THE LIKELIHOOD of bringing to justice American war criminals--without whom there would be no Vietnamese refugees--is slight. But this need not mean that America should, out of guilt, and any and all Vietnamese asking for political asylum, including those who, under whatever circumstances, are guilty of atrocities.

The decision America confronts regarding Vietnamese war refugees must be seen as an issue of political asylum and not humanitarian aid. Forced repatriation of Vietnamese refugees is not the issue, and neither is the competence of the U.S. to act as a judicial body evaluating the merits of individual Vietnamese. The real problem is whether or not the U.S. will divert its humanitarian efforts away from what should be their real focus--the reconstruction of the land we ravaged and the people we tore apart--to the comforting of the defeated lieutenants who carried out our policies. That would only compound our already grievous record of injury to the Vietnamese people.

In addition to the argument that our overwhelming guilt requires us to accept all Vietnamese refugees who apply for political asylum. President Ford has put forward an historical argument leading to the same conclusion. Ford claims that America must live up to a tradition of accepting all refugees. His presentation of history, the textbook version, is only half true. While immigration in the nineteenth century was virtually unrestricted, in this century America has only relaxed immigration quotas when refugees from one of our client states, or our allies as we ingenuously call them, were involved. The Cubans but not the Jews, the Hungarians but not the Biafrans. Added to this side of the record is America's cooperation with Stalin's program of forced repatriations after World War II. America's heritage in the field of political asylum is only partly admirable; we cannot rely on it for guidance.

What we should rely on are the principles set forward at the end of World War II. These principles do not embody perfect justice or solve all the moral dilemmas raised by warfare, but they provide a rough and ready standard. The fact that some of the biggest war criminals are still at large, and in many cases still in power, need not paralyze us into taking no action at all against others responsible, though perhaps responsible on a different level. The argument is especially weak since no direct action against ex-torturers and ex-secret police is being contemplated; the only action recommended is refusing such people political asylum.

All the while understanding how precarious an effort it is to avoid sanctimoniousness and racism. Americans should reject the view that these 130,000 refugees form a monolithic bloc of people each with an equal right to political asylum. Some should be denied the security and moral sanction of asylum--secret police who staffed the South Vietnamese torture establishment, guarded the tiger cages and carried out the Phoenix program of assassinations. America has no responsibility to provide a safe haven for these people, and we are in no position ourselves to undertake to rehabilitate them.

There is no need to propose the logistics for a screening process. If the criteria established are honestly interpreted, nearly any American not connected with war policy could apply them. Any refugees in the United States who want to return to Vietnam should not only be allowed to do so, but transportation for them should be provided.

Unfortunately most of the voices raised so far against wholesale acceptance have been ill-informed, immoral or racist. Racism is patent in the charges that Vietnamese refugees will carry disease. "Spread communism," and possibly flood the job market with cheap labor. It would be better to accept all the refugees than to how to these voices echoing the most disreputable chapters of our history. If we do screen Vietnamese refugees and reject asylum for a few of them, it must be clear that America is not obeying the voice of primitive racism, but making a belated attempt to cease our support of corruption and atrocity.