copies made.

KATHLEEN: I didn't, but (inaudible). But if anybody wants the reference, it's Federal Register, Volume 69, Number 22, Tuesday, February 3rd. And it's found on page 508 (inaudible).

MS. RYAN: Yeah. We'll get Amy to copy it so they can have it before they leave.

KATHLEEN: Sure.

MS. RYAN: She'll get someone to do that. Thank you.

MR. YOUNG: Sorry to be the dominating questions here, but I --

DR. MARTIN: Do you want to come up here maybe?

MR. YOUNG: Yes, please. That's a trick question, but -- I hope.

MR. YOUNG: I was wondering, it's Gaylon (ph) that brought it up, because I think we certainly take note of the language of using the operation as kind of goal based as opposed to ceiling based, which is -- for UNHCR, we deal with many countries who have a quota; and I have to say the difference, the dynamic with the quota, the ceiling is different.

But my question really was, in some sense, I guess I can envision how PRM would work under that modus operandi, but I'm just sort of -- how you envision the other parts of the government, DHS in particular, whose role, traditionally, is not to make numbers; I mean, they have another role. How, how do you see that being as sort of built into the system, whether it's the FBI who has to clear things or Central Intelligence Agency or that sort of thing?

If -- other players, how do they also see that making the ceiling is on par with their security and other concerns? Because I do think that's an element, as you have laid out very, I think, well in your paper of some of the obstacles, particularly post-9/11.

DR. MARTIN: Well, I was -- I guess I was pleasantly surprised as to several of the elements of the process as I got into this project at the time when I did, starting last summer, to find that a number of those pieces that had been highly problematic for several months after the changes, the post-September 11th changes, they were beginning to fall into place and to operate. The referrals now for security advisory opinions, it's my understanding that those come through regularly on the timeframes that are expected, unless a tiny handful have some other issue that may take longer to resolve, but most of them are cleared and sent back within 45 days. So that doesn't become an ongoing obstacle.

That's not necessarily -- I mean, I think the FBI and others are going to think of that, not because they feel personally accountable to help make a number that's now treated as a quota or goal, but simply because they generally realize the difficulties in the system, have dealt with those, have got those flowing smoothly, and we need to keep that up. If some big new problem develops in that or some major new caseload that diverts attention from the refugee caseloads as a tiny piece of all that, that obviously -- that will be a major barrier to achieving the targets in a given year.

But, I mean, I found on most of these things now that there was a difficult period -- it's not really surprising in retrospect -- a difficult period of getting those systems adjusted to do the different kinds of work and the very different volume of work that was being done. And we are by and large -- I mean, I'm not giving a clean bill of health here, but by and large, those have been taken care of with regard to, you know, ongoing caseloads.

Now, with regard to DHS, I think the issue you point out is -- it's potentially a real one, mainly because the immigration functions have now been split three ways. And most of the dealings will come with the Refugee Office in the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. They are, you know, they don't consider it their job to identify groups or to build a pipeline as such, but they are very much of a mind to staff up in a way that will allow them to keep complete pace with, with the caseload.

Now, there are instances where there are sudden security problems in particular areas that may interfere with deployment. And there certainly are a lot of differences of view about when DHS should send a circuit ride team, or when they were too finicky about sending them in the past.

But my impression is that they have gone a long way to really try to clarify that process as well: What are the security requirements as a particular location; and worked out ways to work cooperatively with the security officers of the embassies to make changes in a site so that they can deploy.

And I certainly say in my report, as well, that I think one of the benefits of the refugee corps will be that that would be a framework in which there could be additional security training for officers; there could be some other measures taken with full-time officers of that kind that are not quite as possible with temporary duty people, so that we can lower the deployment threshold and make it easier to deploy people in those circumstances.

But that's going to be an ongoing issue. I mean, and there's, if there's a, you know, a suicide bombing in a particular location, that's clearly going to mean that we're going to pull back on deployment for a while until things are resolved; and that's just part of the landscape of what we're dealing with now. But I think there is a commitment there do that, certainly in USCIS, to keep that going and to work further, and to look also at maybe some creative ways using technology, video hookups, where that might be possible to use other ways to lower the deployment threshold or be able to process.

Now, it's still -- it's going to be much more of an issue with regard to the other components of DHS. Most of their work doesn't have anything to do with this, but I'm thinking particularly of the Port of Entry procedures. And the requirements right now to keep the number of refugees on any one plane low is a potential significant bottleneck that needs to be worked around.

So I think efforts are going to have to be made along those lines if treating the refugee -- the presidential determination number -- as a goal, can help to bring pressure to bear on that part of the process, that would be very good. I have a feeling that's not going to address it directly.

I do suggest in the report some other measures that I would hope would give a better handle at the very highest levels, central levels of DHS, on addressing quickly this sort of issue or any other issue where there are -- where there seems to be a bit of a disconnect between different parts of the immigration bureaucracy, and I think it's very important for them to do that. That's a key element.

And it's -- well, I wish they had done more to address that. So far, I do have some indication that there is interest at the highest levels to structure something better to allow for that, and I suggest a capacity in the Deputy Secretary's office, a small unit that would deal with fraud immigration policy that covers all components. There may be other ways to do it, but I think they need to address that. And possibly an explicit shift of view to the refugee numbers as a goal, not a ceiling, would contribute modestly to that process.

But I do say this in the report. The -- thinking of it as a ceiling, I think we need to be clear about the history of that way of thinking about the number in the presidential determination. I look back at a lot of what went on in the -- working in the Refugee Act, and I was involved in some of that, there really was a lot of talk about it as a ceiling at that time. The numbers were very high at the moment when this was enacted.

There really was a hope that things would calm down more, in Indo-China in particular, and that we would not feel an obligation to reach the full levels that were being pledged at that time. And that particular way of thinking continued for some period of time, but it grew up at a time when the numbers were set very high.

So I think it's, you know, it's understandable that that has been a way of approaching this set of issues in the past. I'm sure I've used that phrase myself as well, ceiling and not a goal, in the past. But the more I look into it now I think we should shift our point of view. We've got a very different set of refugee issues out there in the world now, a different set of challenges in mobilizing all the necessary pieces of the U.S. Government, and certainly nothing in the way it was thought about in 1980 required that the number be thought of only as a ceiling and not as a goal.

It is time to shift. It is not -- I don't think we should be overly critical of those who've used that framework in the past. That really probably is more reflective of the way it was talked about in 1980. But I don't think that the legislation mandates that it only be thought about in those ways. And I do think it's time -- as a matter of operational reality and better management and better planning, and a spur to getting all the complicated pieces of governmental machinery to work together toward this -- to really start thinking about it in that way.

MR. COSTIN: My name is Stan Costin (ph) and I'm the Director of Refugee and Immigration Programs at World Relief, and I'm also the Chair of the Resettlement Committee for Christian Counsel, USA.

I have four issues I'd like to address. They are, first, one that Mark raised, and that is religious minorities that are being persecuted; the second issue is the resource issue that was defined in the paper, between assistance and resettlement; the third one is overseas processing entities; and the fourth is the P3. And I'll try to be brief.

The first one is, in regards to religious minorities, I would like to strongly support what Mark suggested, that oftentimes, they aren't given the priority they should be, and there needs to be some kind of mechanism that focuses on them. Traditionally, the P2 category has looked at ethnic or nationalities, and not at religious persecution as a group identification record.

The second issue, in regards to assistance, and versus resettlement, as far as resources, and I'd just like to caution you a bit on your presentation as it would work in the document in that it may -- and this is a philosophical argument, but it may suggest that, in fact, assistance and warehousing refugees is the fourth durable solution. And I think that needs to be avoided. The reality is, we will really have (inaudible) on both sides, but do not see assistance as a durable solution to a refugee crisis, and therefore, think that there needs to be a clear distinction made there.

The third thing is, in regards to overseas processing entities, in your document, you suggest that the competitive nature between NGOs and other organizations is a positive thing. I would not argue against the competitive nature; however, I would suggest that competition means equal access. And I'm not sure that assumption is a correct assumption that we have equal access at this point. And therefore, I think the basis on which the argument is made is somewhat flawed. Competitiveness requires equal access, and if there isn't equal access, then that argument cannot stand.

The last one is in regards to P3 category and its expansion. It seems in the document that the primary reason given for restricting its expansion is the potential fraud of the (inaudible). And I'd like to address that on a couple of points. First and foremost, I don't know that the properly reflects the measures that have been taken already. And it may be interpreted by the general public as to the -- that fact that it has not been addressed properly. Secondly, there is a danger to suggest that we are incapable or incompetent to address this issue from a total (inaudible) perspective, and I would want to avoid that.

As far as actually advocating for its expansion in its universal use, I think, as has already been identified, there are a number of factors that need to be taken into consideration. One, and I would list four of them: One is the need to identify or prioritize groups for resettlement, and this is a very good means to do that; the second one is just the whole issue of family reunion and the strong emphasis on family values; the third one is just the processing advantage that could be gained through using this as opposed to some other immigration mechanism that has -- often, it becomes a bottleneck. And the fourth, often not cited and perhaps not even mentioned but I think is very important, and that is in the integration and resettlement of those people in the United States, the fact that they have a support system in the U.S. to help them in this integration resettlement process should be taken into consideration is often not used as an argument for it.

Thank you very much.

DR. MARTIN: Thank you very much. I certainly agree on the -- that the overall look for refugee resettlement initiatives for group -- possible group initiatives, has to take full account of the dangers faced by religious minorities as well. I don't think there was ever any design to exclude them, but it probably has looked more to certain other sorts of factors in the past, and some of that, with the commission and others, I think, is being addressed.

I didn't mean to suggest that assistance always just means warehousing. And I don't think it does. There's obviously a lot of assistance initiatives that do a great deal more in creative ways and productive ways. It doesn't have to be tied to warehousing of individuals, of human beings.

The -- so I'll go back and look at that language. That's not the fourth durable solution, in my view, and we shouldn't think of it that way. And clearly, a big part of our refugee program is going to remain -- our overall U.S. refugee policy is going to remain assistance. It's just inevitably going to do that and that's valuable and it has achieved a great deal.

I still maintain, and I believe everybody in this room does, that there is a major role for a very healthy resettlement program as part of it, even though it's not more expensive per individual. But I'll pay close attention to that with whatever message was being sent along those lines.

I've got a lot of reactions to that idea of competition for OPEs. And I didn't really -- I think I was conveying something more than I intended. That's a very skeletal part of the segment right now. That's an ongoing issue, and I'm going to -- I think I'm going to address that more in terms of the range of things that we ought to expect OPEs to do, whoever is doing it, and really try to get some good thinking from all those involved, whether it's IOM, whether it's the JVA, whether it's a contract organization, whatever may be done to really get some good thinking about what is expected there and what's appropriate.

There are very different views on that as -- among the various people involved in this, from governmental people all the way through IOM and JVA, and a lot more can be done to try to get those out in the open and really wrestle with that, bring people together. So I will be saying more about that.

And I think I've said a fair amount about P3. I really am thinking about that more broadly. It's been helpful, some of the perspectives that have been offered here by giving that another look.

MR. SMITH: I'm Harold Smith, from the U.S. Committee for Refugees. I just want to add a brief point of consideration. You did mention that refugee resettlement is more expensive and I think the question needs to be carefully asked, more expensive than what, and in what timeframe?

It may be initially on a one-year's basis more expensive, but I would have to ask, compared to, like, how many years in a refugee camp? Five years? Ten years? 30 years? I mean, this -- again, I don't have an answer for that, but I think that's how the metric needs to be weighed -- just in terms of dollars and cents -- how much money is spent and what's more efficient, considering how long people may remain in protracted refugee situations, unable to work, unable to have a livelihood. And then, of course, beyond the dollars and cents, just the years of wasted humanity, which I think is even more important than the money.

A PARTICIPANT: Well, first of all, let me say that I didn't come here to make the presentation or any remarks at all. In fact, I have to admit that I have not read the report until listening to the debate here, and it is a -- truly interesting.

But let me, if I may, piggyback on the very last comment related to refugee resettlement. As I listened to the conversation here, of course, the focus is a U.S. refugee admissions. Am I correct?

MS. RYAN: Yes.

A PARTICIPANT: Because of that, I didn't feel too much about the connection between admission and resettlement. But let me say that since -- in the last couple of comments, the word resettlement come up into the picture, so let me say a few words vis-à-vis that.

Number one, in my view, as far as the nature of the refugee program of the U.S., here is a major overtone to reflect our national heritage as a humanitarian cost. Because here is a humanitarian cost, then the issue of dollar and cent and costs and benefits would not enter into the equation of resettlement for a nation, which is now the leader of the world. With that, however, we cannot ignore the fact that the refugees for many decades have contributed significantly to the economy, this economy.

If I may bring -- remind you of a comment by Greenspan not too long ago about the fact that the lack of an adequate labor force in the U.S. in relation of the long-term development growth of the economy, you will note away that the role the refugees and immigrants play in our economy. With that, it would be impossible, really, to quantify the economic benefits and cost of the refugees.

If someone ventured to take a look at the various type of costs, a gradual settlement from the very beginning in overseeing until the persons contribute to the economy here in the U.S., certainly you can get some numbers there. But don't forget the fact that the spectrums of the refugees committee here represent -- the young generation. What about the contribution of those kids? When they come in, we see the public assistance, but ten years later they fit right in the middle class as professionals. And then they are true. So when you look at the trend of the whole nation, certainly I can say quite a few things positive about the contribution of refugees from all over the world.

If I may come back to this particular study here, certainly I very much commend you, and I greatly appreciate the study that you have made. But I thought if -- if we just look at the admission alone, maybe we should look a little beyond admission and into the internal domestic resettlement and the benefits. And here we can use the word "social benefits," not economic benefits.

I won't to get into the philosophy and the theory we have and the distinction here. Look, this is the humanitarian cause of the world power here, that the U.S. (inaudible) around the world. So let's take a look at actually of what we need to do, not only to continue the tradition, the noble cause of our nation, but also look into the future, including the issue of satisfying the demand of the labor force of the future and enrichment of this society as a whole.

DR. MARTIN: Thank you.

MS. RYAN: I should say one thing quickly. And thank you very much to Dr. Van Hanh, for his remarks.

In Geneva, when he and I were there last year for the tripartite consultations, HHS presented a document on integration and on the success of refugees. And that, I know, has been distributed in a number of places, and UNHCR asked for a copy of it to use in countries that are beginning the resettlement process.

So while this -- our focus here today is on the admissions aspects and how to look at that for the purpose of improving it, we certainly will continue our efforts to look on the piece of the process that occurs once the refugee arrives. This is not the end of our efforts and I wouldn't want anyone to think that that was the case.

DR. MARTIN: I appreciate those last two comments. I'll certainly work those out. I don't have anything -- I was not -- when you see the full paper, you'll see I wasn't making a broad comment that was somehow disparaging resettlement because of the cost. It's very much the case. I mean, that's a big part of the overall endorsement I try to have come through with this report of the resettlement program are the kind of benefits that it definitely provides for our society.

MS. RYAN: We probably have time for one more comment or question before we conclude.

A PARTICIPANT: (Inaudible) a comment that was made over there made me realize after the fact that there may have been some misunderstanding. All of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration services are funded not through appropriated fees, but through -- appropriated funds, but through exams fees.

The refugee and asylum programs don't generate any fees since we don't charge for our services, but there's a surcharge attached to all other applications and petitions that are filed. And so what -- we went through the OMB process to discuss how we could fund the refugee corps. There was some discussion of appropriated fees, appropriated funds, but instead, there was a decision made that we would increase fees on their applications just so you know.

A QUESTION: Could I just comment? In light of the recent -- the last comment about how refugees contribute to and benefit the whole country, certainly in economic terms, but also in terms of our humanitarian standing in the world and all those things, I guess I'm wondering why we would specifically ask immigrants to pay for that -- something that actually benefits the whole country and make them -- I guess in my view, it would be better if it was appropriated.

MS. RYAN: Well, a good place to put that comment would be in the Comments to the Proposed Rule, which they are seeking comments. Is that right, Kathleen? And when are their comments due by?

KATHLEEN: I don't know. I don't have --

DR. MARTIN: I think it's one month. I think it's one month.

MS. RYAN: Okay. So let's make sure that we get those comments in.

Any other last things? Jim?

QUESTION: Hi. Jim Lassiter, Immigration Services (inaudible) Refugees. David, I just wanted to ask -- in reading your report, what stood out to me was the need for numbers. Now you have a number of recommendations, many of them that have to do with process management and I think they all will make the program better, and I have absolutely no issue with any of them. I commend you on it because it's a very comprehensive report.

But to the issue of numbers and access, especially, you mentioned P1, UNHCR encouraging them to do more individual referrals and also to involve more group referrals. P2, finding new groups, two or three groups (inaudible), and you mentioned universal P3, your support for (inaudible). And finally, a legislative change that would add group consideration to one of them, too.

All of those things, I think, address the matter of numbers. And I think getting numbers is important, whether we call it a ceiling or whether we call it a goal. The question I guess I have is, do you have any quantitative information, which -- or objective numbers to support your belief and (inaudible) that these four approaches are going to increase numbers? I don't have any to put here today to say yea or nay to your suggestion that this will increase numbers, but -- and I'm sure it's more than an act -- I mean, I have anecdotal beliefs that, and I shared those with you, I think, earlier, about how we need to really address more strongly (inaudible). But is it more than a gut feeling that you have that these will get us the numbers we need or do you have some numbers or do you think numbers might strengthen your report?

DR. MARTIN: Well, I am decidedly not a numbers cruncher kind of guy, so I did not sign up on this to provide vast quantitative analysis of various sorts of populations and demographical projections and all that sort of thing. It is, so for me, it is anecdotal.

But we know there are large populations of refugees in the world right now. I try hard in the first part to say that doesn't mean those are all out there as wonderful, eligible candidates for resettlement programs for a variety of reasons. But I do believe that there is, within that, a fair number of populations that I believe we can do a lot more with.

Now, I also try to be -- this was a -- sort of an internal debate for me, early on in the process, was I got to try to spotlight a few of those. And I have resisted the idea to do that, because in part, I think, it's -- for me, the identification of those populations is not just a matter of what even a fairly well-informed outsider can see, but it also requires a pretty detailed look at some other elements.

This group may look promising, but if you get in there and there's no registration data and very poor identification system, and maybe some other elements that suggest that as soon as you start resettling, you'll pull in a larger number into that locations with problems for both the host country and the country of origin. But then you wouldn't go forward with it. So I haven't done that.

And you're right. It may prove that that will not -- that the obstacles taken piece by piece will prove more daunting than I'm suggesting.

But I think there's a lot we can try before we reach that conclusion. And I think a better structuring procedure, which is what I've really tried to focus on, the structure of the process and some specific operational suggestions that come to mind as you have the opportunity. Wonderful opportunity I had to talk with a lot of people and to visit specific locations on this. I think -- let's push those for all they're worth, and then -- and I think also, if there is a legislative change that will enable a somewhat different look at some of the issues with regard to some particularly long-stayer populations.

So let's try that. I can't prove that it's going to result consistently in numbers back like we had in whatever somebody must have picked as their historical golden age. But I do think it lays it out in ways that can help us, as we're recovering generally, which I think it underway. We're recovering from the system shock with the new post-September 11th procedures. We are recovering from that. We can add some of these other elements into the pipeline development process. I'm confident we can raise those numbers quite a bit and let's see what happens.

QUESTION: Thank you.

A PARTICIPANT: Regarding (inaudible), Office of Immigration Statistics, DHS. Regarding numbers, I'm happy to report, actually, working with Amy in the Refugee Processing Center that we are about to receive an extract which will have a lot of socioeconomic data about refugees. So I think we can -- I think we are working slowly in the direction of being able to have numbers on a regular basis. I haven't had a chance to evaluate the data, but I'm optimistic.

MS. RYAN: One of the things we had talked about in the reforms was to send a list of data questions out to refugees so that they could answer themselves about their experience from the beginning to end. And we haven't done that yet and I think, perhaps, we should move toward that, too. It's another piece of the evidence about what has happened to people and how they view the process. But we should probably think about doing it both from the admissions perspective with the admissions process go as smoothly as it could, and from the resettlement process as well.

And I know that HHS already does a bit of that. But I wanted to do a more comprehensive one, because although I, too, am not a statistician, I think now with two million refugees in the country, you could probably get a sample that was statistically meaningful at this point that would give us a good sense of how people view the process themselves.

Any other comments? David?

DR. MARTIN: Well, let me just say, I appreciate this again. And I would invite you, if you have something else on your mind, please feel free to contact me. Email or mail at University of Virginia and let me give you my email: it's dam3r, the number 3, dam3r@virginia.edu.

Thank you for that. I am going to be trying to wrap this up in the next few weeks. We have a little more delayed reactions to collect, but we are nearing the end. And then there's still considerable process beyond that to see what parts of this we may be able to pick up on and actually move it into a (inaudible), including here and possibly through legislation.

Thank you.

MS. RYAN: I just want to say quickly, thank you very much to Amy for hosting us over here, Nicole for her work in getting you all in here and your comments, to Dr. Van Hanh and to Kathleen and DHS for coming, IOM for coming, UNHCR, everybody else, Refugee Council, (inaudible) members, and most particularly to David Martin.

So really, please take this opportunity to comment. We want to come to completion of the report, and it's much better by your participation in it. Thank you all very much for coming today. (Applause.)