April 11, 1977

Section 212(a)(27) of the Immigration and

Nationality Act—Exclusion of Certain Aliens—

Rhodesia

77-20 MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE

COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION AND

NATURALIZATION

This is in response to your request for our opinion concerning the 

scope of Section 212(a)(27) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 

U.S.C. § 1182(a)(27). That provision makes ineligible for visas and excludes from admission into the United States:

Aliens who the consular officer or the Attorney General knows or 

has reason to believe seek to enter the United States solely, principally, or incidentally to engage in activities which would be prejudicial to the public interest, or endanger the welfare, safety, or 

security of the United States.

In the fall of 1975, six Southern Rhodesian aliens sought to enter the 

United States to attend a conference of the International Federation of 

Agricultural Producers in Washington, D.C. The six apparently would 

have been traveling on British passports. The Department of State 

identified the six aliens as officials of the National Farmers’ Union of 

Southern Rhodesia, an organization of private farmers that seeks to 

promote export sales of agricultural commodities grown in Southern 

Rhodesia and cooperates closely with the existing government of that 

country. The Department o f State determined that, in attending the 

meeting of the International Federation of Agricultural Producers, the 

aliens would have sought to promote the foreign sale of agricultural 

commodities grown in Southern Rhodesia. We understand that the six 

Rhodesian aliens were excluded from the United States under Section 

212(a)(27) on the basis of the State Department’s determination.

The legal validity of the exclusion was subsequently questioned by a 

Member of Congress, who took the position that Section 212(a)(27) 

applies only to subversives. Because of renewed interest in the scope of 

Section 212(a)(27) and the continuing existence of United Nations sanc64
tions against Southern Rhodesia, we believe it is useful to convey our 

opinion on the subject at this time and to do so with some reference to 

the Rhodesian situation.

It is our opinion that potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences may properly be taken into account in determining whether an 

alien is ineligible for a visa and hence inadmissible into the United 

States. We therefore agree that given the findings of the Department of 

State, the aliens who sought to attend the conference in 1975 were 

inadmissible under Section 212(a)(27). We also are of the opinion that 

otherwise innocuous activities in the United States may give rise to 

inadmissibility under that provision in certain circumstances.

I

As we understand the policies and practices of the National Farmers’ 

Union, the entry of officials of that organization into the United States 

to attend the conference and their activities at the conference would 

have violated sections 3(b) and 5(b) of the United Nations Security 

Council Resolution 253 of May 29, 1968. Section 3(b) thereof provides 

that Member States “shall prevent . . . [a]ny activities by their nationals or in their territories which would promote or are calculated to 

promote the export of any commodities or products from Southern 

Rhodesia . . . .” Section 5(b) directs Member States to “[t]ake all 

possible measures to prevent the entry into their territories of persons 

whom they have reason to believe to be ordinarily resident in Southern 

Rhodesia and whom they have reason to believe to have furthered or 

encouraged, or to be likely to further or encourage, the unlawful 

actions of the illegal regime in Southern Rhodesia . ...”1

Congress has authorized the President to issue orders, rules, and 

regulations to provide for the domestic enforcement of United Nations 

sanctions, and has established criminal penalties for persons subject to 

the jurisdiction of the United States who violate such orders, rules, and 

regulations. See 22 U.S.C. § 287c. Section 1(b) of Executive Order No. 

11419, 3 CFR 737 (1966-1970 Compilation), which was issued to implement Security Council Resolution 253, prohibits any person subject to 

the jurisdiction of the United States from engaging in activities that 

would promote the export of any commodities or products originating 

in Southern Rhodesia. Thus, the representatives of the National Farmers’ Union would have committed a criminal offense if, as the Depart1 Section 5(a) o f Resolution 253 directs all Member States to prevent the entry into 

their territories, save on exceptional humanitarian grounds, o f any person traveling on a 

Southern Rhodesian passport. Section 5(a) is not implicated in the present situation 

because the Rhodesian nationals w ere traveling on British passports. W e have been 

informed that it has been the policy o f the D epartm ent o f State from the beginning that 

the regime does not constitute “com petent authority" for the issuance o f passports within 

the meaning o f § 101(a)(30) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and that travel 

documents issued by the regime therefore do not meet the requirements for entry 

contained in § 101(a)(26). As a result, there is no need to rely on § 212(a)(27) in excluding 

aliens traveling on Rhodesian passports.

65
ment of State predicted, they had sought to promote the export of 

Rhodesian agricultural products while they were attending the conference. It would seem that activities that are prohibited by a Security 

Council Resolution, an Executive order issued to conform this Nation’s 

foreign policy to that Resolution, and a criminal statute designed to 

enforce such Executive orders, must surely be regarded as “activities 

which would be prejudicial to the public interest, or endanger the 

welfare, safety, or security o f the United States” within the meaning of 

Section 212(a)(27). But we do not believe that the Resolution, the 

Executive order, and the attendant criminal sanctions are essential to 

our conclusion that the Rhodesian nationals were properly excluded 

under Section 212(a)(27).

Executive Order No. 11419 does not speak directly to the requirement in Security Council Resolution 253 that Member States prevent 

the entry of Rhodesian residents who there is reason to believe have 

furthered or encouraged or would be likely to further or encourage 

“the unlawful actions” of the present regime in Southern Rhodesia. 

This omission from the Executive order was deliberate. The Department of State and this Department took the position that no additional 

authorization was needed in order to implement this aspect of the 

Security Council Resolution because the Rhodesian aliens in question 

would be excluded from entry under the Immigration and Nationality 

Act. A memorandum prepared by this Office in 1968 and forwarded to 

the White House with the proposed order stated:

Certain other requirements of the Security Council Resolution 

have been omitted from the proposed order on the basis that they 

can be put into effect on the part of the United States by the 

responsible agencies under existing authority. Thus, the requirements to exclude from Member States persons traveling on Rhodesian passports[2] and to “take all possible measures” to exclude 

certain persons ordinarily residing in Southern Rhodesia are to be 

implemented by the Departments of State and Justice in accordance with the Immigration and Nationality Act.

The letter of transmittal from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal 

Counsel to the President was to the same effect.3 Therefore, this Department, the Department o f State, and the President fully expected 

that the Immigration and Nationality Act would, of its own force, 

prevent the entry of Rhodesian aliens who might engage in activities in 

this country that would further and encourage the unlawful actions of 

the regime in Southern Rhodesia and thereby adversely affect the

3 See footnote 1.

3 T h e function o f reviewing Executive orders as to form and legality has been delegated by the A ttorney G eneral to the Office of Legal Counsel. 28 C FR § 0.25(b).

66
Nation’s foreign relations.4 Section 212(a)(27) was not specifically mentioned in the various letters and memorandums written in 1968, but its 

grounds for exclusion are the only ones contained in Section 212(a)(27) 

that could have been thought to be applicable to the Rhodesian situation.

The conclusion reached by the Administration in 1968 finds support 

in the text of Section 212(a)(27), its legislative history, and administrative interpretation. Its language is clearly not limited in its application 

to aliens posing a threat to internal security, as has been suggested. 

Activities by aliens that could have potentially serious adverse effects 

on the Nation’s foreign policy can quite reasonably be characterized 

either as “prejudicial to the public interest” or likely to “endanger 

the . . . security of the United States” within the meaning of the 

provision.5

It is true that the elements of legislative history relating directly to 

the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act in 1952 can be read 

as limiting application of Section 212(a)(27) to internal security cases. 

For example, the House and Senate reports describe the provision in 

identical language, indicating that it and subparagraphs (28) and (29) 

merely “incorporate the provisions of Section 1 of the Act of October 

16, 1918, as amended by Section 22 of the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950, 64 Stat. 987, relating to the exclusion of subversives.” 

S. Rep. No. 1137, 82d Cong., 2d Sess. 10 (1952); H. Rep. No. 1365, 82d 

Cong., 2d Sess. 49 (1952). However, because the language of Section 

212(a)(27) was taken almost verbatim' from §22 of the Subversive 

Activities Control Act of 1950, 64 Stat. 987, 1006,6 it is necessary to 

consult as well the legislative history of that earlier Act, which clearly 

sustains the current position of the Service and the State Department.

While Congress’ immediate focus in creating additional categories of 

excludable aliens in 1950 was also directed to persons who could be 

characterized as “subversives,” see, e.g„ S. Rep. No. 2230, 81st Cong.,

4 It would seem from the account in the text that in 1968 the Adm inistration was also 

o f the view that § 212(a)(27) w ould operate to bar the admission of aliens w ho had in the 

past furthered o r encouraged the actions o f the illegal regime in Southern Rhodesia, 

regardless o f the nature of the specific activities in which they proposed to engage while 

in the country. W e believe that there is considerable support for this view, see Part II, 

infra, but there was no need to rely upon it in excluding the aliens in view o f the specific 

activities in w hich they intended to engage after entering the country.

5 The term “national security” is often used to include considerations of both national 

defense and foreign policy. See, e.g., Executive O rder No. 11652, § 1, 3 C FR §§678, 679 

(1971-1975 Compilation). The phrase “security of the United States” may be construed in 

a similar fashion.

• The only difference betw een the tw o provisions is that the relevant portion of § 22 o f 

the 1950 A ct did not contain the reference in Section 212(a)(27) to the “security” of the 

United States.

67
2d Sess. 16-28 (1950),7 §22 o f the Subversive Activities Control Act of 

1950 as passed swept much more broadly. Congress’ choice of language 

is instructive, particularly its use of the phrase “prejudicial to the public 

interest.” That phrase had a well-settled administrative interpretation in 

1950. Under the Act of May 22, 1918, 40 Stat. 559, as amended by the 

Act of June 21, 1941, 55 Stat. 252, the President was authorized to 

impose additional restrictions on the entry of persons into the United 

States during times of war or national emergency. In Proclamation 

2523, 3 CFR 270 (1938-1943 Compilation), issued November 14, 1941, 

the President found such additional restrictions to be necessary and 

declared that an alien would not be permitted to enter if his entry 

would be “prejudicial to the interests of the United States,” as provided 

in regulations to be promulgated by the Secretary of State in consultation with the Attorney General. Under the regulations that were promulgated, no entry permit could be issued to any alien “if the permitissuing authority [had] reason to believe that the entry of the alien 

would be prejudicial to the interests of the United States.” 8 CFR 

§ 175.52(a) (1949 ed.) See, generally, Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 

537, 540-41 (1950); Shaughnessy v. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206, 210-11, and n. 7 

(1953). The 1949 Aliens and Nationality regulations then listed 11 

categories of inadmissible aliens, one of which categories is highly 

relevant here:

§ 175.53 Classes of aliens whose entry is deemed to be prejudicial to

the public interest. The entry of an alien who is within one of the 

following categories shall be deemed to be prejudicial to the interests of the United States . . .

0 $ $ * $ $ $

(b) Any alien who is a member of, affiliated with, or may be 

active in the United States in connection with or on behalf of, a 

political organization associated with or carrying out policies of 

any foreign government opposed to the measures adopted by the 

Government of the United States in the public interest, or in the 

interest of national defense, or in the interest of the common 

defense of the countries of the Western Hemisphere, or in the 

prosecution of the war.

The proclamation and regulations were still in effect in 1950. Knauff v. 

Shaughnessy, supra, 338 U.S. at 546. Thus, when the predecessor to 

Section 212(a)(27) was adopted, aliens who were expected to be active 

in the United States on behalf of organizations that supported countries 

having foreign policy conflicts with the United States, were included 

among those who were inadmissible on the ground that their entry

7 T hat report recommended passage of S. 1832, which was limited in purpose to 

am ending the A ct o f October 16, 1918, to provide, inter alia, for the exclusion of those 

connected w ith Com munist organizations. The substance o f S. 1832 was added by the 

Senate to the House-passed version o f the Subversive Activities Control A ct of 1950, and 

the House later agreed to the addition. See H. Rep. No. 3112, 81st Cong., 2d Sess., at 54 

(1950).

68
would be “prejudicial to the public interest” or “prejudicial to the 

interests of the United States.”

The prohibition in Section 212(a)(27) against the entry of aliens who 

there is reason to believe would engage in activities that would be 

“prejudicial to the public interest” appears to be a direct descendant of 

the Presidential proclamation and regulations. “The chief difference 

. . . is that the operation of this new legislation is not limited to time of 

war or national emergency. Its inhibitions must be enforced at all times 

as part of our permanent legislative pattern.” C. Gordon, “The Immigration Process and National Security,” 24 Temp. L.Q. 302, 306 (1951).

The Senate Report that first proposed what later became § 22 of the 

Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950 (the predecessor of Section 

212(a)(27)), discussed Proclamation 2523 and 8 CFR § 175.53 as part of 

the body of immigration law on which Congress was building. S. Rep. 

No. 2230, 81st Cong., 2d Sess. 22 (1950). The report did not expressly 

refer to subsection (b), quoted above, or any other subsection of 8 CFR 

175.53. But neither did it express disapproval of the broad sweep of 

immigration law then in effect, of which the regulations were a part, or 

indicate an intention to narrow them. The tenor of the legislative 

history is precisely to the contrary.8

Against this background, it is entirely reasonable to infer that, in 

enacting Section 212(a)(27), Congress contemplated that foreign policy 

considerations could play a role in determining whether an alien’s 

activities in the United States would be “prejudicial to the public 

interest.” 8

* For example, tw o Senate reports recommending the amendment finally enacted in 

§ 22 o f the Subversive Activities Control A ct of 1950 described the provision as follows: 

Section 1(1) of the A ct of October 16, 1918, as amended by the bill, is an 

admixture o f existing law and the new provisions o f the bill. U nder existing law, 

among the excludable aliens are certain aliens w ho seek to enter the United States 

whose entry would be prejudicial to the public interest or would endanger the safety 

o f the United States. T he committee has broadened this class of excludable aliens to 

include those aliens w ho seek to enter the United States to engage in activities w hich 

w ould endanger the welfare of the Unites States.

S. Rep. No. 2230, 81st Cong., 2d Sess. 5 (1950); S. Rep. No. 2369, 81st Cong., 2d Sess. 10 

(1950).

Then-existing statutory law only prohibited the entry o f aliens w ho there was reason to 

believe would engage in activities that would endanger the safety of the United States. 

See S. Rep. No. 2230, supra, at 28. The reference in the Senate report to the prohibition 

“[ujnder existing law ” against entries that w ould be “prejudicial to the public interest” 

must therefore have been to Proclamation 2523 and 8 C FR § 175.53. The passages from 

the Senate reports express a purpose to retain and codify the substance of these nonstatutory restrictions.

•T h e Immigration and Naturalization Service analysis of §212(a)(27), w hen the Immigration and Nationality A ct o f 1952 was still in its draft stage, informed the Congress that 

provisions similar to § 2 1 2(a)(27) already appeared in the A ct of May 22, 1918 as 

amended, and Proclamation 2523. U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, R eport 

on S. 716, A Bill to Revise the Law s Relating to Immigration, Naturalization and 

Nationality, at p. 212-24. T he Service did not mention the regulations in its analysis, but 

the reference to the proclamation supports the conclusion that §212(a)(27) may be 

interpreted in light of the grounds for exclusion specified in the regulations implementing 

the proclamation.

69
The administrative interpretation by the Departments of State and 

Justice has been consistent with this reading of the legislative history. 

We are informed that over a number of years, the Department of State 

has applied Section 212(a)(27) in two different types of cases: Cases 

involving a security threat in the narrow sense, such as the entry of 

saboteurs or persons involved in intelligence missions against the United 

States, and cases involving potentially far-reaching adverse effects on 

United States foreign policy. Exclusion of the Rhodesian aliens was 

therefore in keeping with the latter aspect of the State Department’s 

previous application of the section.

The interpretation by the Board of Immigration Appeals is not to the 

contrary. For example, in Matter o f M -, 5 I&N Dec. 248, 252 (1953), 

the Board stated:

The Senate and House Committees which recommended the passage of the bill . . . considered the section as one relating to 

subversives (p. 10, S. Rept. No. 1137, 82d Cong., 2d Sess.; p. 49, H. 

Rep. No. 1365, 82d Cong., 2d Sess.). However it is clear that the

language o f the section is broad enough to include others than subversives. [Emphasis added.]

See also, M atter o f McDonald and Brewster, Int. Dec. #2353 (March 13, 

1975), at pp. 3-4. No doubt it was with such an interpretation of 

Section 212(a)(27) in mind that the Departments of State and Justice 

concluded in 1968 that Rhodesian aliens who would be likely to further 

or encourage the unlawful regime in Southern Rhodesia, could be 

excluded under the Immigration and Nationality Act without additional 

authorization in Executive Order No. 11419.

It is our opinion that the language of Section 212(a)(27), its legislative 

history, and administrative interpretation all support your conclusion 

that the six aliens who sought to attend an agricultural conference in 

the United States were inadmissible under that section.

II

A question has arisen in the course of our review of Section 

212(a)(27) as to whether that provision would operate to exclude an 

alien whose mere entry into or presence in the United States would be 

“prejudicial to the public interest” or “endanger the . . . security of the 

United States,” perhaps for foreign policy reasons. As mentioned in 

footnote 4, the Administration in 1968 apparently assumed that to be 

the case in choosing to rely on Section 212(a)(27) to prevent the entry 

of Rhodesian aliens who had in the past furthered or encouraged the 

unlawful actions of the illegal regime in Southern Rhodesia. See Security Council Resolution 253, § 5(b). The exclusion of such aliens presumably was intended to be predicated not on the nature of any specific 

activities in which they would engage while here, but on the serious 

adverse foreign policy consequences of allowing them to be present in 

violation of Security Council Resolution 253. We believe that the

70
conclusion reached in 1968 was based on a reasonable administrative 

interpretation of Section 212(a)(27).

It is true that Section 212(a)(27) does not expressly provide that an 

alien whose entry would be prejudicial to the public interest or endanger national security is inadmissible; it speaks instead of the nature of 

the activities in which the alien seeks to engage after entering the 

United States. Nevertheless, we believe that the circumstances surrounding the alien’s entry are in some cases quite relevant to the 

assessment of the foreign relations impact of the alien’s subsequent 

activities in this country.

Whether or not an alien is inadmissible under Section 212(a)(27) 

depends on all the facts and circumstances, including foreign policy 

factors over which the individual alien may have no control. Thus, 

activities that might be wholly innocuous if engaged in by one alien, 

might fairly be regarded as “prejudicial to the public interest” if engaged in by another, even if the individual alien did not have a specific 

intent to cause any harm or disturbance while in the United States.

Section 5(b) of Security Council Resolution 253, to which this country is committed, imposes a duty on Member States to prohibit the 

entry for any purpose of all Rhodesian aliens who have furthered or 

encouraged the unlawful actions of the Rhodesian regime. As a result, 

all of the activities of such persons in the United States, however 

harmless they would be if engaged in by other aliens, might have 

serious foreign policy consequences simply because the Rhodesians 

would have entered the country in violation of the resolution.10 As a 

practical matter, then, Rhodesian aliens covered by the Security Council Resolution are inadmissible because their entry or presence in the 

United States would be prejudicial to the public interest or endanger 

national security, even though the language of the statute speaks in 

terms of activities of aliens in the United States.11

The legislative history supports this interpretation of the statute. For 

example, the Presidential proclamation and regulations on which Section 212(a)(27) was based were written in terms of an alien whose entry

would be prejudicial to the United States or to the public interest, see.

Proclamation 2523, supra; 8 CFR § 175.52(a) and 175.53 (1949), supra,

as did the two Senate Reports that first proposed the provision in 1950.

10 Alternatively, Rhodesian aliens required to be excluded under the Security Council 

Resolution could be considered to be inadmissible under §212(a)(27) on the ground that 

their presence in the United States would be an “activity” that would be prejudicial to the 

public interest or endanger the national security.

" A n argum ent against the interpretation w e have advanced in the text has been 

suggested, based on the hypothetical example of a military dictator, a presumed persona

non grata in this country, who might wish to enter the United States to visit his dying 

m other or to receive medical attention. We agree that § 212(a)(27) would ordinarily not 

prevent such an entry. But we reach that conclusion on the ground that such otherwise 

harmless activities in this country would not usually cause a foreign policy embarrassment 

of sufficient m agnitude to be regarded as prejudicial to the public interest simply because 

a military dictator was involved, not because § 212(a)(27) is wholly inapplicable in such a 

setting

71
See footnote 8. In fact, 8 CFR § 175.53(b), quoted earlier, provided that 

an entry would be regarded as prejudicial to the public interest if the 

alien “is a member of, affiliated with, or may be active in the United 

States in connection with or on behalf of, a political organization 

associated with or carrying out policies of any foreign government 

opposed to the measures adopted by the Government of the United 

States in the public interest . . [Emphasis added.] This phrase would 

have barred the members of the National Farmers’ Union of Southern 

Rhodesia, as the Department of State has described that organization, 

regardless of the nature of their intended activities in the United States.

The Department of State has suggested that some memorandums and 

correspondence from 1959 to 1962 relating to the efforts of a certain 

alien to enter the United States may demonstrate an administrative 

interpretation that an alien could not be excluded solely on the ground 

that the circumstances surrounding his or her entry render all subsequent activities “prejudicial to the public interest” or a danger to the 

security of the United States. We do not believe that memorandums 

and correspondence in question furnish a sound basis for rejecting our 

interpretation of the statute.

Some of the materials do indicate that an alien may not be excluded 

under Section 212(a)(27) solely on the ground that his native country 

has stated that it would regard his admission as an unfriendly act. 

Several letters also state that the foreign reaction to an alien’s entry is 

not “directly pertinent” to his eligibility for a visa. But despite these 

statements, both factors appear to have played a decisive role in the 

State Department’s handling of cases over the years. Moreover, while 

the emphasis was on the particular alien’s intended activities in the 

United States, a number of the memorandums and letters state that it 

was the State Department’s view that the individual’s “entry,” “admission,” or “coming” to the United States would be prejudicial to the 

public interest, thereby suggesting that it is permissible to consider the 

ramifications of the entry itself. Because of these inconsistencies, we 

decline to rely on the materials made available to us by the Department 

of State as establishing an administrative interpretation that an alien 

cannot be excluded on the ground that his entry or mere presence 

would be prejudicial to the public interest or endanger the security of 

the United States.

The Service has informed us that it has nothing in its files, other than 

published opinions of the Board of Immigration Appeals, that might 

shed light on whether an alien may be excluded under Section 

212(a)(27) on the ground that his entry or presence in the United States 

would be prejudicial to the public interest. We have reviewed the 

published opinions that discuss Section 212(a)(27), including those already cited, but we do not find them to be expecially illuminating on 

the precise question presented here. All involved charges that the alien 

would engage in specific activities after entering the United States that

72
would be prejudicial to the public interest; there was thus no need to 

discuss the foreign policy consequences of the alien’s mere entry or 

presence.12

We agree with what we understand to be the position of the Department of State that under our analysis, only circumstances of an unusual 

nature could permit a determination that the entry of an alien into the 

United States would have such serious adverse foreign policy consequences that his mere presence and otherwise innocuous activities in 

this country would be prejudicial to the public interest or endanger 

national security.13 But in our view, the entry of Rhodesian aliens who 

have furthered or encouraged the “unlawful activities” of the Rhodesian government presents such a case. It is our opinion now, as it was 

in 1968, that Section 212(a)(27) bars their entry.

We also agree with your conclusion that whether an alien is barred 

by Section 212(a)(27) should be determined on a case-by-case basis. 

When a Southern Rhodesian alien is involved, it will be necessary to 

examine the nature of his intended activities in the United States—as in 

the case of the six members of the National Farmers’ Union who were 

expected to promote export sales of agricultural commodities grown in

12 For example, in Matter o f M-, 8 I&N D ec 24 (1958), the Board held that a 73-yearold former Rumanian industrialist, who had previously lived in the United States for 11 

years without incident but w ho was alleged to have been a Nazi sym pathizer and 

Communist sym pathizer in Rumania before coming to the United States, was not inadmissible under § 212(a)(27). There was no suggestion, as there has been here, that the alien's 

mere entry o r presence in the United States might have had serious adverse foreign 

policy consequences. The Board did appear to be of the view that his expected activities 

after reentering the United States would be determinative, id. at 29-30, but it nevertheless 

undertook an exhaustive review of the alien’s past affiliations and activities before concluding that he was admissible. And the Board was especially influenced by a determ ination in a prior proceeding in 1951 that the alien “w as not within the classes of aliens 

specified in former 8 C FR § 175 53, that is, aliens whose entry would be deemed to be 

prejudicial to the interests of the United States." Id. at 30. [Emphasis added.]

13 See the following portion of a letter dated January 14, 1977, from the A dm inistrator 

o f the Bureau o f Security and Consular Affairs, to this Office:

W hen an alien’s activities are in and o f themselves entirely innocuous—for example, 

spending a few days or weeks of private relaxation at a resort area—it w ould then be 

necessary to demonstrate that the alien’s background, notoriety, our governm ent’s 

policies, attitudes and commitments, and other factors were such that the spectacle o f 

the alien’s being given permission by the United States G overnm ent to engage in 

such otherw ise innocuous activities w ould or reasonably could be considered to be 

prejudicial to the public interest or to endanger the safety or security o f the United 

States. It would be the D epartm ent’s view that such a situation would necessarily 

involve circumstances of an unusual nature.

73
Southern Rhodesia when they attended a conference in the United 

States—or to determine whether the particular individual had in the 

past furthered and encouraged the “unlawful actions” of the regime to 

some significant degree.14

J o h n M . H a r m o n

Acting Assistant Attorney General

Office o f Legal Counsel

“ N ot all Southern Rhodesians covered by Security Council Resolution 253 are inadmissible under § 212(a)(27) on the ground that their mere presence in the United States is 

an activity prejudicial to the public interest. Aliens traveling on Rhodesian passports, see

Resolution § 5(a), are inadmissible under §212(a)(27) o f the Act. See note 1, supra.