All right, welcome back, everyone. I want to introduce the next panel which is going to focus on the implementation of the refugee act of 1980. And moderating that panel is eric schwartz, former assistant secretary of state for population frunles and migration under the Obama Administration. He was Senior Adviser for humanitarian affairs during the Clinton Administration on the National Security councils. And most importantly he is on the hias board. He also happens to be the president of Refugees International. And he is seated next to the expresident of Refugees International. So eric. Thanks. Thank you, mark. It is it is a distinct pleasure to be here today. And i want to thank hias and the Carter Center for bringing us all together for this very important event. And needless to say this is a critical time for us to be considering not only the refugee act of 1980 but also the very future of refugee protection in the United States and around the world. At a time when the number of people displaced by conflict, by human rights vials by persecution, is at the highest number in recorded history, governments around the world and in the United States in particular are using nativist rhetoric, designed to appeal to peoples fear. And to encourage hostility toward refugees. And others who are forced to flee. They are closing borders. And making life more difficult for refugees. This panel and this daylong event is timely. And our panel will consider refugee protection issues in the context of implementation of the refugee act of 1980. And we have three highly distinguished panelists. Its an added benefit for me that all are friends of mine with whom i have worked over decades on a variety of projects. Professor david martin, who will be our first presenter is a leading scholar on immigration, constitutional and international law. And he is one of the countrys foremost authorities on Immigration Law and policy. He has helped to shame immigration and refugee policy while serving in several key u. S. Government posts. While at the state department he was deeply involved in legal and policy developments relating to the refugee act of 1980, the focus of todays discussion. He also held senior positions in the departments of justice and homeland security. He played major roles in administrative and statutory developments related to asylum. During the decade of the 1990s. And during the Obama Administration he was deeply engaged in Administration Reforms relating to Immigration Enforcement priorities as well as a range of key immigration issues. Our second speaker, ambassador frank loy has had many krers as a senior diplomat, as a business and nonprofit executive, as an attorney focusing on a range of topics from Environmental Issues to economic affairs, to International Humanitarianism and refugees and beyond. And i wont try to list all of franks jobs. But i will say that from 1980 to 1981 he was director of the state Departments Bureau of Refugee Programs. And with the personal rank of ambassador. And was deeply involved in the issues were considering today. Between 1998 and 2001 he served as the u. S. Undersecretary of state for global affairs, giving him responsibilities that included overseeing the work of the state Departments Bureau of population refugees and migration, the successive bre to the Refugee Programs Bureau that he directed during the Carter Administration. Our final speaker Lionel Rosenblatt who a former dmmt who spent much of his career overseas in the southeast asia. He is lionel is a legendary refugee advocate. When in the midst of the north veet namds takeover of vietnam he was frustrated at the slow pace of u. S. Efforts to rescue vietnamese who had worked with the u. S. Government, he and a colleague made of an unauthorized trip to an unauthorized trip to vietnam to help secure the rescue of some 200 individuals. Lionel served as refugee coordinator at the u. S. Embassy in thailand during the Carter Administration and played a key role in the processing of vietnamese, laotian and cambodian refugees, as well as in protection and assistance efforts of refugees remaining in the region. From 1999 1990 through 2001, he served as president of Refugees International establishing the organization as a critical ally of vulnerable populations around the world, its a high honor for me to serve as the current stewart of an organization that lionel on the map lionels legacy of service and impact is an inspiration to us all at Refugees International. So, the topic today for implementation of the refugee act, could cover a multitude of issues. I saw panelist to consider in no particular order of the following questions work first, what were the expectations around the 1980 refugee act with respect to refugee admissions and asylum . Second, how did reality interfere . Both with respect to the cuban exodus and in other events requiring a response to protection needs that went outside of the contours or at least stretched the contours of the refugee act of 1980. Third, how would you characterize and assess overall implementation of the u. S. Refugee program over the years. Finally, based in your observation to the questions, what lessons can we draw . Each panelist will speak for seven minutes and moved to questions about the audience. Rather than the issues now i will assume the moderators prerogative and ask one or two preliminary questions. With that please join me in welcoming david martin [ applause ] its a pleasure for me to be here with special thanks for putting this together and also a special word of tribute to president carter, i wish you were here. It was his emphasis on human rights policy and the early part of the presidency that inspired me to go to the state department i work in the human rights bureau. I didnt know refugees are part of the package at the time i signed up there was a small refugee office, 1978 in the human rights bureau, but, by the time i arrived the boat flow was enormous and i got pulled into that and it shaved my career. I felt very happy to have the opportunity to work on human rights policy and refugee policy. Let me begin with a few simple achievements of the refugee act and then introduce a few complexities that became apparent with implementation the refugee did except a great deal very solidly because theyre not points of controversy we dont think about the much anymore. This act did accomplish its primary i really want to say that and we need to say that because theres so much cynicism about the effectiveness of Government Action and legislation. This is overall quite a Success Story and we need to say that, to appreciate what im saying i want to emphasize a distinction that often gets lost. The refugee act dealt with refugees into situations that are related different dynamics. One is the overseas Refugee Program for selecting people overseas in refugee camps and bringing them here after processing and, that was the main focus at the time because that was the crying issue, particularly in southeast asia. The second is asylum. And that poses more challenging problems and a lot of settings and didnt receive top billing or major focus but its important to keep them separate but the overlap is important because, in analyzing issues about that, the court failed to do that and in a case that was very important that wound up interpreting the refugee act to set up higher, more demanding standard than what applies when people are applying for asylum. Theyve misquoted legislative history, this one clearly to overseas refugees and was applied to asylum in reaching that decision. I greatly regret that happened. There are four things the refugee act achieved, it set the framework and the procedures for regular and timely decisions on resettlement and mission and, thereby replace conditional entry and parole which, for all the reasons weve been hearing about did not fit very well or presented their own problems it preserved a role for congress the last panel mentioned some things about that, by providing a very structured consultation project with demand for very specific, but it didnt give congress a specific voting role, but thank goodness largely avoids deadlock we didnt receives the Political Climate we have now but im glad we have it that way. That puts the power in the president. Can we do a badly . Yes, we have evidence. Recent evidence and im reminded of a comment that was made by James Buchanan who was wisely regarded as the worst president weve had, until recently, the constitution provides for every accidental contingency in the executive except for a vacancy in the mind of a president. [ laughter ] second, the act provided a durable assistance in grant framework for help and resettle refugees. We placed a lot of special legislation with civic lambs for this group or that group and an Expiration Date that got extended on a more abstract bases that applies broadly. The assistance arrangement recognizes the role of ngos and engages the states. Asylum, the statute provided Clear Authority to offer asylum , both to people already in the United States and people at the border excludable aliens and deportable aliens. This clearly changed over to the use of the un definition of ravaging this made it more clear but has made it more problematic. More importantly with regard to asylum it provided a clear status for silesian refugees. Before that, people got documents of various kinds that made the said parole, if youre not a refugee, if youre not into the Immigration Law business and you look at a car that says someone is here on parole, you think of the criminal justice system. It didnt clarify, the extended voluntary departure with clear statuses and a dreck mechanism, authorization for people to become green card holders after one year. These were significant changes, mostly they are routine now and people dont think about it a lot. Its significant for these reasons and the refugee act was celebrated and popular and that lasted four or five weeks until the muriel boatlift arrived. [ laughter ] this was also mentioned, people were really disillusioned because, wait a minute, i remember seeing editorials and we just passed the new refugee act, why doesnt that solve the problem . It turns out there is no magic bullet to address situations when people come in large numbers without much advance notice. Refugee issues are complicated and the responses are not easy or straightforward. The field is ripe with sudden emergencies that pose big challenges and, the whole business of refugee protection gets deeply involved in entangled with politics, both international and domestic. So that the muriel boatlift cause that problem after a few weeks of not really knowing how to deal with it sending mixed signals about the u. S. Response and it became clear that the boat flow had to be stopped. The decision was made to stop the southbound flow and all the boats were going to be able to come back with the people they had on board. But, finally began to look like a finite problem leading to 125,000 people coming. In the meantime, the challenges of screening and accommodation upon arrival were substantial. A lot of people were housed after preliminary processing at tamiami park and moved to the orange bowl contrived tents, living outside like things we seen. Like weve seen here and on the southwest border. Many people were sent to military bases in arkansas and not had a negative political impact a young progressive arkansas governor was defeated for reelection in 1980, generally attributed to backlash against the refugees, bill clinton ran six times for governor in 15 of the six but the antiimmigrant candidate defeated him one time in 1980 in the wake of the movement. Perhaps, that muriel boatlift had a role in carters loss in the 1980 election. Its not so much the numbers that pose the problem, carters Vietnam Initiative were accepted more readily. Its the perception of loss control that provides redmeat for anti refugee or immigrant candidates and we have to Pay Attention to that. Weve seen that kind of reaction in europe since the large movements of 2015 through 2016, the socalled local million. A backlash that gets rolling in response to perceptions of lost control leads not only to bed refugee policy but, quite dangerously, it also leads to the growing strength of openly authoritarian priorities hungry this really poses the greatest challenge to todays refugee and asylum policy and we are really facing an enormous dilemma it is somewhat hard to be optimistic some figures put it in context, 1950 through 1951 when the Key International refugee instruments were being drafted by the World Population was about 2. 5 million in 1980 when the refugee act was passed was about 4. 5 billion. In 2020 the World Population was expected to be 75 billion triple the level at the time of the 1950 convention. There will be more people will and now, today we get the equivalent of a muriel boatlift total every month along the southwest border with no sign of a significant endpoint the coast guard cant be deployed to deal with this, even if they wanted to. So, i think were at a critical time and i worry that the issue will be crucial in the election. I come to the mexico agreement the recently announced with great weariness i do hope, its not clear right now whether this is the case but i hope there will be something more, something in there that will focus on what mexico says they want major aid and Assistance Program in central america. There are ways they can work, Marshall Plan for the area, critical component to clearly the u. S. Administration has no interest in medicine on in the other direction. But, in addition to that a reduction in flow would ease the sheer logistical challenges to enormous logistical challenges that are not fully appreciated along the southwest order. For governments and ngos have done a heroic job theyve done a heroic job meeting people at the bus station when they get dropped off by dhs to help them move forward. So, maybe, some slowdown would help reduce the effectiveness of antiimmigrant or anti refugee demagoguery and help hold us for a long term and sustainable support for refugee protection. We have a long way to go in a real challenge today. Thank you. [ applause ]. This panel just with the implementation of the act cannot the justification or the origins i think its important to recognize that we can write an act that sounds pretty good on paper but when you try to implement it to you are going to have a hard time. Let me talk a little about the implementation problems we face immediately after the passage of the act. I say, and i want to be clear, president carter and his decision to push for the act and to implement this was a hugely important humanitarian decision and he deserves every bit of the credit that weve heard here today. That said, we have to be realistic and say that this does not solve all the problems and in fact it creates some. Lets talk about some of the ones that we in the state department and bureau of Refugee Programs faced in the immediate aftermath of the passage of the act. The first thing was vietnam and, in vietnam we had a huge moral imperative to act especially to protect vietnamese that had been working with the senate help doesnt had sided with us and or in the kind of difficulty after we pulled out. So, we were using the act to identify vietnamese who were eligible under the terms of the act and, what we found is that we interviewed in the field, people across borders, but what we found was that pretty soon all the stories sounded exactly the same. It was pretty clear that it was a path of responses that went from applicant 122 to 25. So, the actual identification of persons who have a well justified fear by reason of religion and so forth , after a while you realize that its a little hard to tell who has that well justified fear and who does not. We have to recognize that this will be with us as long as we have standards like that are written into the law, and we should. That means that you are going to have to make some very tough decisions and some of those may be negative and with consequences to the individual. But, if you dont do that, you are likely to be overwhelmed with applicants for status under the act that have questionable validity. Thats the first point. The second point weve dealt with and the difficulty of administering the act was the number of applicants and, our ability to bring , to the United States, under the law, a certain number, but what you do with the others . So, we spent a lot of time with countries like hong kong, malaysia, singapore, trying and with some success, but not total success and not success, trying to get the country involved to accept some of the applicants for status that we had interviewed and found credible but we had number problems in the United States that made it hard for us to take all of them into the United States. So, one of the things it seems to be a National Refugee policy on the part of the u. S. Is not gonna cut it. You need to have similar attitudes and policies and other countries, because