L/UNA files, “Headquarters Agreement—Section 6”
Memorandum by the Assistant Legal Adviser for United Nations Affairs (Meeker) to the Legal Adviser (Phleger)
- Subject:
- Headquarters Agreement with the United Nations
In the Headquarters Agreement with the United Nations, the United States has engaged to permit certain classes of individuals to come into the United States in order to go to the United Nations in New York. Section 11 of the Agreement defines these classes. The President was authorized to bring the Headquarters Agreement into effect by Public Law 357 of the 80th Congress. Section 6 of that public law provides, in part:
“Nothing in the Agreement shall be construed as in any way diminishing, abridging, or weakening the right of the United States to safeguard its own security and completely to control the entrance of aliens into any territory of the United States other than the headquarters district and its immediate vicinity, …”
Section 212(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act sets forth 31 categories of inadmissible aliens. Three of these categories are based on security criteria: Section 212(a) (27), 212(a) (28), and 212(a) (29). Section 212(d) (3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act authorizes the Attorney General to waive the grounds of inadmissibility for nonimmigrant aliens other than the grounds set forth in subparagraphs (27) and (29).
In the past, a number of aliens entitled to enter the United States under Section 11 of the Headquarters Agreement have been inadmissible under Section 212(a) (28) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. In these cases, the Department of State has recommended that the Attorney General waive the inadmissibility, on the ground that such waiver in the particular case was in the national interest. Although at times there have been delays in securing a decision, the waivers have, in the end, been granted.
Two very recent cases, however, have been handled differently, raising problems. A Canadian national, Mrs. M. R. Luckock, sought to enter the United States to attend a meeting of the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women, under Section 11(4) of the Headquarters Agreement. She sought to come as a representative of the Women’s International Democratic Federation, a Communist-dominated organization. She appeared to be inadmissible under Section 212 (a) (28) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. This Department requested the Department of Justice to waive her inadmissibility. The Department of Justice, for the first time, denied the request, stating that the information forwarded to Washington by the consul [Page 253] showed that Mrs. Luckock fell within Section 212 (a) (29) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The information forwarded by the consul had covered two points: (1) Mrs. Luckock held hostile views toward the United States Government, and (2) at a public meeting in Canada, she sponsored a resolution criticizing the course of the Rosenberg spy case. Mr. Hickerson and Mrs. Hahn (our representative on the Status of Women Commission) talked by telephone with Mr. Rogers, the Deputy Attorney General, about the Luckock case, but apparently did not discuss the legal aspects under the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Headquarters Agreement.
A French national, Madame M.–C. Vaillant-Couturier, is now seeking to come to the United States for the April meeting of the United Nations’ Economic and Social Council, again under Section 11 (4) of the Headquarters Agreement. Like Mrs. Luckock, Madame Vaillant-Couturier would be a representative of the W.I.D.F. The Department’s visa office has informed UNA of its determination that Madame Vaillant-Couturier falls within Section 212(a) (29) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and of its decision not to request a waiver of inadmissibility by the Department of Justice. From the facts available to this Office, it is not clear whether the view of the visa office is based on Madame Vaillant-Couturier’s status with the W.I.D.F., or on additional facts. Unless a recommendation is made to the Department of Justice, the applicant will not receive a visa and will not be admitted to the United States.
As you know, this type of problem under the Headquarters Agreement has given concern to Ambassadors Lodge and Wadsworth in New York. Attached to this memorandum is a telegram of yesterday from Ambassador Lodge.1 There are difficult legal problems involved in individual cases, both under the Headquarters Agreement with the United Nations and under the Immigration and Nationality Act. These problems need to be carefully considered in each case, in order that the United States make a disposition which would leave us in a strong position if the case were later to be taken to arbitration by the United Nations under Section 21 of the Headquarters Agreement.
I suggest that careful consideration needs to be given to this type of case at two stages: (1) when this Department is considering whether to recommend to the Attorney General that inadmissibility under Section 212(a) (28) be waived, and (2) in discussing the matter with the Department of Justice after the State Department has recommended a waiver of inadmissibility. In the first stage, it is not satisfactory for the visa office alone to make a determination; there needs to be consultation among the Departmental offices concerned, including the Office of the Legal Adviser. In the second stage, the Department of Justice [Page 254] should not be put in the position of having to make a decision on waiver without the benefit of discussion with officers of this Department, including officers in L. If you agree, we should suggest to the visa office and to UNA the holding of appropriate consultations at both stages. In this way, I believe, the best application of the Immigration and Nationality Act would be secured, and we would minimize the possibilities of future arbitral difficulty under the Headquarters Agreement.
- Not attached; presumably telegram 578, Mar. 25, supra.Meeker also enclosed copies of the Headquarters Agreement and the Immigration and Nationality Act.↩