315.4/3–1753
Minutes of Conference Held at the Department of Justice, Washington, March 17, 19531
- Subject:
- Waiver of Privileges Under Section 247 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (Public Law 414, 82d Congress)
- Participants: Department of State:
- S/S–PR—Mr. H. Charles Spruks
- Mr. Milton Mitchell
- L/UNA—Mr. Bernard Fensterwald, Jr.
- L/A—Mr. Eugene J. Skora
-
Department of Justice:
- Mr. J. Lee Rankin
- Mr. Ellis Lyons
- Mr. Ronald MacDonald
- Mr. Herzel H. E. Plaine
- Mr. Reitzel (Immigration & Naturalization Service)
-
Department of the Treasury:
- Mr. George Bronz and for
-
Bureau of Internal Revenue—
- Mr. Herbert J. Allen
- Mr. A. J. Iscovitz
- Mr. Maurice Lewis
- Mr. Charles Potzler
- Mr. Joseph Crockett
Mr. Skora opened the meeting with a restatement of the problem, emphasizing particularly the questions of immunity from suit, tax exemption on official salaries, and the question of the applicability of section 247 to international agreements. Stress was placed on the urgent need for a ruling by the Attorney General, in view of the scores of inquiries from foreign governments and international organizations and because of the actual cases which have arisen as a result of the requirement of waiver as a prerequisite for a reentry permit for an immigrant temporarily leaving the country.
Mr. Fensterwald added that it was unconscionable to require immigrants to execute a waiver, the effect of which is in doubt, and that foreign governments were not now permitting their employees to sign until the effect is clarified, particularly with respect to immunity from suit.
Mr. Rankin inquired regarding the views of the Department of State and was informed that the Department’s position, as stated in its letter of January 9, 1953 to the Attorney General, was that the law did not require a waiver of privileges which inure to a government or [Page 246] to an international organization and that perquisites accorded by international agreements were not intended to be affected.
Mr. Rankin indicated an opinion that the law was intended to waive all benefits which an immigrant enjoyed by virtue of his employment with a government or international organization without any hairsplitting as to whether the employer or the immigrant employee was the prime beneficiary of the privilege. Mr. Rankin expressed doubt as to whether the Attorney General should render any ruling on the inquiries. It was his belief that the questions could be settled only by a court and that even if the Attorney General should render an opinion it would be subject to reversal by a court; that if a ruling were to be rendered it would of necessity be a liberal rather than a limited construction of the law in order to protect the Department of Justice. It may be desirable, he said, for each Department of the Government to administer those privileges which fall within its province.
Mr. Allen of the Bureau of Internal Revenue stated, in response to an inquiry by Mr. Rankin, that Internal Revenue had been studying the tax problem and while no conclusion had been reached, he was of the opinion that in the absence of a treaty provision, tax exemption provided by section 116(h) of the Internal Revenue Code was waived. He had not reached any conclusion regarding the effect of the section on treaty provisions according tax exemptions.
Mr. Lyons of the Department of Justice said he construed the intent of Congress, in enacting this section, to place immigrants on a plane with United States nationals. Any perquisites which are enjoyed by United States nationals would continue to be enjoyed by an immigrant after executing a waiver. He was of the opinion that it was immaterial whether the privilege flowed from a statute or a treaty; the intent of Congress was to relate immigrants to the status of citizens.
Mr. Skora was asked what privileges are enjoyed by United States citizens employed by foreign governments or international organizations and he replied that immunity from suit was probably the only privilege accorded generally but there may possibly be treaties which accord citizens special treatment, although he was unaware of any such treaty.
Mr. Rankin then stated he realized the Department of State was in a difficult position and that the Department of Justice would try to be of assistance; that Justice would attempt a reply to the letter of the Department of State2, from the standpoint of an intent of Congress to relate the status of immigrants to the status of citizens; that the intent of Congress to affect treaty provisions would be investigated; however, if it is determined that treaty provisions are affected, that Justice would probably rule that section 247 is not inconsistent [Page 247] with nor abrogates any treaty provisions since the immigrant can continue to enjoy treaty privileges by not executing the waiver and suffering the loss of immigrant status.
Mr. Lyons asked that the Department of State furnish a list of privileges which are accorded United States citizens.