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

Consequently, the decision to admit a refugee would have to be individualized but the
Government would attempt to maintain its “traditional policy…of offering asylum” with
the greatest latitude. 83 As early as 1933 the Home Office was dismissive of a “right of
asylum… [for] political refugees.” The granting of entry into the country would not be
based upon strict humanitarian concerns but whether or not the alien would serve “the
public interest.” 84 Parameters were established by the Government that would gauge the
admissibility and desirability of prospective emigrants. The absence of sufficient
“resources” and the lack of “definite prospects” for self sufficiency that would potentially
place the refugee on the public dole served as grounds for automatic exclusion. The Nazi
appropriation of Jewish funds and its resultant impoverishment severely limited the
number of desirable émigrés. Other groups were labeled as “prima facie unsuitable” due
to the risk of competition with local labor. 85
Once again, similar themes would resonate
throughout the dialectic of the Evian Conference.
Fears of escalating immigration of non-Anglo-Saxon stock driven by political and
ethnic instabilities within Eastern Europe and the Czarist Empire coupled with domestic
83 E.L Woodward, et al. Documents on British Foreign Policy, 1919-39, 3 rd . ser., I (London: H.M.S.O.,
1949), 44-48; Cabinet Conclusions 33, July 20, 1938, CAB 23/94 cited in Sherman, Island Refuge, 93;
333House of Commons Debate, 991-994, March 22, 1938 cited in ibid., 121.
84 Michael R. Marrus, The Unwanted: European Refugees from the First World War through the Cold
War (Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 2002), 150.
85 PRO FO 372/3284, T7056/3272/378 Foreign Office, Passport Control Department, Visas for Holders
of German and Austrian Passports entering the United Kingdom, April 27, 1938, 2-3 cited in Romain, “The
Anschluss,” 94. The other groups considered undesirable for admission included “(a) Small shopkeepers,
retail traders, artisans and persons likely to seek employment; (b) Agents and middlemen, whose livelihood
depends upon commission and therefore on trade activity; (c) Minor musicians and commercial artists of all
kinds…; and (d) The rank and file of professional men—lawyers, doctors, dentists.” Exceptions would be
made for those who faced “special danger because of [their] political views or activities” or those who
possessed familial or friendship connections who could offer “hospitality” and the guarantee of “support
while arrangements are made for [their] future.”
42