G-IV VISA RELIEF PROPOSALS

HEAltoS^

^UBCX)MMITTEEl3r:

IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE POLICYj

(COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY.

UNITED STATES SENATE

NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

G-IV VISA RELIEF PROPOSALS

FEBRUARY 1, 1982

Serial No. J-97-93

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

97-870 O WASHINGTON : 1982
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

[97th Congress]

STROM THURMOND, South Carolina, Chairman

CHARLES McC. MATHIAS, JR., Maryland JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware

PAUL LAXALT, Nevada EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia

ROBERT DOLE, Kansas HOWARD M. METZENBAUM, Ohio

ALAN K. SIMPSON, Wyoming DENNIS DECONCINI, Arizona

JOHN P. EAST, North Carolina PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa MAX BAUCUS, Montana

JEREMIAH DENTON, Alabama HOWELL HEFLIN, Alabama

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania

VINTON DEVANE LIDE, Chief Counsel

QUENTIN CROMMELIN, Jr., Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE POLICY

ALAN K. SIMPSON, Wyoming, Chairman

STROM THURMOND, South Carolina EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa DENNIS DECONCINI, Arizona

RICHARD W. DAY, Chief Counsel and Staff Director

DONNA M. ALVARADO, Counsel

CHARLES O. WOOD, Counsel

ARNOLD H. LEIBOWITZ, Special Counsel

(II)

fyn-Lni^d
i

i\p

% CONTENTS

OPENING STATEMENT

Simpson, Hon. Alan K., a U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming, chairman,

Subcommittee on Immigration and Refugee Policy 1

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Asencio, Ambassador Diego, Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs,

Department of State 2

Nelson, Alan, C, Acting Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice 7

Stevenson, John L., president, G-iv Children's Coalition, Kensington, Md 15

Schmedtje, Ingrid, G-iv child, Charlottesville, Va 23

Lin, Sam, G-iv child, Bethesda, Md 24

Juusela, Kaija, G-iv widow and staff member 26

Mathias, Hon. Charles McC, Jr., a U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland ... 31

Cutler, Lloyd N, Esq., of Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering 39

McNamara, Hon. Robert S., former president, The World Bank 68

Sommers, Davidson, Esq., former general counsel, The World Bank 72

ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND MATERIALS SUBMITTED

Asencio, Hon. Diego:

Testimony 2

Prepared statement 4

Cutler, Lloyd N.:

Testimony 39

Letters supporting legislation:

Eugene R. Black 41

George David Woods 43

A.W.Clausen 44

Santiago Astrain 46

William P. Rogers 47

Henry A. Kissinger 48

Edmund S. Muskie 50

Cyrus Vance 51

G. William Miller 53

W. M. Blumenthal 54

George P. Shultz 55

William E. Simon 56

Elliot L. Richardson 57

Stanley R. Resor 58

David Rockefeller 59

Juusela, Kaija: Testimony 26

Lin, Sam: Testimony 24

Mathias, Hon. Charles McC, Jr.:

Testimony 31

Prepared statement 35

, McNamara, Hon. Robert S.:

^ Testimony 68

\ Prepared statement 69

Nelson, Alan:

^ Testimony 7

^ inn

3
IV

Page

Prepared statement 9

Schmedtje, Ingrid: Testimony 23

Sommers, Davidson:

Testimony 72

Prepared statement 73

Stevenson, John L.:

Testimony 15

Prepared statement 18

APPENDIX

Examples of hardship faced by G-iv visa holders 91

Statement of the Hon. Richard D. Erb, U.S. Executive Director to the International Monetary Fund 112
G-IV VISA RELIEF PROPOSALS

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1982

U.S. SENATE,

OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE POLICY

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 1:37 p.m., pursuant to notice, in room

2228 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Alan K. Simpson (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ALAN K. SIMPSON, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE POLICY

Senator SIMPSON. I am sorry to be late. I apologize for that. It is

nice to have you all here on the G-iv Visa Hearing. Under existing

law we have this particular situation•I think all of you here are

aware of it•where employees of certain international organizations and their families come to the United States on a type of nonimmigrant visa known as G-iv.

Such organizations include the United Nations, World Bank, International Monetary Fund, Organization of American States, and

Inter-American Development Bank.

At the present time if such an employee dies or retires, the

family is required to leave the United States and return to their

native land, often on very short notice. In addition, adult sons and

daughters must leave the United States when they have completed

their education and have ceased being dependents of their parents.

Frequently these family members have been out of touch with

their home country for many years.

For children the law can be particularly harsh. If they have

grown up and gone to school here, they tend to become Americanized and often cannot even speak the native language of their parents.

So my good colleague from Maryland, Mac Mathias, has attempted for several years to amend the law to provide relief for some of

these people, which is typical of his interest and concern and compassion.

The hearing today will cover such issues as: Is the legislation

needed? What specific provisions should it contain? Should it pertain to children and spouses and relatives? Would the special benefits be fair to other applicants for immigrant visas? We shall continue those things and other issues at this hearing. I look forward

to it. We will now proceed.

(1)
The first panel consists of Ambassador Diego Asencio, the Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs of the Department of State, and

Alan Nelson, our Acting Commissioner of the Immigration and

Naturalization Service of the Department of Justice, and soon•I

hope within the next day or two•to be the Commissioner of the

Immigration and Naturalization Service.

So, if you would please come to the witness table, I certainly look

forward to having your testimony.

Ambassador, it is nice to see you today.

Ambassador ASENCIO. Delighted to see you.

STATEMENT OF AMBASSADOR DIEGO ASENCIO, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR CONSULAR AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF

STATE

Ambassador ASENCIO. If you will permit me to submit my testimony and give a summary, I would ask that my informal remarks

be considered supplementary to the prepared statement since I also

add some material that was not present in the original statement.

Senator SIMPSON. Without objection.

Ambassador ASENCIO. Many international organizations have located their headquarters or missions in the United States. We have

long considered this to be in our national interest. The international organizations have customarily met the major portion of their

managerial and professional staffing needs through the recruitment of qualified aliens.

Many of these international civil servants spend a substantial

portion of their working lives in these assignments in the United

States. During their prolonged assignments here, these officers and

employees and their families often become integrated into our society through involvement in social, civic, and cultural activities. In

some cases their sons and daughters receive their total formal education in our schools and colleges.

I might refer also to the statement to be made by Richard Erb,

U.S. Executive Director to the IMF, that gives a description of

some of the institutions we are talking about and is generally a description of the problem the employees and family members of

those institutions are facing.

It is not unusual for officers or employees of international organizations to remain on assignments in this country for periods of

up to 20 years or longer. There is a much longer period to stay in

the United States inherent in the career of officers and employees

of international organizations. That is perceived by many to be disruptive of their lives and their attachment to their home country

to the extent that legislation granting special immigrant status

may be warranted.

The committee has asked us to comment on whether a special

immigrant provision is fair to other applicants for immigrant visas.

This is a judgmental question which has to be considered in relation to the benefits, direct or incidental, that we believe derive

from our policies of family reunification and the immigration of

professionals, scientists, artists, skilled workers under existing provisions of the INA.
This administration, as did the previous one, supports the principle of providing an opportunity for legal permanent resident status

for the three categories of people we are discussing. We have no

specific comment on the legislation under consideration at this

time. The Department is sympathetic to the problem of individual

G-iv's who because of special circumstances may truly find it a

hardship to return to their native countries.

There have been a number of legislative proposals which would

create an across-the-board entitlement to permanent residents

based on G-iv status and a certain period of residence in the

United States. Again, we have no particular opinion one way or the

other on what would be the best approach to handle the problem,

but we reiterate that we think the people in these categories are

deserving of support.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator SIMPSON. Thank you very much, Ambassador.

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Diego Asencio follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON, DIEGO C. ASENCIO

Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to

appear today to discuss special immigration benefits for the

holders of G-4 visas -- the employees of certain international

organizations and their families.

Many international organizations have located their

headquarters or missions in the United States. We have lo.ng

considered this to be in our national interest. The international

organizations have customarily met the major portion of their

managerial and professional staffing needs through the recruitment

of qua-lified aliens. Many of these "international civil servants"

spend a substantial portion of their working lives in these

assignments in the United States. During their prolonged

assignments here, these officers and employees and their families

often become integrated into our society through involvement in

social, civic, and cultural activities. In some cases, their sons

and daughters receive their total formal education in our schools •

and colleges.

It is recognized that there is a difference between the period

of stay in the United States of an officer or employee of an international organization and that of a career diplomat or consular

officer assigned by his government to a post in the United States.

The assignment of diplomatic and consular officers to the United

States may vary considerably in length, but most last no more than

five years. It is not unusual for officers and employees of international organizations to remain in assignments in this country

for periods of up to twenty years or longer. It is the much

longer periods of stay in the United States inherent in the

careers of officers and employees of international organizations

that is perceived by many to be disruptive of their lives and

their attachment to their home country to the extent that legislation granting "special immigrant" status may be warranted.
5

In considering such legislation, the question arises as to

what period of service in the United States constitutes a

substantial period of the aliens life in terms of being disruptive

of their ability to reenter life in their country of origin. The

original source of concern on this issue was alien children who,

because of their parent's employment, grew up, were educated and

developed their social awareness in an American environment to the

point that they found it extremely difficult to reenter life in

their native societies. Supporters of such legislation have organized themselves in a group known as "the G-IV Children's

Coalition". However, legislation submitted has always included

benefits for the officers and employees of the International

Organisation and not just their children.

Officers and employees of International Organizations in the

United States enjoy many benefits such as generous salaries and

tax exempt status and certain limited forms of legal immunities as

well as frequent home leave in their home countries. Given these

conditions, it is difficult to argue that international civil servants, in general, suffer any hardship by being assigned to the

United States -- even for extended periods of time. Nevertheless,

there obviously can be individual instances where a long term

assignment to the United States could result in a real problem of

"expatriation". However, such individual circumstances could also

be cited by many alien business people, journalists and students

and other academics who also spend lengthy periods of their

careers in the United States.

The Committee has asked us to comment on whether such a

special immigrant provision is "fair" to other applicants for immigrant visas. This is a judgmental question which has to be considered in relation to the benefits, direct or incidental, that we

believe derive from our policies of family reunification and the
immigration of professionals, scientists, artists and skilled

workers under existing provisions of the Immigration and

Nationality Act.

Through their employment with an international organization,

these aliens will have gained a "head start" over other aliens

desiring to live in the United States. However, their presence

here, and especially that of their spouses and children, is not

always based on simply their desire to be here but rather a

perceived need for their skills or abilities. It could be said

that in terms of "quality" or usefulness in American society,

these aliens would probably be able to make an above average

contribution to our society. It could also be said that having

lived and worked in the United States, and participated in the

life of this country throughout a significant portion of their

lives, these aliens would have at least as much equity as a newly

arriving family reunification or preference immigrant impelled by

economic need.

Both arguments have merit and the Department is not in a

position to definitively weigh these considerations and determine

with which argument the greater merit or equity lies.

The Department is sympathetic to the problem of individual

G-4s who because of special circumstances may truly find it a

hardship to return to their native countries. There have been a

number of legislative proposals which would create an across the

board entitlement to permanent residence based on G-4 status and a

certain period of residence in the United States. This may not be

the most appropriate response to this problem. The existing law

allows G-4's, along with other aliens, to adjust status on a case

by case basis. Although the Department does not take a position

on this issue I would be pleased to respond to any questions you

may have.
Senator SIMPSON. I am going to refer to you as Commissioner

Nelson. That will give you a sense of false security at this point.

[Laughter.]

One more day, I am positive; perhaps two. And Lord, we need

you and are waiting with bated breath. So please proceed, if you

will.

STATEMENT OF ALAN C. NELSON, ACTING COMMISSIONER, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF

JUSTICE

Mr. NELSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your confidence. I am sure your prediction will come true, and I do appreciate your interest in my confirmation as well as the subject matter

that we have spent so much time on.

I am pleased also to join the Ambassador to testify on behalf of

the administration on the subject of possible immigration benefits

to employees of certain international organizations and their families who are admitted to the United States in the G-iv nonimmigrant classification.

Likewise I would like to submit for the record our prepared

printed testimony, and I would just briefly summarize.

We estimate there are approximately 11,000 G-iv aliens in the

United States employed by all international organizations, and of

course the issue here is whether special legislation to grant immigration benefits to this group of aliens is necessary. The information that we have available is that the majority of the G-iv's do

remain in the United States for relatively short periods, after

which they return to their home countries. However, there are, as

the Ambassador has indicated, a number of others that spend

many years in the United States and often end their employment

by retirement in this country and, as has been indicated, have been

fully integrated into our society.

If Congress should adopt such special benefits, there are certain

specific provisions the legislation should contain. The benefits

should be extended to those G-iv aliens who have met certain minimum periods of stay, such as the principal G-iv alien should have

been in the United States a minimum of 15 years immediately preceding the retirement, a 10-year period, roughly, for the widow or

widower, and certain other periods as set forth in the proposed legislation for unmarried children.

A question, of course, to be considered is whether the special

benefits would be fair to other applicants for immigrant visas. Of

course, many other aliens are required to wait lengthy periods of

time for a visa, and certainly in our opinion any congressional

action creating this type of benefit for the G-iv's should establish a

special immigrant class outside the existing preference system.

Certainly a factor to be considered is that the United States has

encouraged international organizations to maintain their headquarters or a good part of their operations in the United States,

and this would be a factor, certainly, for the Congress to consider.

There are a number of factors on this, but we have set forth

some that would recommend sympathetic considerations to the request that G-iv families receive special immigration benefits, and
8

these need to be balanced along with the goals of granting immigrant status through the preference system which Congress has established, and I would concur with the statement that Ambassador

Asencio indicated as to the administration posture on this matter.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Those are my remarks.

[The prepared statement of Alan C. Nelson follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF ALAN C. NELSON

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

I am glad to be with you and to present testimony on the

subject of possible immigration benefits to employees of certain

international organizations and their families who are admitted

to the United States in the G-4 nonimmigrant classification.

Aliens are admitted to the United States as G-4's under

section 101 (a)(15)(G)(iv) of the Immigration and Nationality Act

to serve as officers or employees of international organizations

in which the United States holds membership. The families of

such officers and employees are given the same classification.

Unlike several of the nonimmigrant classifications, G-4 aliens

are not required to have a foreign residence which they have no

intention of abandoning, and they are admitted without time limit

as long as they maintain their G-4 status. It is estimated that

there are slightly more than 11,000 G-4 aliens in the United

States employed by all international organizations.

It has been asked whether special legislation to grant

immigration benefits to this group of aliens is necessary.

This is a national policy issue which must be decided by the

Members of Congress. Certain circumstances do develop as a

result of some of the G-4's often lengthy presence in the United

States that present reasons for such legislation.

The majority of the G-4's remain in the United States for

relatively short periods of time after which they return to their

home countries or to employment in other member countries.

Others, however, because of the policies of their employing

organizations, spend many years in the United States and may even

end their employment by retirement in this country. Because of

the many years some of the G-4's work and reside in the United

States, they and their families become integrated into our

society and form close social, civic, and cultural attachments.
10

This is particularly true of their children who may spend most or

all of their school years in the United States. Their

integration into United States society may often be accompanied

by a corresponding loss of attachment to their home lands. These

circumstances provide an argument for the granting of special

immigration benefits to certain members of their group.

If Congress should adopt such special benefits, there are

certain specific provisions the legislation should contain.

Since the length of presence in the United States is the primary

reason for the compelling circumstances that develop in these

cases, benefits could be extended to those G-4 aliens and their

families who have certain minimum periods of stay in the United

States. The current legislative proposal states that the

principal G-4 alien who retires while in the United States should

have a minimum of 15 years presence immediately preceeding

retirement. The surviving widow or widower of a principal G-4,

should have 10 years presence. Unmarried children would qualify

if they were under the age of 26 and had lived in the United

States for aggregate periods of either 7 years (between 5 and

21), or 10 years (between birth and 25).

The additional question has been posed as to whether such

special benefits would be fair to other applicants for immigrant

visas.

Due to the world-wide and country limitations on the number

of visas which may be issed to aliens under the preference

allocation system, many aliens are required to wait lengthy

periods of time for a visa after they qualify for a given

preference. This is true for both the relative preferences and

for the preferences allocated to professionals or skilled and

unskilled workers. In some preferences in certain countries, an

alien must have qualified for a preference more than 11 years ago

in order to be eligible for the issuance of a visa today. If, in

granting special benefits to a specific group of aliens, the
11

number of viasa available to other eligible aliens was reduced,

this situation would be worsened. In light of this, any

congressional action creating this benefit should establish a

special immigrant class outside the preference system.

Some other nonimmigrants also remain in this country for

lengthy periods of time. These include treaty traders and

investors and representatives of foreign information media. They

and their families also develop attachments to the United States

and some might wish similar benefits. However, actual returns to

homelands and opportunities for similar employment there are

greater for persons in these other categories.

An additional factor relating to G-4 aliens should be

considered. The United States has encouraged international

organizations to maintain their headquarters or at least large

portions of their operations in the United States. The G-4

officers and employees may have little choice in their

assignments in the United States and, in the interest of

continuity, it may be found necessary by the organization to

retain certain officers and employees for extended periods of

time or even for their entire working life in the United States.

Because the officer, employee, and his family may have little or

no control over where they work and live, it may be unfair not to

allow them to live the rest of their lives in this country after

years of honorable service and residence.

I have indicated a number of factors that recommend

sympathetic consideration to the request that G-4 families

receive special immigration benefits. However, these must be

evaluated along with the goals of granting immigrant status

through the preference system which Congress has established to

allocate immigrant visas in an equitable fashion. Even though

the group is small, the proposed legislation would add another

group to special immigrant classes exempt from the numerical

limitation.

I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.
12

Senator SIMPSON. Thank you both very much. I do have some

questions.

Ambassador, your testimony and, I think, your written remarks,

which I reviewed last evening, are a good comprehensive review,

but your testimony does not seem to contain support for the idea of

providing any special immigration benefits to certain holders of the

G-iv visa.

You state that "there have been a number of legislative proposals which would create an across-the-board entitlement to permanent residents based upon G-iv status and a certain period of residence. This may not be the most appropriate response to this program.

Does the State Department have a position on this issue? Should

such special benefits be provided?

Ambassador ASENCIO. Mr. Chairman, we do not have a specific

position with regard to that. As I say, I reiterate that we agree in

principle that something is required here. We do not have a specific position with regard to what it should be.

Senator SIMPSON. AS far as special immigration benefits, we

know how many of those we have provided in the past are causing

us some confusion as we deal with different definitions of persons,

especially over the last few years.

I am just wondering about special benefits. If that is your response, that is fair enough, I will leave it at that.

You state that the difference between the employees of international organizations and career diplomats or consular officers assigned here is that the former stay longer in the United States. If

that were the only difference, why, then, should not those other

aliens also be covered so that if particular career diplomats or consular officers remained in the United States for longer than usual,

long enough, in fact, to satisfy the residence requirements, then

why should not they qualify for special immigration benefits?

Do you have any thought on that?

Ambassador ASENCIO. Being a foreign service officer and being a

bit of a gypsy myself, I am not sure that diplomats in general

should be equated with the employees of an international organization. In effect, you have a different mind set as a diplomat.

I, for instance, find that after I have served in any particular society or community for 3 to 4 years, I start getting itchy and looking for someplace else to go, and I would suspect that that is the

standard lifestyle for a diplomat. So I do not think it would be at

all correct to have a special provision of the law just in the event

someone is an aberrational part of that sort of picture. So I do not

think you can compare. You are talking about apples and oranges,

Mr. Chairman.

Senator SIMPSON. In your testimony as I reviewed it, it seemed to

me that you are more sympathetic toward G-iv children.

Ambassador ASENCIO. Oh, absolutely, absolutely.

Senator SIMPSON. DO you believe, then, that any relief legislation

should be directed only to those in that category, children?

Ambassador ASENCIO. I am especially sympathetic toward the

children. I do consider, though, that in principle their families

should also be considered in terms of legislation. But this did start
13

with, as I recall, the G-iv children, and there is something about

them that strikes a responsive chord.

Senator SIMPSON. We have many terms like that in these chambers that are always defined to strike that responsive chord. I was

interested in reviewing the history of this legislation that that is

exactly what we did start with, doing something for children. Since

then we have broadened this considerably. I hope we can focus

Ambassador ASENCIO. I might say that my special sympathy also

extends, for instance, in those areas where we are talking about

widows.

Senator SIMPSON. Very much so. That was another part of the

original intent of the legislation, yes.

Ambassador ASENCIO. And I would say again, as a matter of

principle, certainly from the standpoint of weight of preference, I

still think that a third category, the employees themselves, should

be the subject of consideration, and certainly children and widows

are an important part of what we are discussing.

Senator SIMPSON. YOU state, too, that the existing law allows Givs, along with other aliens, to adjust their status on a case-by-case

basis. Are you there referring to the regular preference system? It

is my understanding that most G-iv visa holders can only qualify

for the nonpreference category, for which no visa numbers, of

course, have recently been available.

Ambassador Asencio. What we were referring to there, Mr.

Chairman, is in those cases where the G-iv visa holder cannot

return to his home society for any number of reasons, either political or otherwise.

Senator SIMPSON. I thank you.

Mr. Nelson, in your testimony you present an estimate that

there are slightly more than 11,000 G-iv aliens in the United

States. You also state that the majority of the G-ivs remain in the

United States for relatively short periods of time. What percentage

of the 11,000 do you estimate will leave the United States before

they have been here 5 years or 10 years, 15 or 20 years? Could you

give us an idea on that, please?

Mr. NELSON. Mr. Chairman, I do not know if we have a breakdown of that, of the 11,000. I can just tell you it looks like about

5,000 United Nations, 3,500 World Bank, 900 International Monetary Fund, and about 1,700 in all the other categories. I do not

presently have any breakdown to specifically answer your question

as to the length of likely stay, although I think we have indicated,

again, and maybe this really answers it, there may be some 300 or

so principals and dependents who would benefit in the first year of

such a law.

So that would tend to indicate fairly small numbers to start out.

What the ongoing trend would be, we do not have those figures yet.

Senator SIMPSON. That is an interesting breakdown there. In

your estimate, then, of the 11,000, does that refer only to the employees themselves or also to their family members? How is that

broken down?

Mr. NELSON. I think that is the employees themselves, the 11,000.

Senator SIMPSON. That is the employees themselves.

Mr. NELSON. That is my understanding.

Senator SIMPSON. Thank you.

97-870 O-
14

Perhaps Mr. Cutler and Mr. McNamara can provide information

about what we are talking about in terms of family members.

Do you believe that a 10-year presence in the United States

before the age of 26 should be enough to qualify a G-iv son or

daughter for special immigrant status? By that I would mean that

someone would qualify who spent preschool and posthigh school

years in the United States but who was educated for most of all of

his or her precollege years abroad. Is the adjustment of such an individual likely to be that difficult if he were required to return to

his homeland?

Mr. NELSON. Well, Mr. Chairman, I am sure that is a difficult sociological question to answer completely on a broad basis. Like so

many aspects of the immigration law, it is a balancing process that

we must go through. You obviously cannot make it so easy for

people to just automatically stay, or on the other hand make it so

difficult that it creates real problems. I think, therefore, those

year-type of provisions that are set forth at least try to restore or

to obtain the type of balance that would be the most equitable

under all circumstances.

I really could not answer the difficulty of returning home. I am

sure in some cases it could be a real problem.

Senator SIMPSON. What if in the case of each G-iv visa holder

who actually adjusts to permanent resident status, ,the annual ceiling and the per country ceiling for that visa holder's country of

origin would both have to be reduced by one? Would you still support legislation in that area if we found that reduction to be appropriate on the per country and annual ceilings?

Mr. NELSON. Again, I guess my off-hand reaction, and frankly,

this has not been a matter that we have probably analyzed specifically in a policy area, but I would think that could be a possibility

if the Congress decided to go that route. Certainly I do not think

the administration would have any opposition to that, although I

do not think we suggested it being done that way.

Senator SIMPSON. Yes, you never have. I am just putting that

before the subcommittee.

You indicate, too, in your testimony that certain other categories

of nonimmigrants remain in this country for lengthy periods of

time and that they and their families also develop attachments to

the United States. However, you state, too, that actual returns to

homelands and opportunities for similar employment there are

greater for persons in these other categories.

Could you explain to the subcommittee in just a bit more detail

why some of those other nonimmigrants do not need any kind of

similar relief provisions?

Mr. NELSON. Again, as Ambassador Asencio indicated relating to

the consular types, I suppose one aspect•and possibly Mr. McNamara and Mr. Cutler could elaborate more from their knowledge

and background•but I think for the international organizations

that many of them are here largely because we have encouraged

them to be here, and maybe the length of stay might be more part

of the job than possibly some of the private types. I would think

that would be a factor to be considered and possibly a distinguishing factor.
15

Senator SIMPSON. I appreciate those responses. They will be helpful to us. I really do not have any more questions at this time of

you two gentlemen.

Let us rather accelerate the agenda. Senator Mathias, when he

arrives here, will interrupt on the other panel, but I think I will

now go forward with the panel of Mr. Stevenson and Ms.

Schmedtje. How am I doing, pretty close? [Laughter.]

And Mrs. Kaija Juusela. Was that good?

Mrs. JUUSELA. Pretty good.

Senator SIMPSON. It sounded good to me. I was glad to get that.

[Laughter.]

Oh, yes, and Mr. Lin, too.

Thank you very much, Ambassador and Commissioner. It is very

helpful indeed.

So even though the time does not disclose that this is your opportunity, it is. So if you would come forward, and then please understand that when Senator Mathias comes, we will interrupt and

have his testimony.

This panel consists of Mr. John L. Stevenson, president of the Giv Children's Coalition, of Kensington, Maryland, and Ms. Ingrid

Schmedtje, a G-iv child, of Charlottesville, Virginia, and Mr. Sam

Lin, G-iv child of Bethesda, Maryland, and Mrs. Kaija Juusela, Giv widow and staff member. We would just pleased proceed in that

same order, if you will, please.

Mr. Stevenson.

STATEMENT OF JOHN L. STEVENSON, PRESIDENT, G-IV

CHILDREN'S COALITION, KENSINGTON, MD.

Mr. STEVENSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

All the members of the panel have submitted prepared written

statements for the record, and we would only like to present a summary of those here, if that is acceptable.

Senator SIMPSON. Yes, without objection.

Mr. STEVENSON. Mr. Chairman, I should like first to express my

appreciation for the opportunity of appearing before you today. My

name is John Stevenson and I am president of the G-iv Children's

Coalition.

On behalf of the Coalition I urge your support of S. 1998, the Giv bill submitted recently by Senator Mathias.

The G-iv Children's Coalition draws support from American and

non-American employees of all major international organizations

with headquarters here in the United States. It is a volunteer association of concerned families seeking to alleviate distress experienced by the dependents of non-American staff members of these

institutions as a result of their G-iv nonimmigrant visa status.

Employees of the international organizations usually spend most

of their professional lives here in this country. When recruited

from abroad, these employees arrive with the highest hopes of contributing to betterment of the world community through political,

financial, and technological expertise. For their families, the

United States is a challenging and rewarding country in which to

Live and be educated.
16

CHILDREN

Their children in particular very quickly begin to think of themselves as American. They very rapidly lose contact with their

native language and the social influences of their homeland. The

distinct American social culture becomes the culture of the children involved, ingrained on them irresistably and permanently in

their most formative years.

Currently these Americanized children have great difficulty remaining in the United States when they finish their education. It

is almost impossible for them to obtain permanent immigrant

status on their own. There is often a record of high academic quality already in hand, but, however, a degree which is not recognized

or wrongly specialized for use in the child's homeland.

I am sure you will realize what great distress can then follow.

Families are divided geographically. Mature children are forced

into a painful and often demoralizing readaptation in the country

whose passport they hold. Some children find the readjustment insurmountable. Usually the separation itself comes at a time when

the international organization employee is reaching the high point

of his career, creating terrible conflicts.

Furthermore, the United States at this point loses contact with

and loses the potential services of talented, well-educated, vocationally trained and highly integrated young people. You will hear

shortly from two G-iv children who have experienced the problems

to which I have referred. The enactment into law of S. 1998 would

serve to remove their difficulties.

RETIREES

The second category covered by S. 1998 is retired staff members

and members of their immediate family. Until recently, such persons could gain permanent resident visas as nonpreference immigrants. Many people who have planned a retirement here and

whose ties with their native country have been gradually dissolved

over many years have been caused much anguish by recent elimination of this possibility.

Currently, at best a fundamental insecurity exists within these

families. At worst, the family will become divided. The proposed

legislation would help remedy the problems these people face and

grant a major security to many G-iv families who now simply face

division after long periods of residence here.

The retired international civil servants themselves would not be

a burden on the United States since their retirement benefits are

fully adequate and certainly preclude any necessity for further

gainful employment.

SURVIVING SPOUSES

Finally, the S. 1998 bill contains a provision whereby a spouse

and children of a long term international organization employee

may be permitted to stay in the United States if he or she is widowed during the family's residence here. This very unfortunate circumstance inflicts the harshest of difficulties, as you will hear

shortly.
17

Currently the regulations require that a widow and dependent

children of the deceased G-iv employee leave the United States.

Proper settlement of the family's future is impossible under such

circumstances and schooling is totally dislocated for all children in

the family simultaneously. Friendships are smothered at a time

when they would be of greatest value.

[Examples of hardship by G-iv visa holders are incorporated into

the appendix of the hearing record. They can be found on page 91.]

Mr. STEVENSON. Mr. Chairman, the international organization

families whom I represent today live within the jurisdiction of the

United States. They are keen participants in the society which

hosts them. The knowledge that an ultimate consequence of one's

life here may be family division, dislocation, and totally disillusioned children is a bitter and disheartening prospect. Again I urge

your earnest support of S. 1998.

I shall be glad to answer any questions you may have at the conclusion of this panel.

Senator SIMPSON. Thank you very much. That was very effective

testimony.

[The prepared statement of John L. Stevenson follows:]
18

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN L. STEVENSON

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Sub-Committee, I

should like first to express my appreciation for the opportunity of appearing before you today. My name is John L.

Stevenson and I am President of the G-IV Children's Coalition. On behalf of the Coalition I urge your support of

S.1998 ("the G-IV Bill").

The G-IV Children's Coalition draws support from

American and non-American employees of all major International Organizations with headquarters here in the United

States, including the International Bank for Reconstruction

and Development, the International Monetary Fund, the

Organization of American States, the United Nations, the

Inter-American Development Bank, the International Telecommunications Satellite Organization, the International

Finance Corporation and the Inter-American Defense Board.

It is essentially a voluntary association of concerned

families, seeking to alleviate difficulties faced by the

dependents of non-American staff members of these institutions. By far the most distressing difficulty experienced

by the staff members and their families occurs as a result

of their G-IV (non-immigrant) visa status.

Unlike diplomatic personnel, who are frequently

rotated from one post to another, employees of the International Organizations usually spend most of their professional life here in this country. When recruited from

abroad, these employees arrive with the highest hopes

of contributing to betterment of the world community,

through political, financial and technological expertise.
19

For their families, the United States is a challenging and

rewarding country in which to live and be educated. The

children in particular very soon begin to think of themselves as American, very rapidly losing contact with their

native language and the social influences of their homeland. The distinct American social culture becomes the

culture of the children involved, ingrained on them irresistibly and permanently in their most formative years.

Currently, these "Americanized" children have

great difficulty remaining in the United States beyond

the point at which they cease to be dependent on their

parents, when their G-IV visa status terminates. It is

almost impossible for them to obtain permanent immigrant

status on their own. There is often a record of high

academic quality already in hand • but, however, an

academic qualification which is not recognized, or wrongly

specialized, for use in the child's "homeland." I am

sure you will realize what great distress can follow.

Families are divided geographically. Mature children are

forced into a painful and often demoralizing readaptation

in the country whose passport they hold. In some cases,

children are even denied tourist visas to visit the parents.

Usually separation comes at a time when the International

Organization employee is reaching the high-point of his

career, creating terrible conflicts. Furthermore, the

United States at this point loses contact with, and loses

the potential services of, talented, well-educated, vocationally trained and highly integrated young people.

Some children find the readjustment required on

return to their native land insurmountable. Others cannot
20

face reassimilation. Instead they remain as dependents

here in the United States, without meaningful career opportunities and often extending their formal education as

a non-productive, time-killing exercise.

Many G-IV children who either face, or may yet

face, the problems I have detailed are here today. You

will hear shortly from Ingrid Schmedtje and Sam C. Lin,

two G-IV children who have resided in the United States

fox twenty and fifteen years respectively and whose present

circumstances illustrate the harsh dilemma which I have

outlined. Numerous other children face similar problems.

The enactment into law of S.1998 would serve to

ease the problems and distress to which I have referred.

It would permit children in the G-IV visa category who

have resided here for a minimum of seven years at school

age, or for ten years before reaching the age of twenty-six,

to opt • if they so wish • for permanent resident status.

The second category covered by S.1998 is retired

staff members, and members of their immediate family. Until

recently, it was relatively easy for such persons to obtain

permanent resident visas as non-preference immigrants.

Since January 1, 1979, no non-preference visas have been

granted. As a result, many people who had planned a retirement here, and whose ties with their native country

had been gradually dissolved over many years, have been

caused much anguish. At best, a fundamental insecurity

exists within the family. At worst, the family will become divided. Specific examples which I can quote are

as follows:
21

(i) A Turkish national, with twenty-six years

of service at the World Bank. He and his wife wish to

retire here in order to retain ties with their daughter,

who independently holds a G-IV visa as an employee of

the International Monetary Fund. His family has already

been divided once • a younger son having returned to

Turkey in 1974, after some twenty years residence here

in the U.S. The difficulty of resettling in Turkey,

at age 64, having there no friends, no home and with

the severance of all bonds into the American community:

this cannot be underestimated.

(ii) An Argentinian national and an employee

of the OAS since 1953, who originally entered the U.S.

with a resident (immigrant) visa status. This woman is

now 62 years old. She surrendered her resident visa for

G-IV status during OAS service in order to comply with

the OAS' policy for professional employees. She has not

been to Argentina in the last ten years and maintains

no links with her country of origin. The United States

has become an adopted homeland in very nearly thirty

years of residence.

The proposed legislation would help remedy

these and similar problems. S.1998 would enable the

parents of G-IV children to remain in the United States

beyond retirement of the employee from long-term service

with the International Organization. This will permit

unification of the full family, should it be desired.

Additionally, long-term residents without dependent

children also qualify in this category. Such retired

international civil servants would not be a burden on
22

the U.S. since the retirement benefits they derive from

the International Organizations are fully adequate.

Finally, the S.1998 Bill contains a provision

whereby a spouse and children of a long-term International

Organization employee may be permitted to stay in the

United States if he or she is widowed during the family's

residence here. This very unfortunate circumstance

inflicts the harshest of difficulties. Currently, the

regulations require that a widow and dependent children

of the deceased G-IV employee leave the United States.

Proper settlement of the family's future is impossible

under such circumstances. Schooling is totally dislocated

for all children in the family simultaneously. Friendships are smothered at a time when they would be of

greatest value. These consequences of the current procedures will be addressed shortly by Mrs. Kaija Juusela,

a G-IV widow, and by Mr. Davidson Sommers.

Mr. Chairman, the International Organization

families whom I represent today live within the jurisdiction of the United States. They are keen participants

in the society which hosts them. The knowledge that an

ultimate consequence of one's life here may be family

division, dislocation and totally disillusioned children

is a bitter and disheartening prospect.

In conclusion, I should like to add that many

other countries which act as hosts for the various international organizations, the United Nations and its associated agencies, do offer the privilege of extended permanent

residence to international officials and their families.

The enactment of S.1998 would represent then a matching

expression of the liberal and humanitarian traditions

fundamental to this country. Again, I urge your

support of this measure.
23

Senator SIMPSON. And now, please, Ms. Schmedtje.

STATEMENT OF INGRID SCHMEDTJE, G-IV CHILD,

CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA.

Ms. SCHMEDTJE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My name is Ingrid Schmedtje. My family resides in Bethesda,

Md. I am currently a senior at the University of Virginia, where I

am a pre-med student. My father is an economist with the World

Bank on a G-iv visa. My mother, my grandmother, and I also hold

G-iv visas.

I have two sisters. My younger sister, Karin, is 16 years old, and

was born in the United States. My older sister is 24 years old, and

now lives in West Germany. I was born in Geneva, Switzerland,

and came to the United States 21 years ago, at the age of 15

months. I hold West German citizenship on the basis of my parents' nationality, although I have lived there for only 1 year while

my father was on sabbatical leave.

CHILDREN

Unlike many G-iv children, I have been raised bilingually. From

first grade on, I attended the German school at Potomac, Md.,

where all classes are taught in German. I graduated in 1978 with

both a high school diploma and a German abitur.

While in high school, I became very interested in medicine as a

career. My interest was reinforced by volunteer work at Sibley Memorial Hospital and as an emergency room assistant at Childrens

Hospital. I enrolled in a pre-med curriculum at the University of

Virginia, and am now awaiting decisions on my pending applications at American medical schools.

While at college, I have continued to work as a volunteer emergency medical technician during summers and weekends with the

Bethesda-Chevy Chase Rescue Squad, the only totally privately

supported, nonprofit emergency ambulance service in the United

States. This year I won an award for being among the top 10 fundraisers in the organization.

The process of applying to medical school is very trying for

anyone who goes through it, but my G-iv status has added an extra

dimension of anxiety. My lack of a permanent resident visa or

United States citizenship has severely limited the number of medical schools to which I can apply. Many State schools, for example,

will not consider persons who hold only temporary visas.

If I am not admitted to medical school, my choices will be very

limited and very unsatisfactory. To retain my G-iv visa, I must

continue to reside with my parents, and will be able to work only if

I find an employer willing to submit the necessary paperwork and

am able to obtain the approval of the Department of State and

INS. I could enroll in another kind of graduate school or continue

to work as a volunteer. I view these possibilities as postponing the

attainment of adulthood and independence.

I could also move to West Germany, but even if I were to be admitted to medical school there, which is highly uncertain, I would

get virtually no credit for my 4 years at the University of Virginia,

and would be treated just as if I had recently graduated from high
24

school. I could seek work in Germany, but the German educational

and apprenticeship system is so different from that of the United

States that I would have great difficulties finding meaningful work.

And apart from these career-related issues, I know I could expect

to encounter very serious adjustment problems, as did my older

sister when she moved there 6 years ago.

In short, at the moment, I belong nowhere and essentially have

no control over what happens to me, and I am one of the lucky

ones. If I somehow can find a way to stay here for the next 5 years,

my younger sister may be able to sponsor me as a fifth preference

immigrant.

I have now lived in the United States for 20 years. Despite the

efforts of my family to expose me to both German and American

language and culture, I now find myself to be highly Americanized.

Americanization, to me, goes beyond language, education, culture,

social habits, and the like. The key, I think, is the openness of

American society and our people's dedication to public service and

to helping those less fortunate than ourselves. I have been brought

up with these values: to serve other people, to contribute my skills

to the well-being of others, and to do so in the spirit of volunteerism and cooperation.

This country has granted me countless opportunities, and has

formed my attitudes and beliefs. I am a very different person from

the person I would have been had I been brought up in West Germany or elsewhere. My life here has instilled in me a sense of

pride and the wish to give of my time and enthusiasm to help

better my community. This is where I belong, and this is where I

would like to continue to develop and invest my personal resources.

It is frustrating indeed to know that I belong here, yet am

unable to control my own future. The G-iv bill will help me and

countless others like me to realize our dreams of becoming Americans as well as Americanized.

Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to appear

before you today. I would be happy to try and answer any questions you may have.

Senator SIMPSON. Thank you very much. I appreciate having that

testimony.

Mr. Lin, please.

STATEMENT OF SAM LIN, G-IV CHILD, BETHESDA, MD.

Mr. LIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My name is Sam Lin. I reside in Bethesda, Md., where I am a

senior at Walt Whitman High School. My father is an economist

with the International Monetary Fund on a G-iv visa.

Senator SIMPSON. Mr. Lin, would you mind pulling that microphone over a little bit closer to you there, if you would? Thank you.

Mr. LIN. My mother and my two older brothers and I are here on

G-iv visas deriving from my father's employment status with an

international organization.

I have lived in the United States for 15V4 of my 18 years. I remember nothing of my early life in Taiwan, where my family is

from, although I have been back several times for short visits with

relatives. I speak some Taiwanese, the everyday language of the
25

Taiwanese people, but I am not fluent. I cannot speak, read, or

write Mandarin Chinese, the official language of Taiwan.

My brothers, who are 20 and 23 years old, are in a similar situation. It would take many years of intensive study to learn enough

Mandarin to function effectively. My oldest brother remains functionally illiterate in Mandarin despite having studied it in college.

CHILDREN

My brothers and I are typical G-iv children in many ways. We

all have been educated in American schools, and attend or in my

case will soon attend American colleges. Each of us was a semifinalist for the National Merit Scholarships which are awarded each

year to top American high school students. We were not, however,

eligible for the financial awards that go to finalists, because we are

not citizens of the United States.

Each of us has career interests that we intend to pursue. My

brother, Ben, a senior at Haverford College, will enter graduate

school next year to study city planning and regional economic development. My middle brother, Jan, a junior at Williams College, is

spending his junior year abroad at University College in London,

and is a journalism and anthropology major. I plan to study engineering. Yet, under our nonimmigrant visas, currently none of us

has any real hope of being able to pursue these careers in the

United States unless the G-iv bill is enacted.

Although each of these careers could theoretically be pursued in

our native Taiwan, none of us believes that that is realistic. We do

not speak, read, or write the language used in professional life

there, and our training will have been geared to the American job

market. We have no friends or contacts in Taiwan other than

family we hardly know. If we were forced to return to Taiwan in

order to pursue these careers, we would go there as foreigners.

My brothers and I have grown up in America, and America is

the only home we know. Despite our uncertain status, we are fully

assimilated into American society. We share American ideals and

values. Our friends view us as Americans. Many do not even know

of our uncertain situation. We want to remain here and contribute

our skills and talents to the only society we know. In this, we are

typical of many G-iv children who have resided here since childhood and have been brought up to love America and know little of

their home country.

SURVIVING SPOUSE

The need for this legislation may seem more pressing for my

brothers than for me. I have 4 years of college plus graduate school

ahead of me, while they are closer to beginning an independent

life. But I do not find this very comforting. For, like other G-iv

families, my family could be required to leave the United States

almost immediately if my father were to die. This is not a hypothetical issue. It has happened to other families, and last summer,

when my father was very ill and could not work for 3 months, we

feared it was about to happen to us.
26

The trauma of his illness was made worse for us by the knowledge that our future lives here in the United States hang on the

thread of my father's survival.

In closing, I want to express again my appreciation for the opportunity to be here today and to tell you something of my situation.

The legislation that you are considering today is of vital importance to people like me, and I hope you will quickly enact it into

law so that our status can be regularized.

Thank you very much. I would be happy to answer any questions

you may have.

Senator SIMPSON. Thank you very much for your impressive testimony.

Now, please, Mrs. Kaija Juusela.

STATEMENT OF KAIJA JUUSELA, G-IV WIDOW AND STAFF

MEMBER

Mrs. JUUSELA. Mr. Chairman, I would thank you for permitting

me to testify before you today. My name is Kaija Juusela. I am a

citizen of Finland, but I have resided in the United States on a

G-iv visa for 25 years. For 23 years, my visa derived from my late

husband's status as an economist with the International Monetary

Fund. I am now on my own G-iv visa, being employed by the fund

in the staff relations office, but face the prospect of having to deal

with the problem once again when I retire.

I have two children, a 27-year-old son, now married to an American citizen, and a daughter, age 28, who is enrolled at the University of Maryland and is my G-iv dependent. As this brief summary

indicates, I have experienced the problems of a G-iv visa holder

from several perspectives.

My husband and I came to the United States in 1957 with our

two children, who were then ages 2 and 3. My own field is music,

and I sang professionally for many years. When my children were

older, the State Department's Foreign Service Institute asked me

to teach Finnish language and culture to Foreign Service officers of

the United States. I worked part-time for several years, and assumed a full-time position there in 1976.

SURVIVING SPOUSES

My husband died suddenly in 1980. I was out of the United

States at the time. When I returned, I was told that my G-iv visa

was no longer valid. After several hours at the airport, I was granted temporary permission to stay to settle my husband's affairs. I

eventually obtained a visitor's visa, and then had to decide what to

do next.

I enjoyed my job at the Foreign Service Institute, but with a visitor's visa only, I was not authorized to work in that job. I did explore whether the State Department could sponsor me, but they

are not permitted to do so. Eventually I applied for a job in personnel at the Fund, an entirely new field of work for me. I was accepted, and I thus was able to remain.

After living in the United States for 25 years, I dread the possibility of having to go through all of this again in 13 years, when I

will have to retire. By then I will have lived here for 38 years. I
27

have few contacts in Finland today, and very little opportunity to

fit into their limited job market. Consequently, the prospect of returning there to live is not very appealing.

My daughter, who will complete her studies this year, faces more

immediate problems.

Having experienced the G-iv problem from so many different

perspectives, I would like to comment briefly on why I feel so

strongly about the need for this legislation. Being widowed at a relatively young age and very suddenly was a great shock, and the

past 18 months have been difficult ones. I was fortunate to have

had substantial work experience, and to be qualified for a position

at the Fund. Not all G-iv widows are so lucky. Many have never

worked outside the home, and cannot fit into the job market either

here or in their home countries. What are they to do? Their friends

are here. Their lives are here. And they really know no other place

any more. Under current policies, they face the prospect of relocating at a time of great emotional upset.

The children, too, face great difficulties, as you have already

heard the others testify.

Finally, the impact on the staff members themselves cannot be

ignored. My husband suffered greatly because of the problems his

status caused our children. I know many families who have given

up their careers here because the potential problems were too

great. The current situation takes its toll on all of us.

I recognize that the United States cannot take in everyone who

wishes to live here, and that it must set limits and priorities, but

we who have been here for so many years believe that the current

situation is very inequitable and unfair. I beg you to recognize the

seriousness of the present problems and the need to remedy them.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to present my views. I

would be very happy to try to answer any questions you may have.

Senator SIMPSON. Thank you very much.

I have several questions of each of you, but I would ask first, Mr.

Stevenson, could you comment briefly to the subcommittee on the

effect of the G-iv status on the recruitment of staff members,

please?

Mr. STEVENSON. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

EFFECT ON INSTITUTIONS

I think it is probably clear from what you have heard that the

difficulties with the G-iv visa status have now reached their most

severe point. This is largely as a result of the aging process of the

organizations themselves. Many people who came a number of

years ago now have problems or will have problems quite shortly,

and so there is a sort of cumulative knowledge, if you like, about

the circumstances that one finds oneself in as one's career develops. So, within the organizations themselves, there is a growing

feeling that the G-iv visa status operates in a way which is harsh

and causes one's family some distress.

Now, clearly, the organizations themselves are not going to advertise this fact to new applicants. However, those applicants who

currently apply have an interest, and not unnaturally, in what

their family situations will be if they were to join the organiza-
28

tions, and often those information requests are dealt with at the

interview level.

For example, since I have become involved with the Children's

Coalition and become a source of information on G-iv visa technicalities, such persons are often referred to me, and I would have to

say that people have been through interviews in my office and

have subsequently withdrawn their applications on the grounds

that this is something that they are not capable of dealing with or

their families are at an age where they do not feel this is a risk

they can take.

Now, for the organization I work for, it is a rather severe problem. We are a growing organization, and we need all the recruits

we can find, and we have vacancies to fill, and everybody who is

turning us down is a loss to the efficiency of the organization.

Senator SIMPSON. Thank you.

I want to hurry along a bit. I understood that response. I want

especially to address another question. I have been told that children having parents of different nationalities have some very real

additional problems. Could you describe, please, some of those to

us?

Mr. STEVENSON. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

CHILDREN

I think that mixed families are a fairly common feature of the

organizations. In order to become qualified for the very specialized

requirements that the organizations have, prospective applicants

will often spend time abroad•out of their own home country•

before they come here to Washington to serve my own organizations or indeed any of the other American-based organizations. In

that case, they may have been out of their home country when

they married, and they may well have had children there, and

then the family comes to the United States with mixed parentage

and often with children of mixed nationality. It clearly is that

some of the children do not have common nationality, and may not

even have the nationalities of both their parents. I know certain

specific instances where that is the case.

So, these things, these circumstances are quite common, and I

think they are felt not only by people who are born in different

countries outside the United States, but also for those families who

come here at a relatively young age and have children born here.

Obviously, the children born here are then U.S. citizens, and under

the current regulations those children who are U.S. citizens cannot

sponsor any members of their family until they are 21, and then

only in certain circumstances. That is clearly a very difficult thing

to come to terms with.

What does one do with a child who has U.S. citizenship apart

from the rest of the family?

Senator SIMPSON. In your written testimony, you state that it is

almost impossible for G-iv children to obtain permanent immigrant status on their own. Would you please explain why that is?
29

DIFFICULTY IN OBTAINING PERMANENT VISAS

Mr. STEVENSON. I think it is clear that one route by which they

might obtain immigrant status is, of course, by marriage. If the

child becomes Americanized to the point where he marries an

American, he may stay here on those grounds. Alternatively, the

child can try to obtain a preference visa or to qualify to remain

here via some other route. Realistically, both these options will

help very few people. Otherwise, as soon as the child finishes his

education and would reach a point at which he would like to be

self-sufficient and terminate his dependence on his parents, his Giv visa status is withdrawn, and he must therefore return to his

home country.

Senator SIMPSON. The nature of that and the impossibility of obtaining permanent immigrant status of the child is not equally

true for the parent. That is true, is that not the case?

Mr. STEVENSON. Not true for the employee.

Senator SIMPSON. That is not equally true for their parents.

REASONS FOR NOT CONVERTING EARLIER

Mr. STEVENSON. That is a fairly complicated situation. The employees themselves are bound by the staff regulations of the organization they work for, and the international organizations like to be

and have a need to be staffed by an international quorum, and it is

clear that for that to be so, to remain so, it is a condition of your

employment that you do not change to U.S. citizenship.

Senator SIMPSON. Then we come back to part of the real issue of

this entire matter. I would like you to share with me any thoughts

of yours as to why many of the G-iv visa holders did not adjust

their status to permanent residents when the opportunity still existed, when nonpreference numbers were still available. Do you

have any thought on that?

Mr. STEVENSON. Well, as I said, you know, there were regulations

in effect which prevented them from doing that, and that is a condition of one's employment, that those routes which were theoretically open were practically closed, and that was not in general undertaken by people in that situation.

Senator SIMPSON. Well, I understand the real issue of the conditions of employment. Certainly that is very real. Do those conditions of employment, or those employment regulations often prevent the spouse from an adjustment of status?

Mr. STEVENSON. Yes; there are specific cases where spouse and

children were discouraged from adjusting their status.

Senator SIMPSON. Just a couple of questions of Mr. Lin, and if I

may, both of you, do you each have friends or acquaintances in

your country of your birth or your home country? And I would ask

you how many times you might have visited the nation in which

you were born, and when your last visit was. May I ask you that?

CHILDREN

Ms. SCHMEDTJE. Yes, Mr. Chairman. My last visit to Germany

was this past summer. I usually go home for brief periods every

second summer. I have very few friends over there at this time, be97-870 0•82 3
30

cause all of my schooling has been in America. So the friends that

I have there are basically just old friends of the family, which I see

so infrequently that it is almost impossible to maintain any kind of

contact with them, and also during my visits to Europe, the time is

usually so limited that I am not able to visit the few friends that I

do have.

Mr. LIN. I have gone back at intervals of approximately 3 years,

and the last time I went back was in the summer of eighth grade,

but most of the time when I have been back there, it has pretty

much been like a vacation, like any other place where I would go

sightseeing. I have a few cousins that I am friends with, but otherwise I do not know anybody there except for my grandparents and

other relatives.

Senator SIMPSON. DO you intend to become U.S. citizens? Might I

ask you that?

Mr. LIN. Yes, I do.

Ms. SCHMEDTJE. If granted the opportunity, yes.

Senator SIMPSON. OK. Just one further question. Then I will go

on to Senator Mathias.

Mrs. Juusela, it compels my compassion when I hear you tell

that story of your life and your husband and so on, and I would ask

you, did you ever attempt to adjust your status in those first 23

years of residence in the United States at any time?

REASONS FOR NOT CONVERTING EARLIER

Mrs. JUUSELA. Not directly, Mr. Chairman. I inquired at the FSI

whether they could sponsor me for this resident alien status, but

they said that they cannot do, because it is against their policy.

They cannot do it. This was already earlier

Senator SIMPSON. Who said that was against their policy?

Mrs. JUUSELA. The Foreign Service Institute, which is part of the

State Department. That was at the time when I was working there,

and I was already connected with the G-iv Children's Coalition. I

thought it might have been an opportunity for me to get resident

alien visa and through me my children could get that.

Senator SIMPSON. Well, it is a tough one. It sounds easy when

you start, like everything around this place. I hear that claim of

unfairness. I understand that. I think that phrase has been used.

And yet we talk about the breaking up of families. Yet the whole

theory and theme of our immigration policies, even when we are

doing it wrong, which we do beautifully sometimes, is still family

reunification, and the claim that our immigration policies are the

leading edge of breaking up the families, I hear that, but still, we

should remember the other side of it, that the emigrant who decides to immigrate begins the process of doing that.

I am not saying that I am putting great emphasis on that, but

there is a voluntary choice involved. In the year of testimony we

have had about immigration reform, you can imagine what kind of

a hearing we might have with regard to Haitians or Mexicans who

simply want to find a better life in America. It is a very interesting

side, too.

Mr. STEVENSON. I would like to comment on that. I think very

few of the people who work for the international organizations con-
31

sider themselves as emigrees. I think in general they come here

with the belief that they are well in charge of their professional

circumstances. They are taking a job opportunity which interests

them in a part of the world where they are clearly able to take

care of their children and their families, and where educational opportunities are available, and so on.

I think what happens in fact is that the very openness of•the

fact that this is an immigrant society, that people are accommodated here with a certain ease, it is a thing that comes as a great surprise to anybody who comes to work for the international organizations. You think of yourself as being from where you are from, but

the fact is that if you bring young children here they are so very

quickly converted into believing in it. It is that strong, the American culture.

That becomes soon a major setback for you, and it may well be

that the employee will go through the whole of his employment

here and never consider himself an emigre, but for his family,

which is the point that we are trying to address today, the situation is different.

Senator SIMPSON. Certainly the area of adjustment of status is

something that we have spent a great deal of time on in the past

year. The reform legislation will have some significant suggestions

on adjustment of status.

Senator Mathias, if I might defer to you as one who has been a

member of the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee

Policy, and has served there•we were on that together•who has a

great and continuing interest in this important issue at the request

of Senator Mathias and because of my own interest and curiosity,

we have gone forward with this hearing at an early time. We want

to adopt a portion of it in the reform legislation. Mac, compassion

has never been low on your list of attributes, and I admire very

much what you are doing here. I know you have a statement to

present, and we would appreciate hearing from you.

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES McC. MATHIAS, JR., A U.S.

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

Senator MATHIAS. Well, Mr. Chairman, I hesitate to interrupt

the colloquy which is now under way between this panel and the

Chair, because I think you would learn much more from them than

you are likely to learn from me.

I think that any country would be proud of every member of this

panel, and I think the United States should be proud of them, too;

they speak so eloquently.

Since you have interrupted their testimony, I will take this opportunity to thank you for holding this hearing, and to note that

the hearing is important to the passage of the bill. One of the objections that has been raised to passing this bill is the rather technical one•almost a pettifogging objection, but nonetheless it has

been effective•that there has not been a hearing, that there is no

record.

Well, now, thanks to you, Senator Simpson, we have a hearing,

and thanks to Senator Simpson, there is going to be a record, and
32

that is an enormously important step toward passage, and I want

to express my appreciation.

This is a bill which may not loom very large on the legislative

agenda of the United States Congress, given the kind of problems

we have in the world, but it is tremendously important to young

people who are residents of the United States, who have lived in

the United States for most of their lives, who very often think of

themselves as Americans, who think of the United States as their

home, and yet who are denied the right of looking into their own

futures as citizens and residents of the country that has embraced

them during their formative years.

That is really what we are here to talk about, and that is the

case of the children of those who work in this country for international organizations such as the World Bank and the International

Monetary Fund, and who as the law stands now, and as we have

just heard from this panel, must return to their parents' homeland

after they complete their education or when their parents are separated from the institutions which had originally brought them

here. The homeland of their parents is just as much a foreign country to many of them as it is to thousands of first generation Americans, people really of the same circumstance, but who just happen

to come to this country for a different reason.

So, it seems to me that there is an element of human decency in

reconsidering our policy of forcing them to leave this country to

return to a land which, as we have just heard, may in many cases

be unfamiliar and where it may be very difficult for them to adjust

to living. I think it is typical of Senator Simpson, a thoroughly

decent man, that he recognizes this emotional burden, and that he

is really the first person who has taken the step to move this legislation along.

You are getting testimony face to face. You do not need it second

hand. But I did get a letter not long ago from a man who works for

the International Monetary Fund, and he says that, "My daughter,

who is 21, entered the United States at age 9. She was in the Montgomery County Public Schools," and I think we are justifiably

proud of the Montgomery County Public Schools in Maryland, but

he goes on to say, "But incompatibility of programs prevented her

from getting into a university in the United Kingdom," and this is

a practical kind of problem that arises. Having been integrated

into the American educational system, they do not necessarily integrate back into the country of origin's educational system. "She is

now in her senior year of college in Oregon, and she will graduate

in December. What is she to do then? We have no relative to speak

of in the United Kingdom, and I do not know how to advise her to

find a job there." And then he adds a line that I found somewhat

difficult, because apparently she has sought official advice, and the

practical advice that she got from officials is that she should marry

an American. [General laughter.]

Senator MATHIAS. Well, that is practical, all right. [General

laughter.]

But it is not really the kind of advice that you expect to get in

1982. That is 1782 advice. [General laughter.]

Marry an American.

Here is another one from a parent:
33

For the past seven years, my children have attended American schools. In keeping with the long tradition of this schooling system, my children have been absorbed

into the American way of life without regard to their country of origin, and now

feel and act as if they were citizens, like their fellow class members. When I informed them of their present status as G-iv visa holders, they failed to comprehend

the significance. This attitude has made me very concerned about their future prospects, as it would have a devastating effect on them if, after completing their education in the United States, they have no option but to return to their home country,

a country which they now regard as foreign. If the present bill is not enacted in the

near future, reluctantly, I will have no option but to sever my connection with the

World Bank and return to my home country.

Now, this is the other side of that story, Mr. Chairman. It is not

only an impact on these young people. It is affecting the international institutions. It is depriving them of talented employees

whom they would otherwise count on. So, there is a serious institutional impact as well as the emotional and personal impact.

I believe the bill would go a long way toward eliminating these

hardships, and I think that in the long run it will serve the best

interests of the United States and the international organizations

as well as the men and women and children whose lives are affected.

Last year, I had a letter from Kurt Waldheim when he was Secretary General of the United Nations, who told me that a decision

by the United States to extend such a privilege would represent yet

another expression of the humanitarian traditions of this great

country.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit the balance of my statement, and just say if I can be of any help in responding to any

questions, I will be glad to try.

Senator SIMPSON. YOU have been very helpful throughout, Senator Mathias. I might just note that the Senate was performing its

labors well last year on this legislation, and did report this out

without a hearing. I will certainly give credit to colleagues of the

other faith who were in the majority the last time, who did indeed

address this issue and see that it was reported out. I hope we can

reach some kind of basis of compromise between the Senate bill as

we presented it to them last year, the House bill, and now the Mathias legislation, which I think is one that we will look into with

regard to time.

In other words, the thing I want to pursue, and we will do so

with the other witnesses, is the qualification under your bill for

special immigrant status if one has resided in the United States for

an aggregate period of 10 years before the age of 26. I am doubtful

whether there really is that significant difficulty adjusting to life

in the home country under those circumstances. My personal interest is in the children and in the widow. Your bill also has an interesting provision for nonimmigrant status for employees who have

spent 10 years in the United States. We want to determine whether when a person who is, say, 55 or 65 should be required to return

to their home country.

Those things are very important, and you have addressed them

in your bill, and I appreciate it.

Do you have any questions of this fine group?

Senator MATHIAS. NO, I do not want to interrupt further. I hope

the hearing will lay to rest the contention that this bill would be a
34

kind of loophole through which applicants for citizenship would be

admitted who would not get in any other way, and I think it ought

to be clear that the way the bill has been drafted, all the normal

exclusions still apply under section 1122, people who advocate the

violent overthrow of government or members of terrorist groups,

people who advocate killing government officials or destroying

property. All of those people would be excluded just as they would

in the normal course of events.

The PLO has been raised as a possibility, and of course the PLO

is not a member of any of the international organizations contemplated by the bill, so that objection really is just a smokescreen

that people are throwing up.

Now, you have raised the question of the time limits. I think the

bill has been pared down. It is barebones, but the question of residency requirements is clearly something which the committee

ought to look at and see if they concur with my judgment that the

times specified in the draft are appropriate. Even if you adopted

my bill as it is before the committee, once you get over the initial

backlog you are only talking about perhaps 300 people a year, not

a lot of people when you look at the number of people in the world

today•300 people a year.

According to the State Department, it might be 150 children,

maybe 75 retirees, maybe 60 spouses of retirees. So we are not looking at a great mass of immigration that is going to overwhelm the

United States or going to impact on the unemployment problem or

anything of that kind. It is a very modest proposal, and it is directed at a human problem, and it is in a human dimension.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator SIMPSON. Thank you, Senator Mathias, and thank you

very much on this panel. You have been very helpful to us. We will

take just a short, 3-minute break, and then come to the final panel

of the afternoon, please.

[Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.]

[The prepared statement of Senator Mathias follows:]
35

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR CHARLES MCC. MATHIAS, JR.

MR. CHAIRMAN, I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR SCHEDULING THIS

HEARING. IT IS AN IMPORTANT STEP TOWARD THE EVENTUAL PASSAGE OF A BILL WHICH MAY NOT LOOM LARGE ON THE LEGISLATIVE

AGENDA, BUT WHICH IS TREMENDOUSLY IMPORTANT TO A GROUP OF

YOUNG PEOPLE WHO HAVE LIVED IN THE UNITED STATES FOR MOST

OF THEIR LIVES, WHO THINK OF THEMSELVES AS AMERICANS, WHO

THINK OF AMERICA AS THEIR HOME, YET WHO ARE DENIED THE RIGHT

TO REMAIN IN THE COUNTRY THAT HAS NURTURED THEM DURING THEIR

FORMATIVE YEARS.

I AM SPEAKING, OF COURSE, OF THE CHILDREN OF THOSE WHO

WORK IN THIS COUNTRY FOR INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS, SUCH AS

THE WORLD BANK AND THE INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND, WHO, AS

THE LAW STANDS NOW, MUST RETURN TO THEIR PARENTS' HOMELAND

AFTER THEY COMPLETE THEIR EDUCATION, OR WHEN THEIR PARENTS

DIE OR RETIRE.
36

THE HOMELAND OF THEIR PARENTS IS JUST ANOTHER FOREIGN

COUNTRY TO THEM AND THEY OFTEN DO NOT EVEN SPEAK THE LANGUAGE.

UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT HUMAN DECENCY

REQUIRES US TO RECONSIDER OUR POLICY OF FORCING THEM TO

LEAVE THIS COUNTRY TO RETURN TO AN UNFAMILIAR LAND, WHERE

THEY MAY NEVER BE ABLE TO ADJUST TO LIVING SUCCESSFULLY.

A MAN WHO WORKS FOR THE INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND

IN WASHINGTON WROTE ME LAST YEAR SAYING:

MY DAUGHTER...(21) ENTERED THE UNITED

STATES... AT AGE 9. SHE WAS IN THE

MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, BUT

INCOMPATIBILITY OF PROGRAMS PREVENTED

HER FROM GETTING INTO A UNIVERSITY IN

THE UNITED KINGDOM. SHE IS NOW IN HER

SENIOR YEAR AT A COLLEGE IN OREGON,

AND SHE WILL GRADUATE IN DECEMBER. WHAT

IS SHE TO DO THEN? WE HAVE NO RELATIVES

TO SPEAK OF IN THE UNITED KINGDOM, AND I

WOULD NOT KNOW HOW TO ADVISE HER TO FIND

A JOB THERE. OFFICIALS SAY THAT SHE SHOULD

MARRY AN AMERICAN, BUT THIS IS UNREASONABLE.

AND LISTEN TO THIS STORY FROM A CONCERNED PARENT:
37

FOR THE PAST SEVEN YEARS MY CHILDREN HAVE

ATTENDED AMERICAN SCHOOLS. IN KEEPING WITH THE

LONG TRADITION OF THIS SCHOOLING SYSTEM, MY

CHILDREN HAVE BEEN ABSORBED INTO THE AMERICAN

WAY OF LIFE WITHOUT REGARD TO THEIR COUNTRY OF

ORIGIN AND NOW FEEL AND ACT AS IF THEY WERE

CITIZENS, LIKE THEIR FELLOW CUSS MEMBERS... .

WHEN I INFORMED THEM OF THEIR PRESENT STATUS

AS G-4 VISA HOLDERS, THEY FAIL TO COMPREHEND

THE SIGNIFICANCE. THIS ATTITUDE HAS MADE ME

VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THEIR FUTURE PROSPECTS,

AS IT WOULD HAVE A DEVASTATING EFFECT ON THEM

IF, AFTER COMPLETING THEIR EDUCATION IN THE

U.S., THEY HAVE NO OPTION BUT TO RETURN TO

THEIR HOME COUNTRY • A COUNTRY THEY NOW

REGARD AS FOREIGN. IF THE PRESENT BILL IS

NOT ENACTED IN THE NEAR FUTURE, RELUCTANTLY I

WILL HAVE NO OPTION BUT TO SEVER MY CONNECTION WITH THE WORLD BANK AND RETURN

TO MY HOME COUNTRY.

WHILE THE PROVISION OF THE LAW WORKS PARTICULAR HARDSHIPS ON CHILDREN, IT ALSO CAUSES EMOTIONAL DISTRESS TO

ADULTS WHO HAVE OVER THE YEARS MADE THE UNITED STATES THEIR

REAL HOME WHILE WORKING FOR THESE INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS. WHEN AN EMPLOYEE OF AN INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION
38

DIES, THE WIDOW OR WIDOWER IS FORCED TO LEAVE THE UNITED

STATES • NO MATTER HOW LONG THEY'VE LIVED HERE.

MY BILL WOULD ELIMINATE THESE HARDSHIPS. I THINK SUCH

A LAW WOULD SERVE THE BEST INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES,

THE INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS, AND THE MEN, WOMEN, AND

CHILDREN WHO LIVE HERE.

FORMER UNITED NATIONS SECRETARY-GENERAL KURT WALDHEIM

WROTE TO ME LAST YEAR AND TOLD ME THAT A DECISION BY THE

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT TO EXTEND SUCH A PRIVILEGE WOULD

REPRESENT "... YET ANOTHER EXPRESSION OF THE ... HUMANITARIAN TRADITIONS OF THIS GREAT COUNTRY."

IN 1979, I INTRODUCED A BILL • S. 1566 ~ THAT WAS

SIMILAR IN PRINCIPLE TO THIS BILL. IT WAS INCORPORATED

INTO THE LARGER IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION ACT, S. 1763,

AND WAS FAVORABLY REPORTED TO THE SENATE FLOOR BY THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. ON THE HOUSE SIDE, THE IMMIGRATION SUB-
39

COMMITTEE ADOPTED A SIMILAR PROVISION, BUT IT WAS DROPPED

ON THE HOUSE FLOOR BECAUSE OF PROCEDURAL OBJECTIONS.

IN THIS CONGRESS, WITH THE CHAIRMAN'S HELP, WE WILL

TRY AGAIN. MY BILL WOULD LIGHTEN THE GREAT EMOTIONAL BURDEN THAT NOW WEIGHS ON BOTH THE PARENTS AND CHILDREN WHO

HAVE BECOME "AMERICANIZED." I URGE ITS SPEEDY ADOPTION AND

THANK THE CHAIRMAN FOR HIS HELP AND SUPPORT.

Senator SIMPSON. The hearing will come to order, please. We will

proceed with the final panel, consisting of; Lloyd Cutler of Wilmer,

Cutler & Pickering of Washington, D.C.•he certainly has served

this country in many significant ways, most importantly as counsel

to our President in the last administration, and a fine reputation

indeed•and the Honorable Robert McNamara, former president of

the World Bank, and now in Washington, D.C, who indeed has

served this country in so many ways, including as Secretary of Defense under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson and as former president of the Ford Motor Co. It is good to have you with us, sir. And

another distinguished American, Davidson Sommers, Esq., former

general counsel of the World Bank and former chairman of the

board of Equitable Life. I look forward to your testimony. Please

proceed.

STATEMENT OF LLOYD N. CUTLER, OF WILMER, CUTLER &

PICKERING

Mr. CUTLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We were to have another

great American and national hero here and that is Jack McCloy,

but unfortunately he was confined to the hospital with pneumonia.

But he did send word to me to say to you, Mr. Chairman, that he is

here in spirit. He is one of the five living, American presidents of

the World Bank, all of whom strongly support this legislation.

You have Mr. McNamara here before you. You have letters from

Gene Black, from George Woods, and from Tom Clausen, and also

from Mr. Larosiere, the managing director of the International

Monetary Fund.

In addition, I think it is true that every living Secretary of State

and Secretary of the Treasury either has written you supporting
40

this legislation or will shortly. There are one or two whose letters

have not yet arrived, but they will be here.

Elliot Richardson, who held a number of major jobs, has also

written. He is currently chairman of the United Nations Association and he stressed the importance of this from the standpoint of

the United Nations. So has Stanley Resor, well known to you, Mr.

Chairman, who also is now a member of the board of the United

Nations Association.

[The following information was submitted for the record:]
41

Box 186

Hobe Sound, Florida 33455

January 18, 1982

Honorable Alan K. Simpson

Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration

and Refugee Policy

United States Senate

Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Simpson:

I am writing to urge prompt action on proposed

legislation that would permit officers and employees of

international organizations based in the United States

and members of their immediate families to remain here

once they are no longer eligible for visas deriving from

their employment status. Legislation that would remedy

many of the problems faced by such people is currently

pending before your Subcommittee in the form of S.1S98,

introduced by Senator Mathias during the closing days of

the last session of Congress.

During the 12 years that I served as President

of the World Bank, I became increasingly concerned with the

serious human problems faced by many dedicated international

civil servants who, with their families, spent long years

away from their homelands. I understand that the problems

have become even more serious since my retirement in 1962.

Many of my former colleagues are increasingly distressed

by their current situation, and it is having an increasingly

serious impact on the recruitment of qualified persons from

foreign countries to serve at the Bank and on employee morale

and well-being.

As a matter of national policy, the United States

has welcomed international organizations to our country,

supported their activities, and encouraged their growth.

We have sought to strengthen their ability to play an

increasingly critical role of promoting development throughout the world, particularly in the less developed nations.

I am deeply fearful that our overall goals will be unsatisfied

if cur present immigration policies are no.t changed.

The proposed legislation would permit the

children of dedicated officers and employees who have spent

many years in the United States to obtain special immigrant

visas. The affected children will have been raised here,

educated here, and become Americanized. Such children •

and their parents • now face an impossible situation.

Having grown up here and completed their education, these

children either must remain dependent on their parents,

or leave the United States to pursue their chosen careers.

Many of these children have been here since they were very

young, and their families have little or no contact with

their native country.
42

The bill would also remedy the serious problems that

arise when staff members die or retire from an international

organization. The death of a spouse or parent is always

traumatic, but it is made even more so by the fact that the

family must leave the United States promptly thereafter to

return to a country where they may have no current contacts

whatsoever. Similarly, retirement triggers departure requirements, seriously disrupting family life and creating severe

problems. The proposed legislation would permit affected

families who have been here for extensive time periods either

to remain indefinitely on temporary visas or to become special

immigrants.

These proposals seem to me to be an equitable

solution that well serves the interests of the United States.

Permitting such people to remain would enrich our country,

alleviate personal hardship, strengthen the ability of

important international organizations to obtain qualified

employees, promote our foreign policy and international

economic development goals, and would be in the best

tradition of American fairness and decency. I strongly

urge prompt and favorable action on these proposals.

Sincerely,

Eugene R. Black
43

GEORGE DAVID VOODS

825 Fifth Avenue

New York, NY 10021

January 25, 1982

The Honorable Alan K. Simpson

United States Senate

Washington, D. C. 20510

Dear Senator Simpson:

I take the liberty of writing to you with respect to

S.1998, a bill that would entitle non-United States employees, i.e.,

staff members, of certain international governmental institutions

headquartered in the United States and immediate families to obtain

permanent immigrant visas provided they meet certain durational

residency requirements. I am told that this legislation is currently

pending before your Subcommittee on Immigration and Refugee Policy.

During my tenure as President of the World Bank•January

1963 to April 196S•it was relatively easy for most retiring staff

members and the children of staff members to obtain permanent

resident visas. I understand that this is no longer the case, and

that for the past several years the World Bank and similar international institutions have been urging legislative changes that

would make it easier for long-time residents among the staff and

their families to remain here. Generally speaking, the great

strength of these international institutions derives from the high

quality of their career staff. Legislative action to relieve the

severe problems many families are now facing would seem to be consistent with our immigration policy goals favoring persons with

close contacts with the United States who have no other real home.

I wholeheartedly and unreservedly approve of the objectives of S.1998 and I urge you to support it. At the same time,

I trust the bill as finally enacted will include appropriate restrictive provisions with respect to citizens of "Warsaw Pact" countries.

Whatever you may do to move this legislation forward and

to bring about its enactment will be sincerely appreciated not only

by the institutions and their staff members but also by those of us

who care very much about the on-going effectiveness of both.

Cordiallv,

lS?fc-.ea» '\-f.-C. n T7.,0a3

bcc: tlr. Llovd N. Cutler '
44

IK'itnK'ATIOUAL DAIJiC FOR RECONSTRUCTION AMD DfcVELQKV.cIvl

WASHINGTON, D C 70*31 . ,.-

January 25, 1982

Dear Mr. Secretary:

Ve are writing to enlist your assistance with respect to a matter

of increasing concern to the international governmental institutions

based in the United States, including The World Bank and the International

Monetary Fund. We refer to the very serious problems faced by non-U.S.

staff oenbers of the institutions and members of their immediate

families once they are no longer eligible for a visa deriving from the

staff member's employment status.

Non-U.S. staff members of The World Bank, the Fund, and the other

affected international institutions generally enter the Dnited States on

so-called "G-iv" visas. These are nonimmigrant visas that entitle staff

members, and members of their immediate families, to reside here for the

duration of the staff member's employment. Once that employment

terminates•even by death while in service•however, under existing

immigration law these people lose their G-iv status and the entire family

must leave. Moreover, family members are entitled to a G-iv visa only

while they reside in the staff member's household. Thus, when the

children complete their education or marry, they, too, may lose their

G-iv status.

Although the very serious problems resulting from this situation

have long been of concern, they have become increasingly acute during the

past several years. Our institutions have a policy of recruiting staff

members for long periods of service, and we have now many staff members

who have been here more than two decades. Formerly, it was relatively

easy for spouses and children of many G-iv visa holders to obtain

permanent resident visas and it was possible for the staff members

themselves to obtain such visas upon their retirement.

unfortunately, unrelated changes in the immigration laws during the

past several years have inadvertently made it much more difficult for

staff members and their families to obtain permanent resident visas. Many

families are therefore faced with an uncertain future for reasons beyond

their control. Most children who finish their education are unable to

work in their chosen careers and many families have been separated.

As a result, our institutions are having increasing difficulty

attracting the high-duality staff that our work requires. The situation

has also led to poor employee morale, premature resignations from the

staff, and serious human problems, including even psychological breakdowns.

We fear that continuation of the present situation will have serious

long-term effects on the vitality of our organizations.

The Bank and the Fund have been at the forefront of efforts to remedy

these problems. Our predecessors supported an effort to obtain legislative

relief in 1977, and our institutions have consistently urged action since

that time. Bills were introduced during the last Congress but died

unenacted despite favorable reports from the Judiciary Committees of both

the House and the Senate, and the support of the Administration. In the

current Congress, Senator Charles McC. Mathias, Jr. has introduced a new

bill (S.1998), and the Subcommittee on Immigration and Refugee Policy,

chaired by Senator Alan K. Simpson, will hold a hearing on February 1.
45

The proposed legislation would remedy the more serious inequities

that have resulted from the current situation. It would permit children

who have resided here during their formative years to apply for permanent

resident visas as special immigrants, and would provide similar benefits for

retirees, surviving spouses of those who die in service, and their immediate

families who are long-time residents. The numbers of persons affected Is

quite small, both in absolute terms and in comparison with other categories

of immigrants.

The anxiety suffered by those affected by the present situation and

the actual hardship endured by some, the difficulty that the present situation

is causing the Bank and Fund and other international agencies in retaining

their non-U.S. staff members for long periods, and the need for our

institutions to obtain the best possible staff from all parts of the world

impel us to seek, legislative relief. We would very much appreciate your

bringing this matter to the attention of the Attorney General and the

Secretary of State, both of whose departments are involved in the current

legislation. We cannot stress too heavily the importance of a satisfactory

outcome for the well-being of our employees, and more broadly, for the

continued effectiveness of our institutions. We would be most grateful

for anything that you and those who work with you are able to do to promote

prompt enactment of the legislation.

L

Sincerely yours,

"VvoiJ. de Larosiere A. W. Clauseo

Managing Director President

International Monetary Fund The World 3ank

The Honorable Donald Regan

Secretary of Che Treasury

97-870 0•82 4
46

inbelsafci

INIIBN4IION41 THICOUMUNfCitlONS S47IIUII OSG4NI24IION

O0G4NISMION INTIBN4IION4U Dl TUICOMMUNIC4TIONS l>« SATILUTIS

OBGaNIJiCION INTIBN4CIONAI D[ THICOMUNICaCIONiS POB S4TIIITI

18 January 1982

The Honorable Alexander M. Haig, Jr.

Secretary of State

U.S. Department of State

2201 C Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20520

Dear Mr. Secretary:

Ref: 1998

It has come to my attention that legislation has again

been introduced in the U.S. Congress that would make it

possible for international civil servants and members of their

families who have been long-time residents in this country to

acquire special immigrant status in the United States. I would

appreciate any assistance that the Department of State might

lend to the passage of this legislation.

Since World

have established thei

Unlike diplomatic per

post to another, inte

of their careers stat

country, and conseque

community ties here

to their frequent des

pursue the civic and

education and experie

Among

difficulty in

those faced by

servants, by t

international

such employees

to immediate r

have been offe

of specialized

market. These

surviving spou

War II many in

r headquarters

sonnel who are

rnational civi

ioned at organ

ntly, they not

but also acqui

ire to retire

cultural activ

nee would qual

ternational organizations

in the United States,

frequently rotated from one

1 servants often spend most

ization headquarters in this

only develop strong

re homes, which contributes

in this country in order to

ities for which their

ify them.

the most

acquiring

the matu

hose staf

civil ser

Genera

elatives

red emplo

. skills i

• criteria

ises, or r

serious problems occasion

immigrant status under U.

ring children of internati

f members who are about to

vice, and by the surviving

lly, immigrant visas are a

of U.S. citizens or to ind

yment in the United States

n short supply in the U.S.

are not easily met by you

etired international civil

ed by the

S. law are

onal civil

retire from

spouses of

vailable only

ividuals who

on the basis

labor

ng adults,

servants.

Legislation that would facilitate a solution to the

difficulties encountered by international civil servants and

their families would be most welcome.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely yours,
47

February 8, 1982

The Honorable Alan K. Simpson

United States Senate

Washington, D. C. 20510

Dear Senator Simpson:

I have been asked by Lloyd Cutler to write to you in connection

with S. 1998, a bill currently pending before your Subcommittee on

Immigration and Refugee Policy, that would grant special immigrant

status to international civil servants and their families who have

resided here for long periods of time while in the service of international governmental organizations based in the United States.

As you know, since World War II, the United States has served

as host country for several international governmental institutions,

including the United Nations, the World Bank, and the International

Monetary Fund. The support of these institutions has been an important

element of our foreign policy. The organizations are staffed by highly

qualified technical and professional personnel from throughout the

world, many of whom spend their entire careers or substantial portions

thereof in international service. This means that, for many families,

the United States is their home.

Despite lengthy periods of residence, however, such employees,

and their accompanying family members, have no permanent right to

remain in the United States. Thus, when the employee dies or retires,

the family must leave the United States promptly. In addition,

children who cease to reside in the household of the staff member

have no continuing right to remain in the United States, even

though they may have spent virtually their entire lives here and

received their undergraduate and professional education and

training in United States institutions. The purpose of S. 1998 is

to deal with many of these problems.

Although I have not had an opportunity to consider fully all

aspects of S.1998, I favor removing inequities and hardships that

occur under present law and thus 1 support the position of the

Administration as set forth in the testimony of Alan C. Nelson

the Acting Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service,

on February 1, 1982.

With warm regards.

^^.

William P
48

HENRY A. KISSINGER

January 25, 1982

Dear Senator Simpson:

I am writing to enlist your support with respect

to a matter of increasing concern to the international governmental institutions headquartered

in Washington and New York.

As I am sure you are aware, employees of these

international organizations enter the United

States on so-called "G-iv" visas. These visas

entitle them to remain here as long as they are

working for the international organization.

Once employment terminates, however, the visa

expires by its terms, and the employee has no

right to remain here, no matter how long he

may have resided in the United States.

The situation is equally difficult for family

members who have accompanied the staff member

to the United States and must also leave when the

staff member's employment ends. Moreover, children

of such staff members face a particularly difficult

situation. Their G-iv visa status is terminated

once they marry or otherwise leave the household

of the staff member. Thus, for many children

of such international civil servants, the

completion of their education and the attainment

of adulthood means that they must leave the United

States, no matter how long they have lived here,

even though the rest of their family remains,

and even though their educational background

and training .make them highly desirable to our

country.

I understand that legislation is now pending

before your Subcommittee on Immigration and Refugee

Policy that would rectify the more"serious hardships caused by this situation. I urge you to

support such legislation. The numbers involved

are*quite small. The current situation is having

a very serious negative impact on the international

organizations themselves, as well as on the

affected families. Because of our role as
49

host to these organizations and our long history

of financial and other support, I believe that

we have a special responsibility to assure that

these institutions are able to recruit the high

level staff that they deserve and that their

employees vho have formed close attachments

to the United States are permitted to remain

here, subject, of course, to the usual character

criteria on the admissibility of aliens.

With my personal best wishes and thanks for your

assistance,

Sincerely,

The Honorable

Alan K. Simpson

United States Senate

Washington, D.C. 20510
50

EDMUND S. MUSKIE

January 22, 1982

The Honorable Alan K. Simpson

United States Senate

Washington, D. C. 20510

Dear Al:

I am writing to urge your support of pending legislation (S.1998) that would entitle non-US staff members of

US-based international governmental institutions, and members of their immediate families, to permanent residence

visas after lengthy residency in the United States. The

Department of State endorsed similar legislation during my

tenure as Secretary, but unfortunately the legislation died

during the closing days of the last Congress.

Non-US staff members of these international institutions

are generally in the United States on so-called "G-iv" visas,

which are nonimmigrant visas that expire once the staff member's employment with the international institution terminates.

Moreover, family members are eligible for a G-iv visa only

while they reside in the staff member's household. Thus, when

children finish their education or marry, they may lose theirG-iv status and must leave the country unless they are able

to obtain another type of visa.

As we discovered when we examined these issues while I

was Secretary of State, some of the resulting difficulties can

be very tragic. Families may be split up, and adult children

forced to move to a country that is totally foreign to them,

whose language they do not speak, and for whose job market

they are unprepared. Widows and widowers of staff members

must leave the United States promptly after the staff member's

death, resulting in further disruption to the family at an

already difficult time.

The international institutions themselves are also increasingly affected. I understand that recruitment of qualified non-US staff is made more difficult because of awareness

of these problems, and that the situation has adversely affected

employee morale.

The Honorable Alan K. Simpson

January 22, 1982

Page Two

I would hope, Al, that you will support the proposed

legislation and*push for prompt action. The equities in

favor of these long-time residents are very strong, and

the numbers involved are quite small. These people would

also be a real asset to our country, as they are generally

highly educated. The proposed legislation is needed soon

to relieve the great anxiety of many staff and family members about their futures. I would personally be grateful

for your help.

With best wishes, I am

Sincerely,

Muskie
51

O^C UATTCRT PARK PLA?A

fJCW YORK.IM.Y. IOOO<

January 21, 1982

Dear Senator Simpson:

I am writing to urge you to support

S.199B, which is currently pending before your

Subcommittee, a measure principally intended

to provide the children of international organization employees • resident as nonimmigrant

aliens in the United States -- with an option

to secure permanent immigrant visas. i '

I became accutely aware of the severe

problems faced by such children when I was Secretary of State and several international governmental institutions headquartered in the United

States contacted the Administration for assistance. Non-US staff members of these institutions,

and members of their immediate families, were

having increasing difficulty securing permanent

resident visas once their eligibility for socalled "G-iv" visas ended, despite having resided

in the United States for long periods of time.

For the children, the situation was,

and remains, particularly tragic. They may

spend their entire childhood here and attend

American schools and universities, yet upon completing their education, they are faced with difficult choices. If they marry or leave the staff

member's household for other reasons, they are

no longer eligible for a G-iv visa. Even if

they do continue to live at home, they are unable

to work legally, with rare exceptions.
52

Of course, such children may return

to their country of origin and establish an independent life there. For many, however, this

choice is unrealistic. They may not know the

language, their education and vocational training have been geared to the American job market,

they lack friends and contacts in an unfamiliar

homeland, and their outlook and approach to life

is thoroughly American.

S.199S would ease these dilemmas by

making children who have spent a substantial

part of their formative years here eligible

for permanent immigrant visas. Such children

are already integrated into our society, are

well educated, and would be a real asset to our

country as permanent residents. The numbers

involved are quite small, and all of the usual

chracter and other criteria for the admission of

aliens would of course be applicable.

I would be personally appreciative if

you would support legislation along the lines

proposed in S.1998. It is urgently needed, and

needed soon, to avoid continued hardships for

the affected families and the employing international organizations.

Sincerely yours,
53

C. William Miller

1616 H Slreet, N.W., Suite 506

Washington, D.C. 20006

202 289-7940

January 29, 1982

Senator Alan K. Simpson

United States Senate

Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Simpson:

I am writing to urge prompt passage of pending legislation

that would provide special immigrant status for children

and surviving spouses of staff members of international

governmental institutions headquartered in the United

States and for retirees from those institutions.

I first became aware of the immigration problems faced by

such persons during my tenure as Secretary of the Treasury.

Several of the international institutions had approached

my predecessor seeking legislation that would relieve the

increasingly severe problem many of these long-time

residents of the United States were facing in obtaining

permanent resident status. After considerable analysis

and study we recommended legislative action, but unfortunately

the legislation died during the closing session of the last

Congress.

The equities favoring such legislation are very strong. The

bill would benefit children having close ties to the United

States who reside here already, who have been educated here,

and who are well integrated into our society. Often they know

no other home and may not even speak their native language.

The retirees who would benefit are also long-time residents

whose pensions are sufficient to prevent them from being a

burden to our society. The numbers of persons affected are

small in comparison with other classes of immigrants.

I would personally appreciate whatever you can do to move this

legislation forward.

Sincerely,

GWM:kk
54

Burroushs Corporation

"CD

ttf> ri.ACE - c i

MCMIG** -AZ3£

W. MlCHACL BLUMENTMAL

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

January 22, 1982

The Honorable Alan K. Simpson

United States Senate

Washington, D. C. 20510

Dear Al:

It is my understanding that Senator Mathias has introduced a

bill (S-1998) which deals with the so-called "G-iv" visas,

covering non-U.S. staff members of United States-based international institutions and the members of their immediate

families resident in the United States. Since this bill is

pending before your Subcommittee on Immigration and Refugee

Policy, with hearings scheduled in the near future; I wish to

urge your support for a constructive solution to the "G-iv"

visa issue.

I was involved with this question when I was Secretary of the

Treasury and I am, therefore, acquainted with the details of

the matters involved. I am in strong support of S-1998 and

would urge you also to strongly support it.

"G-iv" visas entitle staff members of international organizations and members of their family residing in their household

to remain in the United States only during thd staff members'

employment. This is true even if such employment lasts many

years. Under present regulations, when a staff member dies

or retires, the family must leave the country promptly.

Married children or children who have completed their education,

as well as those family members who no longer reside in the

principal household, are ineligible for "G-iv" visas.

This situation creates considerable hardship and has been a

constant source of contention. Things have now gotten worse

because recent changes in our immigration laws have made it very

much more difficult for such people to obtain permanent resident

visas. All of this seriously undermines the ability of these

organizations to recruit and has many other negative effects

on our international relations and on the functioning of these

organizations.

I first became aware of this problem in 1977 when Bob McNamara

and others wrote me to urge legislative action. The issue was

examined extensively and the Administration supported legislation.

Unfortunately, that legislation died unenacted during the last

Congress.

I urge strongly that you support S-1998 when it comes before

your Subcommittee. The numbers involved are really minimal,

and all the usual character and other qualifications would, of

course, pertain for aliens who apply for admission under an

amended procedure. Some kind of legislative relief to accomplish

this is imperative and I would personally appreciate whatever you

can do.

Sincerely,

V. M. Blumenthal
55

WICRING WSH

PEC NET G

SCA3 0030 07: />9GMT

SGTl 0021 07r.A9GMT 01/30/82

892/10? WICRING WSH/

CHG/87 57 16

SVC!

01/29/82 2124

SGTL-197

HONORABLE ALAN K. SIMPSON

UNITED STATES SENATE

WASHINGTON DC 20510 - (SENT)

CC: MR. LLOYD N. CUTLER

WILMER, CUTLER * PICKERING

WASHINGTON, D.C.

I AM WRITING TO SUPPORT SENATE RILL 1998. I UNDERSTAND

THAT THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND RFFUGFF POLICY

WHICH YOU CHAIR IS HOLDING A HEARING ON THIS PILL ON

FERRUARY 1. I AM TOLD THAT IT IS VERY DIFFICULT FOR

CHILDREN OF NON-U.S. STAFF MFMRFRS OF NUMEROUS

MULTINATIONAL. PANKING AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS TO

OBTAIN PERMANENT RES1DFNT VISAS FOR REASONS I'M SURF

ARE WELL KNOWN TO YOU. YOUR SUBCOMMITTEE IS CONSIDERING

THE MATHIAS BILL AND URGE YOUR FAVORABLE CONSIDERATION

Cf IT. THE NUMBER OF PERSONS TO BF AFFFCTED IS SMALL,

BJT TO THAT SMALL GROUP THE HARDSHIPS WHICH ARF PRFSFNT

UNDER EXISTING LAW LOOM LARGE.

I THINK THE CHANGES CONTAINED IN SI 998 OUGHT TO BE

ENDORSED.

SINCERELY,

GEORGE P. SHULTZ

PRESIDENT

PECHTEL GROUP, INC

SAN FRANC I SCO

SSFO/GFP/23

W1CRING WSH

BECNET G

0
56

Crescent Diversified Limited

505 Park Avenue

New York. NY. 10022

Cable GENTROLCO

Tele* 424712 GfcCO Ui

WILLIAM E. SIMON

Chan man

January 28, 1932

Writer s D'<eel Dial Number

(212) 750-4807

Dear Alan:

I an writing with respect to the serious difficulties

posed by the increasing inability of rr.any staff members of

international governmental institutions headquartered in the

United States to obtain permanent residence visas for themselves

and their immediate families once their employment by the

international organization terminates.

Since World Kar II, the United States has strongly

supported the development of these institutions, and their

continued success is an essential element of our international

development policies. It was with great distress, therefore,

that I recently learned of the serious impact that the current

immigration situation is having on employee morale and recruitment success at these institutions.

As I understand the situation, non-US staff members of

these institutions, and members of their immediate families,

are in the United States on temporary, non-immigrant visas that

entitle them to remain here only for the duration of the staff

member's employment. Because the institutions long ago decided

to emphasize career service rather than short-term appointments,

it is not unusual for such families to reside here for many years,

yet they ;nust leave when the staff member dies or retires.

The situation is particularly difficult for the children.

They may come to the United States at an early age, attend

American schools, and have little contact with their home

country. Yet, they have no permanent right to remain in the

United States, and, indeed, may lost their eligibility for

even a temporary visa once they leave the household of the

staff member.

.1 understand that legislation is currently pending before

your subcommittee on Immigration and Refugee Policy that would

rectify the more severe hardships resulting from this

situation. I believe that enactment of such legislation is

essential to ensure the continuing viability of the several

international organizations headquartered here, and I urge

you and your colleagues to take prompt and favorable action.

With my personal best wishes.

Sincerely,
57

ELLIOT L- H.CMABCSON

MILBANK. TWEED. HADLEV & MCCLOY

17*T PEKNSVLVAX1A AVENUE. K, W.

WASKISOTON, t> C. 20006

12021 466 4700

CABLE: MILIWEED WASHINGTON

January 22, 1982

Honorable Sian K. Simpson

United States Senate

Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Simpson:

I understand that you will soon be holding hearings on

legislation that would grant permanent residence status to

international civil servants and their families who are

long-time residents of the Onited States. I strongly urge

you to support such legislation and to seek prompt action by

the full Senate.

Dnder current law, staff members of international

organisations based in the Dnited States hold temporary,

non-immigrant visas, that entitle them and family members

residing in their household to remain here only for the

duration of their employment. This status is particularly

difficult for children of the numerous career staff members

of the international institutions. Such children may spend

their formative years here, attending American schools and

universities, yet find that, upon graduation, they have no

real choice but to return to a country where they have never

1ived, where they have few contacts, and where their

professional training has not prepared them for the local

job market. Alternatively, they may remain here as a member

of the staff member's household, with the accompanying

severe restrictions on their ability to work and

postponement of financial and personal independence.

I was generally aware of these problems when I served as

Attorney General and Oncer Secretary of State several years

ago. As Chairman of the Dnited Nations Association of the

OSA, I have learned that they have become much more acute in

recent years, in part due to unrelated changes in the

immigration laws that have made it much more difficult for

persons who have no OS-citizen relatives or unique

professional skills to obtain permanent resident visas. The

current situation is beginning to impact on the

international institutions themselves, as employee morale is

negatively affected and the recruitment of new, highly

qualified employees becomes more difficult.

The legislation that is currently pending before your

Subcommittee would rectify many of these problems and would

be in the best tradition of American humanitarianism. The

numbers of persons that would benefit are quite small.

Moreover, it would be totally consistent with current

immigration policies that favor unification of families and

the granting of permanent residence opportunities to persons

having close ties with the United States. I strongly urge

you to support the pend ing bil1.

With warm regard and best wishes.

Sincerely

Elliot L. Richardson
58

January 25, 1982

Honorable Alan K. Simpson

United States Senate

Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Alan:

Since leaving the Department of Defense, I have taken

as active part in the work of the Arms Control Panel of the

United Nations Association of the United States of America.

In that connection, I have become familiar with the very serious

problems faced by career staff members of the United Nations and

their families with respect to immigration status.

Staff members of international institutions headquartered in the United States normally hold nonimmigrant visas

that entitle them and their families to remain here only for the

duration of their employment. Upon the death or retirement of a

staff member, the entire family must generally leave, regardlesB

of the length of time they have lived in the United States. For

some, this means returning to a country in which they have not

lived for many years and in which they have no current contacts.

The situation can be particularly serious for the

children of such staff members. They may have grown up and

received all of their education here, yet they must leave with

their parents unless they have been able to obtain a different

visa status. Moreover, such children are entitled to nonimmigrant

visas only while they remain a part of the staff member's household.

Thus, when they complete their education and either marry or seek

to build an independent life for themselves, they lose their rights

to a nonimmigrant visa deriving from the staff member's employment.

I understand that Senator Mathias has introduced a bill

which is now pending before your Subcommittee on Immigration and

Refugee Policy that would relieve the most pressing problems that

have arisen in this area. Such legislation is needed because,

over the past several years, unrelated changes in our immigration

laws have made it more difficult for staff and family members to

obtain permanent immigrant visas through other channels. The

number of persons involved are quite small, both absolutely and

relative to other classes of potential immigrants, and the people

affected are already well assimilated into our society, and are

highly educated-and a real asset to our nation. I would be most

grateful if you would support this legislation and do everything

in your power to obtain prompt enactment.

Sincerely,

Stanley R. Resor

bec: Lloyd N. Cutler, Esq.
bcc: Mr. Lloyd X. Cutler

OO Rockefeller Plaza

New York, N.Y. 10112

Room 5600 247-3700

January 27, 1982

Dear Senator:

I aro writing to urge prompt and favorable action on a

pending bill (S.1998) that would provide special immigrant status

for children of non-US staff members of international governmental

institutions who are long-time residents of the US. In recent discussions with officials of the institutions, I have heard of their

great concern that our immigration policies are seriously hindering

efforts to recruit and retain top quality staff members from abroad.

As a result of certain unrelated changes in our immigration

laws over the past several years, staff members of international

institutions who work here on nonimmigrant visas can no longer be

assured that they and their families will be able to remain once

their employment terminates. These families are particularly concerned about the fate of their children, who spend their formative

years here and grow up as Americans, yet have no right to remain upon

reaching adulthood. Those with younger children and those considering

employment are aware of the severe problems and traumas faced by.many

families whose children are now completing their education. They are

torn between their career objective of serving the international community and their obligations to their families.

I understand that the bill now pending before your Subcommittee

on Immigration and Refugee Poljcy will go a long way toward resolving

the more serious problems faced by current and prospective staff

members and their families. 1 would very much appreciate your support

of this measure which I believe to be equitable and in the interest

of good international understanding and cooperation.

With my personal best wishes,

Sincerely,

David Rockefeller

Honorable Alan K. Simpson

United States Senate

Washington, D.C. 20510
60

Mr. CUTLER. None of us is going to read his statement. We just

want to pick up some of the very perceptive questions that you

asked earlier witnesses and try to deal with those.

U.S. NATIONAL INTEREST

The first and most important point I think is that the G-iv

people are here not because they heard America's call welcoming

immigrants from all over the world, but because we wanted them

to be here. We invited them here.

We played a leading part in establishing all of these international organizations which have their headquarters in the United

States. We played a leading part in urging that those who do have

their headquarters here locate in the United States. That has produced great value for the United States, especially with respect to

the international financial organizations that are located here in

Washington.

Mr. Erb of the Treasury Department has submitted a statement

to you outlining the value to the United States of having these organizations here, staffed by a career staff of what you might call

international civil servants, a substantial majority of whom necessarily must be non-Americans.

REASONS FOR NOT CONVERTING EARLIER

Second, you raised the question, quite a perceptive question, I

think, of why those in the G-iv category had not previously moved

to adjust their status. Mr. Stevenson gave you part of the answer

when he said that it was against the policy of the international organizations to have officials recruited from other nationalities subsequently change to permanent U.S. residents and American citizenship.

But even more important, until just a very few years ago, Senator Simpson, it was not necessary for these career civil servants

and their families to apply for permanent U.S. residence until the

very end of their careers, until the need to acquire a non-G-iv resident status arose. It was very simple for most of them to obtain

that status until the law was changed over the past several years.

It was changed in several important respects. For one thing, the

six preferences were created and administered worldwide, which

used up virtually all of the available limits. For another thing,

country numerical allocations were abolished so that citizens of the

United Kingdom, for example, which had never used up its country

limit, were not able simply to come and change their status whenever they wished.

It used to be true that a child born in the United States could

sponsor all of its siblings and its parents. That has now been

changed so that it cannot be done until the child reaches age 21,

which may be too late to enable the young American-born child to

remain here if his family has to leave. That may also be too late to

help the widow, it may be too late to help the other siblings, or it

may be too late to help the retiree.

Those were the reasons, Senator Simpson. This is not a case of

voluntariness of people who broke up their families to come to the

United States and then tried to pull everyone else along with them.
61

They came with their families. They were asked by us, by the

United States Government, at least indirectly, to come here and

work for these organizations of which the United States is a vital

part and which wanted the institutions to be located here in the

United States.

NUMBERS AFFECTED

You have asked questions about, quite proper questions about

the number involved. I believe the figure Senator Mathias just

gave you refers primarily to the Washington-based organizations

and it did not include the United. Nations itself. When you pick up

the United Nations, our best estimate is that just under 3,000 children now here, counting all of these agencies, would be eligible to

apply for a change in status. That is probably more than would actually apply.

Thereafter, each year about an additional 300 children would

become eligible under those 7- and 10-year rules that we have proposed, and in addition about 225 retirees or widows of staff members who die would become eligible, but still a very small number,

particularly after the initial group. Thus, really in the range of

only about 500 persons per year would become eligible and probably the number who would apply would be considerably less than

that.

To admit these people we would submit to you is entirely consistent with immigration policy. How can one draw a distinction, let us

say, between a Frenchman who works as a chauffeur or even as a

secretary or perhaps an official of the United States embassy in

France for 10 or 20 years, who now has a preference by statute,

and another Frenchman who worked for 20 years as an economist

at the Monetary Fund or the World Bank, in effect at the invitation of the United States Government and for the benefit of the

United States Government?

I believe, Mr. Chairman, you are sponsoring a proposal to create

in the new legislation a class of aliens who could come to the

United States as investors because they would bring something of

value to the United States. I would submit that this group of international organization civil servants have already made an investment in the United States. They have chosen to spend their professional lives here, performing a service which the United States believes to be of value. And certainly they ought to be entitled to the

same consideration, let us say, as proposed new investors.

OTHER COUNTRIES

The question has been raised as to what other nations do. Based

on our research, we are the only nation which is a host to one or

more major international organizations which does not have either

a statutory or a formal or informal administrative arrangement

under which virtually all retirees, widows, and spouses and, in

most cases, children are entitled to acquire permanent residence

within time periods even shorter than those that we have specified

in this bill.

That is true of Switzerland, Canada, Austria, the United Kingdom, and France, and that virtually uses up the major host na97-870 0•82 5
62

tions. And we have that material and would be glad to submit it to

you.

USUAL GROUNDS FOR EXCLUSION APPLY

Senator Mathias has already made clear that it would not be possible, merely because of the enactment of this statute, for East bloc

officials in the United Nations or adherents of the Palestine Liberty Organization who might work for one of the international agencies to take advantage of this bill and their status as international

civil servants to apply for permanent residence. They would still be

subject to the precise limitations on alien entry, permanent entry,

that are already set forth in the immigration laws. Those would

clearly cover the members or supporters of any Communist Party

anywhere in the world, anyone who adheres to a terrorist organization that believes in killing the officials in any country, and

anyone who believes in destroying property or sabotage. That certainly ought to cover everyone.

I will leave to Mr. McNamara and Mr. Sommers the very important point of the effect on the quality of the international organizations' staffs of the morale problem that has been created by these

developments over the last 4 or 5 years when, for the first time,

permanent resident status as a practical matter became unavailable to these people and their families.

And the last thing I would like to say is, I have advocated many

causes in this room and in this Congress and in the courts, and not

all of them may have been entirely deserving, although I hope

most of them were. But I would say, I have never argued any cause

which I thought was more deserving than this.

Thank you.

Senator SIMPSON. Thank you very much, Lloyd.

[The prepared statement of Lloyd Cutler follows:]
63

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LLOYD N. CUTLER

Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, my

name is Lloyd N. Cutler. I am appearing today as counsel

to the G-IV Children's Coalition.

You have already heard from Mr. Stevenson, the

Coalition's President, and the G-iv visa holders who accompanied

him, about the severe problems facing G-iv families. In a

few minutes, two very distinguished former officials of the

international institutions affected by the G-iv problem will

speak. The presence here of Bob McNamara, former president of

the World Bank, is particularly significant. John J. McCloy,

one of Mr. McNamara's predecessors, had also agreed to appear

before the Subcommittee but unfortunately he is ill and can't

come. I understand, however, that both Gene Black and George

Woods, other former Presidents of the Bank, have written to

you. Senator Simpson, about the G-iv problem, as have several

other very distinguished former Cabinet and Sub-Cabinet

officials, including Henry Kissinger, Elliot Richardson,

Mike Blumenthal, Ed Muskie, and Stan Resor. The willingness

of these distinguished Americans to become involved with the

issues before this Committee today says something, I think,

about how important prompt resolution of the present problems

is to the affected institutions and to our country.

My role today is to outline briefly some of the

historical factors that have brought us to the current juncture.

I will then discuss why legislative relief for G-iv visa

holders is consistent with our current immigration policies

and in the best interests of the United States.

A central element of our foreign policy following

World War II was the establishment of strong, viable international governmental institutions that could deal with many

of the political and economic problems facing the world
64

community on a multilateral basis. The United States took

the lead in promoting the establishment of such institutions,

and eagerly sought to serve as their host country. We

welcomed the institutions and their staff members to our

shores, granted them certain immunities and privileges that

would enable them to maintain their international character,

and did all we could to encourage their growth and development.

For the past 35 years, these institutions have been

staffed by highly qualified, dedicated professionals and

support personnel from around the world. In order to preserve

their international character, many institutions have required

non-U.S. staff members to remain in or assume G-iv status.

Until recently, this presented no great problem for the staff

members involved. It was relatively simple for staff members

retiring from the employ of the international institutions to

obtain permanent resident visas, and children of such staff

members could do so as well.

Over the past several years, however, the situation

has changed drastically. As a result of several statutory

changes, it has become virtually impossible for most G-iv

visa holders to obtain permanent immigrant visas. Today,

most G-iv visa holders are able to qualify only for

"non-preference" immigrant visas; since January 1, 1979, no

applications in the non-preference category have been approved.

As a result, staff members and their families are

in a terrible predicament. No matter how long they live here,

family members on G-iv visas must leave the United States when

the staff member dies or retires. Children who cease to

reside in the staff member's household also lose their G-iv

visa. Thus, when they complete their education, and want to

build an independent life for themselves by moving into their

own apartments and building a career like so many of their contemporaries, they lose their eligibility for a G-iv visa and
65

must find some other means of staying here legally. If they

cannot, they must either remain dependent on their parents or

leave, returning to a country of origin of which they have

little knowledge, whose language they may not know, whose job

market they are unqualified for, and where they may have no

friends or close family. The situation is extremely unfair to

these people, and it is causing serious problems for the

international institutions involved.

It is important to recognize that we are talking

about a very limited number of people. Although no precise

data are available, several international institutions have

provided data that have enabled the Coalition to estimate the

numbers of children that might be eligible under the proposed

bill. These data indicate that approximately 2900 children

would qualify in the first year after enactment. These are

children who have already spent a substantial part of their

lives here and qualify for the bill's durational residency

requirements. Of course, not all of these children would

apply for special immigrant visas. After the first year, we

estimate that an additional 300 children annually might become

eligible to apply. In addition, we estimate that approximately

225 retirees, spouses of retirees and surviving spouses of

deceased staff members might seek relief under the

proposed legislation each year. These are small numbers in

absolute terms, and are also small relative to the overall

number of people seeking admission to the United States each year.

Enactment of legislative relief for G-iv visa holders

who are long-term residents of the United States would be

fully consistent with current immigration policies that favor

the unification of families and the admission of persons with

close ties to the United States. G-iv visa holders are already

in the United States, own property here, speak our language,

are active in our communities, and, in the case of children,

have been educated here. These ties are certainly closer than
66

those of persons who may merely have relatives here or may

have worked for the United States Government abroad.

Moreover, admission of G-iv visa holders as permanent

immigrants would not take away opportunities from others,

since they would be admitted outside the numerical limits

on immigration.

Other countries have recognized the equities

favoring long-time residents and have adopted policies that

permit such persons to remain. Switzerland, for example, has

a formal policy whereby retiring staff members from an international organization are routinely issued a permanent residence

permit if they have lived in Switzerland for 10 years, including

the 5-year period immediately prior to retirement. Adult

children are granted such permits if they have lived in

Switzerland for at least 12 years, including the 5 years

immediately preceding issuance. We understand that similar

policies govern applications of surviving and divorced spouses

of international organization employees. The regular

immigration policies of several other countries, including

France and Austria, provide similar opportunities.

Concern has been expressed in some quarters that

this legislation would require the United States to admit

certain undesirables. That is not correct. Persons applying

for special immigrant status under the proposed legislation

would be subject to all of the statutory suitability criteria.

Thus, persons with criminal records, with severe health

problems, with loyalty to the doctrines of world communism,

and the like, could be screened out. Moreover, the legislation

applies only to employees of international organizations that

meet the requirements of the International Organizations

Immunities Act. Thus, groups like the Palestinian Liberation

Organization would derive no benefit under the proposed

legislation, for such organizations are not international

organizations within the meaning of the proposed amendment.
67

Let me turn for a minute to the impact that the

current situation has on the affected international institutions.

The G-iv problem has become an increasingly serious matter for

them, and since 1977 several of them have sought relief both

formally and informally. All the major international

institutions involved wrote letters to appropriate officials

in the Carter Administration urging legislative relief, and that

Administration, after thorough study, supported legislation

similar to S.1998. I understand that several institutions have

recently again written to various agencies of the United

States Government strongly urging enactment of legislation.

The institutions unanimously believe that the problems faced

by current employees are having very negative effects on morale

and productivity.and that recruitment of top-caliber staff

members is made more difficult. If prompt action is not taken,

the situation can only worsen.

The legislation currently before this Subcommittee

ought to be noncontroversial. The bill is a modest one; there

are many people in G-iv status who will not qualify because

of the emphasis on long-term residence, and several categories

of dependents are not included. The support that has been

expressed by several distinguished former Cabinet members in

several past Administrations is in the best tradition of the

bipartisan approach to foreign policy issues of concern to

the international community. Indeed, I believe that the

Congress itself views this as a nonpartisan matter.

In summary, enactment of this legislation is in the

-interests of the United States and would rectify a longstanding injustice to people whose ties with the United States

are strong and whose presence here is an asset to our country

and our communities. The numbers are small, normal standards

for the admission of aliens would not be undercut, and

policies favoring the admission of persons with close ties

to the United States would be reinforced. I urge you to adopt

this legislation now.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you

today. I would be happy to try to answer any questions you

may have.
68

Senator SIMPSON. Mr. McNamara, please.

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT S. McNAMARA, FORMER

PRESIDENT, THE WORLD BANK

Mr. MCNAMARA. Mr. Chairman, I am very grateful for the opportunity to appear before your committee this afternoon to indicate

my very strong support for S.1998. I submitted a statement to the

committee in writing outlining my reasons for favoring the legislation. If that may be inserted in the record at this point, I can save

you time by not repeating it orally and devoting myself to answering your questions.

Senator SIMPSON. Without objection, so ordered.

[The prepared statement of Mr. McNamara follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT S. MCNAMARA

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, my

name is Robert McNamara. It is a great pleasure to be

here today to discuss the very serious problems faced

by long-term residents of the United States who are

staff members of international governmental institutions

headquartered here, and by members of their immediate

families.

During my thirteen years as President of the

World Bank, I became increasingly aware of the hardships

facing many career employees of the Bank as a result of

our immigration policies. As you know, non-U.S. staff

members of the Bank and other international governmental

institutions generally hold so-called G-tv visas that

entitle them and members of their immediate families to

reside in the United States during the staff member's

tenure with the organization. Under these visas, neither

the staff member nor his family has any permanent right

to remain here, regardless of their period of residence.

For some time, the Bank has sought highly

educated and competent personnel from abroad, particularly

those at the mid-career level, and encouraged them to

commit the remainder of their working lives to the

Bank's service. In practical terms, this policy means

that many staff members and their families reside in

the United States for long periods of time. The

children grow up here, attend American schools and

universities, and become full-fledged members of our

society. The staff member and his or her spouse make

lives for themselves here as well, participating in
70

their community and generally becoming active and

energetic members of our society.

When I first became President of the Bank,

there was sufficient flexibility under our immigration

laws to make it relatively easy for the spouses of staff

members and their children to convert to permanent

resident status, and for the staff member himself to do

so upon retirement. By 1977, however, the increasing

difficulty of obtaining permanent immigrant visas was

having such a serious impact on morale at the Bank and

the other international institutions and was so clearly

unfair to the individuals involved that it was decided

to seek legislation to remedy the problem. The Managing

Director of the International Monetary Fund and I,

among others, wrote to appropriate officials in the Carter

administration to enlist their support. During the 96th

Congress, legislation was reported out of Committee in both

the House and Senate and was supported by the Administration.

Unfortunately, the legislation died unenacted. In the current

Congress, legislation has again been introduced, and that

Bill is the subject of today's hearing.

I cannot emphasize too strongly the heartache

and anguish that the current situation is creating for

many families. Children grow up here feeling thoroughly

at home, yet have no right to remain permanently.

Families are divided, as some children choose to return

to a country of origin they hardly know in the hope

of finding somewhere to belong. For some, the adjustment

has been impossible, and they have returned here to

reside indefinitely with their families, encountering great

difficulty finding jobs and facing the need to deal with the

problem anew when the staff member retires.
71

The situation of surviving spouses and retirees

is equally heartbreaking. When a staff member dies in

office, the family has no right to remain in the United

States and must leave on very short notice at a time of

great bereavement and uncertainty. And for many retirees,

the event of retirement triggers exile from a country

they have come to know as home, despite the fact that they

have ample pension income to sustain them in the United

States and are unlikely to become a social burden.

The legislation pending before this Subcommittee

is really a last resort for many of these families. The

immigration situation has substantially worsened since

1977, and today, I understand, it is virtually impossible

for staff members and members of their families to obtain

permanent immigrant visas unless they happen to have a

close relative who is a United States citizen over the

age of 21. For many families, the situation is becoming

desperate, and the number of families suffering severe

hardships is increasing annually, as children complete

their education, and staff members reach retirement age

or die prematurely. Action is urgently needed to alleviate

these difficulties. Unless it is taken soon, the international institutions will suffer greatly, as staff morale

is already affected and recruitment of high quality staff

is made more difficult by the present uncertainties.

The pending legislation is a modest solution

to a very serious problem for these families and the

international institutions involved. It would benefit

only long-time residents who have close ties to the United

States. The numbers involved are very small, both in

absolute terms and in comparison with the other immigration

problems this Subcommittee is dealing with. I urge you to

take prompt action to enact this legislation.

Thank you very much. At the conclusion of this

panel, I would be happy to try to answer any questions you

may have.
72

Senator SIMPSON. Mr. Sommers, do you have any statements you

wish to make or enter into the record?

STATEMENT OF DAVIDSON SOMMERS, ESQ., FORMER GENERAL

COUNSEL, THE WORLD BANK

Mr. SOMMERS. I would like to ask you, Mr. Chairman, to enter

my written statement, and I would like to add a few brief comments to what I have said in that statement.

Senator SIMPSON. Without objection.

Mr. SOMMERS. I think I have two qualifications to talk to you on

this subject. In the first place, I believe I have been acquainted

with the staff, the employees of the World Bank, the International

Monetary Fund, the Inter-American Development Bank, for a

longer period than anyone who will testify here today, starting in

1946 and continuing to the present day.

EFFECT ON INSTITUTIONS

Against that background, I am able to say without any qualifications that in private business, in working for various public and

private agencies in this country, I have never seen a group of

people more highly qualified, more intelligent, more dedicated than

the group of people who would be affected by the legislation you

have under consideration.

And as Mr. Cutler has said, they are not here by their own individual decisions only. They have been serving institutions which

this country played a very large part in creating, in which this

country has a large investment, and which this country still supports.

SURVIVING SPOUSES

Second, after retirement from private business and while I was

serving as a consultant during the last 9 or 10 years to the World

Bank, I was asked by the Bank to consult with wives of staff members who were having various family problems. In that capacity I

learned firsthand how the wives and the children of employees of

these organizations are affected by the present legislation.

We have heard various words used today and they all are, I

assure you, fully accurate: Anxiety, anguish, panic, at various

stages in people's lives and at various prospects that confront

them.

And I have known widows whose husbands died while in service

to these institutions, as you have heard today, sometimes on missions overseas, who have suddenly been faced with a completely

new threat to their existence and to the existence of their children.

And I have heard of retirees who are most anxious about what

kind of life they can lead if they leave this country at age 65 or so,

and whether that will separate them from their children, their

families, their ties, and from the culture of this country, which

they have come to feel is their culture.

I strongly support all the recommendations that you have heard

today.

[The prepared statement of Davidson Sommers follows:]
73

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVIDSON SOMMERS

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, my

name is Davidson Sommers. I am most appreciative of the

opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the very

serious problems experienced by holders of G-iv visas.

First, a word about my background. I joined the

World Bank soon after its inception, serving as its General

Counsel and later as Vice President of the Bank, with

supervisory authority over personnel among other functions.

I left the Bank in 1963 to become General Counsel, and later

Chairman of the Board, of the Equitable Life Assurance Society

of the United States. Upon my retirement, I returned to

Washington, joined a law firm and became a consultant to

the Bank. In that capacity I dealt with various Bank matters,

including organization and personnel problems. I was asked

to make myself available to staff members and their families

who wanted to talk confidentially about family matters with

someone not on the regular Bank staff. I have thus seen the

G-iv problem evolve over the years.

I fully support the provisions of S.1998 dealing

with retirees from international institutions. These people

should not be required to leave our country after living here

for many years in service to causes and institutions which our

government supports. I feel the same way about the provisions

which would permit their children reaching adulthood to stay

in the country where their parents live instead of being

required to leave.

However, in view of my rather special experience,

I will focus my statement on the problems faced by wives and

minor children of G-iv staff. I have seen the anguish, and

in some cases the panic, felt by these people when threatened,

through no fault of their own, with the prospect of losing

their right to stay in this country.
74

One of my associates and I have counseled with

about 50 persons, mostly women, who were threatened with G-iv

problems of one kind or another but did not wish to bring these

problems directly to Bank officials. Others in similar

circumstances were personal'acquaintances.

I have been shocked and saddened by the plight of

many of these G-iv visa holders. I am especially familiar

with the problems faced by separated spouses. Since this

is not an area covered by the proposed legislation (although

it is related), I will allude to it only briefly. Most

people who sought my assistance were women who had been

abandoned by their G-iv staff member husbands or threatened

with separation or divorce. It is not overstating things to

say that most were in a state of desperation, afraid that

separation or divorce would result in prompt deportation of

themselves, and perhaps their children, since they would no

longer be members of the household of an international

organization staff member.

Most of the women who came to see me had lived in

the United States for many years. They had raised their

children here. Some of their children had been born here.

They and their children literally had nowhere else to go

where they could feel at home and live the kind of life which

they had learned in this country. Clergymen who have counseled

these women have come to me and to Bank officials and complained

about the situation in which these women and children found

themselves.

I am personally aware of other cases of tragedy and

hardship involving G-iv staff, similar in essence although

differing in cause. You know from other witnesses that a

surviving spouse of a G-iv staff member loses his or her

right to stay in the United States after the staff member's

death. Dependent G-iv children are in the same position.
75

We should try to imagine what that means. Like other mortals,

staff members die, often suddenly and prematurely, and sometimes

while on a mission for the international organization. The

surviving spouse and family members must cope as best they can

with the sudden loss of a loved one, with numerous legal and

economic questions, with comforting each other and their

friends, and all of the other problems and adjustments that

arise in such situations. On top of all that, however, the

G-iv family must move to a country they may hardly know, and

try to begin a new life. The anxiety and uncertainty that

our current policies produce is difficult for us to imagine.

What appears to bother these people most is the

feeling of helplessness and lack of control over their own

lives. The death of a loved one is hard enough for most of us

to cope with. We know how important it is in such situations

to maintain as much of a semblance of normal life as one can

and to make changes gradually. Our immigration laws do not

permit this. Instead, they impose such changes in a harsh and

abrupt way.

As an American, I am ashamed of what our policies do

to these families. We are not talking here about temporary

visitors to our shores. The people who would benefit under

S.1998 are long-time residents of the United States, with

friends, social ties, property, and investments primarily or

exclusively here. The children have usually been educated here,

some even born here, and would be at great disadvantage in

their original home countries. The deceased spouses and

parents have performed useful services in institutions which

our country played a large part in creating.

The cost in human terms to these families is very

great. There are also potential costs to the institutions • for

example, difficulty in recruiting the most capable people.

And there is an ultimate cost to our pride as Americans.
76

Our treatment of these people is not in the great American

tradition. I urge you to approve the modest steps contemplated

by the proposed legislation to avoid further hardships in

these cases.

Thank you for permitting me to join you this

afternoon. I would be happy to try to answer any questions

you may have.

Senator SIMPSON. I thank you very much, sir. If any of you as

members of the panel wish to respond to these few questions,

please do so. I will just ask them of the panel. Then I will direct

other questions individually to each of you.

I would be very interested, and the members of the subcommittee would also, as to the reason that staff and family members did

not convert to permanent immigrant status years ago, when such

visas were readily available. Did it have anything to do with the

policies of the institutions which they ably represented? Did it have

to do with taxation of salaries and other perquisites of office? I

would be interested in having your views.

REASONS FOR NOT CONVERTING EARLIER

Mr. CUTLER. It had nothing to do with the taxation of salaries,

Senator Simpson. As you know, the salaries of the non-Americans

are exempt. The salaries of Americans, had they become American

citizens, get "grossed up" so that in effect the salary of a staff

member is one that is net of tax.

It had to do primarily with two factors: One was that permanent

immigrant status was relatively easy to obtain when one needed it,

for example when you retired or, in the case of your children,

when they reached maturity and were leaving home; and second,

that the agencies themselves, necessarily anxious to preserve a balance between Americans and non-Americans on their staffs, did

not wish to have the non-Americans convert to U.S. residence, leading to citizenship, at a time when they were still active staff members.

In the light of the developments in the law over the last 4 or 5

years that have made it much harder to change to permanent residence status when one wished, the World Bank, for example, has

altered its policy so that within the 5 years preceding expected retirement one can apply for a change in status. But it is very, very

difficult to achieve a change in status today, for the reasons that I

tried to outline in my earlier statement.

I think the subcommittee staff would agree, and the Immigration

and Naturalization Service would agree, that it would be very hard

for any staff members trying in the last 5 years to achieve permanent resident status in the United States to have obtained it.

Mr. SOMMERS. If I may add to that, sir.

Senator SIMPSON. Please, Mr. Sommers.
77

Mr. SOMMERS. That change to permit people to apply for permanent residence within 5 years of retirement does nothing at all to

help in the case of sudden death, nor does it help in many other

cases of children.

Senator SIMPSON. Again, does that apply also to spouses, what

you are just relating to me?

Mr. CUTLER. I believe the policies of the institutions did apply to

spouses.

Mr. MCNAMARA. Yes. I can answer that, Mr. Chairman. It applied to all members of the family. It was the policy of the institutions, not just the World Bank but I believe the others as well, to

encourage our employees to retain their citizenship in the country

of origin.

I might say, I think it was probably a wrong policy, given the

problems that they are now facing under G-iv status.

Mr. CUTLER. But it was done at a time when everyone had reason

to believe that when you needed a change in status you could

achieve it.

Senator SIMPSON. Could you just amplify a bit your comments on

the problems that the current situation is apparently creating for

the international institutions?

EFFECT ON INSTITUTION

Mr. MCNAMARA. Yes. Let me speak to that, Mr. Chairman. Let

me digress a moment to say that I am sure members of the committee will be influenced by feelings of compassion, as certainly I

and my colleagues are.

But I suggest you put compassion aside for the moment and consider this legislation only in terms of the interest of the United

States. And I want to submit to you that in those terms, without

any regard to the impact on the lives of the people, the children,

the wives, the employees, solely in terms of the interests of the

United States, the legislation is long overdue.

Now, let me tell you just a little bit about the impact on the employees. My wife, along with one other, started an organization

known as Wives in the Bank to deal with the human problems of

our employees, and they are very many, not all of them by any

means the result of G-iv status, but as I learned from becoming familiar with the organization a very high percentage of them deriving from G-iv status.

In case after case, the only solution to the family problem was to

terminate the employment of the employee of the Bank, and that

forced the Bank to incur a very heavy penalty indeed. These employees are highly qualified.

Most of them have been recruited•and this I think is not widely

known•in midcareer. They come as professionals, having demonstrated their professional capacity, in their country of origin in positions of responsibility. They come at age 40 or more with a wife

and young children.

And it is very much in the interest of the Bank, and therefore

very much in the interest of the United States. I might add, by the

way, that the Bank is financed in the U.S. capital market and

there are billions of dollars of U.S. capital at risk in that institu-
78

tion. Apart from the necessity of maintaining its function as advisor to the economies of the developing countries, it is very much in

the interest of the U.S. financial markets to maintain high standards of operation in that institution, and to do so we need people of

the highest possible qualification, the kind that Mr. Cutler indicated we have.

And in case after case we have had to recognize they must leave.

We have reluctantly accepted their resignation because we could

not give them the assurance they needed to maintain their families

in this country.

I have sought many high-quality individuals myself. I have negotiated with them. And I guess I have lost 25 percent of those I

wished to hire because I could not guarantee them that their children could be educated in this country if they were to be here

during the formative years and then have the opportunity to stay

here if they wished to.

That applies particularly to nationals from such countries as

Japan, but it applies to others as well where a secondary education

outside the country of origin almost disqualifies them from firstclass university attendance in their country or origin. And as I say,

I could give you the names of perhaps a quarter of the people I

have tried to recruit who have turned me down for that reason

alone.

And I hesitate to mention this case, but I want to show you the

kinds of problems we have. In one particular situation, one of my

vice presidents, who is a very, very important individual in the organization, insisted he had to return to his country of origin because he was getting close to retirement and he would be ineligible

for citizenship in this country. He was on G-iv status and he regretfully submitted his resignation.

There was such a penalty at the institution, I went so far as to

sponsor and support and finally help him obtain a special bill

before the Congress to give him special citizenship. I do not think

that is the way to deal with the problem.

Senator SIMPSON. I was interested and I guess I am curious. Perhaps you could help me. Is it part of the usual international organization's policies that if a person on G-iv seeks adjustment in status

that somehow their citizenship is in question?

Were they fearful that if they adjusted status that their citizenship was in some jeopardy.

Mr. MCNAMARA. NO. If I left that impression, I did not mean to.

Senator SIMPSON. OK.

Mr. MCNAMARA. It is a problem of policy in the organization.

The policy in the World Bank up until 1975 was to discourage individuals from moving out of G-iv status.

Senator SIMPSON. Because they wanted to keep the internationalized characters of the organization?

Mr. MCNAMARA. Yes, exactly.

Senator SIMPSON. And not out of a concern that the status would

be lessened?

Mr. MCNAMARA. NO, no, no.

Senator SIMPSON. Because you know, our green card holders do

not lose any status.

Mr. MCNAMARA. NO, no, not at all.
79

Senator SIMPSON. OK. That is helpful. I am glad I got that

cleared up.

Let me ask you, since you are speaking to these issues, Mr. McNamara, and then some questions for Mr. Cutler and Mr. Sommers.

In your testimony you state that until 1977 it was relatively easy

for a World Bank staff member to convert to permanent resident

status upon retirement. Perhaps you have already answered this

question, but if not I would want it in the record. The record is

going to be very helpful over in the House if they pursue it, and I

think they will because they have been interested in it. They have

been very helpful in this process. This was pulled out of the efficiency bill and we are trying desperately with staffs of the House

and the Senate to hammer something together that will float in

both Houses, and that is what we are up to.

But why did such persons wait until retirement to adjust? Could

you respond? And you may have already.

REASONS FOR NOT CONVERTING EARLIER

Mr. MCNAMARA. I think I have. They waited until retirement to

adjust for two reasons. One, because it was the policy of the institution, not the requirement but the policy of the institution, to urge

them to wait; and the other was that there was no reason to apply

earlier, particularly if they were violating a policy of the institution, because in those earlier years it was relatively easy at the

time of application to shift status from G-iv to special immigrant.

Mr. CUTLER. I want to emphasize, there was no tax advantage to

one side or the other.

Senator SIMPSON. I heard that. I wanted to make sure the record

discloses that was not an aspect of it, and you addressed that previously.

Mr. SOMMERS. One further aspect of that, Senator. I think in the

early days people did not realize the effect of 10 or 15 years of residence in this country on their attitude towards its culture, and particularly the advantages and the disadvantages to the children of

having to move elsewhere.

Senator SIMPSON. In your testimony, Mr. Cutler, you state that

many institutions have required non-U.S. staff members to remain

in or assume G-iv status. And you have already made some comments on that.

How have they, the various international organizations, enforced

such a requirement, and why have they imposed such a requirement? Could you share a bit more on that? I guess my point here

is, the equity of the G-iv employee is obviously stronger if he has

not chosen freely to remain in G-iv status.

Could you share with me some of your thoughts on that?

Mr. CUTLER. Well, I think Mr. McNamara and Mr. Sommers

have covered the answer, certainly from the standpoint of the

World Bank, which is typical.

Senator SIMPSON. IS it typical of the other international organizations?

Mr. CUTLER. I believe it is, yes. And it is partly that it is in the

charter of every one of these institutions, which we signed and
80

helped draft, that in recruiting personnel they are to pay attention

to the distribution of those personnel among the nationalities of

the various member States.

It is a jealously guarded prerogative of the various member

States to see their nationals who are qualified employed within

specified percentages, although there is wide discretion to the

President of the Bank. For nationals of other states to be recruited

and then to acquire permanent residence status here, which also

qualifies them to accept citizenship while they were in midcareer,

tended to diminish the multinational quality of the Bank and the

distribution of the staff among its members.

Moreover, it was not necessary because, as I said earlier, in

almost every case until about 1975, when resident status here

became desirable upon termination of your service, retirement or

some such thing, or even the need to keep your children here, that

could be accomplished much more easily under the pre-1975 law

than the laws that exist today.

Once the law changed and it became clear it was going to be very

difficult, the institutions also changed, and, for example, the World

Bank now allows staff members within five years of retirement to

apply for permanent status.

Senator SIMPSON. YOU state too that the admission of G-iv visa

holders as permanent residents or permanent immigrants would

not take away opportunities from others, since they would be admitted outside of the numerical limits. What if that were not the

case? What if we had a proceeding or procedure where each G-iv

visa holder who actually adjusts to permanent resident status

would cause the annual ceiling and the per country ceiling for his

country of origin to be each reduced by one?

Mr. CUTLER. I would think that is a policy matter for the Congress, Mr. Chairman.

Senator SIMPSON. Yes. Would you still support the legislation if

that were to take place?

Mr. CUTLER. Oh, most certainly.

U.S. NATIONAL INTEREST

Mr. MCNAMARA. Mr. Chairman, may I add to that? It is certainly

a policy matter for the Congress. I do not mean to impinge on Congressional prerogatives, but as one who was responsible for managing the Bank for 13 years I want to say to you that the quality of

the employees at that Bank, which I think is higher than any other

human institution I know of•and I am not just boasting now. I

think I know many comparable institutions, public and private,

and the quality of the professionals there and nonprofessionals is

higher than any other institution I know of on average.

Maintaining that quality is very much in the U.S. interest, and

therefore I myself would strongly recommend enactment of S. 1998

even if every one of those who were allowed to shift out of G-iv

visa status resulted in a reduction in the quota of his country of

origin.

Mr. CUTLER. It is a de minimis number of people, anyway, compared to the quotas.
81

Mr. MCNAMARA. It is very small in numbers, but it is very important to the United States and the strength of the institutions.

Senator SIMPSON. That is very helpful.

I hate to come to numbers, but somebody always drags us back to

numbers. We find it not only with undocumented, but with refugees, caps and limits and so on.

If I could ask each of you for your estimates•we have the estimate of 11,000 and I understand that, but there was a question as

to whether that was employees or whether that was family members and all possible beneficiaries.

NUMBERS AFFECTED

Mr. CUTLER. My understanding is that number is the approximate number of staff members, employees of the international organizations in the United States. The families, including wives and

dependent children, might be another 15,000 or so.

Senator SIMPSON. That is what I am wondering, yes, that figure

for the record.

Mr. CUTLER. But that is the total pool, out of which much smaller numbers would become eligible, and they would only become eligible at a rate of less than 500 per year.

Senator SIMPSON. Shall we call that all family members and all

possible beneficiaries of this legislation?

Mr. CUTLER. That is my understanding.

Senator SIMPSON. IS that what we should refer to?

Mr. CUTLER. Ultimately possible.

REASONS FOR NOT CONVERTING EARLIER

Senator SIMPSON. Yes. Let me be certain that the record discloses, Mr. Cutler, your comment about the current policy. Do you

say that the policy is now that employees may seek adjustment

within five years of retirement?

Mr. CUTLER. Of anticipated retirement. That is true of the World

Bank, Mr. Chairman, and if it is different in the other institutions

we will submit that for the record.

OTHER COUNTRIES

Senator SIMPSON. OK. Let me ask, because in your written testimony you describe some of the practices of the Swiss in this

area

Mr. CUTLER. Yes.

Senator SIMPSON. I believe you indicated that adult children

there are granted these permits if they have lived in Switzerland

for at least 12 years, including the 5 years immediately preceding

issuance. You state in your oral commentary that virtually all

countries have provisions such as this. And yet we at the subcommittee level are advised that most of those are for shorter time periods.

Where are we? The Mathias proposed bill, has a minimum of 7

years United States residence in the aggregate. And yet the Swiss

have 12. I would like to know if you are aware of the time requirements with those other countries?
82

Mr. CUTLER. Yes; we are, Mr. Chairman. We have made a study

of this and I do have the details, and I will submit them for the

record.

But let me just do Switzerland quickly for you. In Switzerland

you get an establishment permit, which is the same as permanent

resident status, if you have lived there for 10 years, including the

5-year period immediately prior to retirement. That is shorter than

our proposed 15 years for the retiree himself.

Moreover, in Switzerland staff members retiring at 65 for men or

60 for women have to satisfy only the 5-year requirement. So in

Switzerland if you retire at age 65 and you have been there the 5

preceding years, you are entitled to the permanent residence

permit.

Children get that permit if they have lived in Switzerland for at

least 12 years, including the 5 years immediately preceding issuance of the permit. But they waive those time requirements for

people who have close family ties to Swiss nationals.

The other countries, like France and Britain, have somewhat

shorter periods. In fact, in Britain if you work for an international

organization you can almost automatically stay once you leave the

organization's employ, and the same thing is true for spouses and

children if they have been with the staff member for 5 years.

And may we submit the details for the record?

Senator SIMPSON. Please, if you would, because that becomes an

important consideration as to what other countries do in this area.

Mr. CUTLER. We do not have citations. We have citations to some

of the foreign regulations, but most of this is based on a recent

survey that we ourselves made.

Senator SIMPSON. AS I say, it certainly is not controlling, but it

would be of interest to the subcommittee and be helpful.

[The material referred to follows:]

Austria is the host country to the International Atomic Energy Organization, the

Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, and the United Nations International Development Organization (UNIDO). According to Austrian sources, retirees

from the employment of such international organizations are normally granted residence permits, provided they can demonstrate financial independence. The situation

of dependents is less clear. Austrian law establishes rules with respect to the employment of foreigners that limit the rights of dependents to work except under certain conditions. However, Austrian officials have the authority to intervene in hardship cases and to make exceptions without legislative approval. Under this authority, children may in fact be able to remain.

[Rough translation]

To: Heinrich G. Schneider, Alternate Executive Director.

Subject: Austrian legal situation and administrative practice concerning residence

permits for retired staff of international organizations and labor certification

for dependents of such staff.

DEAR DR. SCHNEIDER: Referring to your telex of April 28, 1981 we can tell you the

following. For the issues referred to above the headquarters agreements between

the Republic of Austria and the IAEO, the OPEC, as well as the UNIDO can be

taken as examples.

(1) On residence permits for former employees of international organizations who

do not have Austrian citizenship: The bases for judging these are the Police Law on

Foreigners, BGB1 No. 75 1954, and the Passport Law, BGB1 No. 422 1969, as amended by BGB1 No. 510 1974, and BGB1 No. 335 1979. In Austria such requests for permanent residence permits are normally granted because in these cases primarily
the financial independence of the petitioner is controlled and this normally is assured through his retirement benefits (reference to sources).

(2) To the question of labor certification of dependents of non-Austrian employees

of international organizations in Austria: Here the law on the employment of foreigners, BGB1 No. 218 1975, also attached, forms the legal basis. According to section 1, paragraph 4, of this law the Federal Minister for Social Administration can

order exceptions that go further than the law. This has not been done with respect

to the dependents of staff of UN organizations. Hence, the conditions stipulated in

the law for a labor certification must be fulfilled. These petitions are, indeed, only

rarely granted by the administration, notably with respect to the present labor

market situation in Austria. If there is a positive decision this is often only the case

after "intervention" (reference to sources).

Sincerely,

Austrian National Bank,

Legal Department.

CANADA

Representatives of the ICAO have provided the following specifics with respect to

the granting of resident status to ICAO retirees and spouses of deceased staff members:

With respect to the granting of resident status ("landed immigrant status") to retired staff members of ICAO or to widows of the staff members, there is no special

legislation or regulation in force. However, the existing Immigration Act and regulations issued for its implementation provide a very satisfactory base and the ICAO

Secretariat is not aware of one single incident when a request for permanent residence after retirement from ICAO services would be denied. The applicants have to

meet the basic requirements of the Immigration Act•the application has to be

made outside the territory of Canada (e.g. Boston or New York), a health certificate

is to be provided to prove that the applicant does not belong to any of the prohibited

classes and applicant has to show that he/she will have sufficient means of support

and would not become a public charge. To the best of my knowledge, a large

number of ICAO retirees, in particular those served for a long period in Canada and

brought up their children there, choose, to settle for their retirement in Canada and

they face no difficulties. Obviously, their pension from the UN Joint Staff Pension

Fund and any other income become taxable and that follows clearly from Section 24

of the Headquarters Agreement between the Organization and the Government of

Canada.

The following is a summary of what we understand to be the current French practice:

France: Immigration Status of Non-French International Civil Servants up on Retirement and Status of Their Surviving Spouses and Their Children Reaching Adult

Age

2. The basic principle regulating the status of the three categories of persons mentioned above in France upon the severance of their link with an international organization (through retirement) or with a staff member of any international organization (through the death of the staff member or the termination to dependant status

of a child is that they fall under the general laws regarding foreigners. Their former

link with an international organization or a staff member of such an organization

does not give them any legal right to stay or work in the country. However, the

laws applicable to foreigners do allow them to do so under certain conditions.

3. Retirees of surviving spouses who have sufficient income from their organization pension of from other sources may apply for resident permits in France. OECD

assists its retirees in obtaining there permits by requesting from the French Ministry of External Relations a statement identifying the would-be retirees as such to

the Ministry of the Interior, which the general jurisdiction over foreigners. Retirees

have no legal right to residency permits. However, it appears, that they are given to

them on a routine basis. The only possible exception mentioned to me would concern individuals who further stay in France would be deemed by French authorities

to constitute a threat to public order. The permits are given in the following sequence:

(a) temporary stay permit (valid one year) (carte de sejour temporaire);
84

(b) ordinary resident permit (valid three years, renewable) carte de resident ordinaire); and

(c) privileged resident permit (valid ten years, renewable as a matter of right

except in limited specific cases) (carte de resident privilegie).

Nationals of countries of the European Economic Community (EEC) receive a special permit valid for five years and renewable for periods of ten years, provided the

applicant has resided continuously in France for the three preceding years.

(4) These various resident permits do not give any right to salaried employment.

This requires a work permit (carte de travail) which is now difficult to obtain,

except for certain categories of persons, such as nationals of other EEC countries, of

Algeria and of most African countries formerly part of the French community. The

right to employment for these categories of persons varies considerably depending

on whether the persons are nationals of the EEC member countries or of the other

countries referred to above.

(5) In certain cases, a retiree, spouse or child could obtain French citizenship relatively quickly and, as a result, would not need a work permit in order to work in

France. The basic requirements for obtaining French citizenship are "assimilation

into the French community" (Article 69 of the French Code of Nationality) and age

(one must be 18 or more (Article 66)). Assimilation is evidenced, inter alia, by knowledge of the French language (Article 69) and residence in France during the five

years preceding the application for naturalization (Article 62). In a number of cases,

the five years residence requirement is reduced or waived. It is reduced to two years

for persons who have completed two years of successful study at a French institution of higher learning for purpose of obtaining a French degree or diploma (Article

63(D). It is waived for the spouse and children of a person acquiring French citizenship (Article 64(2)), for the father or mother of three children under 18 (Article

64(3)) and for persons "belonging to the French cultural and linguistic entity when

they are citizens of territories or states in which French is the, or one of the, official

languages and when French is their mother tongue" (Article 64(1)). There are other

requirements, relating to criminal records, health, etc., which would not normally

affect the categories of persons considered here.

(6) The granting of French citizenship to the categories of persons described above

is subject to the discretionary powers of the government. However, children born in

France of two foreign parents, who have resided in France during the five years

prior to reaching the age of 18 and are still residing in France at that time automatically become French citizens unless they formally renounce French nationality

within the year preceding their 18th birthday or unless the government, by decree,

opposes their acquisition of French nationality (Article 44). For this purpose, residence in France as a staff member of an international organization or as a member

of his or her family would be counted as residence. Residence in this context is a

"pure question of fact" (Instruction of the Minister of Justice dated April 20, 1959,

on the issuance of certificates of French nationality, paragraphs 48 and 49, quoted

in Lagarde, La Nationality Francaise, Paris, Dalloz, 1975, p. 352). It is also appears

that the same interpretation of the residence requirement would apply in all other

cases where residence is a condition of naturalization, including those mentioned in

paragraph 5, above (see Lagarde, op cit, p. 118). Children meeting the conditions of

Article 44 may request naturalization before the age of 18, with the assistance of

their legal guardian (Articles 52-54).

SWITZERLAND

Swiss immigration officials have broad discretion in handling immigration applications, and requests for residence permits are handled on a case-by-case basis.

Swiss authorities have established long-standing and consistent practices with respect to the handling of applications of international civil servants based in Switzerland and members of their immediate families. This practice has been formally codified in Circular No. 19/67, dated July 19, 1967, of the Federal Aliens Police, a copy

of which is appended.

The Circular establishes guidelines for the granting of "establishment permits"

(the Swiss equivalent of permanent immigrant visas). Retiring staff members are

given an "establishment permit" if they have lived in Switzerland for 10 years, including the five-year period immediately prior to retirement. Staff members retiring

at 65 (men) or 60 (women) must satisfy only the five-year requirement. Adult children are generally given an "establishment permit" if they have lived in Switzerland for at least 12 years, including the five years immediately preceding issuance

of the permit. The time limits for both categories may be waived for persons having
85

close family ties to Swiss nationals. We understand that similar policies govern applications by surviving and divorced spouses of international organization employees.

An "establishment permit" entitles a foreigner to reside indefinitely in Switzerland and to work there, but does not automatically entitle the holder to citizenship.

Individuals who do not satisfy the criteria for an "establishment permit" are eligible for a "residence permit" that entitles them to remain for a limited period (generally one year). Such permits may be renewable, however, and may carry with

them the right to work.

A Swiss immigration official has provided the following information on their practices to a U.S.-based international civil servant.

Switzerland: Immigration Status of Staff Members of Public International Organizations in Switzerland upon Retirement and of Surviving Spouses and Adult Children of such Staff.

OFE is the federal authority responsible, directly or through the respective cantonal authorities, for the application of the federal legislation regarding the admission of aliens into Switzerland. Its jurisdiction includes the admission of staff members of public international organizations in Switzerland upon retirement and of

surviving spouses and adult children of such staff. (The Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, through its Permanent Mission to the UN in Geneva, is responsible for

the admission of employees of such organizations and their dependents.)

(2) Mr. explained the Swiss law and practice in this matter and furnished copies of the relevant legislation and regulations. As expected, his explanations confirmed that there is indeed no contradiction between the general description of Swiss practice in this matter set forth in the statement of the IMF's Geneva

office and the contention that no retiring staff member, nor any surviving spouse or

adult child of an employee of an international organization has any legal right or

claim to be given a residence or work permit in Switzerland. In fact, the IMF statement says so itself. As correctly pointed out there also, the ordinary laws and regulations regarding residence and work by aliens in Switzerland apply to these categories of persons. One of the most fundamental principles of Swiss immigration law is

that the granting of a permit to reside and work in Switzerland to a foreigner generally is at the discretion of the authorities; the law and a number of bilateral treaties provide only a limited number of specific exceptions to this general rule.1

(3) However, the Swiss authorities have established a long-standing and consistent

practice as to how this discretionary power is to be applied in the case of the categories of foreigners here under consideration. As regards retirees and adult children,

this practice has been codified in Circular No. 19/67 of the Federal Aliens Police

("Police federate des etrangers", the old name of OFE) to the cantonal police authorities, dated July 19, 1967. An English translation is attached hereto. While the

Circular is an internal document of the Swiss authorities and does not give any

rights to any foreigner, Mr. confirmed to me that the principles laid down in

the Circular have been consistently followed in practice. He also told me that, notwithstanding its internal character, the Circular may be shown by us to other parties.

(4) The rules laid down in the Circular can be summarized as follows:

(a) adult children of staff members of public international organizations in Switzerland are given an establishment permit, if they have lived in Switzerland at least

twelve years, including a consecutive period of five years immediately prior to the

issuance of the permit;

(b) retiring staff members of such organizations are given an establishment

permit, if they have lived in Switzerland at least ten years, including a consecutive

period of five years immediately prior to retirement (in case of retirement at the

age of 65 for men and 60 for women, this last five year period is the only requirement); and

(c) in the case of persons with close ties to Switzerland (such as marriage to Swiss

women, or Swiss ancestors) establishment permits can be issued even if the above

criteria are not satisfied.

(5) I understand from Mr. that a similar practice is being followed by the

Swiss authorities as regards the treatment of surviving (or, for that matter, divorced) spouses of the employees of public international organizations in Switzer1 Cf. art. 4 of the Federal law regarding the residence and establishment of aliens of March

26, 1931, which says that the authorities have the discretionary power to decide, within the

framework of the legislative provisions and the treaties with other countries, about the authorization of the residence, establishment or toleration•the three basic forms of permits for foreigners to stay in Switzerland provided by law•of aliens.

97-870 0•82 6
86

land; but this practice has not been laid down in a formal way as for the two categories of persons covered by the Circular referred to above. However, Mr. told

me that OFE is prepared to confirm this practice as regards surviving spouses in

writing, to us, if we send them a request. Such a letter is currently being prepared.

(6) In order to explain this Swiss practice fully, it should be noted that the establishment permit ("permis d'etablissement") is the most favorable status for an alien

in Switzerland. It entitles a foreigner to reside indefinitely in Switzerland•subject

to certain grounds of revocation defined by law•and to work there. Foreigners who

do not qualify for an establishment permit may be given a residence permit

("permis de sejour") of limited duration (normally one year), but which can be renewed. Immigration regulations limit the number of such permits which may be

issued to new immigrants for purposes of working in Switzerland. They also provide,

however, that for humanitarian reasons and with the approval of OFE, foreigners

may be given such an annual permit not subject to these quotas.2 As to the authorization for aliens to reside in Switzerland without working, immigration regulations

provide that such permits are normally only granted to retired persons above the

age of 60; but exceptions can be made.

(7) In explaining the Swiss practice regarding the admission of staff members of

international organziations upon retirement and of surviving spouses and adult children of the employees of such organizations, Mr. pointed out that where the

conditions laid down in practice for the issuance of an establishment permit, as described above, are not met, the Swiss authorities can and do in appropriate cases

allow such persons to stay in Switzerland by issuing a residence permit, with or

without the right to work depending on the circumstances. In this context, he referred particularly to the above-mentioned provision regarding admission for humanitarian reasons. Mr. further stressed that the guiding principle in all

these cases is that each individual situation is examined on its merits, the decisive

criterion being whether the persons concerned have established ties to Switzerland.

[Circular]

To: Cantonal Aliens Police Authorities.

From: Federal Aliens Police.

Subject: Treatment of children of international officials and of retired international

officials.

In conjunction with the Federal Political Department' and the Geneva Aliens

Police, we have reviewed the conditions under which the children of international

officials employed by international organizations having their headquarters in Switzerland and retired international officials of these organizations can be granted an

establishment permit [permission to reside permanently in Switzerland, "autorisation d 'etablissement."]

A memorandum setting out the results of this review is attached.

When dealing with cases of this type, you are requested to follow, until further

notice, the principles set forth in this memorandum. These are provisional guidelines which we may subsequently find it necessary to reconsider in the light of experience. We will, moreover, have to reexamine these matters once the final version of

the international convention now being prepared to regulate the legal status of international officials is available.

Acting Director, Federal Aliens Police.

[Memorandum]

The conference reached the following conclusions regarding the children of international officials:

That the children of international officials are subject to the provisions of ordinary law in respect of aliens from the moment they no longer reside in their parents' household, or exercise a gainful activity or become of age;

That exceptions are made in practice in respect of adult children not exercising

any gainful activity and residing in their parents' household especially students;

That applications for the residence or establishment permits they need to continue to live and work in Switzerland where their family and personal interests are

centered normally receive favorable consideration; that preparatory work is current1 T.N.: Now known as the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs.
87

ly under way to define the legal status of international officials, to be governed by a

new international convention (Vienna III);

That applications for the granting in advance of establishment permits should be

considered with flexibility, i.e. with due consideration of the special situation of the

applicants, but without prejudicing the provisions of Vienna III or creating rights

that could be invoked on grounds of non-discrimination.

It was agreed that the following principles would be applied in practice:

(a) The length of residence prior to the issue of the first permit will be taken into

consideration for the granting of the establishment permit. As a general rule, applications can be considered if the applicant has lived more than twelve years in Switzerland, of which at least the last five must have been consecutive.

(b) An establishment permit may be granted earlier than specified in (a) above, if

the applicant has special ties with Switzerland (married to a Swiss woman, or Swiss

ancestors). The date from which the permit will be granted under those conditions

will be determined from case to case in the light of each individual applicant's circumstances.

(c) Decisions concerning nationals of distant countries and of East Bloc countries

will remain reserved.

Regarding retired international officials, it was agreed that applications for establishment permits could be favorably considered, in view of the ties such persons

have developed with our country through their employment with international organizations headquartered in Switzerland. The following principles will apply:

(a) Men retiring at age 65 and women retiring at age 60 will be granted establishment permits if they have lived in Switzerland for the five years preceding their

retirement.

(b) Officials who retire before they reach the above-mentioned ages will be granted establishment permits if they have lived in Switzerland for ten years, including

five consecutive years before their retirement.

(c) These requirements may be waived if the applicant has special ties with Switzerland (married to a Swiss woman, or Swiss ancestors).

UNITED KINGDOM

Staff members of the international organizations headquartered in London are

generally hired on a contract basis. Because such staff members must have a valid

work permit in order to work for the international organization, there is no problem

if they wish to stay on once they leave the international organization's employ. We

understand that spouses and children who have resided with the staff member for

five years are also entitled to remain. More specific information is unavailable.

Mr. CUTLER. I think it is fair to say that the United States is the

only major host country for international organizations where this

is a problem. Every place else the retiring staff member, the spouse

and the children can stay on.

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS IMMUNITIES ACT

Senator SIMPSON. Yes. And for the record, you state that the legislation applies only to employees of international organizations

that meet the requirements of the International Organizations Immunities Act. And would you for the record please describe that

act and the requirement, briefly?

Mr. CUTLER. That is in one of the statutes passed as a result of

the creation of the international organizations, as approved by Congress in each case, going back to the late 1940's and the early

1950's. And we have submitted to you, I believe, a list of all of the

organizations that are affected. It is a relatively small number, including the Bank, the Fund, the Organization of American States,

the Inter-American Bank, the Inter-American Defense Board, Intelsat and one or two others and the United Nations.

[The following information was submitted for the record:]
88

The International Organizations Immunities Act, Act of December 29, 1945, c. 652,

Title I, 59 Stat. 669, is codified at 22 U.S.C. §§ 288 to 288f-2 (1976 & Supp. III). 22

U.S.C. § 288 provides that the President shall designate by Executive Order the organizations entitled to enjoy the privileges, exemptions and immunities provided

under the Act. The organizations that have been so designated are listed in a note

to 22 U.S.C. § 288 (1976 & Supp. III).

Senator SIMPSON. And the requirements are simply the ones that

you previously placed in the record?

Mr. CUTLER. That is correct.

Senator SIMPSON. Just a couple of more questions. I appreciate

your forbearance, but we will have something to go on here when

we are finished.

Senator Mathias' bill provides that a G-iv son or daughter would

qualify for "special immigrant status" if he has resided in the

United States for an aggregate period of 10 years before the age of

26. This would mean that someone who had spent his or her entire

elementary and high school years in his homeland, his or her

homeland, but might have accumulated 10 years in the United

States in his preschool or college years would qualify.

Would that person have as much difficulty adjusting to life in his

or her home country as someone who had spent most of his school

years here?

CHILDREN

Mr. CUTLER. Mr. Chairman, one can always argue about numbers. But the key requirement of the bill is that 7 years between 5

and 21 be spent here, which is roughly half of your time in school.

That is a period that is very comparable to the rules that apply in

most other countries. The 10-year-requirement was designed to

take care of teenage children who may not qualify under the 7-

year-test but who spend their high school and college years here

and are not qualified for the job market in their home country. The

information available to United States indicates that only a handful of children fell into this category.

And as you know, these bills have a history. There have been

several of these bills, and for unmarried children the ranges have

been as low as 5 years for the bill you reported out last year to 7

years in Senator Mathias' original bill to 12 years in the House

bill. We think these are reasonable numbers that we have proposed

here. Whether it is 1 year in one direction or the other, one could

readily argue about that, I suppose.

Senator SIMPSON. Senator Mathias' bill also provides for this

nonimmigrant status for employees who had spent 10 years in the

United States. That would enable such individuals to stay indefinitely in the United States.

My question is, would an employee who had spent the years of

life between 55 and 65 years of age have this difficulty in returning

home?

RETIREES

Mr. CUTLER. Again, I would say that 10 years, 10 to 15 years certainly, is the standard in every other country. Switzerland, as I indicated, was only 5 years. If you came at 60 and retired at 65, you

could have permanent status in Switzerland.
89

Incidentally, Senator Mathias' bill is 10 years for this so-called

nonimmigrant status, which allows you to stay but not to become a

citizen, but 15 years to acquire the permanent status that entitles

you to apply for citizenship.

The important thing, though, Senator, is this question of splitting families. It is not simply a question of whether the staff

member could reassimilate in his native country. It is also that his

childen may have decided to settle here, and you then have the

problem of split families.

It is certainly a part of our immigration law policy, as you pointed out earlier today, that we want to enable the families to stay

together if we can. And even when one individual comes to the

United States, over time, if he acquires permanent status, he can

bring in the other members of his family. I should think we certainly do not want to split families by setting different rules which

make it necessary for the retiring staff member or the mother, the

widow or the spouse to return when the children are still here and

making their lives here.

Senator SIMPSON. I think it is very important to stick with what

you say, Mr. McNamara. I think it does not serve the best interests

of the legislation to speak necessarily about hardship, because in a

sense those on the other side of the issue see this as a very privileged group.

I just want to get that out. I do not like to leave stuff laying

under the table. And we have to do that in all of the hearings we

have, because the issue of immigration reform quickly goes into

areas of guilt and racism, and I just refuse to let it slip into that

maw. This one slips into a reference that this is a very privileged

group and we must be very careful, and so on.

So that is important, I think, because you know, there are millions and millions abroad who would wish to come to the United

States, but cannot qualify under normal immigration channels, and

yet face much greater hardships upon a return to their country

than anyone would ever face as a G-iv person returning to their

country. I just want to be sure that that is addressed and that at

least we recognize that as we deal with this issue.

I thank you very much. You have been very helpful. Do you have

anything you would wish to add to the record?

Mr. CUTLER. Your last advice was very good, Senator, and we will

take it to heart in our future advocacy.

U.S. NATIONAL INTEREST

Mr. MCNAMARA. I want to underline again what I said before,

Mr. Chairman, because I strongly agree with you. Compassion influences you, I am sure. I hope it influences me in this case. But

putting all that aside, this is in the U.S. narrow national interest.

We need those people in those institutions to protect the U.S. interest in those institutions, and that ought to be the basis by which

the Congress approves the bill, as I hope they will.

Senator SIMPSON. Well, your testimony has been very important

to us. And seeing those young people who testified and hearing

their intentions in life and their goals. We will address the issue, I
90

can promise you that. And I thank you. I hope we will do it in a

compassionate way. Thank you so much.

Mr. MCNAMARA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator SIMPSON. And that will conclude the hearing. Thank you

very much.

[Whereupon, at 3.45 p.m., the meeting was adjourned.]
APPENDIX

EXAMPLES OF HARDSHIP FACED BY G-IV VISA HOLDERS 1

EXAMPLES OF DIFFICULTY FACED BY CHILDREN OF G-IV STAFF MEMBERS

As a New Zealander who took up an appointment with the International Monetary Fund in 1962, when my three children were aged 7, 5, and 1, I was delighted to

learn of Representative Harris' Bill and of the possibility of your introducing the

same Bill in the U.S. Senate. My younger son has just graduated from Walter Johnson High School in Bethesda and plans to study agriculture at the University of

Maryland. Except for five of his eighteen years, when he was at boarding school in

New Zealand, he has grown up here and I very much hope he will not have to face

the problems his elder brother and sister confronted when they reached adulthood.

Moreover, many of the children are not fitted to return to their own countries,

even if they have relatives still alive there. In my own case•I am a U.K. citizen

working for the International Monetary Fund•my daughter, who came to the

United States at age 9 and has spent 9 years in Montgomery County public schools

with almost straight "A"s was not accepted by any U.K. university because of the

incompatibility between programs in the U.S. high schools and those in the secondary schools of the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, she was accepted by Cornell,

Oberlin, University of Michigan (Honors School) and Reed at Portland, Oregon,

where she is now a senior. The plight of a colleague•an Egyptian•is even worse.

The daughter could not be sent back to Egypt unless she undertakes to remain in

the home of a near relative, which would imply not doing most of the things she has

learned to consider part of a normal way of life in the United States. The position of

children who have a clear idea of what they want to do in life, but who do not wish

to go to college is even worse because they must either leave, or live in enforced

idleness when they leave school at 17 or 18.

I am an Australian working for the World Bank in Washington on a G(iv) visa for

the past 12 years. My children, now aged from 12 to 20 years, have grown up here

and are very much attached to the U.S.A. However, they are now facing a very difficult situation due to the existing G(iv) regulations which restricts them from remaining here after their education is completed except under very restricted circumstances.

Our son has spent his entire life with the exception of the first two years in the

United States. Finland has universal draft, and in order to be able to finish college

here he had two deferments. However, after his graduation in the spring 1977 he

could no more stay on deferred basis, nor could his passport on which any sort of

visa could be stamped, an in order to avoid being declared draft deserter and criminal in Finland, he entered the Finnish armed forces last October for eight months of

service. He had difficulties in identifying with the surroundings and in adapting

himself to what for him was a virtually foreign country's army life; he even had

language problems. Most, however, he was bothered by the thought that there was

no future for him because he could not work in the United States. Despite the fact

that, being quite athletic, he amassed service stripes and honours in his first

months with the Finnish army, he had a nervous breakdown at the beginning of

April and is, at present, being treated at the military hospital in Helsinki, psychiatric ward.

Being a girl, our daughter has not had similar problems, but it goes without

saying that especially after her brother's experience she is becoming increasingly

1 Collected by G-IV Children's Coalition, Inc., Feb. 16, 1982.

(91)
92

depressed and demoralized. Both children appear to feel that it is basically their

parents' fault that they are in grave difficulties.

My daughter is now a Freshman at [a University in Virginia]. Her father who

was Iraqi is now deceased. She was born in Egypt, has an Iriqi passport . . . She

has no one in Iraq; she cannot live with my elderly parents in Egypt; she cannot

live by herself in Egypt (culturally, it is simply not done); and she cannot 'grow up'

legally in the United States. She has lived for over 17 years (out of 18) in this country.

For the past seven years my children have attended American schools. In keeping

with the long tradition of this schooling system, my children have been absorbed

into the American way of life without regard to their country of origin and now feel

and act as if they were citizens, like their fellow class members. Infact, when we

return to our home country they hold themselves out and are regarded as Americans. When I informed them of their present status as G-4 visa holders, they fail to

comprehend the significance. This attitude has made me very concerned about their

future prospects, as it would have a devastating effect on them if, after completing

their education in the U.S., they have no option but to return to their home country•a country they now regard as foreign. If the present bill is not enacted in the

near future, reluctantly I will have no option but to sever my connection with the

World Bank and return to my home country.

Indeed, in the case of my wife and myself, having resided here for the past ten

years, we have adopted the way of life here and if we remain for another ten years

it will be extremely difficult for us to return and readjust to our home country.

I have been working with the World Bank since April of 1973. Before I joined the

World Bank I had served my native government for over thirty years at the highest

administrative levels in the field of development; especially rural development. My

considerable field experience is being utilized by the World Bank in varied ways.

My wife has been working as a Red Cross volunteer at the Suburban Hospital for

the last six years. My only dependent daughter is a full-time student at Georgetown

University. She will be graduating this year.

All of us, of course, are in G-4 visa status. My wife cannot seek employment. My

daughter is permitted to work on a very restricted basis only as long as she is a fulltime student. Should I die my family has to leave the United States within one

month of the event. When I retire all of us will have to do the same. Such a requirement seems so un-American!

I and my family have lived in Maryland for seven years. We live in a house that

we purchased. A large number of our friends are Americans. We were westernized

before and have become Americanized now. The prolonged stay in this country has

loosened our traditional ties. These traditional ties were disrupted by the PakistanBangladesh conflict in 1971 and our relatives and friends are scattered in these two

countries and in the Middle East, England, Canada and the U.S.A. We ourselves

have found a new home here and would like to continue living here and being a

part of this great society and country.

As a Dutch citizen with a British wife, I have had the privilege of living in your

country for over 20 years; my children were babies when we arrived, and their education is completely based on the American system. I originally entered the country

as a scientific researcher at the request of the Du Pont Company, with full immigration status, and intending to establish my family permanently here.

As a result of taking up employment with the World Bank in 1963,1 was forced to

adopt G-4 visa status. This visa would oblige my family to leave the country within

30 days on my retiring or on my death, in spite of the fact that we all long since

have considered this country our home.

After nearly 14 years of residence in this country, including the last 11 under the

G-4 visa, I feel deeply concerned by the future of my children, their ability to develop their lives in harmony both with their family ties and their professional advocation. My wife and I are also concerned by the outcome of our own future when re-
93

tirement comes and we realize after some 25 years in this country that this is where

we finally belong as true immigrants.

Indeed, as as home owner, resident of the State of Maryland, and graduate of

Stanford University, I am, as well as my family, deeply rooted to a social, political,

economic and educational system which both by virtue of service in the World Bank

but also by personasl affinity for the rights, duty and ideal of this country, represents, for myself and dependents, home in the most serious sense.

I am an Australian citizen on a regular appointment with the World Bank in

Washington, D.C. and I have lived in Potomac Md. with my wife and two children

ever since we came here 6'/2 years ago. As you may imagine, my children feel very

much at home in this country, and in fact they both are now attending U.S. universities.

It has always concerned me greatly that my children would have to leave the

United States when they have completed their studies, and I sincerely hope that the

law will be changed so that they may have the option of remaining here. That

would make all the difference, not only for them, but also for my wife and for

myself, in that it would remove a dark shadow that has been hanging over us ever

since we found out that our G-4 visa status prevented the children from the possibility of changing to immigrant status. It has been extremely difficult to bring up

our children without feeling resentment against our host country for which we otherwise have so much affection.

Upon finishing graduate school, I found myself treading a circular corridor. I had

applied to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York for a particularly enticing job. I

would be a staff economist in the Fed's Developing Economics Division, combining

my first-hand knowledge of and field research in Latin America with my Princeton

training in economics to brief management on the area's economic performance.

That I was a foreigner did not matter much•of the thirty applicants from top

schools I was placed at the head of the acceptance list•until I inquired with the

State Department for permission to work. A State Department consul told me that

my case would not be considered unless I had a job offer in hand; the Fed would not,

however, offer me employment until I had a work permit. So, I spent three weeks

on the phone calling the State Department and the Fed. In the end, I received no

permission to work consequently no job offer, and, thus, no permission to work.

Foreign students, in general, tear themselves away from family and country to

come to study, and return upon graduation to welcoming home parties. We, children

of international staff members, are fortunate to have our families near while we

study, and embrace joyously the land that becomes our new home. Yet, at the end of

our studies, while others return home, we are thrown away from our families and

forced to return to countries that have long ceased to be home. Some of us remain

as dependents by returning to school; those like I, who want to repay with productive work the gifts we have received from our parents and from America, are told to

leave. If nothing else, is it not bad management to let go the investment in an education from Andover and Princeton that I carry with me?

In a few weeks, then, I will be leaving home to return to my country of origin.

Fortunately, I found a good job there. But what of the pain of being left apart from

my family? What of the resentment towards a system that blindly throws its own

students away? The present law, by not providing resident status to the sons and

daughters of international staff members, accomplishes three things: it breaks up

families, it promotes perpetual, unproductive students, and it forces highly skilled

young people to leave the country. It is for these accomplishments that the law

must be changed.

I have lived in Washington for nearly thirteen years and have educated all my

four children at American schools and colleges. Nevertheless, when my daughter

left college two years ago she had also to leave the United States•which she had

come to look on as her home•and return to London. It has been an unhappy exile

both for her and for the rest of the family. As things stand, my son will likewise

have to leave next summer when he completes his time at college, while my two

younger children (aged 18 and 15), who have known no other environment during

their formative years, have a similar prospect ahead of them.
94

My oldest son arrived in the United States at the age of 10. He attended school

regularly and graduated from high school in 1979.

During his school years, he had the jobs customary for American boys such as

delivering newspapers, mowing lawns, etc.

He continued studying at Northern Virginia Community College, making an

effort to excel, although he had to work at the same time.

Without my knowledge, at the end of May, 1980, he took the exams as a candidate

for entry in the U.S. Marine Corps. He received such an excellent grade on these

exams that the officials at the recruitment office were very interested in him. So

the situation stood in an interview with the head of the office after a discussion

about the G-IV visa. Since they were showing great interest in the enlistment of my

son in the Marines, I decided to consult an attorney about the situation in the hope

of helping my son so that he would not be tricked. The attorney specializes in these

cases and he explained to us that it would be impossible for my son to obtain his

residency and, for the time being, he would not be able to realize his aspiration of

serving in the Marines.

One cannot imagine my son's reaction•he took it very badly•he cried out to me

and told me that it was useless to study in this country, that nothing could be

achieved by good work, that the illegal persons in this country have more guarantees and are more protected by the law than we.

For our children to be useful members of this North American society in which

they live, they need to be prepared intellectually. In this society they have grown

and developed; their language is English and their customs are American. What can

one expect from them if, after studying and working hard, they have to suffer the

disillusionment of being unable to become a part of that same society because of the

sin of not being a resident.

For them it is almost impossible to return to their country of origin for not only

do they lack friends of their own age and the contacts necessary to obtain work,

they also have difficulty expressing themselves in their own mother tongue.

My wife and I would like to ask you for some of your precious time on behalf of

our three daughters M., S., and S.

We consider ourselves an average, fairly well-adjusted and happy family. Of

course, as anybody else, we do have our problems which we don't mind, however, as

long as we can see the options leading to possible solutions.

The particular problem about which we are writing to you concerns the future of

our girls. We have often discussed it among ourselves, with friends, and even with

specialists, over the past six years or so, but so far found no possible solution. A

spark of hope we now see in the recent moves in the Senate and House of Representatives on the G-IV bill (H.R. 4294). Till this date we have not met anyone who

appreciates the implications of having G-IV status, particularly so for upgrowing

children. All our dentist, real estate agent, physician, neighbor, or our daughters'

teachers and friends know is, that we have a difficult Dutch name, that we have

lived and worked in the U.S. for over ten years and that I am an Agriculturalist

with the World Bank. It is thereby generally assumed, that, either, we have American citizenship, or when we try to explain that and why this is not the case, that we

then obviously don't care about obtaining it.

May I give you some of the background which is pertinent for you as a specialist,

to better understand and appreciate our "case."

In 1958 I graduated from the State Agricultural University in Wageningen (the

Netherlands) with an M.Sc. in Tropical Agronomy, three days after we were married. My wife was born (from Dutch Parents) and raised in Indonesia and lived only

for four years in Holland. We left for my first assignment with FAO of the United

Nations which took us to Nicaragua, ten days after we were married. I was with

FAO until May 1969, with subsequent assignments in Nigeria, second assignment to

Nicaragua, and a 4V4 years' stay in Argentina. M. (now completing her second year

at a college in North Carolina) was born in Holland during home leave in 1962, and

S. Was born in Argentina in 1966. M. and S. received their first 3 and 2 years, respectively, of primary education from my wife with the help of a correspondence

course. However, by 1969 at the completion of our assignment to Argentina, we decided that we had to find a base and more permanent home for our family. On

August 29, 1969, we arrived in Fort Collins, Colorado, where on September 4, M. and

S. went to their first "real school", and I myself began a doctoral program at CSU,

from which university I obtained my Ph.D in Range Management in July 1973. The

first home we owned stands in Fort Collins, Colorado.
95

From July 1973 until February 1974 I continued with the Agricultural Research

Service of the USDA (Crops Research Laboratory) at Fort Collins, where, during my

studies, I had also been Research Assistant. Then, in early 1974, we faced three

choices: to go to Pakistan for FAO, to the Netherlands to join a Dutch Consulting

Firm (ILACO), or to Washington as Agriculturalist with the World Bank. We decided on the latter, since we and our children had adjusted to living and to schools in

the U.S., our and their friends were American, and the Dutch language by then had

already taken second place.

And so here we are now, having lived all our married life abroad, for the past

IOV2 years in the U.S., our eldest daughter a sophomore in a North Carolina college,

our second daughter, who in September this year will go to a college in West Virginia (registration fee already paid) and our 14-year-old girl who already decided that

she wants to be a teacher for handicapped children. My wife has half of the credits

required for a B.S. in Social Psychology.

As I mentioned earlier, we saw a spark of hope in the bill being readied in Congress that would grant special immigrant status to our daughters as G-IV children.

Passage of this bill to us would mean in very concrete terms: that our children

would not necessarily have to plan their future along the lines often suggested by

sympathetic friends: "Don't worry, they are so pretty and they will marry a nice

boy'; that in planning for their future, in choosing a college education and a career,

they can use the country and environment in which they were educated and

formed, as their frame of reference, instead of having to continue to live between

two worlds: the one they are familiar with (the U.S.A.), and the one they only know

from a few weeks of leave every two or three years; and that they can participate

more fully and responsibly in social and politcal life and events, where they are now

often, consciously or unconsciously, considered or considering themselves to be "foreigners."

We therefore respectfully ask you to also remember and consider our case when

you and members of your subcommittee will make the decision which will greatly

and directly affect the future of our children, a future which presently is undefinable.

Mr. J. born in 1921, of Indian nationality has been in the United States continuously since July 1, 1973, employed as a Senior telecommunications engineer, World

Bank, Washington, D.C., with a tentative date of retirement, November 30, 1986.

Family members include G.•wife, Indian, 51, S.•daughter, Indian, 20.

Visa status•G-IV (D/S) for all three members of the family; requirement, U.S.

Citizenship or Resident Visa Status for all three members of the family after my

retirement in November 1986.

Justification•My daughter came to the States when she was 12. She attended for

six years Junior and Senior High Schools in Washington, D.C. and, since September

1979, has been studying at a university in Washington, D.C. from which she will

graduate in mid 1983. She expects to enter graduate school for a Master's Degree

thereafter. Since she has spent all her adult life in the States and is attuned to the

western style of living, she desires to settle permanently in the USA and does not

wish to return to her home country, India. Being our only child, my wife and I wish

to be near her in the USA. Hence, the requirement of US Citizenship so that all

three of us can settle in the USA.

1975•Mrs. P. explores possibilities to have her (and her sons') status changed

from G-IV to permanent resident of the USA. Correspondence with Maryland State

Senator Simpson and U.S. Senator Mathias, who contacted the INS (Distr. Dir. Wallace R. Gray).

1976•INS processed Mrs. P.'s application and in November denied based on Interim Decision No. 2404 in Matter of Wang. Mrs. P. went in appeal and never heard

from INS again.

1977-78•More or less given up hope to succeed until the end of 1978, when she

realized that problems would arise for eldest son C. (born in 1959), when he would

graduate from a community college.

1979•Period of great activity:

Mrs. P. contacted U.S. Senator Mathias again;

U.S. Senator Mathias was preparing legislation for G-IV children in general;

Two local newspapers ran articles on Mrs. P. and her son C;

During the spring a signature campaign was started in the P. family's church, C's

school, a youth organization, and among friends and neighbors;
96

The originals were sent to U.S. Senator Mathias, and copies to all members of the

Judiciary Committee of the Senate, U.S. Congressman Rodino (Chairman of the

Committee on the Judiciary), and to U.S. Congressman Bauman through Charles

County Commissioner James Dent. Positive reactions were received from U.S. Senators Thurmond, Sarbanes, and Cochran;

Mrs. P. corresponded with U.S. Senator Nancy L. Kassebaum, and lady legislators

Mikulski, Holt, Spellman, and Byron. Mrs. Holt reacted positively; and

On July 18 U.S. Congressman Bauman introduced bill H.R. 4857, and on July 24

U.S. Senator Mathias introduced bill S. 1566. Both bills were referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and probably never heard of since.

We are very anxious to have the G-IV bill passed as soon as possible. Our eldest

son is now 21 years old, is not too keen to continue his tertiary education and would

like to start working for a computer company or a firm where use is made of computers. He needs State Department approval for 20 hours of work per week; this is

slightly demoralizing. He is convinced that his future is here in the USA. Our

second son is now a sophomore at a college in Maryland; thus we have some time

left for him.

However, my small daughter's case may already provide a good illustration of the

current immigration laws effect. Elisabeth entered the U.S.A. with us at the tender

age of four months. She is almost four years old now, and speaks "American"

only•she understands some Dutch but my wife and I speak English with her. (My

parents are elderly and ill and I have few remaining family members in Holland or

Belgium, while my wife has become estranged from her remaining family in Belgium. We have all our assets and savings here and are active in our local church

and through local volunteer work.)

I assume that, in twenty-odd years, after having spent all her life minus four

months in the U.S.A., my daughter will be deported.

It may seem odd, but the resolution of her status is a factor that I must include in

career decision-making by the time she reaches school age: return to Europe when

she can still integrate or face severe immigration problems ten years later in regard

to her.

My husband works for the International Monetary Fund and I work for the World

Bank. We are both British citizens, as are our children. My two sons were ages 4

and 7 years old respectively when we came to the United States and they have had

most of their education here. My eldest son (20 years old) graduated from High

School in 1979 and is now in college. When he graduates in 1983 he will be unable

to work. My youngest son (17 years old) will graduate from High School in June of

this year. He desperately wants to be an auto mechanic and has taken two years of

auto mechanics in high school, but he will be unable to work on graduation. Both

boys have been very keen to join either the Marines or the Army and we have had

recruiters constantly calling at our home. We have told them that it is impossible

for them to join without a resident visa but most of the recruiters have been so keen

to have them join that they have insisted on looking into the matter for us. They

have finally had to admit that there is nothing they can do but still keep calling to

ask if our visa situation has changed.

My children are totally "Americanized." They speak with an American accent

and refer to this country as "ours." Because of the differences in the educational

systems, they would find it extremely difficult to find employment in England and

would feel totally out. of place living there. My family loves this Country and consider it "Home." We have very little family left in England so rarely visit there.

We arrived in Washington, D.C., full of hope and expectations, on May 31st, 1967.

At that time our eldest child, Helen, was five and our son, Ian, two years old. We

selected a "lot" in a new development in Bethesda and watched our future home

being built in a very special community, Carderock Springs. We moved here thirteen years ago, our two children were the first (and youngest) to move into the

street and settled happily into their new life and the nearby Montgomery County

Elementary School.

After a few happy trouble free years of family life my husband and I began to

observe problems of other Bank families with our older children. We started to have

serious doubts about keeping our two in the American system because of the GIV

visa limitations. First we sent our daughter, at eleven years of age, to a British
U.UUIUJJJJ

97

boarding school. This entailed curriculum changes and massive adjustments to

living in an "institutionalised" environment without family and home life. She did

well and passed her "O" level examinations at sixteen with good results. However,

during the summer vacation of 1978, aged seventeen and unable to work, she took a

course (World Politics) at American University, for which she obtained three credits. Subsequently she found it virtually impossible to cope with British boarding

school restrictions. Whilst we knew that close family support and supervision was

badly needed at this time, we tried to explain to Helen that she had no choice but to

re-orientate, the GIV visa restrictions meant that she would have to go through the

same ordeals again later, and may then be even harder for her to face, if she stayed

here to finish high school, which she wanted to do at that time. We decided for her

that it would be in her own best interests to finish her last half year in boarding

school, hoping she would then get into a British school of further education and

thereby continue the necessary adjustments to re-orientate to her country of origin.

Sad to say Helen did not "graduate"; she found the pressures of "A" levels and

boarding school life more than she could take at that age and left school only three

months before her eighteenth birthday. She then tried an alternative school in

London, where she had more freedom, but still the life in a hostel and feeling of

insecurity about the future were not conducive to getting her through those vital

"A" level examinations•absolutely essential for higher education in Britain. After

a few desperate weeks working in McDonald's in The Strand (perhaps in retrospect

she felt close to home there?) she flew back to Washington, a physical and emotional wreck, the day after her eighteenth birthday. In spite of all efforts a re-orientation failure.

The process of helping Helen to apply for a place at Maryland University began,

but as a "foreign student" she had to wait six months for admission. During this

time she observed many "vacancy" signs in a nearby shopping mall, applied for and

was given a temporary job in one of the large departmental stores. After only three

weeks of "on the job" training she was a changed personality, happy to be home and

self-respecting. She applied for the necessary "Work Permit" but received a letter

from the United States Department of Justice denying her permission to accept employment since she was not a full time student and the position offered was one for

which there is an oversupply of qualified workers in this country. Adverse behaviour problems rapidly became apparent and to avert total self-destruct Helen was

allowed to return to London in November 1980 to find temporary work until midJanuary, when she would become a Freshman at College Park, University of Maryland. Due mainly to her strong will and persistent personality, she did find temporary work in a British factory earning just about enough to pay her bus fares and

lunches but at least became "self-respecting" once more.

Helen is now in her third semester at Maryland University, resident on campus

but returning home most weekends. For the time being she is again a happy, well

balanced student (with 27 credits) trying to improve her grades. She hopes to be "allowed" to live at home and work during the Summers she is in school but after this,

what will be her destiny?

Our son, Ian, will be seventeen in March. He went to boarding school at age lOVfe

after having attended the local County Elementary School from Kindergarten

through 4th Grade. We went through the same traumatic adjustments to the different curriculum and institution of British boarding schools as his sister and recently

passed his "O" level exams. Now almost seventeen he is also beginning to resent

having to go back to England to school. If he completes the "A" level courses he has

no intention of looking For a College place in Britain because he wishes to return to

the United States where he dearly wants to live.

Setting aside the numerous emotional traumas Bank parents go through, sharing

family life with our children for only a quarter of their important teenage years,

the bottom line of this "statement" is that the process of re-orientation to their

home country does not always work, especially for children of families who have

settled happily and blended into the local environs. Our children did not leave

Washington by choice, we, their parents, made what we thought was the right decision for their future happiness only to find they now feel insecure and "homeless"

at a very vulnerable age. We are still full of hope and expectations•that such cases

will be given the sympathetic consideration they justly deserve.

Coming from Brazil I arrived in the U.S. in August 1967 in order to work for the

Organization of American States. At that time my three children were ages 9 (Patricia), 7 (Carlos) and 5 (Roberto). The youngest was at school for the first time in the

United States. At present Patricia is preparing for post graduate studies in Econom-
98

ics and the other two are currently enrolled at the University of Maryland (junior

and sophomore years). The two younger children do not speak Portuguese, have lost

all contacts with Brazil, perceive themselves as Americans and would already be

American citizens if they would have had the opportunity.

I consider that it will be traumatic for my children to be forced to go back to

Brazil while having been prepared to be part of the American society only because

their parents were in Brazil when they were born and decided for professional reasons to move to the United States when they were too young to object•especially

when this move is based on work within an international agency of which the

United States is not only a member but also the host country for this agency's headquarters.

Gabriel T.: I first arrived in the U.S. in 1966 at the age of 7. Since then I have

lived here, that is for the past 15 years. I attended public schools in Montgomery

County from the 2nd through the 12th grades, graduating valedictorian of my high

school class. I then attended Brandeis University, graduating Magna Cum Laude

with highest honors in biochemistry. At present I am a third year medical student

at USC.

In essence the United States is my home; in language, culture, and heart. Unfortunately this is a written statement because if you could hear me speak these

words, they would sound as if from the mouth of an American.

It is and has been a great hardship for me having been refused the privilege of

becoming an American citizen. Gaining admission to medical school is a difficult endeavor for anyone, but even more so for an alien. The unfortunate thing is that I

have come to consider myself an American and it is only on official papers and documents that this is not the case.

There is no question in my mind that I am a part of this country and that I

belong here as a citizen. The thought of someday having to leave this great land, the

one in which I have spent my childhood and young adulthood, comes to me as a

great injustice. I realize that in a government as large as this individuals are often

overlooked but I hope that my case will not only come to your attention but that

you will act favorably toward me and those in a similar position.

Silvia T.: High School (Winston Churchill, Potomac, MD): I was in the top 20 percent of my class; work experience: babysitting, tutoring; and athletics; varsity swimming (lettered), jv volleyball.

University (Brandeis, Waltham, MA) graduated cum laude•held following unpaid

positions: paraprofessional at Metropolitan State Hospital, Waltham, MA (psychiatric hospital); research assistant in visual perception studies (Brandeis University),

schizophrenia research (Brandeis University, 3 years), intensive care unit (George

Washington University Medical Center)•cardiac patients; teaching assistant for an

upperlevel psychology course; athletics: varsity swimming, varsity volleyball (lettered), intramural sports; and staff on the university paper, The Justice (lay-out).

Currently in Ph.D. clinical psychology program (Long Island University, Brooklyn, NY).

Throughout my life I have been unable to obtain any jobs because of my status as

a G-4. At a time when I could have been sampling jobs in possible areas for a

career, I was relegated to babysitting. Any other job opportunities available to me

were solely a function of my own ingenuity and creativity (i.e., tutoring in Spanish,

English to foreign students, Hebrew, Algebra, Calculus, Statistics). As a result of

this inability to work, I was denied the opportunity to obtain new skills (e.g., decisionmaking skills, problem-solving skills, researching skills, interpersonal skills,

etc.), to see how the theoretical material presented in school relates to reality and

modern society, or to learn about different aspects of the job market•which would

provide me with a wider and more reality-tempered base for my decisions concerning the future. These opportunities are crucial for the high school student in order

to test out his/her desires in the "real world" and to help him/her decide about

college, job interests, and life interests in general. I was denied these opportunities.

As a college student the importance of these opportunities greatly increases, along

with the increased desire to start gaining some independence•personal independence is inextricably linked to independence from the external environment. Man

constantly tests himself vis-a-vis the world. If the soil is fertile, one wants it to bear

fruit. It is not enough to know that the soil is fertile. In fact, it becomes that much

more frustrating to know one has the ability to do something, but is denied the possibility of tapping these abilities and resources. In my case this dilemma is especial-
99

ly tragic considering I have lived in the United States for sixteen of my twenty-two

years and for all practical purposes am "American." But because my technical label

is "G-4," I am denied the opportunity to live my life fully as an American.

Another disadvantage resulting from my G-4 status is my inability to obtain

scholarships and government loans. My university explicitly stated that I was ineligible for the available scholarships for Americans because I am not an American

Citizen. I was equally denied the foreign student scholarships because my high

school education was obtained in the United States. This places me in a catch-22

position. Fortunately my parents are able to provide the necessary financial requirements. If they had been unable to do so, however, circumstances would have made it

extremely difficult for me to realize my goal of continuing on to college and graduate school•this problem is obviously exacerbated by my inability to contribute substantial sums financially.

I am anxiously concerned about my future status. Currently I am studying towards my doctorate in clinical psychology, yet I am uncertain as to the possibility of

being able to practice my profession. I am in a position where all my education and

training has been obtained in the United States with no possibility of using it. Upon

completion of my doctorate, I will be competent enough to exercise my knowledge

and skill and to hopefully contribute to American society, but as the law stands now

I will be denied this because I am "G-4." The anxiety and strain resulting from this

situation is great.

Nicholus R.: I was born September 29, 1962 in Medellin, Colombia. In October of

1962 my family moved to the United States. My father accepted a position at the

Organization of American States, and we have been living in the United States for

the past twenty years.

I attended Kent Gardens Elementary School in Fairfax County. At Kent Gardens

I served as president of the Student Body Government and was ironically awarded

the D.A.R. Junior American Citizen Award. I continued my education at Cooper

Junior High School and went on to attend Langley High School also in McLean,

Virginia. At Langley I served as president of the Student Government my senior

year. I also participated in a variety of extracurricular activities. I completed my

high school education with a 3.3 grade average. Currently, I am a sophomore at the

Catholic University of America. I have maintained a 3.2 grade point average over

the past three semesters.

My older brother and sister were also born in Medellin, Colombia, and like

myself, have grown up in the United States. In May of this year my older sister will

graduate from The Catholic University of America. She will graduate with honors

and receive a B.A. in elementary/special education. She plans to work in the field of

special education. My oldest brother graduated from the University of Pennsylvania

in 1981, with a degree in economics and international relations. Felipe is presently

employed by a prestigious Washington law firm.

My two youngest brothers, ages 14 and 11, are United States citizens by birth.

Although I have resided for nineteen years in the United States and have two

brothers who are citizens, my family's G-4 visa prevents me from becoming an

American citizen.

Paul R.: Graduated 1978•has work permit•is working, but at age 25 and after

11 years in United States•

(a) Is constantly worried about his future if work permit is not renewed (next renewal due February 1983).

(b) Has no desire to return to Canada (away 11 years) or United Kingdom where

born (away 24 years).

(c) Having a degree in Business Administration, he is doing a job below his real

capabilities. It is difficult to change jobs as many Companies (including his own

now) seems to be unwilling to get involved with work permit/State Department

letter requirements.

(d) Is not able to leave parents to move into own apartment or leave Washington

area to pursue own life and career opportunities elsewhere in the USA.

Colin S.: Colin was born in Zimbabwe in September 1956. After leaving Zimbabwe

when he was seven years old, Colin resided with me in Nigeria, Sierra Leone and

Kenya before I joined the World Bank in Washington in 1969. He graduated from

the Imperial College of Science and Technology in London in 1978, where he ob-
100

tained a Bachelor of Science degree in Computer Science. He is now employed by a

firm of consultants in London and is presently working for the Royal Dutch Shell

Company in Holland. However, he would like to be in a position to obtain employment in the United States, which will not be the case until the G-(iv) Bill becomes

law.

Thomas S.: Tom was born in Zimbabwe in March 1960. He left that country when

he was three years old and resided in the same countries as his brother prior to

coming to the United States in 1969, at which time he was eight years old. Tom was

admitted to Washington and Lee University in Lexington, Virginia, in the fall of

1978 and will be graduating in June 1982. He has specialized in Electronics and

Physics and would like to be in a position to work in this country after he leaves

school.

Our thirteen year old son has been in the American school system since the

Second Grade. He is an only child and his only close relation in the United Kingdom is a 79 year old grandmother. The idea of sending him back to boarding school

in the United Kingdom under these circumstances seems an unreasonable burden to

put on any child.

We are, therefore, faced with the dilemma of keeping him at school here, knowing

that, under the present U.S. immigration laws, he will be unable to work in this

country, or sending him back to the country that we in fact made the decision to

leave in 1976.

Our commitment is to a life in the United States, is it too much to hope that our

son may have the same expectations?

Since leaving my native Yugoslavia at age eight, I have lived in the United

States. I am now twenty-six years old, and an American in every sense but the

legal. Yet I have to live at home, supported by my parents, I can't hold a regular

job, and I live with the constant fear that at any moment•should my parents move

to another country, or die•I might be deported. How long must I continue to live in

such limbo? Something has to be done now.

Laurence R., age 22 and Esther R., age 20 (nationality: Australian): Both children

have lived in Potomac, Md. since February 1973 (i.e. nearly 9 years) and they both

attended Montgomery County junior and senior high schools.

In May 1981 Laurence completed 4 years at the University of Maryland, obtaining

a Bachelor of Science Degree in Aerospace Engineering. He is now attending Graduate School, at University of Maryland.

Esther has been at Cornell University, Ithaca, for 3Vi years, majoring in Economics. She has been on the Dean's list throughout, got Phi Beta Kappa, and graduated

last December.

Needless to say, after living in this country for 9 years, both children are very

much integrated in the American way of life. They would both like the option of

staying here instead of having to leave when they have finished their studies.

I am indeed also very worried about the future of my children in this country.

They came to the States when they were 2 and 5 years old, now they are 14 Vfe and

17Vi respectively. It would be impossible for them to go back to the country where

they were born (The Netherlands) since they don't speak the language or at least

not enough to follow any education there. They are totally Americanized through

education and surroundings.

What are they supposed to do after finishing their schooling, if they are not allowed to stay in this country?

I joined the International Monetary Fund in March 1967 with the intention of

making my career here. Initially I continued to send my two eldest children to

school in my home country but the difficulties of this separation•which included

terrorist activities•made this intolerable. As a result I have educated all my four

children in American schools and universities and have never regretted this decision.

Unfortunately, when my eldest daughter left college, after seven years of residence in this country, she was not permitted to remain and obtain employment here

and therefore had to return to her home country. This forcible separation from her

parents and family caused her (and her family) great personal suffering and at the

same time subjected her to many difficulties in adjusting to a different environment, where she was no longer accepted as a compatriot. The separation from her
101

family, the consequent loneliness, the difficulties of adjustment, and, not least, the

cultural shock made her return a painful affair, which was the more distressing because it all seemed so unnecessary. As a family, we could only watch the misery of

this enforced emigration as helpless spectators and yet wonder why political refugees should be received with such warmth and in such numbers while we ourselves

should be subject to division, separation, and estrangement. I hope that some form

of residence status may be granted which will correct the anomaly of our position

and remove the need for summary "repatriation," a term, which, over time, must

inevitably lose much of its original meaning.

I have been in Washington with the International Monetary Fund for the last

thirteen and a half years. When I arrived my son was eleven and a half years old

and my daughter three. My son's school and college education was almost entirely

acquired here in the United States. When he graduated in 1979 he could not work

here and so he returned to India. However, he could not adjust to his new surroundings and customs of the country because he had spent his most formative years in

America, and his way of thinking and living were American. Still he continued for

some time in India but it resulted in a severe nervous breakdown. Now I have

brought him back to the United States and he is undergoing treatment. This has

caused considerable anguish to my wife and myself and it has also affected my

daughter. We are quite apprehensive about whether the same thing will happen to

my daughter who is now seventeen.

We arrived here in America in 1967 when our children were 8, 6 and 4. Since that

time they have gradually lost their national identity and consider themselves

American. They have attended American elementary, junior and senior high

schools, colleges and universities, and the youngest has never known any other form

of education as she started here in kindergarten. They feel as American as their

American friends and they perceive the rest of the world from an American point of

view. They identify with Americans and belong in America. To expect them to leave

this country and function in another culture would be unreasonable.

One of our children who is now 23, is studying computer science for a Ph.D., the

others are working for degrees in liberal and fine arts, expecting to graduate in the

summers of 1982 and 1985 respectively. Unlike their American friends who expect

to graduate and work in their chosen fields, our children cannot look forward to

such a certain future. Under present immigration regulations they are anxious and

frustrated about their future prospects.

Another factor that has caused us anxiety is the fact that I am Thai and my wife

is English, two of our children were born in England and the youngest in Thailand.

Should I die, my family would be split•one child would have to go to Thailand and

the others to England.

I am British and my wife is Malaysian. Before joining the Bank our family was

resident in Malaysia, where our three daughters were born. In 1972, when our girls

were 9, 7 and 4, I joined the Bank and we moved to Chevy Chase where we bought

our own house and the girls commenced public elementary schooling in Montgomery County. Now (1982) two of our daughters are in Bethesda-Chevy Chase High

School and the eldest is a full time student at Montgomery College.

Our period of residence in Maryland was broken for four years between 1976 and

1980 when I was transferred to the Bank mission in Thailand, where our girls continued their education at the American International School in Bangkok, and from

which my eldest daughter graduated in 1980. It is quite possible that I may be

transferred to a Bank mission in another foreign country in the next two or three

years, then return again to Washington where I am likely to continue working at

Bank Headquarters until my retirement in 1989.

Despite our frequent moves from country to country and the fact that my wife

and I are Malaysian and British nationals respectively, we now look upon our residence in Chevy Chase as home, and our girls are indistinguishable from young

Americans of their age.

Our eldest daughter will finish her higher education in 1984 and will be closely

followed by her sisters a few years later. We are already concerned about her career

prospects and are banking heavily on the passage of the G-IV Children's Coalition

Bill before that date.

97-870 0•8
102

My two children came to America when I joined the World Bank 11 years ago.

They were 2V2 years and 5 months old respectively. They have lived in America continuously since except for five visits of about one month each to their home country.

For the past nine years, my children have attended American schools. In keeping

with the long tradition of this schooling system, my children have been absorbed

into the American way of life without regard to their country of origin and now feel

and act as if they were citizens, like their fellow class members. In fact, when we

return to our home country they hold themselves out and are regarded as Americans. When I informed them of their present status as G-IV visa holders, they fail

to comprehend the significance. This attitude has made me very concerned about

their future prospects, as it would have a devastating effect on them if, after completing their education in the U.S., they have no option but to return to their home

country•a country they now regard as foreign.

In an endeavor to resolve this problem, three years ago I made enquiries with

three boarding schools in the home country but the schools were reluctant to accept

my child stating that they would not like to be responsible for children whose parents were residing abroad. In addition, they advised against sending children to a

boarding school in the home country as, in their experience, leaves home at this

critical stage compounded by the cultural changes was likely to have traumatic effects on the children's development.

I understand that my children will not be eligible to enter university in the home

country as admittance is based on a national examination's results for which my

children will not be prepared.

My son came over with my wife and I when I joined the Bank in 1967, and spent

his last year of schooling in this couintry in 1967-8. He then went on to Maryland

University where he completed his degree in economics in 1972. He then proceeded

to try and get a job in this country but managed only temporary appointments as it

proved impossible to obtain employers statements that they could not employ an

American citizen to do this same job. It was not until 1976 that he gave up the unequal contest and decided to return to UK. Before this there was no where for him

to go in UK as my only relative, my father was senile. He died in that year and I

was able to purchase a flat from the proceeds of the sale of his house to which John

could return. However, after nine years in this country he had few contacts in U.K.

as his erstwhile school friends had long since dispersed around the country and the

world. Living on his own in what was by then a strange and lonely environment he

had great difficulty in finding work as most potential employers did not know anything of Maryland as a source of a degree in economics.

At Christmas time of 1976, since he had been unsuccessful in finding work and

was very depressed living on his own, we invited him back to spend Xmas with us.

You can imagine our concern when the US Consulate in London refused him a visa!

It was not for another two years after he had gotten a job that he was able to get a

visitors visa to visit us once again. My wife actually wrote to President Carter about

this, but of course nothing transpired. We were informed that the consulate had absolute discretion.

I, Niko K, was born in Stuttgart, Federal Republic on Germany or December 14,

1956. In June of 1964 at the age of seven I arrived in the United States, where my

father had accepted an offer to join the World Bank. Shortly after our arrival in

Washington, D.C., my parents purchased a house in McLean, Virginia, in which we

have now been living for over 17 years. I was enrolled in the second grade of the

German School, Washington, D.C., from which I ultimately received my High School

Diploma. Since I wanted to complete my secondary German education, I stayed on

for an additional year and passed the "Abitur" at the top of my class. The "Abitur"

is a comprehensive examination upon whose satisfactory completion one is allowed

to enroll in a German university.

At this point in time I had lived in the United States for 12 years but had also

visited Germany at least every other year. I felt comfortable in my surroundings,

but I was not sure, whether I was more an American or more a German. Having

lived in the United States I decided that studying in Germany would enable me to

make a decision concerning the question of my home country.

In the full of 1976 I enrolled at the University of Mannheim which offers a degree

grogram leading to a "Diplom-Kaufmann" which is approximately equivalent to a

.A. in business administration and economics combined with an MBA. In addition

to my studies I participated actively in campus life. I took karate, lessons in tennis,
103

joined a student organization concerned with university and political issues, and developed a circle of good and hopefully lifelong friends.

Nevertheless, after about two years in Germany it became increasingly evident to

me that I could not identify myself as a German. My values and expectations of life

were markedly different from those of my friends and peers. It became exceedingly

apparent to me that my growing-up in the United States had shaped my beliefs in

more numerous and subtle ways than I had noticed or thought possible. It was at

this time that I made three decisions: First, that I would seek to return to the

United States as soon as possible in order to immigrate; second, that in the future

my professional life would be centered in the United States; and third, that I would

refrain from all semipolitical and political activities I had engaged in in Germany.

Even though I tried to transfer into the American educational system at that

time, this was not feasible because of the very different organization of the American and German educational systems. I thus looked into a university and a program

in the United States, specifically the graduate accounting program of the Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., which I wanted to apply for after completing

my studies at Mannheim. At Mannheim I then concentrated on those academic

courses that I felt would provide a good addition to the Georgetown program.

In May of 1981 I received my degree from Mannheim which in combination with

the very high grades I received would have provided me with very good employment

prospects in Germany. Nevertheless, I accepted Georgetown's offer for enrollment in

the Master's of Science in Accounting program in June of 1981 and have since completed my first semester with very good results (estimated overall GPA above 3.5 on

a scale of 0.0 to 4.0). Ascertaining from several interviews I have had recently my

prospects for employment in the United States are very good provided, however, the

problem of my immigration status can soon be resolved, since my graduation is

scheduled for the end of August of 1982.

In conclusion I would like to express my views concerning the process of "Americanization." This word encompasses far more than only the adoption of a certain

lifestyle. It includes the acceptance of values and an outlook on life that are uniquely American. It also means a person is moved when the flag is raised, when certain

songs are sung, or when words and scenes of the past are remembered. In this sense

I know in my heart and in my mind that I am an American.

I, Gunter K., was born February 16, 1960 in Accra, Ghana. Since my parents initially thought that we would only stay in the United States for a few years, I was

enrolled in the German School in order to keep our ties and to make a relatively

easy transition back to Germany possible. I stayed in the German School from kindergarten all the way through 13th grade and received my High School Diploma

from there.

After successfully having passed the "Abitur" I too, like my brother, could have

gone back to Germany to attend a university. However, contrary to my brother's

thinking at that stage, I was absolutely certain that I wanted to stay in America. I

had lived in this country since the age of four and had acquired many of the American values and standards. Since my education, however, had primarily taken place

in a semi-German environment, i.e. in the German School, Washington, D.C., I decided to attend the George Washington University in order to become fully integrated into the American system.

In summary, I came to this country at such a young age that, I believe, it would

be very difficult for me to adjust to a totally German environment. I may speak the

language fluently, but I nevertheless feel like a foreigner when in Germany and

somehow out of place. I simply am an American and not a German and therefore

consider America my true home.

When I joined the IMF in August 1962 my family comprised my wife, a son (born

March 12, 1955), a daughter (born December 29, 1956), and a son (born June 22,

1961), all five of us native born New Zealanders.

My elder son, influenced to some extent by the expected future situation regarding his visa status and inability to work in the U.S., returned to New Zealand about

seven years ago to pursue university studies and has remained there since. He married a fellow New Zealander early in 1978 and now resides in Auckland, New Zealand, where he is employed by the New Zealand subsidiary of a major international

oil company. He and my daughter-in-law visited us here last year and without much

hope explored the possibility of finding a legal way to stay and work. A neighbor,

Mr. Clark Clifford, kindly made inquiries on their behalf and found that there was
104

no such possibility. Accordingly, they returned to New Zealand. My elder son still

entertains some hope of rejoining the rest of his family here but his situation is no

longer as serious as it once was.

My daughter, after graduating from high school in Montgomery County, attended

a college in Florida and after completing an associate degreee she shortly thereafter

met and married in late 1977 a native born American. A baby daughter was born in

June 1981 and the family resides in Florida. My younger son, now aged 20, returned

from boarding school in New Zealand where he was not too happy and spent his

senior year at high school in Montgomery County. He is at present a student at

Montgomery College and is now facing the same problem his elder brother had to

confront. In his case, the problem is accentuated by the fact that except for four

years at boarding school in New Zealand he has lived and been educated in the U.S.

since he was 15 months old and regards Bethesda, Maryland as his home. He is well

integrated in our local community with a number of friends dating back to his kindergarten days here.

Obviously, as time passes problems which arise have to be dealt with; our problems as regards G-IV visas have been dealt with by the dispersion of my family

during years when I was not in a personal position to leave my employment with

the IMF. The problem remains acute for my younger son who realizes that as soon

as his education is completed he will have to seek his future in his country of birth.

I would add that this year I will reach the age of 55 and the possibility of early

retirement allows my wife and I to contemplate having to re-establish ourselves in

our country of birth in order to be close to our sons. We are resigned to the fact

that, in a certain sense, we have "lost" our daughter.

In the case of my family, the problems have been not only the dispersion of the

family and the relatively long periods which elapse between visits but also the

knowledge that my children had relatively few options growing up in one country

that, other than in very exceptional circumstances, they would have to leave in due

course whether they wanted to or not. This has been a heavy and unantiicpated cost

of international public service. If not so much for my own sake as for the sake of

other, younger families confronting the same issues, I would, therefore, very much

hope that S. 1998 would be enacted by the U.S. Congress.

Mr. P.: Worked for 2 years in the United Nations, Geneva, and the last 7 years in

the World Bank, Washington, D.C. Present position: senior transport economist.

Earlier the P. family lived in India. In addition to the two daughters whose case

history is given below, Mr. and Mrs. P. have a son (3 years), born in U.S. and hence

having right of citizenship in the U.S. The P. family owns a house in Springfield,

Virginia, where they have lived for the last 6 years. Mr. P. has an indefinite tenure

with the World Bank, which can extend tc another 18 years.

Sunithi P., daugher, 16 years in January 1982: Sunithi studied 2 years in India, 1

year in Geneva, and the last 7 years in U.S. public schools. She is in the 11th grade

in West Springfield High School. She was member of the National Junior Honour

Society in grades 9 and 10, and is member of the National Honour Society in the

11th grade. She has worked as a volunteer helper in the Fairfax Hospital for 3

months. She has learned English, French and is learning Latin. She can understand

and speak Malayalam, her mother tongue, but cannot read or write it, while Hindi,

the national language of India, is as yet a foreign language for her. Sunithi proposes

to pursue university education in this country in computer sciences; partly such

choice of specialization is guided by possibility of sponsorship for immigration, since

this field appears to have shortage of personnel in the U.S.

Sunithi's problem is: what will be her future status in this country? She cannot

work here, or live here after marriage. She can go back to India, but will have disadvantage in facing competition there because of her lack of knowledge of Indian

languages. She also expects difficulty in social and economic adjustments. Uncertainty about her future is a major for her and for her parents.

Veena P. (daughter, 9 years): After age one, Veena spent all her eight years

abroad: one year in Switerland and 7 years in U.S. She has virtually grown up in

this country, studying here from nursery and pre-school, and is now in grade IV in

the Cardinal Forest Elementary School in Springfield, Virginia. She has been scoring A-B grades in her subjects.

Veena has visited India for a total of only 5 months spread over the last 8 years.

For 2 years she attended the India school in Washington every Sunday to learn

Hindi. Due to practical difficulties this has been discontinued. She can now understand some spoken Malayalam, (her mother tongue), and speak a little of it but

cannot read or write it. And she has practically no knowledge of Hindi, the national
105

language. There is not chance of her learning these in the near future. As she may

stay in U.S. for, may be, 15 years with her parents, she may grow up not knowing

any Indian languages.

Veena is growing up like an American child, knowing more about this country

and its culture than those of India. It will be a personal tragedy if she has to leave

this wonderful Country, where she has grown up, after a few years and be forced to

adapt herself to conditions in India, which for her is essentially a foreign country.

The following case illustrates the difficulties facing foreign families residing in

this country under the GIV visa status.

The case is that of a French expert who joined the World Bank in October 1970

with his wife and four children of respectively 18, 15, 12 and 5. After eleven years of

continuous service in the World Bank and residence in the US, the staff member

has recently decided to accept another position outside of the institution and plans

to leave the country in the near future.

Out of his four children, the youngest (now 16) has had her entire schooling

within American public or private schools and consequently is not totally Americanized. She plans to go to college and would like, afterwards, to stay and work in the

US but, under the currently prevailing legislation, is prevented from doing so.

The other daughter (now 24) graduated from high school and then from college in

Washington. She did not want to return to France where she does not have roots

any more and decided to take a job in a technologically advanced sector to support

herself, hoping that the then pending legislation would allow her to regularize her

status shortly.

The second son (now 26) after graduating from high school in Washington and not

wanting to go to college decided to go back to France to take a job, not being allowed to work here in spite of his desire to do so.

The eldest son (now 29), after graduating from college in 1977 is now a full time

graduate student pursuing a doctoral degree in Maths with the help of a fellowship.

The desire of the two adult children now living in Washington is to be able to

remain here after the departure of their parents and to be able to work legally.

They have gained their high level skills in the US and are totally impregnated with

the American culture. They are fully integrated in this community and a total

change in their environment that would result from their having to leave the country would greatly disturb their beginning a active life, whereas in their own spheres

they are considered by their US friends and colleagues as bringing a valuable contribution to society.

Clara A.: I was born in Bogota, Colombia, South America the 17th of December

1961. Later brought to the United States the 6th of April 1971 with my family, because my dad was transferred here on a G-4 visa with the Organization of American States. We have lived in Virginia for almost 11 years and this country has

become our country. We speak English better than our native language. Many problems arise after we graduate from high school. Not only because of the language but

also the customs of our native country and the way of life. The education is different here than in any other country. Is hard for us to go back to a country where we

were not raised and the whole system is different.

In my case, I started elementary school in September of 1971 at Blessed Sacrament School. In the middle of the year I was transfered to John Tyler Elementary

School in Alexandria. I started junior high school Oliver Wendell Intermediate

School, in 1974. Finally, I graduated from Thomas Jefferson High School, June 1980.

I went back to Colombia, South America for college and it has been very hard for

me academically. Not only because of the problems I stated above but also it has

been difficult, the seperation from my family because of the great distance. Its also

a task to get ahead in college when you have to study not only the courses required

but also about the country and the language. This causes for me to always run

behind everybody else.

Our situation is very uncomfortable because we have two countries and is like we

don't belong to neither of them. If we had a choice we would rather stay in the

country we were raised.

I hope you consider very carefully our small problems which become very big to

our future and to us.

Thank you for your time and cooperation.

Claudia A.: I was born in Bogota, Colombia, South America on the 8th of February 1966. I was brought to the United States on the 6th of April 1971 with my
106

family because my father was transferred here on a G-4 visa with the Organization

of American States. We have lived in Virginia for almost 11 years and this country

has become our own. We speak English better than our native language, Spanish.

Many problems arise after we graduate from high school. Not only because of the

language but also the customs and the way of life of our native country. The education is different here than in any other country. It is hard for us to go back to a

country where we were not raised and the whole system is different.

I started elementary school in September of 1971 at John Tyler Elementary

School in Alexandria. In 2nd grade I was transfered to Cork Kelly Elementary then

in 3rd grade we moved to Annandale, Virginia and then went to Columbia Elementary. I started Junior High School in 1978 at Oliver Wendell Holmes Intermediate

School and I finished Junior High School at Robert Frost Intermediate School. Finally I started High School at W.T. Woodson High School in 1980 and I am now in

10th grade.

In my case I plan to graduate in 1984 and study Medicine. With a G-4 visa I

cannot do my residence here because I cannot work and get paid with that visa. My

older sister went back to Colombia for College and that has showed me that it would

be very difficult to study in Colombia.

Our situation is uncomfortable because we have two countries and it is like we do

not belong to neither of them. If we had a choice we would rather stay in the country we were raised and where we were educated.

I hope you consider very carefully all of the above. Please help us with our small

problems which become very big to our future and to us.

Thank you for your time and cooperation.

Because of not being a permanent resident, my oldest daughter has been unable

to acquire a good job. Seeing her classmates with the same educational background

working has thrown her into a bad state of depression, and my wife and myself can

only stand by and patiently wait until God provides a solution, such as this initiative taken by the G-4 Coalition to obtain permanent residence.

I have a physically disabled son who is now 30 years old. He has had his physical

rehabilitation here to the extent that he can now walk about in braces and

crutches. He has completed his master's degree in business administration and is

ready to make a career for himself. In the absence of permanent residence, he

cannot get a job here. Going back to his home country will be extremely difficult for

him. For one thing, there are no facilities in his home country for the repair and

maintenance of his prostheses. For another, he will lack the facilities he has here to

lead an independent life, such as driving his own car, as he does now, having an

apartment modified to the needs of the disabled persons, etc. The third reason is

that he has limited opportunities in his home country, and above all he will have to

face a number of prejudices associated with handicapped people. He is depressed

and frustrated that he cannot make a career for himself here, and I am most concerned about his mental health and emotional state. His application to the United

Nations for a job, considering that this is the year of the disabled persons sponsored

by the United Nations, has not had any results so far.

When I joined the World Bank, my wife (A. Solmaz C), also a Turkish national,

and two children (then at 8 and 9) accompanied me. My wife has confined her interests mainly to raising of her family and also to various charity activities (such as

American Red Cross, YMCA, Turkish Women's Association, Religious Women's Association). Both of my children attended U.S. public schools in Washington D.C.

(John Eaton primary, Alice Deal junior high, Wilson high). Both of them subsequently graduated from the Wharton School of Finance in Philadelphia (1968) and

have obtained MBA degrees from the George Washington University in Washington

D.C. (1972). My daughter, A. Mur C, has always had high grades (a cum laude from

the Wharton School of Finance). After her MBA degree, she has completed the

George Washington University course requirements for a PHD degree in economics.

My son, Mehmet G. C, has also been a good student with a broad variety of interests: at the Alice Deal junior high, he was given in 1961 the "Annual Deal Science

Fair Award", while at the Wilson high, he was chosen in 1963 (among many participants from some 850 high schools in the U.S.) for the first prize in "Junior Scholarship Creative Writing". In the following year, he was a finalist in a Washington

area "Voice of Democracy oratory contest", which led to a TV appearance. For
107

1963-64, he was given a "Citation for the National Defence Cadet Decoration

Award"; in 1964, he served as a captain in his high school's ROTC team.

With this educational background and orientation, a logical path for both of my

children would have been to pursue their work careers in the U.S. This would also

have kept our family unity. The existing G-4 visa rules have not allowed it, however. My daughter was fortunate to be able to join the International Monetary Fund

in 1970 as a summer employee. Soon thereafter, she became a research assistant

and, after some years, a professional economist with that international institution.

She now has her own G-4 visa and, as before, we share the same household. My son,

on the other hand, has had serious difficulty in extending his U.S. stay. After the

MBA degree, he had joined the Merrill Lynch Corporation (New York and Washington) as a trainee/account executive (1972) and served until the fall of 1973 under the

training provision of his student visa. Thereafter, he had to part with the rest of the

family to go to Turkey and to pursue his career there. Obviously, for a boy who had

come to the U.S. at the age of 8 and has had his education and training in th is

country (nearly two decades), this has not been an easy and painless task. It can

now be stated that, rather than education my children in the U.S., I could have left

them in Turkey to attend schools there. However, such an alternative would have

had its own (and I believe even more serious) drawbacks: a complete and open-end

split in the family, lack of family care and guidance for the children, missing of an

opportunity to offer to one's children and education superior to what is available at

home, etc. My daughter, while so far spared from the hardships of separation from

the family and a familiar work environment, still remains vulnerable: If she leaves

the Fund s service, she has (under the existing immigration rules) to leave the U.S.

within a month: The fact that she came to the U.S. when she was 9 years old,

stayed here to date some 28 years does not make any difference.

G.: Graduating from community college (now)•master automotive technician, employed with approval from State Dept.; wishes to obtain resident status and live outside GIV visa household.

P.: Student (1984)•mainly educated in U.S.•uncertain of future employment as

biochemist on graduation from university in two years time.

C: Student (June 1982)•graduating from high school after completing all his

schooling outside his country of birth; uncertain of future prospects for employment

in USA even though he is totally "Americanized."

I came to Washington, D.C. to work for the World Bank at the end of 1968. At

that time, I was employed as the General Manager of a Development Finance Company in Nairobi, Kenya and prior to that, I had lived and worked in West and Central Africa. My son Thomas was only eight years old when I came to America and

Washington D.C. has been his home for the whole of his formative life. His early

years in Africa are only a dim memory and he certainly has no prospect of returning to live and work in Africa. Nor would Thomas find it any easier to live and

work in Britain, although both my wife and I are British subjects. He is now Sophomore at Washington and Lee University in Virginia and his background and outlook are, as one would imagine, purely American. I consider that he will be able to

make a real contribution to the life of this country and I very much hope that the

G-iv bill will be enacted so that he may become a Special Immigrant with the right

to live and work in the United States.

In 1976, I was appointed to the IMF and settled in Washington with my wife (both

Dutch-speaking Belgians), my son (aged 10) and daughter (aged 8). Three years later,

when the children were in high school, my wife and myself discussed their future

and were faced with a dilemma. Under our G-IV visa they are allowed to study

here in the US, but after their education they will not be allowed to work. After

that many years in this country they would be considering the US as their home

country and become foreigners to their own country, not even capable of speaking

their original language adequately and unable to get employment there. Thus the

prospects were that, after having received an American education and having

learned to feel like Americans and love this country, they would in a sense be

kicked out once they were ready to work for their living in this country.

Under these circumstances, in an attempt to save them from these problems and

after having kept them here for one more year, my wife and myself after long reflection and deliberation took the hard decision to send both children, then aged 14
108

and 12, to their home country. Since then my wife has been traveling back and

forth as much as possible between the US and Belgium. On balance, however, we

are living like a broken family, which is bad for all of us. It is a painful situation,

but under the present immigration law applicable to G-IV visa holders, there is not

much choice left.

Daughter Clare, now aged 20, came to U.S. aged one and a half years (originally

under my resident alien status•which I was obliged to drop when joining the Bank

Africa in 1972. Graduating in June 1982, she faces the prospect of unemployment.

Clearly, with US qualifications and an acculturation wholly American, she would

find it well nigh impossible to obtain employment in UK given the continuing high

unemployment there•even should she wish to do so. I was not told that my children (or my former wife) could retain their resident alien status.

Bank member: Mr. S., joined Bank February 4, 1963 Died 1981; member's wife:

Mrs. S., entered USA February 4, 1963; member's daughters: J., entered USA February 4, 1963 (not affected); S. (now aged 22), entered USA February 4, 1963; H. (now

aged 19), entered USA February 4, 1963; and L. (now aged 16), born March 12,

1965•U.S. citizen•permanently domiciled in Washington, D.C except for home

leaves (no missions).

Since Mr. S. had worked on the G-4 Coalition, I had heard many "horror stories"

concerning widows and children beyond age of dependence. When the news came in

January 1981 that Mr. S. had died suddenly, one of my first concerns was our

future. I had to tell the Bank almost immediately whether we wished to stay on

here or return to Great Britain•an easy decision for me because L., my U.S. daughter, still had 2 years of High School to complete anyway.

Ms. X. is an excellent lawyer who specializes in visa problems and assures me

that because of L. there is no doubt that my "Application for Suspension of Deportation" will be eventually granted. It may not be as simple for S. (22 years).

Ms. X. is concerned that our home leaves may affect the clause "I have been physically present in the US without any absence since (February 1963)"•also S. spent

October 1976-July 1977 attending University in England. Another factor not in our

favor is that England is an easy, comfortable country to return to "without fear of

persecution."

Incidentally, the amount of work involved in filing these applications (one each

for me, S. and H.) is quite appalling. I have been researching old files trying to

prove our continous physical presence and amassing boxes of school records, dental

records, cancelled checks, leases, Bank-Fund Credit Union quarterly statements,

current and cancelled passports, utility bills, property deeds and titles for the last

7-10 years. I have approached suitable acquaintances for personal references; we

have yet to have passport-type photos taken and to go downtown for a $5 Police Department certificate each.

Mrs. H was married for 37 years, and resided in Virginia for 22 years•before

then about 2 or 3 years in New York when her husband was working for the United

Nations. Mrs. H. has two daughters•S. lives in England, and J. lives in New Jersey

with her American husband and one child. J. is in the process of applying for

American Citizenship.

Mrs. H. was very active in 'Wives' from its beginning. She has organized the Virginia Wives Luncheons for the past 8 years•has welcomed newcomers and organized monthly cooking classes. Mrs. H. and her husband had planned to retire in

this country, applying for citizenship nearer to his retirement.

When husband died, Mrs. H. was assured, unofficially, that she would have at

least six months to settle affairs etc. Within 6-7 weeks her G-IV visa had been

withdrawn and she was obliged to return to England, with absolutely no guarantee

that she would be allowed to return, leaving behind her home, her family, her belongings and many long standing friends.

Mrs. H. will now be receiving two pensions, one from the British Government and

one from the World Bank•so financially she is secure and would be well able to

keep herself in this country.

Mr. T.: United Kingdom National by birth, Economist. Left United Kingdom 1948

for service in Central Africa. Economic Advisor to Prime Minister of Federation of

Rhodesia and Nyasaland 1953-60. Joined Bank May 1960•Bank seeking services of

professionals with Africa experience.
109

Children born in Africa: youngest (C.) months before coming to Washington. C.

(now 21 and still a student) brought up with children of American neighbors in

Forest Hills in house we lived in and owned from December 1960. Has attended successively Murch and National Cathedral School in D.C. before becoming a student

in United Kingdom. Being brought up from a few months old in United States and

entirely in one part of D.C. has her background here and naturally counts to live

here.

Having lived outside United Kingdom from 1948 and in United States since 1960

we have come to regard the United States as our home.

Since retiring from Bank in middle of 1979 I have been working from time to time

as Bank consultant. We still have property here and have been looking at property

in Florida and would like to settle down.

With Bank pension and property here would not be a charge on the state and my

wife and I applied for immigrant status before I retired from the Bank. I have been

informed that all the necessary investigations were completed but, with no relatives

in the United States, we were put in the N. P. category, which is inactive, and there

is little chance of an immigrant visa being granted in the near future. We were notified that our base date for the N. P. list was in February 1979.

Mr. X, a United Kingdom national born in 1918, joined the Bank in 1956 at the

age of 37. He is due to retire in 1983 at the age of 65 when he will have completed

nearly 28 years of continuous service with the Bank in Washington. A bachelor

when he came to Washington, Mr. X married a national of Argentina in 1965. They

have one son, born in Washington in 1966, who has lived all his life in the United

States, is a United States citizen and has just completed his first year of high school

in the Washington area. When Mr. X retires, his son will be 17 years old and still in

high school.

Mr. X has no close relatives in the United Kingdom; he was an only child and his

parents are both dead. Since joining the Bank in 1956 he has never spent more than

4 weeks consecutively in the United Kingdom (or more than 6 weeks in any one

year); he has no home there, and neither his wife nor his child has ever lived there.

Mr. X owns a house in Washington in which the family have lived since 1966. He

pays property tax on this house and U.S. and District income tax on interest and

dividends earned on accumulated savings. When he retires, he will receive a pension

from the Bank in excess of $40,000 a year and will thus be fully able to support

himself and his family. His son is financially dependent on him and will remain so

until he has completed his education. If Mr. X were not to be allowed to remain in

the United States after retirement, his son, although a U.S. citizen, would in effect

be expelled from the country since he would have nowhere to live and no other relatives to look after him.

Back in 1953, when I came to the United States as a regular immigrant, I did it

knowing that I was going to stay for good and be happy, even though I did not know

anybody here. Through my readings I had learned enough about the country, and

the fact that I severed my connections in Argentina shows that I was firmly decided

to stay here permanently.

With mixed feelings I resigned to my job with the Standard Oil (I enjoyed it very

much and I still keep in touch with many of my superiors and co-workers), but the

Company wanted me to stay with them and offered me a job in New York which I

turned down because I had been corresponding with a counselor at UCLA and I

was planning to go there to pursue my studies in child psychology. When I arrived

here I was late for that semester and decided to stay for a while in Washington, got

a temporary job at the OAS (then Pan American Union), and somehow got sidetracked and as I loved the type of work I was doing when I was asked to take a

permanent job, I accepted.

Even though the OAS gave me a free trip to Argentina every two years, I have

not taken it since 1973. Instead, I used my vacations to explore several areas of the

country to decide on which to retire and I picked California•good weather, artistic

and intellectual activities, facilities for older people in all Colleges and Universities.

But even in those days when I took advantage of the trip to Argentina, I managed

to use my vacation time wisely, traveling around the US, stopping here and there,

to know better "my new country" and learn more about its history and its people.

Unfortunately my job has been very demanding and I had to study very hard to

make a career at the OAS, so I never had much time for extracurricular activities

and could not get involved in community affairs as I had done before; I even ne-
110

glected my music and painting, which I love. But if I can materialize my dream I

will do all that in California, where I have already made inquiries and there are

several agencies that would welcome me as a volunteer to help with the Spanishspeaking population. I enjoy working with people and I know I can do a good job, as

I did for the Argentinian Red Cross, where I served as a medical secretary, assistant

nurse, and kindergarten teacher. I also taught evening classes for workers, giving

instruction in language, nutrition, and arts and crafts, and I know I can do all that

again and do it well.

Contrary to the usual behaviour of most immigrants, I did not mix with the Argentinian community here; I considered the U.S. my new country and my acculturation came first. So, being forced to go back now and leave behind all my ties, dreams

and beliefs would be very, very hard. I have heard many arguments in favor of the

children of the G-IVs pointing out their difficult situation, but we older people also

suffer a great trauma, at least the ones like me who fell in love with this country,

and it is harder for us, because even if we are optimistic we realize we cannot start

all over again: we do not have much time left.

My wife, Eleonore K. (born 1928), and I, Helmut K. (born 1919) arrived with our

two children in the United States in June of 1964. Both of us were born and raised

in Germany. As in our two previous engagements abroad we expected to stay for

approximately five years. To facilitate their reintegration into the German school

system, we sent our two sons to the German School, Washington, D.C. In addition,

the entire family spent every summer during the first four years and since 1968

every second summer in Germany in order to sustain our ties with our home country.

Due to our almost 18 years of residence, in the house we bought in 1964, we have

also developed strong roots in this country. We enjoy an excellent relationship with

our neighbors, many of whom have lived in our neighborhood for more than 10

years. We have established friendships, which we hope will last for a long time to

come, not only with many fellow employees in the World Bank but, in particular,

with several members of our community. My wife actively participates in our neighborhood citizens' patrol and in a German Study Group consisting of American ladies

who are mostly wives of employees or previous employees of the American Foreign

Service. I, myself, have served first as a member and since more than two years as

Vice-President of the Council to the German Lutheran Church, Washington, Maryland Synod LCA. In my professional work I have now held for four years the position of Construction Industry Adviser, which is the top professional position for the

development of the domestic construction industries of Third World countries in the

World Bank. In this context I have established extensive professional contacts in the

construction industry world and had the chance, for example, to give a special presentation to the 1981 convention, of The American Society of Civil Engineers.

Our financial situation would enable us to support ourselves and, if necessary, our

sons adequately on the basis of my salary or, in two years, of my flexible pension

from the World Bank and the inflation-adjusted monthly payments from the

German Employees Insurance, our real estate holdings in Germany, and our U.S.

real estate and bonds, which we acquired with funds transferred from Germany

since 1964.

Finally, I wish to state that my wife and I are still very proud of our German

heritage and we hope that our sons will maintain an appreciation for the country of

their forefathers. However, because of our son's firm commitment to stay in this

country, we too hope to be able to maintain a residency in the United States.

I joined the World Bank staff in June 1954, at which time I acquired a G-IV visa.

I have lived in Washington ever since that time, going to my native England on

home leave during this period. I retired in July 1980.

As you can imagine, having lived here for many years I have made many friends

and feel very much at home in this country, and would very much like to continue

to live here. It would, in fact, for personal reasons, be a hardsip for me now to have

to leave and return to England to live. I do, of course, enjoy visiting my home country from time to time, something I cannot do at present, lacking the proper visa.

I would also very much like to become an American Citizen as I have come to love

this country and its people. This I cannot do without first acquiring an immigrant

visa. There is, I understand, also, a wait of another five years before I would be able
Ill

to apply for American citizenship, having lived here during my stay with the World

Bank under the umbrella of a G-IV visa.

C: I am a single person. I have spent the greater part of my life in the United

States•34 years•and I have long considered this my "home." My links with my

home country have become more tenuous over the past years, especially since both

my parents and my only sibling are now deceased.

B.: Having served the United Nations for the past 26 years, over 18 of which have

been spent in New York, it would be most distressing for me (as a single person) to

have to return to my home country and start life afresh. I have no property there.

My capital is maintained entirely in the United States. I now regard New York as

my home and have developed a great affection for the American people and the

American way of life. All my friends are here. By virtue of my absence for so long

from my home country, I have very few contacts except for a very small family. It

would, indeed, be a traumatic experience for met to leave this country and find a

place to live in my home country, particularly at my age.

As a Turkish national, I joined the World Bank in February 1954 and served 26

years in various capacities until retirement in November 1980. At the time of my

joining, I was 36 years old, with nearly 14 years of service with the Turkish Ministry of Finance in Ankara. My last job with the Ministry was as Assistant DirectorGeneral of the Treasury. At the World Bank, I occupied loan officer, economist, and

division chief positions in various Area/Program departments, and assistant-to-director/deputy director positions in various Program and Projects departments. My

home, which I own, is in Bethesda, MD; practially all of our family savings are in

the U.S. after the retirement, I continued serving the World Bank as a part time

consultant. Since 1954, I hold a G-4 visa which is subject to renewal every year. My

application to the U.S. authorities in 1978 for a resident visa has not been fruitful.

Now that I am retired after some 40 years of public service in Turkey and the

U.S. and am able to maintain my modest standard of living without having to work

for it, I find myself in a dilemma: should I cease to be a consultant to the World

Bank, my wife and I would have to close our home here and leave the U.S. within a

month, to part from our daughter and friends. After 28 years of absence, establishing a new home and cultivating of new friendships in Turkey would be very difficult. Furthermore, residents are allowed to visit abroad once every three years•a

factor which would hamper us from seeing our daughter. In our fairly advanced

ages, my wife and I naturally prefer to spend our remaining years together with our

daughter and close to our friends.

After a legal separation in 1973 from my Italian husband, employed by the IBRD

since 1969, I tried separately for two years to find a full-time job and a visa in my

own right. My training as a linguist was not at all easy to market in the Washington area where a "native speaker" always seems to be preferred in any language. I

was limited to take part-time jobs as a language instructor and free-lance translator.

Any hopeful American employer, however enthusiastic about my qualifications, was

immediately discouraged when the question of my visa was raised.

My husband was all the time pressing for a divorce, but my contacts at the Department of Immigration as well as the Swedish Embassy warned me repeatedly not

to obtain a divorce until my visa situation was regularized. Otherwise, I would even

run the risk of being deported. My situation was further complicated by the fact

that my two children, Italian citizens who do not speak any Swedish at all, cannot

obtain a Swedish citizenship until after seven years of residcence in my country.

Consequently, we were "stranded" in Washington for some years ahead.

Finally, in 1975 the IMF employed me in a low-level, clerical position and my visa

problem was thus solved.
112

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD D. ERB

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to submit

for the record background which may be helpful when the Committee

considers the proposed legislation "International Organizations

Staffs' Children, Survivors, and Retirees Act of 1981," (S. 1998).

I am not an expert on immigration policy per se and defer to

the representatives of the State Department and INS on the

immigration policy issues involved in the proposed legislation.

However, I would like to take a few minutes to provide the

Subcommittee some background on the impact of current U.S.

immigration laws on the employees and employment practices

of the Washington based international financial institutions

(IFIs). These institutions include the International Monetary

Fund, the World Bank, and the Inter-American Development Bank.

Although the proposed legislation covers a number of

international organizations, it is of special significance to

the three institutions I cited above. The reason for this can

be found in the staffing patterns and employment policies of

the IFIs. I will shortly discuss these unique employment

characteristics, but first I would like to briefly describe

the primary functions of these institutions and the U.S.

interests they serve.

Formed at the end of World War II, they are technical

financial institutions established to promote economic growth

and a stable and open international monetary system. The

United States played a key role in the formation of these

institutions and successive administrations strongly supported

them. At last year's annual meeting of the IMF and World Bank,

President Reagan and Secretary Regan reaffirmed that support.

At the same time, the Administration has been working within

the institutions to reemphasize policies designed to promote

growth, price stability, economic efficiency, and more open

international markets.

The International Monetary Fund, with 143 member countries,

performs a number of functions as the world's central official

monetary institutions. The IMF provides a forum and legal

framework for governments to consult and cooperate on the

structure and functioning of the international monetary system.

The Fund also provides a forum and framework for monitoring,

under its surveillance responsibilities, the exchange arrangements and policies of member governments. The IMF is also

charged with reviewing the adequacy of international liquidity

and supplementing reserves when necessary by the allocation of

Special Drawing Rights (SDRs). Finally, the IMF provides

technical assistance and temporary balance of payments financing

to members conditioned on implementation of economic policy

measures to correct their balance of payments problems.

The World Bank is an official development finance institution which lends over ¥13 billion a year. It also has over

140 member countries. The Inter-American Development (IDB)

performs a similar role in Latin America, lending approximately

S2.3 billion per year. Forty-two countries are members of

this organize'.•• 5r. including all the regional countries and

the major developed countries (except Cuba).

Each of these institutions performs its functions under

the policy direction of an Executive Board consisting of representatives of member countries. Executive Board decisions are

based on weighted votes, with the United States holding the

largest share of votes in each institution. The staffs of
113

these institutions must then execute those policies, and their

nob is not easy. For example, as a condition for temporary

access to IMF financial resources, the Executive Board requires

borrowing countries to adopt policies that will eliminate their

external payments imbalances. Not only is it the responsibility

of the Fund staff to work with member governments to make the

technical determination of what policies are necessary to promote

balance of payments adjustment, but it is also the responsibility

of the staff to persuade a government to adopt and implement

those policy adjustments. Thus, staff members must not only

possess technical skills but also diplomatic talent. Given the

range of functions performed by the IMF, I could easily provide

other examples of the demands made of this staff.

Although the IFIs are engaged in a wide range of activities,

the size of the staffs are relatively small. The IMF has a

staff of around 1,500 with about 1,100 of whom are drawn from

about 120 different countries other than the U.S. The World

Bank and the IDB have staff of over 5,500 and 1,500 respectively,

of which the non-American components account for about 4,000 and

1,300 respectively.

Given my experience as an Executive Director in the Fund,

I can personally confirm that successful execution of policies

of the Executive Boards requires a highly professional staff

drawn from a broad spectrum of countries and responsible to

their respective institutions and not their countries of origin.

These characteristics are so fundamental to the performance of

the institutions that they are specifically cited in the charters

of each institution. As set down in the Articles of Agreement

of the IMF, for example, members of the Fund staff "shall owe

their duty entirely to the Fund and to no other authorities.

Each member of the Fund shall respect the international character

of this duty and shall refrain from all attempts to influence

any of the staff in the discharge of their functions." With

respect to hiring practices, the IMF Articles of Agreement

specifies that when appointing members of the staff, the management "shall, subject to the paramount importance of securing the

highest standards of efficiency and of technical competence, pay

due regard to the importance of recruiting personnal on as wide a

geographical basis as possible."

Given the importance of technical competence and allegiance

to the institution, the international financial institutions

prefer to follow a long-term career policy by recruiting individuals in the early stage of their professional careers and then

promoting from within. As a consequence, many staff members spend

twenty or more years of their working lives in the United States.

Thus, it should not be surprising that many staff members and

their immediate families develop extensive roots here. As a

consequence, some staff members and their immediate families seek

to be admitted as permanent immigrants.

Until recently, U.S. immigration laws provided such individuals the opportunity to obtain a permanent resident visa status.

Changes in U.S. immigration laws during the last few years, however,

have had the effect of closing off or limiting such opportunities.

As a consequence many families are being hurt.

Under present law, employees of international organizations

and certain members of their immediate families with G-IV visas,

are generally prevented from remaining in the United States once

the principal holder no longer qualifies for the G-IV category•

either through retirement or death. In the latter instance, the

impact on a surviving spouse and children of an enforced return to

their country after a lengthy residence is, to say the least,

wrenching.
114

In other circumstances, children often experience particularly

harsh problems resulting from their lost G-IV status and their

present inability in general to qualify independently for permanent

status. After significant residence and educational training in

the United States, many encounter difficulty in adjusting to life

in their home country and find themselves at a disadvantage when

seeking employment there. The present law also can cause a separation

between those children born in the United States and those born

abroad. Finally, even when a retiring non-U.S. staff member of

an international organization, after having served many years in

the United States, wishes to remain in this country, the present

restrictions in the immigration laws generally preclude continued

residency here.

Not only are individuals being affected, but also the IFIs.

The latter now find that increasing numbers of their expatriate

staff are being forced early on to choose between continuing

their careers here or returning home to avoid an undesired

break-up in their families or dislocation problems at the end of

their careers. As a result, the institutions may lose some of

the continuity and institutional experience that any organization

enjoys when many employees concentrate their careers in the

institution.

In sum, rigidities in our current immigration laws not

only cause individual staff members and their families hardship,

but also weaken the traditional employment policies and practices

of the Washington based international financial institutions.

When considering the proposed legislation S.1998, I hope that

the Committee will take into account the contributions that

these institutions make to U.S. interests and the detrimental

impact of our current immigration laws on their employment

practices.

o