398.18 ICEM/10–2954
The Director of the Intergovernmental Committee for
European Migration (Gibson) to the
Secretary of State
Dear Mr. Secretary: In your personal letter of
October 19th 19541 you were kind enough to suggest that I might make
alternative
[Page 1651]
suggestions to the
plan put forward by Mr. Warren in his talks with me and his subsequent
memorandum dated September 17th.2 In my memorandum to you
dated October 6th,3 I have requested your
official ruling concerning the interpretation of the text of the
Appropriations Act which covers the U.S. contribution to the Migration
Committee for 1955 (Public Law 778).4 I have also
put forward in that memorandum certain proposals concerning possible action
by this Committee. In an additional memorandum which I am attaching to this
letter, I am elaborating on these proposals which, in my opinion, would meet
the conditions set by the U.S. Congress and might be accepted by our other
member governments. I do not believe that they would be prepared to go
further. As whatever system is agreed upon will have to be implemented
before January 1st, 1955, the matter is urgent. I would therefore welcome as
soon as possible your ruling as to interpretation of the “rider” and your
reactions to the suggestions contained in the memorandum which is attached
to this letter.
Sincerely yours,
[Attachment]
Memorandum on the Implementation of the
Conditions Attached to the U.S. Contribution to the Migration
Committee
(Public Law No. 778)
- 1.
- For the reasons set forth in his memorandum of October 6th, 1954
(Memorandum on the U.S. Appropriations Rider attached to U.S. Public
Law No. 778) the Director does not believe that the suggestion
presented by Mr. Warren in his memorandum of September 17th, 1954,
is in accordance with the provisions of the Brussels Resolution, the
Constitution of the Committee, or with the interpretation of the
rider as given by the U.S. Congress. Furthermore the implementation
of such a plan would meet with extreme difficulties on the part of
the member governments and would entail a disproportionate cost to
the Committee.
- 2.
- Despite the urgency of the matter it is difficult for the Director
to give more definite suggestions as to a possible implementation of
the condition attached to the U.S. contribution to the Committee
until he has received a clear and official ruling from the
[Page 1652]
Secretary of State as
requested in the memorandum of October 6th. Pending the receipt of
the above-mentioned ruling, the Director can only elaborate on the
tentative suggestions made in paragraphs 8 and 9 of his memorandum
of October 6th 1954.
- 3.
- The governments members of the Committee are certainly most
anxious to prevent the infiltration of subversive elements into the
Western Hemisphere. It should therefore be possible to establish—in
those cases where it does not yet exist—a satisfactory screening
system which would be in the interest and for the benefit of the
countries concerned. At the same time nothing should be done which
would infringe upon the sovereignty of the countries: the final responsibility for the choice of the
migrants—and thereby for the elimination of undesirable persons—must
rest with the governments and their services and not with the
Committee and its administration. The Committee can only offer its
assistance to the extent it is desired by each member
government.
- 4.
- There are two methods by which undesirable persons can be
prevented from entering into the Western Hemisphere:
- a)
- by a decision of the government of the emigration country
preventing the person from departing (e.g. not issuing the
passport).
- b)
- by a decision of the government of the immigration country
which can deny the person the right of entry (refusal of
visa).
- 5.
- In one emigration country—Greece—there appears to be a sound
screening system enabling the Greek authorities to prevent the
departure of communists or other undesirable persons. The Director
believes that this screening, which is efficient and apparently done
in liaison with established screening agencies of other countries,
including the U.S., should meet the requirements of the U.S. rider
for all migrants leaving Greece.
- This method is probably the most satisfactory and the Director is
prepared to explore whether it could be extended to other emigration
countries.
- 6.
- When the actual exclusion of undesirable migrants by the sending
country is not possible, the decision will have to be taken by the
authorities of the receiving country on the basis of information
which, in many cases, will be furnished by the authorities of the
emigration countries. All countries in the Western Hemisphere have
adequate legislative bases to deny entrance to subversive persons
(see attachments to the memorandum of October 6th). Besides the
U.S., one immigration country of the Western Hemisphere—Canada—has a
security and screening system which appears to be satisfactorily
implementing the provisions of the national laws and regulations
concerning this matter. The other immigration countries have not yet
been able to do so entirely. The Director believes
[Page 1653]
that in their own interest as well
as in the interest of the community of Western Hemisphere nations,
they might welcome assistance from the Committee and other
governments in order to set up their own security and screening
systems. Such systems could normally work in close liaison with the
competent U.S. authorities and there could probably be a constant
exchange of information between the security officers of the
different countries.
- 7.
- For those few immigration countries which, for any reason may find
themselves unable to set up a screening system of their own, the
Committee would be ready to offer the screening services of its own
officials who could communicate to the governments of these
countries information on the political reliability of prospective
immigrants. The Committee would appoint security officers in the
missions where there would be a need for them; they would obtain, by
agreement, all the relevant information from the local authorities
and from the security services of other member governments (Canada,
U.S.A., Australia, etc.) and pass on the final results of the
investigation to the consular or immigration authorities of the
countries concerned.
- 8.
- If the general lines of these suggestions are acceptable, the
Director would propose following course of action:
- A.
- As soon as the official ruling of the Secretary of State,
together with an agreement on the proposal contained in this
memorandum, is received, the Director will communicate with
the governments of immigration countries which have not yet
been able to set up a satisfactory screening procedure. The
communication will indicate the apparent need for a tighter
security screening of migrants going to the Western
Hemisphere and this in the interest of the governments
concerned; it will suggest that the immigration countries
set up immediately their own
screening system in the various emigration countries of
Europe, except perhaps, in those emigration countries where
there is already an adequate control by the local
authorities (Greece); it will offer the services of the
Committee to help them in establishing such systems by, in
particular, bringing them into contact with the already
existing services of other countries; it will finally
suggest that the delegations to the 8th Session come
prepared to discuss in an informal
and private meeting the whole matter
and the implementation of the above-mentioned plan.
- B.
- At the same time the Director will explore with the
governments of emigration countries whether they would be
prepared either to do the screening themselves as in the
case of Greece, or at least assist the authorities of the
immigration countries by furnishing them with all relevant
information concerning prospective migrants.
- C.
- The whole matter would be discussed during the 8th Session
at an informal and private meeting with the interested
delegations, the U.S. delegation and the Director. It
should, if possible, be avoided to have a public discussion
or even a discussion in plenary.
- D.
- As soon as general agreement had been reached, the
Committee would appoint in each of its main missions in
Europe a security officer (with a small staff) who would
have the triple function of
- —helping, whenever needed, the security officers
of the interested countries to establish all the
necessary contacts.
- —gathering directly all the necessary information
and giving it to the consular authorities, in those
cases where the immigration countries were unable to
set up a screening system of their own.
- —following the implementation of the whole scheme
and reporting thereon to the Director.
- E.
- The scheme would be implemented before January 1st,
1955.
- 9.
- The Director must once more stress the urgency of the matter. He
would welcome as soon as possible an answer from the Secretary of
State which would enable him to take appropriate action in
time.
