The Jewish Trail of Tears The Evian Conference of ... - Haruth.com

there were political views which called upon the countries of temporary haven to grant
refugee Jews the rights of citizens while awaiting their ultimate emigration to a place of
permanent abode. The degree of “wealth and social status” should not be used in a
discriminatory fashion against refugees and priority of entry ought to be granted to those
“political prisoners or individuals who had suffered because of their opinions.” The subcommittee
concluded that the enactment of such diverse points of view would entail the
transfer of “whole populations” and the allocation of “large sums of money” to relief
organizations. It was believed, however, that Germany, should be approached to “make
its contribution” for financing by allowing refugees to retain sufficient levels of personal
assets to make resettlement possible; an approach consistent with the original Evian
Conference invitation that stated that any costs would not be borne by the nations
receiving refugees. 8
Solomon Adler-Rudel, one of the representatives testifying before the White
sub-committee, was critical of the improvised nature of these hearings:
8 “Appendix to the Report of the Sub-Committee for the Reception of Organizations Concerned with the
Relief of Political Refugees Coming from Germany (including Austria) cited in “Proceedings,” July 9,
1938, 59. See also John A. Scanlan, “A View from the United States-Social, Economic, and Legal Change,
the Persistence of the State, and Immigration Policy in the Coming Century,” available from
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/law_reviews/018global_legal_studies/vol2/scanlan.html; Internet;
accessed May 31, 2010. Article 15 of the February 10, 1938 Geneva Convention concerning the Status of
Refugees coming from Germany, 4461 L.N.T.S. stated: “With a view to facilitating the emigration of
refugees to overseas countries, each facility shall be granted to the refugees and to the organizations which
deal with them for the establishment of schools for professional re-adaptation and technical training.”
Shauma Labman, “Looking Back, Moving Forward: The History and Future of Refugee Protection”
available from http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=shauna_labman;
Internet; accessed May 31, 2010. This Convention utilized the same definition of “refugees coming from
Germany” as defined in the Provisional Arrangement of 1936. However, there was a very important
qualifier amended to this definition: “Persons who leave Germany for reasons of purely personal
convenience are not included in this definition.” Therefore, any individual who left the Reich for other
reasons would be defined as refugees provided they had become disenfranchised from the nation of origin
and had essentially become stateless. Ivor C. Jackson, The Refugee Concept in Group Situations
(Cambridge, MA: Kluwer Law International, 1999), 21.
223