On October 20, 1950, a subcommittee of the Policy Committee on Immigration
and Naturalization (PIN) was appointed to analyze the operation of the Act
and make recommendations looking toward its amendment or repeal. The
subcommittee had representation from P, H, CON, UNA and EUR
(for all Regional bureau interests) and was assisted by advisers from VD, L/EUR, and
IEP.
The subcommittee’s functions were defined by the Chairman of PIN (Conrad E.
Snow) as:
The subcommittee reached two conclusions after a preliminary examination of
the problem: first, that there was no reasonable basis for concluding that
Congress would repeal the Act and, therefore,
[Page 897]
the subcommittee should limit its efforts to preparing
amendments to make the Act reasonably workable; second, because the
authority of PIN is limited to the effect on foreign policy of immigration
and naturalization policies and practices, the subcommittee should consider
only the immigration provisions of the Act.
In undertaking its examination of the actual working of the Act, the
subcommittee assigned various collection tasks to its members. These
included:
With this material in hand, the subcommittee assigned to certain of its
members responsibility for the preparation of estimates of the effect of the
Act upon U.S. foreign relations. Five such estimates were prepared covering
the following topics:
These estimates are incorporated as annexes to the attached position
paper.
Finally, the subcommittee presents to the full PIN Committee the attached
recommended amendments to the Act.
[Attachment]
Position Paper Approved by the Policy Committee on
Immigration and Naturalization
The Position of the Department of State With
Respect to the Internal Security Act of 1950
problem
To determine what amendment if any of the immigration provisions of the
Internal Security Act of 1950 is indicated by the effect of the Act on
the conduct of U.S. foreign relations?
discussion
On September 23, 1950, Congress adopted the Internal Security Act of 1950
over a Presidential veto. The House vote was 286 to 48 and the Senate
vote 57 to 10 for overriding the veto.
The veto message of the President argued against enactment of the
legislation for a number of reasons. Prominent among these reasons was
the effect of the legislation on the conduct of foreign affairs. Section
22 of the Act was singled out for special mention in the veto message.
The President’s message stated that the section would
[Page 899]
“… prevent ns from admitting to our country, or citizenship, many
people who could make real contributions to our national strength.
The bill would deprive our government and our intelligence agencies
of the valuable services of aliens in security operations. It would
require us to exclude and to deport the citizens of some friendly
non-Communist countries.”
Effect of the Act on U.S. Foreign Relations
Reaction in the United States
The operation of the Immigration provisions of the law has created many
difficult problems for the Department of State and the Department of
Justice.6 There has been a voluminous amount of public
discussion in this country devoted to the immigration sections and the
consensus of press and organization comment is (the comments of certain
sponsors of the Act excepted) that the law must be revised in order to
eliminate its “senseless restrictions.”
The purpose of the law is almost unanimously supported; but it is widely
felt that the immigration provisions as presently constituted contain
little that will protect the U.S. against Communists and much that is
harmful to our relations with other countries. It has been frequently
pointed out by editors and columnists that the only “totalitarian”
organization which constitutes a “clear and present danger” to the U.S.
is the Communist Party; that therefore the immigration restrictions
should be rewritten to make it clear that ex-members of other
“totalitarian” groups would be admissible under the requirements
prevailing prior to the new law. There has been much emphasis on the
damaging effect of this section on European confidence in America’s
leadership, and many have charged that it is ringing down an “iron
curtain” on the U.S. Some others have also maintained that ex-Communists
have been of great help to our intelligence activities and are often
“the strongest and best informed opponents of Communists”, and these
commentators hope that the legislation will be made “elastic” enough
when Congress reconvenes
[Page 900]
to
admit people in this category. (For a full analysis of domestic comment,
see Annex 47 of this
paper.)
Foreign Reaction
Abroad, the principal reaction has been in those countries where the
impact of the immigration sections of the Act has been immediately felt
(Germany, Austria, Italy and Spain). (For a fuller analysis of foreign,
public and official reaction to the Act, see Annex 17 of this paper.)
This impact has arisen from the provisions of the law excluding, except
by special action of the Attorney General, former members or affiliates
of totalitarian parties or organizations, especially in Austria, Germany
and Italy. It has also struck Spain, which has been found to be a
totalitarian dictatorship within the meaning of the Act.
Press reaction in these countries, other than on the part of the
Communist press, has been one of shock, surprise, and resentment.
Normally friendly newspapers have included comment ridiculing the United
States and making sarcastic references to professed American
intentions.
Comment abroad has not been limited to that appearing in the public
press. Officials in both Austria and Germany have informally conveyed to
our representatives in those countries their concern at the adverse
psychological effects of the Act.
The Italian Government has formally and officially protested at the
operation of the immigration sections of the Act.
Although none of the governments directly affected have formally
indicated that they might retaliate against the United States unless the
immigration sections of the Act are modified, it is fully within the
realm of possibility that they might do so. Italy, for example, might
abrogate the 1948 exchange of letters regarding passport visas. Both
Spain and Italy might throw difficulties in the way of Protestant
missionaries seeking entry into these countries for temporary visits or
permanent residence. (For a fuller analysis of foreign public and
official reaction to the Act, see Annex 17 to this paper.)
Harmful Effects on U.S. Programs
The immigration sections of the Act have already had an adverse effect
upon certain U.S. policies and programs in the field of foreign
relations. (For a fuller analysis of the effect of the Act on the
conduct of U.S. foreign relations, see Annex 27 of this paper.)
While the operation of the Act has undermined United States prestige and
influence in many parts of the world, its effect on United
[Page 901]
States policies and programs
in the conduct of United States foreign relations has naturally been
most severe in those countries where totalitarianism other than
communism formerly existed or now exists: Austria, Germany, Italy, and
Spain. Virtually all citizens of Austria, Germany and Italy born before
World War II belonged at least nominally to the Nazi or Fascist Party or
to one or more of their subsidiaries. In these countries, such
membership was necessary to an education and to earning a living. These
peoples have, with our encouragement, consistently demonstrated that
they are our friends and allies, confronted with a common danger. Their
indiscriminate classification with our real enemies, the Communists,
threatens the whole fabric of our policies and objectives, including the
primary objective of assuring the security of the United States.
The operation of the Act has interfered with our economic policies and
programs by interrupting and making it extremely difficult to resume
valuable and necessary travel of business men and commercial
representatives. Mutually advantageous trade between the United States
and the countries concerned has been impaired.
Emigration from Italy to the United States, which is of vital importance
not only politically but as a part of the Italian recovery effort, has
been drastically curtailed. This curtailment, which has also affected
Germans and Austrians seeking to enter under the regular quotas, has
also affected morale in United States Armed Forces in Germany, Austria,
and Trieste owing to the fact that the military authorities will not
permit military personnel to marry aliens who are inadmissible to the
United States for permanent residence.
Our military policies and programs, with particular regard to the
exchange of soldier and officer trainees, have not thus far been
seriously affected, since persons coming to the United States under
these programs can come on government official (3) (1) visas.8
Our information and cultural programs in Austria, Germany, and Italy have
been drastically affected. Notwithstanding the special procedures
available to secure the entry of otherwise excludable persons under
these programs, the psychological effect on potential exchangees of
going through with such procedures is adverse and contradictory to the
purposes of the programs.
As regards Spain, application of the Act will further isolate that
country, in contradiction to our national policy of attempting to
encourage more liberal policies there, to permit gradual integration of
Spain into the community of Western European nations.
[Page 902]
Repercussions in the United Nations
Application of provisions of the Act to certain foreign participants in
U.N. activities in the U.S. has resulted in a resolution of inquiry
addressed to the U.N. Secretary-General by ECOSOC.9 The Department has also found it
necessary to recommend eighteen cases to the Attorney General for Ninth
Proviso action during the period September 23–November 3, 1950. (For a
full discussion of the effect of the Act on U.N. activity in the U.S.,
see Annex 310 of this
paper.)
Effect of the Act upon Communist defection
It is too early to evaluate the effect of the Act on defection from
Communist ranks. (See Annex 510 of this paper.)
Administration of the Act
The Department of Justice has been cooperative in its administration of
the Act. The Office of Consular Affairs and the Visa Division have
worked closely with Justice in the development of procedures for
administering the Act and on the interpretation of the loose language
found in the legislation. The Attorney General has indicated a
willingness to exercise his Ninth Proviso authority in those cases where
he felt he had authority to do so. This is often a rather slow process
but it has permitted the temporary admission of many aliens who would
otherwise have been excluded. However, the requirement that each case be
examined individually and the necessity of providing a substantial
amount of information needed by the Attorney General for his report to
Congress on Ninth Proviso actions has put a heavy additional workload on
the Department at home and the consular establishment abroad. Further,
there is no guarantee that the Attorney General will exercise his Ninth
Proviso authority in all cases in which the Department is
interested.
As of November 10, there were 199 Ninth Proviso cases pending in the Visa
Division plus approximately 50 others in IEP (Educational Exchange program cases). By the same date,
the Attorney General had actually invoked the Ninth Proviso in 151
cases. It is estimated that IEP alone
will have some 3,000 additional cases to present to Justice for Ninth
Proviso action in the remaining 7½ months of this fiscal year. These
cases arise in connection with the exchange programs with Germany,
Austria and Italy.
Except for a few items, the Departments of State and Justice have reached
agreement on definitions and procedures under the Act. There still
remain three or possibly four points on which agreement does not yet
exist:
[Page 903]
- 1.
- The Immigration and Naturalization Service takes the position
that former members of the German and Italian armies are ipso facto inadmissible under the Act.
The Department of State believes this view is unreasonable
because service in the armed forces is seldom on a voluntary
basis and because it would exclude a class of persons who are
not necessarily dangerous to our internal security. In the event
such individuals do constitute danger to our internal security,
they will be excluded under other provisions of the Act.
- 2.
- The question of what the term “membership” should mean in the
Act is in dispute. The difficulty comes in trying to agree on
which kinds of involuntary membership should not make a person
inadmissible.
- 3.
- The definition of the term “affiliation” is not settled. An
example of this problem is the case of a German organization of
engineers existing before the Nazi regime which was taken over
by the Nazis, leaving the membership of the organization and its
principles unchanged.
- 4.
- The definition of the terms “section, subsidiary, branch,
affiliate, or subdivision …” in Section 22, I, (2) (c) may be another subject of
disagreement.
Amendments proposed
The following amendments to the Act are recommended to make the Act
workable:
- 1.
- Section 22 1 (2). (Preferred substitute) “Aliens who at the
time they seek to enter the United States are members of any of
the following classes:”
-
- This change is designed to remove the hardship imposed by the
present form of the Act upon former members of totalitarian
parties who saw the error to which they had been led and who
gave up their membership. The recommended wording permits
defectors from Nazi and Communist ranks to enter the United
States and still excludes those presently dangerous.
- 2.
- Section 22 1 (2). (Alternative substitute) “Aliens who, at any
time, shall be or shall have been members of any of the
following classes; Provided, That nothing
in this section shall require the exclusion of an alien who,
having formerly been a member of any class specified herein, has
not been a member of such class within the five year period
immediately preceding his attempt to enter the United States;
Provided further, That if such former
membership existed within such five year period the alien shall
not be excluded because of such former membership if it is
established that he is opposed to the principles and purposes of
such classes.”
Alternative proviso
“Provided, That nothing in this section shall
require the exclusion of an alien who was formerly a member of any party
or organization specified herein, and who is actively opposed to such
party or organization if it still exists.”
These are alternatives to the first amendment. The recommended wording
serves the same purpose as the foregoing change but discusses
[Page 904]
in more detail the case of the
defector from totalitarian party ranks who is now opposed to the
principles of such party.
3. Section 22 2. At end change period to comma and add the words “or, in
accordance with Section 11 of the Headquarters Site Agreement with the
United Nations as a nonimmigrant under Section 3 (3) of the Immigration
Act of 1924, as amended.” This change implements Section 11 of the
Headquarters Site Agreement between U.S. and U.N. which permits the
entry into the U.S. of correspondents, NGO representatives, and invitees from any country on an
equal basis provided that they come here on legitimate business.
4. Section 22 4 (a). Change to read: “Any alien
who was at the time of entering the United States or who after entering
the United States shall be found to be excludable under any provision of
this Act shall, upon the warrant of the Attorney General, be taken into
custody and deported in the manner provided in the Immigration Act of
February 5, 1917, or other applicable statute. The provisions of this
section shall be applicable to the classes of aliens mentioned in this
Act, irrespective of the time of their entry into the United
States.”
This change will clarify the language of the Act while serving the same
purpose intended by the original provisions.
5. Section 22 6 (c). Add after (2) a new provision
(3) reading “6 (c) (3). The provisions of Section
1 (2) shall not be applicable to accredited officials of foreign
governments recognized by the United States, members of their family,
attendants, servants and employees, passing in transit through the
United States.”
This change remedies an inadvertence in the Act, which failed to grant
transit privileges to diplomats traveling through, but not stopping off
in the United States. This is necessary in reciprocity for the same
privilege granted U.S. diplomatic representatives in other
countries.
6. Section 22 6(c) (2). Insert words “or their”
after word “his” in the last line.
This cures a mistaken omission from the final draft of the Act of words
which had been used in earlier drafts.
7. Amend the Act by inserting in Sec. 3 a new sub-paragraph reading as
follows:
“(16) The term ‘totalitarian party’ means an organization which
advocates the establishment of ‘totalitarianism’ or ‘totalitarian
dictatorship’ in the United States.”
8. Renumber paragraphs (16) (17) and (18) of Sec. 3 to (17) (18) and (19)
respectively.
9. Amend sub-paragraph (19) of Sec. 3 to read as follows:
“(20) ‘Advocating the economic and governmental doctrines of any
other form of totalitarianism’ means advocating the establishment of
totalitarianism (other than world Communism) in the United
States.”
recommendation
The PIN Committee recommends:
- 1.
- Departmental approval and sponsorship of the proposed
amendments.
