Other Countries

With the possible recent exception of Mexico, the control of illegal immigration has not been an item of concern to U.S. policymakers in the governance of our relations with sending countries. The State Department's country policy papers, which outline U.S. policy goals for the major sending countries, do not in any case cite illegal emigration as an issue although several accord priority to establishing effective visa issuing processes. Bureaucratic expertise or resources with regard to migration and related issues are sparse at best. Research monies in the international area are not commonly directed at the relationship between migration and other foreign policy goals. The research which is available and which is discussed in Chapter IV indicates that there may be significant differences between Mexican migration and that of the Caribbean and Central American countries. likely the influx from the Philippines poses important variations to the theme as well.

Very

Illegal immigration must be accorded a far higher and more generalized level of attention in the conduct of foreign affairs. Illegal emigration is not simply a consular matter but a central feature of development in a significant number of countries. While the issue encompasses a somewhat unique blend of foreign and domestic policy concerns, this combination has appeared before in such areas as drugs for example.

Slowing the flow of illegal aliens will require new

policies in both the domestic and foreign relations areas.

Understanding and cooperation from sending countries is

critical.

Steps to establish bilateral discussion and

joint cooperation must be significantly expanded to include all the major source countries and the issue of illegal emigration must in and of itself as well as through the attendant issues of family planning, rural development, employment policies and the like, receive greater foreign policy emphasis.

D.

COMPETING FOREIGN RELATIONS PRIORITIES

Strict Visa Issuance Controls

To pursue a policy of actively discouraging illegal immigration from within source countries would impinge on certain established practices and policy goals. The

most obvious is our long-established goal of promoting student and visitor travel.

What would be the result if the U.S. Government were to exercise its sovereign right to adopt a more effective visa issuing and port of entry admission posture? This would include more careful screening out of fraudulent applicants who misrepresent their real intent to work and remain in the United States with false claims or documents. Section 214 (b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act clearly spells out that "Every alien shall be presumed to be an immigrant until he establishes to the satisfaction of the consular officer .. and the immigration officers ... that he is entitled to a nonimmigrant status." If this basic provision of the law were vigorously and thoroughly enforced, visa refusal rates and exclusion statistics for the illegal alien source countries would doubtless rise

sharply.

The State Department believes that our relations with the source countries would not be noticeably affected if

controls of ineligible aliens were tightened somewhat on a worldwide, non-discriminatory basis. Even in the event of a significant increase of visa refusal and exclusion rates, while there might be some souring of local attitude toward the United States within certain elements of the local populace, there would in all probability be no immediate effect on intergovernmental relations.

Imposition of

control measures with real teeth or outright exclusion, however, could cause serious repercussions, especially in Mexico, and to a lesser degree in the Caribbean area and the Philippines. As a current U.S. foreign relations

priority, an effective visa issuing process varies within the source countries. This function is inadequately stressed in current U.S. foreign country policy goals.

Tourism

Imposition of stricter travel controls could adversely affect the mission of the United States Travel Service (USTS)

as stated in the 1961 International Travel Act:

(1)

develop, plan and carry out a comprehensive program

designed to stimulate and encourage travel to the

U.S. by residents of foreign countries for the purpose of study, culture, recreation, business, and other activities as a means of promoting friendly understanding and goodwill among the people of foreign countries and the U.S.; and

(2) encourage the simplification, reduction, or

elimination of barriers to travel, and facilita

tion of international travel generally.

USTS argues that actions which would frustrate or impede the flow of bona fide tourists into the U.S. for example the prescription of more stringent tests of non-immigrant status for visa applicants, the imposition of travel controls on persons entering, or intending to enter, the country legally, or the settling of a rigid rejection rate objective, by country, for visa applications would conflict with national tourism policy and affect the Travel Service's ability to carry out its responsibilities. Tourism is an important element of U.S. trade in goods

and services, and according to USTS accounted for an estimated $5.5 billion in foreign exchange earnings in

1975. USTS estimates that every $15,000 in tourism receipts creates or supports one job. Expenditures by international

visitors supported about 366,000 American jobs in 1975.

Whether or not strengthened controls will decrease the number of bona fide tourists is an important issue. USTS points qut that any significant changes to control the flow of illegal aliens must take into account an awareness of the economic benefits of tourism, the legitimate interests of the tourism industry (including labor) and the intent of the Congress in passing the International Travel Act of 1961.