^ihseGBBDcal
New Text
WALTER J. MURPHY, Editor
Visas vs. Scienee OCIJENTIFIC circles are very much wrought up over the inability of some foreign scientists to obtain visas to come to the United States in order to participate in scientific meetings. The situation warrants careful and dispassionate appraisal of the facts. Most of the criticisms have been directed at the so-called McCarran laws—The Internal Security Act of 1950 and the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. It should be recalled that these laws were enacted only after several years of study, discussion, and debate. T h e Immigration Act was passed over the President's veto. Such action requires a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress. It is evident, therefore, that t h e law when it was passed represented the view of a large majority and certainly not the view of a single political party or group in Congress. Both Democrats and Republicans voted for the two acts. It is quite possible that these laws have serious faults and weaknesses. Almost any new legislation covering such a broad field is bound to show some defects. W e believe that if any are disclosed after a reasonable test period, they should be remedied by modifying the acts or even by repealing them entirely. In discussing this subject, it should b e recalled that the 1952 law covers all aspects of immigration, including quotas, qualifications for admission of aliens, travel control, issuance of visas and reentry permits, deportation, alien seamen, registration of aliens, and other general provisions. T h e law also covers in detail nationality and naturalization proceedings. The question of quotas which restrict t h e numbers of immigrants permitted to enter the U . S. from foreign countries is always a controversial matter and the subject of political discussions. Many references and criticisms of this law are actually devoted to one or more specific provisions and not to the law as a whole. Unfortunately, this distinction is not always made and the law is criticized as a whole. W e therefore are restricting our comments to the specific subject of visas for temporary visits to this country. During the test period of any law on our books, an honest and intelligent effort should b e made to administer the law properly. In this connection, w e cannot ignore the fact that the administration is strongly opposed to the immigration law. President T r u m a n expressed this opposition in his veto message. There are many who firmly believe that the present administration is trying to give the McCarran laws the kiss of death. Again it is not always clear whether all features of the acts are opposed or only certain segments. One effective way to discredit any law, whether it b e good, bad, or indifferent, is to apply its every provision to the last letter without using some discretion. The denial of citizenship and the threatened deportation of an alien who contributed a few cents to a Communist-infiltrated union 20 years ago on the representation that his contribution would help in a strike, is one example which may b e cited. Another factor to consider is that American consuls abroad, and only they, can issue or deny a visa. This is not a function of the State Department. Consuls, however, can request advice of the department in cases where legal questions or technicalities arise. Considering the opposition of the administration to the McCarran laws, it is only logical to assume that a consul would not jeopardize his career by using his own judgment in these cases, but would refer any marginal cases to the department. This has happened frequently. In fact, representatives of the Office of the Scientific Adviser in the State Department, who are doing all vtrtccflilf» fr* V»#*lr% fli#» \rieci r l i \ / l e i r i n frr» « v n o r l i f * » f-V»o V i n n r l l i n r *
VOLUME
3 0,
NO.
4 4 . . NOVEMBER
3,
of inquiries relating to scientists, state that the division is literally s w a m p e d with correspondence. Under such circumstances, it is easy to see why some visas are issued only after long delay. It would seem to us that sufficient inquiries must have come in to establish a pattern which could l e a d to the issuance of some general rules which would answer most questions arising in consular offices. A recent announcement by the State Department that it has started a thorough study of criticisms of American policy of granting visas t o this country may be a step in this direction. In this connection it should b e remembered that the issuance of visas to applicants who have had no associations with communist, fascist, or other questionable organizations, should pose no u n d u e problems as there is no need to refer these applications to the State Department for advice. If there are delays in such cases, they are indicative of poor administration i n consular offices and not necessarily a weakness in the law itself. It should also be noted that while there have been many instances of denials of visas or long delays, the percentage of such cases, compared to the total number of persons receiving visas to come to this country, is believed to be small. As scientists, should we not ask ourselves just w h a t it is we want in t h e way of a law governing the issuance of visas for temporary visits to these shores? Do we want the present law handled more intelligently by the State Department, or do w e w a n t the State Department to act more expeditiously o n visa inquiries? Do we want the McCarran laws modified i n some specific manner, or do we w a n t them repealed entirely, thus eliminating all barriers to visits of any scientists? Do w e want to admit scientists to this country to attend scientific meetings if they are acknowledged Communists? If we agree that it is desirable to admit Communist scientists to this country for limited visits, do we wish to take the position t h a t this privilege should be given only to physical scientists, or to others who are Communists but outstanding in fields of arts and letters? If we allow the Communist scientist to visit this country, is there any real justification for barring nonscientist Communists? Many comments that we have heard recently or have read criticize the present laws but do not offer specific alternatives. Is it not desirable for us, as scientists, to state our position in specific, detailed terms, provided, of course, there is a general agreement on what our position should b e ? In considering alternative proposals, we should remember that the McCarran laws were not enacted specifically to regulate the visits of scientists. They cover the entire field of immigration and naturalization. Perhaps there should be complete separation of the matter of temporary visits from the broader question of immigration and naturalization. It is unfortunate that the free exchange of scientific knowledge is b e i n g hampered because some of the world's top-flight scientists have experienced difficulties in obtaining visas to enter this country. Everything should b e done to correct this situation short of jeopardizing our safety and welfare. We d o not believe that the question of scientists a n d visas can be considered entirely apart from all other considerations. The public is very well aware of the fact that through espionage and through the duplicity of some of our own people, the Russians have gained some of our most carefully guarded security information. As we have stated, the State Department has already promised a very thorough investigation into the complaints that have b e e n m a d e on the inordinate delay in granting visas or in reaching decisions concerning applications. Furthermore, it n o w seems more than likely that no matter which political party wins on Nov. 4, there will be further consideration given i n Congress to the present so-called McCarran acts.
1952
40U3
