|
|
|
|
SUBSCRIBE The leading Copyright |
Presidential Papers Historical Series: Veto Of Bill For Relief Of Kurt Glaserby Dwight D. Eisenhower: 1953-1961
Veto of Bill for Relief of Kurt Glaser To the United States Senate:
I return herewith, without my approval, S. 143, "For the
relief of Kurt Glaser." The bill would accord permanent residence immigration
status to a native of Czechoslovakia who entered this country
in July 1951 from Austria as an exchange visitor under one of
the programs authorized by the United States Information and
Educational Exchange Act of 1948. All of the exchange programs are rounded upon good faith.
We can maintain them as effective instruments for promoting
international understanding and good will only if we insist
that the participants honor their commitments to observe the
conditions of the exchange in the same way that they expect
the United States to honor its obligations to them. On the one
hand, exchange aliens must return to the country from which
they came. On the other hand, the United States must not
permit either immediate reentry or other evasion of the return
rule. Otherwise, the countries from which our exchange
visitors come will realize little or no benefit from the
training and experience received in the United States, and we
shall fail to promote good will toward and better
understanding of our way of life. Unfortunately, the United States Information and
Educational Exchange Act does not specifically obligate
exchange personnel to return to the country from which
admitted and to remain there for a minimum period before being
eligible to regain admission to the United States.
Administrative requirements have been imposed to compensate
for this lack of a specific statutory requirement. Within the
last year, however, a number of cases have arisen in which
humanitarian and equitable considerations have argued so
persuasively against imposing such a requirement that the
Congress has been willing to consider and to enact a number of
private bills to adjust the status of exchange personnel. By
permitting them to remain in the United States for permanent
residence, these bills have granted them immigration status
without regard to the normal procedures under our immigration
laws. Up to the present time, most of the circumstances which
have led to the enactment of each bill have been exceptional.
Even though I have recognized that the principle underlying
each bill was at variance with the basic concept and
philosophy of the exchange programs, I have not been willing
to require deportation at the possible risk of creating undue
hardship and, in several cases, of jeopardizing the safety of
the individual concerned. Such considerations are not present in the case of Mr.
Glaser. I am satisfied that both he and his sponsor understood
their obligations to terminate his stay. In fact, the State
Department's records indicate that a basic purpose of the
sponsoring company in seeking exchange visitors was to train
foreign engineers in the company's specialty in cooperation
with the International Center of the University of Louisville.
Furthermore, certification was signed by the Vice President of
the company in which the following appears: "An attempt will
be made to insure, insofar as possible, that any exchange
visitor coming under the program of the sponsoring agency will
adhere to the conditions under which he was admitted to the
United States and will depart from the United States on
completion of the purpose of the visit." Finally, there is no
evidence that a return to Austria will work any hardship on
either the company or Mr. Glaser beyond that of disrupting an
association which has proved productive, useful, friendly, and
profitable. Under the circumstances, therefore, I feel it is my duty to
disapprove this bill and at the same time to recommend
enactment by the Congress of a clear statutory requirement
that exchange personnel return home and remain there for a
minimum period before being eligible to reenter the United
States for permanent residence. Such provisions of law will
protect the purposes of the exchange program, will prevent
unjustifiable evasion of immigration procedures, and will
establish legislative policy to guide the Committees of
Congress in taking action on future private bills which would
set aside the general law. Legislation for this purpose has
been forwarded to the Congress by the Department of State this
week. I urge its prompt
consideration. Reprinted with permission from John Wolley and Gerhard Peters of the Department of Political Science at the University of California, Santa Barbara at the American Presidency Project.
About The Author |
Add to del.icio.us