Reform, Yes, but Don’t Nail the Doors Shut : Some INS proposals might block legitimate asylum seekers

As part of its effort to get better control of immigration to the United States, the Clinton Administration has proposed changes in the way this country grants asylum to refugees from foreign countries. Modifications in the asylum system clearly are needed because of recent abuses and bureaucratic problems.

Under U.S. immigration law, refugees are defined as those who flee their homelands because of a legitimate fear of persecution, for political, religious or other reasons. Balanced against the hundreds of thousands of immigrants who legally enter the country each year, not to mention the millions who try to get in illegally, the number of refugees seeking asylum is comparatively small. In fiscal 1993, for example, only slightly more than 150,000 asylum applications were submitted to the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service. However, that relatively modest number is deceptive; it is nearly triple the 56,000 asylum applications filed in 1991. Only 35,000 of the 1993 asylum applications were processed. The rest became part of a backlog of more than 370,000 asylum cases awaiting INS action.

That backlog has, unfortunately, made it easy for some illegal immigrants, and the sophisticated smugglers who bring them into the country, to manipulate the asylum system to their benefit. They file fraudulent claims, fully expecting them to be rejected in the 18 months to two years it will take to process them. But in the meantime the applicant is free to live and work in the United States. Such cynical manipulation of the system works to the detriment of many thousands of legitimate refugees.

In an effort to speed the asylum process, and also weed out fraudulent claims faster, INS Commissioner Doris Meissner has asked Congress for $64 million in the coming year to more than double the number of immigration officers, from 150 to 334, assigned to handle the INS’ burgeoning asylum caseload. The INS’ parent agency, the Justice Department, would at the same time double the number of immigration judges who hear asylum cases, from 85 to 170. We agree with INS officials and refugee advocates who say this would improve the system.

But INS and refugee advocates part ways on two regulations Meissner has proposed to discourage fraudulent claims: a $130 fee that all would-be refugees would have to pay to file for asylum and a 180-day wait before work permits can be issued to those seeking asylum--double the current 90 days. Refugee advocates warn that both would cause severe hardship for legitimate refugees. That may be a valid concern, especially in the case of refugees from places like Haiti, where political violence is rampant and many of the people fleeing are poor peasants.

However, Meissner makes a valid point in arguing that it is “only fair” that refugees pay a small part of what it costs to process their application. In addition, the fee can be waived.

As for work permits, Meissner argues that once the asylum process is speeded up, legitimate refugees will have their claims processed sooner and won’t have to wait the full 180 days to work legally. We hope she is right, but she must be prepared to modify that rule, too, if it causes hardship.

Overall, Meissner’s asylum reforms are reasonable and worth trying. The honorable tradition of giving asylum to genuine refugees is too important to jeopardize by allowing abuse of the system to continue.