
Introduction
The seeds of dumping off refugees, aliens, undocumented workers, unprotected and vulnerable civilians, citizens of another country, has an infamous history at the US navy base on the southeastern shores of Cuba. Under the jurisdiction of the United States over a treaty dating back a hundred years, the base has become a convenient stopover for all of the above who are rejected from entry through direct interdiction by the coast guard, or who have been removed through arrests and detentions on American soil after the fact.
The dumping ground was around at least a decade before the junta in Haiti which sent the democratically elected president into exile for years and a steady stream of boat people out of the island head across the choppy waters of the straits to the east of the Gulf of Mexico, enroute to America. They were picked up by the coast guard and after spending various numbers of days or weeks on the cutters, were placed into camps at the navy base, if they were lucky. The rules changed. (Image: Akron Beacon Journal, 04/07/94/a2)
Methodology
This report is a mosaic of several units in capsules, including a.) notes, b.) artificial intelligence queries, enclosed in parentheses (Begin Perplexity-AI) and (End Perplexity-AI) and c.) congressional records enclosed in parantheses (Begin Congressional Record) and (End Congressional Record).
Capsules
(Begin Perplexity-AI)
haitian forced repatriation 1992
In 1992, the United States government implemented a policy of forced repatriation for Haitian refugees fleeing political unrest in their home country. This controversial decision came after a period of increased refugee arrivals following the 1991 coup that overthrew Haiti’s democratically elected president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide2.On January 31, 1992, the U.S. Supreme Court lifted a ban on the forced repatriation of Haitian boat people, allowing the government to proceed with its plans1. This decision was met with strong criticism from human rights organizations and advocacy groups, who argued that the policy was discriminatory and put refugees at risk of persecution upon their return to Haiti12.In May 1992, President George H.W. Bush issued Executive Order 12,807, known as the Kennebunkport Order, which formalized the policy of intercepting Haitian refugees at sea and returning them to Haiti without screening for potential asylum claims2. This order effectively bypassed earlier policies that required some level of screening for asylum eligibility2.The U.S. government justified this policy by citing concerns about encouraging more Haitians to attempt dangerous sea crossings and the strain on resources at the Guantanamo Bay refugee camp, which had reached a population of around 11,300 by May 19922. However, critics argued that the policy violated international refugee law and the principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits the return of individuals to countries where they may face persecution3.The forced repatriation policy continued into the Clinton administration, despite campaign promises to the contrary2. Throughout 1992 and beyond, thousands of Haitian refugees were forcibly returned to Haiti, often facing detention and potential danger upon their arrival26.This period marked a significant shift in U.S. refugee policy, particularly concerning Haitian asylum seekers, and remains a controversial chapter in the history of U.S. immigration and human rights practices.
https://www.perplexity.ai/search/haitian-forced-repatriation-19-Gfp.EKrlQ8qpVwXMjVyFVg
kennebunkport order 1992
The Kennebunkport Order, officially known as Executive Order 12807, was issued by President George Bush on May 23, 199217. This order allowed the U.S. Coast Guard to intercept Haitian refugees at sea and forcibly return them to Haiti without determining whether they qualified for asylum12.Key aspects of the Kennebunkport Order include:
- It permitted the immediate return of Haitian refugees intercepted in international waters13.
- It removed the requirement to screen refugees for potential asylum claims23.
- The order was designed to prevent illegal migration to the United States by sea1.
The Bush administration defended the order by claiming it would safeguard human lives and that most Haitians were seeking better economic opportunities rather than fleeing political persecution3. However, the order was controversial and faced legal challenges:
- It was seen as a departure from previous policies that required screening of potential refugees2.
- The order was challenged in court, with the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that it violated the law4.
- Despite the legal challenges, the Supreme Court granted a stay, allowing the continued repatriation of Haitians until a final ruling4.
The Kennebunkport Order had significant implications for U.S. refugee policy and international obligations. It raised questions about compliance with the UN Refugee Convention and Protocol, as it allowed for the return of potential refugees without screening5.
(End Perplexity-AI)
“no more room in the Inn”
Notes: Negative reaction to the Kennebunkport Order was reflected less than a week later by members of congress. Those who made the case against the harsh treatment of Haitian asylum seekers included Rep. J. Conyers (D-MI) Rep. C. Rangel (D-NY), and Rep. Gilman (R-NY).
(Begin Congressional Record)
THE HAITIAN REFUGEE CRISIS (27 May 1992, pages 12739-12740)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. CONYERS] is recognized for 60 minutes.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, the Haitian refugee crisis has gone from bad to worse.
We are now saying, ”Sorry, the inn is filled up and we are not willing· to help Haitians in their struggle against re- pression and domination.”
The irony is that today, May 27, is exactly 53 years earlier that the Hamburg American Lines Cruiser, the St. Louis, arrived in the Caribbean. On board were 930 passengers who had a red “J” stamped on their passports identifying them as Jewish refugees fleeing Hitler’s Germany. With embarrassment and the only other time that has happened, the Jews on the St. Louis could find no sanctuary in the United States.
This weekend on the golf course, the President determined that there would be no further processing of Haitians, and by Executive order he declared that they would be picked up in their ships and returned to Haiti. Forgetting, I hope, that one out of two of these boats never make it to the United States, he has now indulged in a policy of drowning, because who is to say which of these rickety craft that made it over here on a 50-percent chance will ever make it back to the shores of Haiti.
No more question about political asylum as a reason or economic asylum as a reason. No more question about the laws of the U.S. immigration, no more concern about in the international treaty that has been our guide in immigration matters, the Geneva accord, since 1968. From this point on, unlike any other case other than the voyage of the damned in 1939, 53 years ago today, the President now says nobody will be processed from Haiti who comes to these shores.
Madam Speaker, I would like now to yield to several of my colleagues who have brief comments. I would start off with the gentleman from New York [Mr. RANGEL], whose leadership in this matter has been exemplary. I refer to the chairman of the Narcotics Committee, and I yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. RANGEL].
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, not only for having this special order, but for being involved with the leadership of the Congressional Black Caucus who has brought this moral and this legal issue before the Congress, and I am so pleased to see we are joined by so many of our friends.
You know, if this country was not so small, if it were not so poor, if they were not so black, we would never even concede that a great power like the United States of America would send its ships to this country and under no color of law determine that they can- not leave the country. If they do, we are going to return them to their country.
We might say that is because we are trying to save them from themselves. They are escaping from a building on fire and we are taking them, saying that you will be better inside this building than you would outside on a Coast Guard cutter.
But the truth of the matter is that we have signed international agreements and we have said that we will give political asylum to those people who are suffering political persecution. Even under the high artificial standards that are set by the Immigration Service, even as we find these awkward people on boats trying in broken Creole to say whether these people are political or. economic, because it is hard to believe that you can be poor and black and hungry and still be subjected to political persecution.
Thirty percent of the people who have been screened have reached these standards. So you have to assume that not only are we violating the principles of international law in stopping them, but we also are violating the law in not allowing those who are eligible to come to the United States.
I have never felt more proud of my country than I was when I was with Assistant Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger at the OAS Conference that was held last weekend, where America’s voice was heard loud and clear that we will not allow the international community to recognize this illegal and immoral military coup government and that they will not be rec- ognized until they restore democracy and President Aristide.
I was waiting for the President of the United States, the leader of the free world, the leader of the new world order, to get this report from his Secretary of State and to tell the free world that you can count on the United States for help.
1910
And the President has said now, “We are going to enforce an embargo.” I shared with the President this morning that an embargo that includes oil is long, long overdue. But, I said, “Mr. President, if you just enforce the em- bargo, which is going to bring further pain and suffering on the poor, without personally interceding and providing the leadership to let these people know once and for all that they are going to have to yield to democracy, then it is not worth the effort. We need the diplomatic initiative on the highest possible levels if we are going to employ those types of sanctions.”
So I implore the religious community as well as our leaders around this country, if there ever was a time, no matter whether you are black or white, whether you are Jew or gentile, wheth- er you are Protestant or Catholic, it is something immoral to say that there is, “no more room in the inn.”
I thank the gentleman from Michigan for taking this special order to give us an opportunity to share our views in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.
Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman for his comments, and I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. GILMAN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and commend him for his remarks in behalf of a critical issue. I want to congratulate the gentleman from Michigan for taking this special order.
Madam Speaker, the people of Haiti have long suffered under the brutal and arbitrary rule of dictatorship. In 1986, the Haitian people demonstrated incredible courage when they ousted the then President-for-life Claude Duvalier. In 1987, an overwhelming majority of Haitians declared themselves in support of democratic rule by approving a constitution, which established a legal framework for the election of a civilian government.
In 1987. the Presidential election was cancelled due to widespread violence in Haiti on the day of the election. On December 16, 1990, in a free and fair election, Jean-Bertrand Aristide was elected President, by almost 70 percent of the vote.
Mr. Speaker, with the democratization of Eastern Europe before us. many of us were willing to believe the ways of the Haitian dictator was almost over-but on September 30, 1991, elements of the Armed Forces launched an attack against president Aristide and the people of Haiti, forcing the President of leave Haiti with the Haitian Government in the hands of a military junta. While we certainly recognize that the duly elected government of Haiti did not have a stellar human rights record, it is still, in fact, the duly elected Haitian Government.
Throughout the entire period of tumult in Haiti, I have kept a watchful eye on developments in that nation. Just a few months ago I accompanied the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. RANGEL] to Haiti. After our extensive series of meetings with Government officials, military offices, and private citizens, our delegation came to the conclusion that some of the refugees being forcibly repatriated could face repercussions from the illegitimate government that rules Haiti.
I have raised this matter with the Attorney General of the United States in the recent past, and I remain firmly convinced that it goes against the very nature of our national character to force these refugees to return to Haiti.
Since the fall, the United States Coast Guard has picked up some 30,000 Haitians. Of these, roughly 14,000 have been returned to Hai ti after being screened by the INS, 8,000 have been permitted to seek political asylum in the United States, and 12,000 remain at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba.
Some have contended that the Haitians fleeing Haiti are economic refugees. We recognize that poverty is nothing new or recent to Haiti. It is the repression by the military dictatorship currently in power that these people seek to escape.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. CONYERS] for his outstanding efforts in ar- ranging this special order. I call upon our executive and legislative branches to work together to forge a humane and acceptable policy to resolve this crisis until democracy is restored to Haiti.
(End Congressional Record)
Notes: Even with these reasonable arguments, the White House found no other recourse but to ship the boat people back to Haiti without any sort of action taken on their behalf. With this sort of precedent, it is not hard to grasp the current status quo and what’s in store with the bouncers lining up to toss them all out of the inn.
Begin Perplexity-AI)

rep. conyers us congress 1992
In 1992, John Conyers won re-election to his 15th term in the U.S. House of Representatives1. He represented Michigan’s newly renumbered 14th district, which included western suburbs of Detroit1. Conyers secured a decisive victory, garnering 82% of the vote against Republican nominee John Gordon15.
Key Points
- Redistricting: Following the 1990 U.S. census, Michigan lost a congressional district, leading to redistricting1.
- New District: Conyers’s district was renumbered as the 14th district1.
- Election Results: Conyers received 165,496 votes, which accounted for 82% of the total votes cast5.
Conyers’s 1992 re-election was part of his long and distinguished career in Congress. He served from 1965 to 2017, becoming the sixth-longest serving member of Congress in U.S. history and the longest-serving African American member of Congress13
https://www.perplexity.ai/search/rep-conyers-us-congress-1992-0z2RKLRwSgywXBF5BR60zw
rep rangel us congress 1992
Charles B. Rangel served as a Representative from New York in the U.S. Congress in 199213. He was a member of the Democratic Party and represented districts in New York City1. In 1992, Rangel was already a long-serving member of Congress, having first been elected in 19703.During his tenure, which included 1992, Rangel held several significant positions:
- He was a member of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee1.
- He was a founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus1.
- He played a key role in various legislative efforts, including tax reform and anti-apartheid measures1.
Rangel’s congressional career was marked by his advocacy for urban issues, civil rights, and economic development in his district, which included parts of Harlem and other areas of New York City14.
https://www.perplexity.ai/search/rep-rangel-us-congress-1992-u8_uAjkwSxena2.mibrrdg

rep. gilman us congress 1992
Benjamin A. Gilman was a Republican member of the United States House of Representatives in 199212. He represented New York’s 22nd congressional district and won re-election in the 1992 House elections2. Gilman secured 66.1% of the vote, defeating Democratic challenger Jonathan L. Levine2.
Congressional Career
Gilman had been serving in Congress since 1973, having first won election in 19723. By 1992, he was an established figure in the House, known for his work on various committees and foreign policy issues:
- Member of the House Post Office and Civil Service Committee (later Government Reform and Oversight Committee)1
- Co-founder and senior member of the House Select Committee on Narcotics (1977-1989)1
- Active in foreign affairs, serving as a Congressional delegate to the United Nations3
- Involved in issues such as POWs/MIAs in Southeast Asia and world hunger13
Gilman was widely regarded as a moderate Republican and was particularly noted for his efforts in human rights, anti-drug initiatives, and international relations13. His re-election in 1992 allowed him to continue his work on these issues in the 103rd United States Congress25
https://www.perplexity.ai/search/rep-gilman-us-congress-1992-zzm8BKwUS.KQxvk8me0m.A
(End Perplexity-AI)
Afterward
Today, the Guantanamo dumping ground is about to live down to its lowest standards in years, as a new round of rounding up the undesirables to make America great (again) is in progress. Contrary to what the congressmen pleaded on the floor only a week after the Kennebunkport order was issued, making America great was not about “no more room in the inn.”











