711.679 Residence and Establishment/31: Telegram

The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Turkey (Grew)


58. Your 74, September 26, 10 a.m.

The Department does not and in the present instance is not prepared (for reasons which were set forth in the Department’s 55, September 22, noon, paragraph (2)) to regard the expression “conditions of residence and establishment” as covering necessarily the entry of aliens.
However, regarding your 74, paragraph (1), last sentence, you will realize that the already existing right of Turks to enter the United States, subject to the provisions of the 1924 Immigration Act, would, of course, not be affected in any way by the absence of any mention in the present proposed treaty of the matter of entry.
In order to obviate any possible misunderstanding, however, regarding the Department’s position, as set forth above in paragraph (1), the Department would have no objection to having the matter of entry specifically covered by the following additional clause, which if acceptable would form the first sentence of the formula (in view of the word “residence” in the second sentence, the word “sojourn” has been omitted as superfluous):14

“With respect to matters affecting the entry of nationals of the High Contracting Parties into the territories of the other Party, the United States will accord to Turkey and Turkey will accord to the United States most-favored-nation treatment subject to the immigration laws in force in the respective countries”.

If the above method of overcoming the present difficulty meets with your approval, and if the Turks should inquire regarding the reason for insertion of the reference to immigration laws, you can, if necessary, reassure the Turks concerning the necessity of this reference as far as the United States Government is concerned and point with force to the fact of the reciprocal nature of the clause.
You are confidentially informed that the above additional clause, in the view of the Department, would invoke, instead of override, the Immigration Act’s reference to “present existing treaties”. This is unavoidable, however, unless the treaty-merchants question is covered by a detailed article which is designed to override the act’s section 3 (6), and this might in turn lead the Turks to suggest further detailed provisions. In order to overcome such a difficulty, the Department is ready to continue according to Turkish merchants the treaty-merchant privilege on the principle that the 1830 treaty provision15 according such privilege has neither been covered nor superseded in our new treaties with Turkey by any subsequent provision.

Your views on the above suggestions will be appreciated by the Department.

  1. Quotation not paraphrased.
  2. Treaty of commerce and navigation, signed at Constantinople May 7, 1830; Miller, Treaties, vol. 3, pp. 541, 542.