Memorandum from Roger Jones to Richard Neustadt

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT BUREAU OF THE BUDGET WASHINGTON 25, D.C. March 21, 1952 and MEMORANDUM FOR MR. NEUSTADT: The Director has asked me to reply to your memorandum of March 20 to which there was attached a draft of a proposed mes- sage from the President to the Congress on special programs of immigration and aid to refugees from communism. In category 3 on page 14, persons of Italian ethnic origin are referred to. It is our understanding that it is not desired to include Italian ethnics and that emigration is desired by the Italian Government only of Italian nationals. The Bureau has already adjusted the proposed legislation to reflect this point. I assume that the message likewise will be adjusted. With respect to the position taken by the Department of State, it seems to the Bureau that this is a policy question which can be decided only by the President. Either type of program would be without objection so far as this office is concerned. The advan- tages of using unused quotas each year seem to us to be obvious but we are in no position to assess whether the situation is so critical as to require more than 60,000 visas a year. If the program needs to be completed within three years, then the pro- posal of the Department of State would appear to be unrealistic. We have no basis for judging the validity of the Department's views as to the attitude of Congress on this matter. We find it difficult to understand the position of the Depart- ment of State with respect to the issue of authority for training. If it is based upon the extensive suggestions contained in the first draft of legislation, the fears expressed by the Department seem to be well founded. However, there has been agreement to cut back on those proposed authorizations very sharply. In effect, the bill as now drafted merely says that the President is authorized to provide facilities and services for the temporary care, regis- tration, transportation, resettlement, training and education of refugees, for which certain authorities already exist. It is our informal understanding that some training and education work is already being undertaken and that the proposed authority is de- signed merely to clarify existing authorities and to make possible the support of such training and education on a modest basis in Europe with American funds as well as counterpart funds. We find it difficult to understand how the European governments could con- sider such a modified program "a provocative, anti-Soviet tactic' which would create apprehension and resentment in Western European countries. This, however, is a matter upon which the Bureau is not