Skip to: Content
Skip to: Site Navigation
Skip to: Search


The United States cannot be the haven for all people

(Page 2 of 2)



A California study found that the majority of Indochinese refugees here five years or longer were still dependent on public support. Those who compare these new refugees to our ancestors are ignoring the facts. It's not the same, and it's not xenophobic or callous for everyday Americans to worry about the implications.

Skip to next paragraph

Those of us in political life are excruciatingly aware of budget cutbacks necessary under Gramm-Rudman as we struggle to smite the runaway federal deficit. We're going to have to make do with much less. There have to be trade-offs. Money we spend on new refugees will not go to relieve hardships for our own poor and unemployed, and for refugees already here. One-third of the children in America do not receive adequate dental care. What priority should that have?

We need to promote rational, sustainable approaches to the refugee dilemma. Voluntary repatriation should be the primary goal. We should enlist other nations' support for doing what is necessary to allow this goal to be reached. To encourage broad support, our appeal should be humanitarian, apolitical, and devoid of polemics. The flight of Cubans and Indochinese should not be welcomed as evidence of the bankruptcy of Marxism. The festering of Palestinian refugees in camps profoundly affects many nations as it spawns terrorism. These are tragedies for all concerned. Our emphasis should not be on extracting refugees, but in working out lasting regional solutions.

The United States should continue to provide a haven for some refugees. But the number we accept should be included in an annual ceiling set by Congress which includes all entrants-immigrants, refugees, and persons granted asylum. We must decide what flow of newcomers we can afford, and can assimilate into our culture. Then, the US administration would be required to operate within this ceiling.

If the press of world events compels us to take more refugees in a given year, then let's have a mechanism that ensures we make the hard choice of correspondingly reducing the number of immigrants for that year.

Our emphasis should be on those who are fleeing the most acute persecution. Our policy must not serve as a substitute for family reunification under our normal immigrant process. Refugees must be limited to true political refugees. There are 1.7 million people waiting their turn to immigrate. Many resent refugees going to the head of the line.

The refuge we provide should be temporary, until conditions become tolerable back home. If the human rights situation continues to improve in Haiti, for example, I see no reason why we should not require the Haitians to whom we gave asylum during the Duvalier regime to return home and make room for refugees from other countries.

Like all countries, we have limits. We can't be the world's welfare agency. We cannot eliminate third-world poverty and oppression by opening our door to all who would like to escape. Switzerland and Norway have reputations of being among the most humanitarian nations in the world, but they know that they cannot accept hundreds of thousands of refugees without destroying their way of life and their ability to provide an acceptable safety net for their own employed and poor.

Let's admit that we also need to make hard choices. We need to do what we can to alleviate suffering in other countries, but we must realize the impact that will have on our own underprivileged and the legacy we're leaving our children.

Richard D. Lamm is governor of Colorado.