(Testimony of Abram Chayes Resumed)
Mr. Dulles.
sanction you have just been discussing, it wasn't really cleared up until May. And therefore that the delay was in part a delay due to American regulations rather than to Soviet regulations.
Mr. Chayes.
Well, her processing in the Soviet Union from the time she first started to try to get back----
Mr. Dulles.
That is it.
Mr. Chayes.
Until she got an exit visa was about 6 months. It was under 6 months.
Mr. Dulles.
Yes.
Mr. Chayes.
We have answered in our answers to your----
Mr. Coleman.
It is a CommisSion Exhibit No. 960 which was just where Mr. Chayes, under date of May 26, 1964, answered various questions which were asked, to determine whether there was anything unusual in the way that Marina and the Oswald applications were handled by the Soviet Union and we will make that part of the record.
(Commission Exhibit No. 960 was marked for identification and received in evidence.)
Mr. Dulles.
Does that cover this particular point?
Mr.COLEMAN. It covers the point not for 10 years but for 3 or 4 years.
Mr. Chayes.
If I can read into the record this answer, it says----
Mr. Dulles.
Which answer is that?
Mr. Chayes.
Question 3, attachment A.
The relevant part is "In the immediate post-war period there were about 15 marriages in which the wife had been waiting for many years for a exit permit. After the death of Stalin the Soviet Government showed a position to settle these cases. In the summer of 1953 permission was given for i all of this group of Soviet citizen wives to accompany their American citizen husbands to the United States. Since this group was given permission to leave the Soviet Union, there have been from time to time marriages in the Soviet Union of American citizens and Soviet citizens.
"With one exception it is our understanding that all of the Soviet citizens involved have been given permission to immigrate to the United States after waiting periods which were in some cases from 3 to 6 months and in others much longer."
So that I think what Mr. Snyder said yesterday was that 6 months was par for the course. It wasn't an unusual delay, and it was fairly low as those things went, but not something that would give you any surprise. There were a number of other 6-month ones and there were some less.
Mr. Dulles.
For our records I wonder if it would be possible to be a little more specific, I mean to furnish us information that would be a little more specific on this point, because it is very hard for us to tell of the numbers how many had less than 6 months and how many had more than 6 months. That is the point that has been raised often you know in the press, and the charge has been made that this is very suspicious, that this was done so soon. I think our records ought to show a good deal of specification what that record is. I mean this is very helpful in a general way. but it is not very specific.
Mr. Chayes.
We can do that. The further answer farther down on the next page, page 2, says for example that "In a most recent case of this type a Soviet woman married an American citizen in December of 1963 and received an exit visa about 2 months later."
Mr. Dulles.
That is very helpful.
Mr. Chayes.
But we will get a detailed account for the Commission.
Mr. Coleman.
Mr. Chayes, as I understand it, section 243 (g) itself says nothing about the power of the State Department or Immigration and Naturalization Service to waive its provisions.
Mr. Chayes.
The State Department doesn't waive the provisions. I should start by saying that 243 (g) is a section administered by the Justice Department and the Attorney General has primary responsibility for interpretation and administration. The Attorney General has from the beginning interpreted 243 (g) as involving waiver power. I had never had occasion to examine the question at all until this matter came up, and I have made only a cursory examination, but I think the Judgment is sound that there is waiver power under 243 (g).
|
