840.48 Refugees/657: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Chargé in the United Kingdom ( Johnson )
456. For Myron Taylor. Your 749, August 12, noon.
- 1.
- Since much of the impetus which has been given to the Committee’s work is due to your personal efforts we trust that after your departure for Paris you will be in a position to return to London when necessary for meetings and that you will continue to serve as Vice Chairman as long as possible.
- 2.
- Referring to your paragraphs nos. 3, 4, and 5: Although it cannot of course definitely be stated what view Congress will take towards a suggestion for a change in the Immigration Act of 1924, there has been an indication of restrictionist attitude pointing to opposition to any proposal to liberalize the immigration laws in the direction of increasing the “immigration quotas”. For this reason and in view of the policy indicated in the President’s proposal that the solution for the refugee problem should be sought within the framework of our present immigration laws, it is believed that you should follow Brandt’s suggestion regarding the statement to be made, emphasizing the fact that the United States, under its immigration laws, has been accepting for permanent immigration immigrants chargeable to the quota for Germany including former Austria who are for the most part involuntary immigrants, at a rate up to the annual quota of 27,370 per annum, and that there is no reason to believe that the United States will not continue to accept qualified immigrants chargeable to the German quota at the same rate. Such a statement will give a definite indication of the part the United States will be able to take in finding permanent homes for involuntary immigrants from Germany and Austria. At the rate indicated, excepting a change in the basic quota law, the United States will accept during the next 5 years over 100,000 immigrants constituting, at your estimate, onethird of the total number who must be evacuated.
- 3.
- We appreciate the British position, which is undoubtedly shared by a number of other States Members of the League, concerning the League’s new refugee organization. We continue to believe that there is room for both organizations in this field and that their functions can be satisfactorily co-ordinated. You will recall, however, that one important reason for this Government’s initiative was the failure of the League to deal adequately with this problem prior to the Anschluss and the complete lack of evidence that it would be able adequately to deal with it under present and anticipated conditions. Elements in the League’s failure in this field were: (1) its inability to deal with the German Government, (2) its unwillingness to consider the problem as a semipermanent one, and (3) personal factors. Of these elements, the first is permanent and the continuance of the other two will depend upon the nature of the League’s new organization and the qualifications of the person appointed as its head.
Our primary interest is the accomplishment of concrete results and, even should the negotiations with the German Government fail, we would not feel justified in allowing the Committee to become merely an advisory body to the High Commissioner. We consider that the Committee should undertake all negotiations with the German Government through its Director with the assistance of the principal diplomatic representatives in Berlin and, at the other end, with the countries of refuge, possibly through diplomatic representatives accredited to the Governments concerned. The High Commissioner should, we believe, be occupied primarily (in addition to the performance of the functions which he will inherit from the Nansen Office) with such matters as long range planning and documentation of involuntary emigrants.
In addition to the demarcation of functions, there will be the problem of establishing the closest possible collaboration in a form which will not jeopardize the relations between the Committee and the German Government.