The Jewish Times |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 1 of 12 | Next |
|
|
Small (250x250 max)
Medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
Full Size
Full Resolution
|
This page
All
|
Loading content ...
THE BOSTON JEWISH TIMES Write the vision and make it plain upon tables HABUKKUK 2:2 TELEPHONE (617) 442-9680 JUNE 1, 1989 VOL. XLIV, NO. 19 27 IYAR 5749 25«c Soviet Jews Caught In Immigration Vise By Samuel Seidner BOSTON — The liSSR has dramatically liberalized the number of exit visas for Soviet Jews desiring to leave that country. At the same time, the United States has imposed new immigration policies that sharply curtail the number of Soviet Jews allowed into this country. Last week, the INS tightened the noose even further by leaking its intent to implement a policy that denies refugee status to any immigrant who can gain access to another country. This ironic turn of events reverses the decades-long effort to free Soviet Jews from Russia, an effort supported by numerous organizations, politicians and human rights activists. It also betrays the belief, held by many, that if Russia would only permit freedom to its Jews, they would be welcome in the L.S. "I never thought I would see the day when the Russians would let out more Jews than we were willing to take in," said Li.S. Representative Barney Frank, long active in the cause of freeing Soviet Jewry. "I am very disappointed." Mr. Frank's disappointment is shared by many other human rights activists who have devoted 30 years to liberating Russian Jews. Now, when a policy of glasnost is sweeping the Soviet Lnion and exit permits to Jews and other oppressed minorities are forthcoming, the gates to freedom are slamming shut. "The INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) has snatched defeat from the jaws of victory," said an official of a Jewish organization dedicated to Soviet Jewry. Complicating the dilemma is the position of Israel, which maintains that Soviet Jews should resettle in the Jewish homeland. Israel is not displeased by the new immigration policies of the L.S. because they may funnel greater numbers of Russian Jews to Israel at a time when aliyah has dwindled to a trickle. In fact, some American Jewish observers are suggesting that Israel may have had a hand in influencing the new L.S. immigration initiatives. Immigrants to the Lnited States enter under three broad categories: immigrants, parolees and refugees. To be eligible for immigrant status usually means that the applicant has relatives in the Lnited States. To assist in the reunification of families, the INS gives priority to "first- degree" relatives: parents or children. A parolee status means entry under "emergency" conditions such as health or political expediency. Lnder the present law, parolees may never become L.S. citizens, vote in elections or serve in the armed forces. Other political rights are withheld or may be withdrawn. In fact, the right of a parolee to remain in the L.S. is reviewed periodically. In the past, Soviet Jews coming to America were classified as refugees, which meant they were eligible for a broad menu of welfare benefits and full political rights. Lnder the new regulations proposed by the INS, the ceiling for refugees allowed to enter the L.S. annually would be increased from the present 94,000, but a redistribution would result in fewer Soviet Jews and more refugees from Asian countries and Latin America. Congressman Frank rejects the notion that Soviet Jews gained entry to the L.S. at the expense of other applicants. In fact, 'he suggests, the new regulations permit greater numbers of Third World refugees at the expense of Soviet Jews. The tide began to turn in August 1988, when Attorney General Edwin Meese wrote a memo that abruptly changed the manner in which the L.S. awarded refugee status. Prior to the "Meese memo," Soviet Jews had been broadly classified as refugees. Since last summer, that status has been withdrawn and each application is reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Explanations for this shift are murky, but government officials have indicated budgetary considera- tions prompted the move. This twist in American policy slowed the processing of new applicants at the same time the LSSR was awarding more exit permits. This resulted in the present logjam at the transient camp at Ladispoli, Italy. Several thousand Jews are now living at the camp, which resembles a tent city. Soviet Jews are adament about not going to Israel, where they would be eligible for new immigrant status, which includes a basket of welfare benefits. Their knowledge of Israel is tainted by the Russian media and they apparently fear the intifada and the possiblity of war. Hence, Soviet Jews insist on emigration to the L.S. or other Western countries. Judy Patkin, executive director of Action for Soviet Jewry in Waltham, has just returned from Ladispoli. She says that Russian Jews there "just stare vacantly" when Israel is suggested as an option. Soviet Jews prefer to remain in Russia, suggested Ms. Patkin, rather than settle in Israel. She said her group is "very distressed" by the swift turn of events. "The danger of turning down the flow of Soviet Jewish emigration is that, eventually, all Jewish emigration will cease." See Vise page 10 Dem Showdown This Week By Susan Bloch BOSTON - The ideological battle between the official Democratic Party and Citizens for Participation in Political Action (CPPAX) over the platform plank on the Middle East has taken a new turn, with CPPAX drastically modifying its position. Nonetheless, a major battle over the statement is expected to take place at the party convention at Northeast- ern Lniversity on June 3. The reworded CPPAX resolution calls for "a peaceful and just resolution of the Israeli- Palestinian conflict that supports security for Israel and an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. To achieve this end we support negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians' chosen representatives." CPPAX, a left-leaning organization, last week removed the clause which called for "an international peace conference under Lnited Nations auspices that includes negotiations between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization" and the call for monitoring of "L.S. aid to Israel to ensure that this aid is not used to perpetuate Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip." Jamie Ann Sabino, co-chair of the Progressive Caucus, which had endorsed the original resolution and an active member of CPPAX, told The Boston Jewish Times that the original statement was amended to "concentrate on principles and not dictate process." According to Ms. Sabino, those attending last week's meeting, made the change because the wording and style of the original proposal was not consistent with other platform statements and the complex issue did not lend itself to in-depth discussion because of limited convention time. She denied the revision was due to the formation of Democrats for Middle East Peace, which has embarked on a major effort to contact the 5,000 delegates, urging them to support the official Party plank. The Mass. Democratic plank calls for "a peaceful resolution of the Middle East conflict building on America's unequivocal support for Israel which includes Israel's right to exist within secure borders" and calls for application of the principles set down in the Camp David Accords, which recognize the legitimate rights of the Palestinians. "In particular, we support Israel's call for free and democratic elections in the West Bank and Gaza, in order to produce Palestinian leadership to negotiate directly, without preconditions, with Israel." CPPAX does not support Mr. Shamir's election proposal because of its time frame for Palestinian autonomy, the caveats about an end to the uprising and the rejection of international supervision, Ms. Sabino said. However, CPPAX is open to any changes which might come about through further negotations, she added. The Democratic Party position adopts the Shamir plan, she said. "We should not articulate an election plan because the situation is constantly changing." Andrea Barron, who was the moving force behind Question 5, the Newton referendum calling for a Palestinian state, is also a member of the CPPAX drafting committee and the New Jewish Agenda. Ironically, the Middle East issue is Article 5 of the Democratic Platform. Ms. Barron emphasized that See Showdown page 12 Election Brewing By Susan Bloch BOSTON - Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir's proposal for Palestinian elections could bring about his resignation and throw Israel into political turmoil. Although the plan for elections in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, to be followed by a period of autonomy, was overwhelming passed by the Cabinet on May 14, some leading members of Mr. Shamir's Likud Party oppose the idea. The full Knesset endorsed the election plan by a vote of 43-15, meaning that the majority of the 120-member body didn't vote. Likud Party members who oppose the plan chose to be absent rather than vote against the government. Leading the opposition are David Levy, Ariel Sharon and Yitzhak Moda'i. Mr. Levy, a Deputy Prime Minister, recently met with Northern District members of Likud, who passed a resolution calling for the Prime Minister to withdraw the election proposal. Industry and Trade Minister Sharon has called the plan "a major calamity." More than 20 Storm In Likud Members of Knesset took large ads in the Israeli press denouncing the election proposal. Heading the signators was Deputy Foreign Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. Mr. Netanyahu and other members of the Cabinet will not be allowed to vote at the party meeting, because they have already voiced their opinion through the Cabinet vote. Foreign Minister Moshe Arens, a Shamir supporter, expressed profound disapproval of L.S. Secretary of State James Baker's speech last week to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Expressing public unhappi- ness with the content, Mr. Arens was believed to be privately dismayed by the timing of Mr. Baker's speech. Analysts point out that Mr. Baker's comments probably moved some Likud members into the opposition camp. In his remarks, Mr. Baker endorsed the election proposal, but called on Israel "to lay aside, once and for all, the unrealistic vision of a greater Israel;" foreswear annexation; stop settlement activity; allow schools to reopen; and "reach See Storm page 12
Object Description
Title | The Jewish Times |
Alternative Title |
Boston Jewish Times The Jewish Weekly Times |
Publication Date | 1989-06-01 |
Publisher | Grand Rabbi Y.A. Korff |
Volume | 44 |
Number | 19 |
Frequency | Weekly |
Spatial Coverage |
Allston Brighton Brookline |
Subjects |
Newspapers--local editions Jewish newspapers--new england |
Language | English |
Access | Open access |
Rights | User has an obligation to determine copyright or other use restrictions prior to publication or distribution. Please contact the archives at reference@ajhsboston.org or 617-226-1245 for more information. |
Source | American Jewish Historical Society-New England Archives, New England Historic Genealogical Society |
File Format | jpeg |
Page Number | 1 |
File Name | BJT_6_01_89_001.jpg |
Description
Title | The Jewish Times |
Alternative Title |
Boston Jewish Times The Jewish Weekly Times |
Publication Date | 1989-06-01 |
Volume | 44 |
Number | 19 |
Access | Open access |
Source | American Jewish Historical Society-New England Archives, New England Historic Genealogical Society |
Page Number | 1 |
Transcript | THE BOSTON JEWISH TIMES Write the vision and make it plain upon tables HABUKKUK 2:2 TELEPHONE (617) 442-9680 JUNE 1, 1989 VOL. XLIV, NO. 19 27 IYAR 5749 25«c Soviet Jews Caught In Immigration Vise By Samuel Seidner BOSTON — The liSSR has dramatically liberalized the number of exit visas for Soviet Jews desiring to leave that country. At the same time, the United States has imposed new immigration policies that sharply curtail the number of Soviet Jews allowed into this country. Last week, the INS tightened the noose even further by leaking its intent to implement a policy that denies refugee status to any immigrant who can gain access to another country. This ironic turn of events reverses the decades-long effort to free Soviet Jews from Russia, an effort supported by numerous organizations, politicians and human rights activists. It also betrays the belief, held by many, that if Russia would only permit freedom to its Jews, they would be welcome in the L.S. "I never thought I would see the day when the Russians would let out more Jews than we were willing to take in," said Li.S. Representative Barney Frank, long active in the cause of freeing Soviet Jewry. "I am very disappointed." Mr. Frank's disappointment is shared by many other human rights activists who have devoted 30 years to liberating Russian Jews. Now, when a policy of glasnost is sweeping the Soviet Lnion and exit permits to Jews and other oppressed minorities are forthcoming, the gates to freedom are slamming shut. "The INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) has snatched defeat from the jaws of victory," said an official of a Jewish organization dedicated to Soviet Jewry. Complicating the dilemma is the position of Israel, which maintains that Soviet Jews should resettle in the Jewish homeland. Israel is not displeased by the new immigration policies of the L.S. because they may funnel greater numbers of Russian Jews to Israel at a time when aliyah has dwindled to a trickle. In fact, some American Jewish observers are suggesting that Israel may have had a hand in influencing the new L.S. immigration initiatives. Immigrants to the Lnited States enter under three broad categories: immigrants, parolees and refugees. To be eligible for immigrant status usually means that the applicant has relatives in the Lnited States. To assist in the reunification of families, the INS gives priority to "first- degree" relatives: parents or children. A parolee status means entry under "emergency" conditions such as health or political expediency. Lnder the present law, parolees may never become L.S. citizens, vote in elections or serve in the armed forces. Other political rights are withheld or may be withdrawn. In fact, the right of a parolee to remain in the L.S. is reviewed periodically. In the past, Soviet Jews coming to America were classified as refugees, which meant they were eligible for a broad menu of welfare benefits and full political rights. Lnder the new regulations proposed by the INS, the ceiling for refugees allowed to enter the L.S. annually would be increased from the present 94,000, but a redistribution would result in fewer Soviet Jews and more refugees from Asian countries and Latin America. Congressman Frank rejects the notion that Soviet Jews gained entry to the L.S. at the expense of other applicants. In fact, 'he suggests, the new regulations permit greater numbers of Third World refugees at the expense of Soviet Jews. The tide began to turn in August 1988, when Attorney General Edwin Meese wrote a memo that abruptly changed the manner in which the L.S. awarded refugee status. Prior to the "Meese memo," Soviet Jews had been broadly classified as refugees. Since last summer, that status has been withdrawn and each application is reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Explanations for this shift are murky, but government officials have indicated budgetary considera- tions prompted the move. This twist in American policy slowed the processing of new applicants at the same time the LSSR was awarding more exit permits. This resulted in the present logjam at the transient camp at Ladispoli, Italy. Several thousand Jews are now living at the camp, which resembles a tent city. Soviet Jews are adament about not going to Israel, where they would be eligible for new immigrant status, which includes a basket of welfare benefits. Their knowledge of Israel is tainted by the Russian media and they apparently fear the intifada and the possiblity of war. Hence, Soviet Jews insist on emigration to the L.S. or other Western countries. Judy Patkin, executive director of Action for Soviet Jewry in Waltham, has just returned from Ladispoli. She says that Russian Jews there "just stare vacantly" when Israel is suggested as an option. Soviet Jews prefer to remain in Russia, suggested Ms. Patkin, rather than settle in Israel. She said her group is "very distressed" by the swift turn of events. "The danger of turning down the flow of Soviet Jewish emigration is that, eventually, all Jewish emigration will cease." See Vise page 10 Dem Showdown This Week By Susan Bloch BOSTON - The ideological battle between the official Democratic Party and Citizens for Participation in Political Action (CPPAX) over the platform plank on the Middle East has taken a new turn, with CPPAX drastically modifying its position. Nonetheless, a major battle over the statement is expected to take place at the party convention at Northeast- ern Lniversity on June 3. The reworded CPPAX resolution calls for "a peaceful and just resolution of the Israeli- Palestinian conflict that supports security for Israel and an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. To achieve this end we support negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians' chosen representatives." CPPAX, a left-leaning organization, last week removed the clause which called for "an international peace conference under Lnited Nations auspices that includes negotiations between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization" and the call for monitoring of "L.S. aid to Israel to ensure that this aid is not used to perpetuate Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip." Jamie Ann Sabino, co-chair of the Progressive Caucus, which had endorsed the original resolution and an active member of CPPAX, told The Boston Jewish Times that the original statement was amended to "concentrate on principles and not dictate process." According to Ms. Sabino, those attending last week's meeting, made the change because the wording and style of the original proposal was not consistent with other platform statements and the complex issue did not lend itself to in-depth discussion because of limited convention time. She denied the revision was due to the formation of Democrats for Middle East Peace, which has embarked on a major effort to contact the 5,000 delegates, urging them to support the official Party plank. The Mass. Democratic plank calls for "a peaceful resolution of the Middle East conflict building on America's unequivocal support for Israel which includes Israel's right to exist within secure borders" and calls for application of the principles set down in the Camp David Accords, which recognize the legitimate rights of the Palestinians. "In particular, we support Israel's call for free and democratic elections in the West Bank and Gaza, in order to produce Palestinian leadership to negotiate directly, without preconditions, with Israel." CPPAX does not support Mr. Shamir's election proposal because of its time frame for Palestinian autonomy, the caveats about an end to the uprising and the rejection of international supervision, Ms. Sabino said. However, CPPAX is open to any changes which might come about through further negotations, she added. The Democratic Party position adopts the Shamir plan, she said. "We should not articulate an election plan because the situation is constantly changing." Andrea Barron, who was the moving force behind Question 5, the Newton referendum calling for a Palestinian state, is also a member of the CPPAX drafting committee and the New Jewish Agenda. Ironically, the Middle East issue is Article 5 of the Democratic Platform. Ms. Barron emphasized that See Showdown page 12 Election Brewing By Susan Bloch BOSTON - Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir's proposal for Palestinian elections could bring about his resignation and throw Israel into political turmoil. Although the plan for elections in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, to be followed by a period of autonomy, was overwhelming passed by the Cabinet on May 14, some leading members of Mr. Shamir's Likud Party oppose the idea. The full Knesset endorsed the election plan by a vote of 43-15, meaning that the majority of the 120-member body didn't vote. Likud Party members who oppose the plan chose to be absent rather than vote against the government. Leading the opposition are David Levy, Ariel Sharon and Yitzhak Moda'i. Mr. Levy, a Deputy Prime Minister, recently met with Northern District members of Likud, who passed a resolution calling for the Prime Minister to withdraw the election proposal. Industry and Trade Minister Sharon has called the plan "a major calamity." More than 20 Storm In Likud Members of Knesset took large ads in the Israeli press denouncing the election proposal. Heading the signators was Deputy Foreign Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. Mr. Netanyahu and other members of the Cabinet will not be allowed to vote at the party meeting, because they have already voiced their opinion through the Cabinet vote. Foreign Minister Moshe Arens, a Shamir supporter, expressed profound disapproval of L.S. Secretary of State James Baker's speech last week to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Expressing public unhappi- ness with the content, Mr. Arens was believed to be privately dismayed by the timing of Mr. Baker's speech. Analysts point out that Mr. Baker's comments probably moved some Likud members into the opposition camp. In his remarks, Mr. Baker endorsed the election proposal, but called on Israel "to lay aside, once and for all, the unrealistic vision of a greater Israel;" foreswear annexation; stop settlement activity; allow schools to reopen; and "reach See Storm page 12 |
File Name | BJT_6_01_89_001.jpg |
Tags
Comments
Post a Comment for The Jewish Times