





































Microsoft Word - ELP-V1N1-p105


Economics, Law and Policy 
ISSN 2576-2060 (Print) ISSN 2576-2052 (Online) 

Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018 
www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp 

105 
 

Original Paper 

Trump and U.S. Immigration Policies. Lessons from the 

Eisenhower Administration  

Alia K. Nardini1* 
1 Adjunct Professor, Spring Hill College Italy Center, Bologna, Italy  
* Alia K. Nardini, Collegio Alma Mater, Via Giovanni Sacco 12, 40127, Bologna, Italy 

 

Received: April 30, 2018        Accepted: May 10, 2018        Online Published: May 21, 2018 

doi:10.22158/elp.v1n1p105               URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/elp.v1n1p105 

 

Abstract 

While U.S. immigration entry policies after 1953 became a hallmark of ideological openness, 

designating the United States as the unquestioned leader of a freer and more just world order, Donald 

Trump’s current immigration strategies isolate America, damage her economy, and fuel divisive feelings 

among citizens. This paper hopes to persuade the Republican Party not to revert to its pre-1953 

restrictionist and nativist stance, thereby undoing the crucial work undertaken by the Eisenhower 

Administration. The author argues that a sound grasp of the debate that led to the approval of the 

Refugee Relief Act in 1953 can lead to better informed political decision-making, tracing a new phase of 

America’s active presence on the world stage, in line with the country’s national interest and Cold war 

tradition. 

Keywords 

Trump, Muslim Ban, U.S. immigration policy, restrictionism, nativism, Eisenhower, Cold War 

 

1. Introduction 

On August 7, 1953, President Eisenhower signed the Refugee Relief Act. This document authorized 

permanent entry on special visas for 214,000 refugees, orphans, expellees, and relatives of U.S. citizens 

or aliens in the United States. With the Refugee Relief Act, America abandoned the idea of 

immigration quotas based on the country of origin, developing a more flexible concept of national 

security. At a crucially unstable phase of the Cold War, with the Soviet troika fighting over power after 

Stalin’s death and the Korean War coming to an end, the Republican Party chose to embrace a more 

liberal approach to immigration. With the Refugee Relief Act, America’s immigration policies became 

an ideological, economic, and political asset used by Republicans to fight communism both in the 

domestic and international realms.  



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018 

106 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

This pivotal shift in the Republican Party’s thinking on immigration paved the way for forthcoming 

legislation, such as the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. In addition, the 1953 Refugee Relief 

Act proved to be consistent with national security requirements, upholding the conservative tradition of 

American exceptionalism during the Cold War. From then onwards the U.S. officially abandoned entry 

mechanisms centered upon country of origin, recasting its public image as a safe haven among the 

oppressed and politically persecuted. Furthermore, with the passing of the Refugee Relief Act the 

United States assumed a more ideologically authoritative role in world politics, promoting the 

American dream overseas.  

Despite the contingent and temporary fluctuations that inevitably characterize policymaking, U.S. 

legislation has been consistent with its liberal tradition since the end of World War II (De Laet, 2000). 

America has always been a country of immigrants: they are vital to the long-term prosperity and security 

of the United States, and they constitute an increasingly important asset for the U.S. armed forces. 

Allowing people into the country to visit, study, or work, is “one of the surest ways to build friendships 

with future generations of foreign leaders and to show America’s best face to the world” (Bush, McLarty, 

& Alden, 2009, p. ix). Nevertheless, the traditionally open response to immigration into the United States 

is under severe scrutiny today, as the Republican Party reverts to a much older political tradition, 

epitomized by the doctrines of restrictionism and nativism.  

Donald Trump’s Executive Order Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United 

States, colloquially known as the Muslim Ban, has sparked heated debate both domestically and abroad, 

proving as divisive as it is resilient. This paper argues that the logic underlying Trump’s nativist and 

restrictionist entry policies for immigration is not only negatively affecting national interest; it also fails 

to propel the U.S. forwards on the world stage, making America look hesitant and fearful. The 

Administration’s position on immigration also shows disengagement from ideals that are 

conventionally associated with Cold War strategies and the American dream.  

Assessing the entirety of current U.S. immigration policies, or discussing the constitutionality of Donald 

Trump’s Executive Orders, are beyond the scope of this paper. Similarly, this essay does not wish to 

address the domestic and international effects of U.S. immigration strategies, past and present. Instead, 

this research will outline the reasoning behind the Refugee Relief Act of 1953, and compare it to the 

narrative on immigration that has shaped the campaign and the presidency of Donald Trump to the 

present day. Available research on migration considers the juxtaposition of two historical periods 

immensely fruitful, pointing out the benefits of such methodology (Gerstle & Mollenkopf, 2001). By 

looking at similarities and divergences in Republican immigration strategies at two different historical 

moments, this paper hopes to transcend contingent perspectives and suggest an alternative way of 

thinking about immigration today. 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018 

107 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

2. The 1953 Republican Turn on Immigration 

In the Fifties, the issue of immigration in the United States reached an important turning point. At the 

end of World War II, the Allies had pledged to assist and relocate a massive number of political 

refugees and displaced persons in Europe. Many of them, because of family ties or economic necessity, 

dreamed of moving to the U.S. Approaching the end of his presidential term, and following the famous 

speech of March 24, 1952, Harry Truman appointed a presidential commission on immigration and 

naturalization. Its testimonies, collected in the document Whom We Shall Welcome, pointed almost 

univocally to the call for a more tolerant America, which would be open to migratory flows from 

southern Europe (Woolley & Peters, 2009). This led to the belief that a greater number of visas for DPs 

from World War II, victims of political persecution, and unemployed Greeks, Italians and Germans, 

would match the image of a free and generous nation, in contrast with the obscurantism of communist 

countries (Loescher & Scanlan, 1986, pp. 44-47). 

Congress, however, was divided. On one side, the most numerous were the restrictionistsː those who 

believed in strict regulatory policies, irrespective of the circumstances and motivations of migrants. On 

the other, a minority who was clamoring for a review of the entire quota system, in order for it to 

become more liberal. In this view, visas would be allocated regardless of provenience and solely based 

on so-called “functional” priority: special skills and individual humanitarian motives. The largely 

centrist area supported the continuation of the current quota system instead, granting “emergency” 

visas to refugees, based upon the country of origin (Robbins, 1956, p. 313). 

After taking office, Eisenhower seemed willing to follow the path charted by Truman. Unlike most 

Republicans, who held restrictionist views, the president was convinced that migrants did not represent 

a threat to U.S. security. The President was certain that a more open policy toward immigration would 

be a valuable resource in the ideological struggle against the Soviet Union. Therefore, Eisenhower 

requested Congress to consider the entry of a greater number of migrants in the United States. A more 

open and pragmatic attitude on U.S. immigration would allow America to strengthen her bond with 

other NATO countries, facing the Cold War with a solid coalition led by the United States. In fact, a 

more fluid approach to immigration could consolidate support and gain electoral traction for centrist 

coalitions in office in allied nations, such as Italy. This policy could thus ensure that these countries 

would not fall hostage to a communist party intent on presenting itself as a champion of the weak, by 

supporting governments that could fend off economic and social malaise. Hence, it would help keep 

both government spending and the social discontent of citizens under control. To make the proposal 

more palatable, Eisenhower argued that these were temporary measures, solely aimed at protecting the 

interests of the United States abroad. 

This idea was particularly intriguing for Republicans, due to its decisive anticommunist tinge. However, 

Senator Robert Taft’s isolationist legacy was holding strong, as the Senator of Ohio still benefited from 

much popularity after running for the Grand Old Party primaries in 1952. McCarthyism was equally 

cumbersome: in 1953, Senator McCarthy was chairman of the Senate Committee on Government 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018 

108 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Operations and amply used his powers to investigate supposed Communist infiltrations in the U.S. Also, 

the only document on immigration that had been approved after the Displaced Persons Act of 1948 was 

the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of 1952, known as the McCarran-Walter Act. The 

McCarran-Walter Act, proposed by the Democrats, had become law on June 27, 1952 despite a 

presidential veto by Truman. It regulated immigration in the United States and the expulsion of illegal 

immigrants, making the naturalization process more difficult, and many conservatives did not see 

reason to change an agreement so recent and, until proven otherwise, still effective. 

Even though the number of immigrants who were accepted into the United Sates had increased with the 

INA, communist sympathizers were banned and the government maintained highly restrictive 

categories based on the country of origin. McCarran’s reasoning had been that it could be highly risky 

to let foreigners come to the United States, especially when they came from countries where 

communism was strong and poverty was widespread. Social discontent could be a catalyst for 

revolutionary talk, and this could not be permitted on U.S. soil (Campi, 2004; Shanks, 2001). Therefore, 

a more liberal policy towards immigration was unacceptable to many pragmatist conservatives, whose 

notions of patriotism and citizenship were framed in primarily restrictive terms. 

Nevertheless, between 1952 and 1953, Republicans redefined their positions. With the prospect of a 

prolonged Cold War, the party needed new and bold strategies. For this reason, the Eisenhower 

Administration adopted the arguments of the liberalizing front, highlighting the possibility of opening 

its borders to counter the communist ideology. A new immigration program would first need to rectify 

the apparent stigma associated with minorities from Southern Europe, whom Republicans had long 

ignored, as they could turn into a valuable source of future electoral support (Bon Tempo, 2008, pp. 

36-37). Republicans also understood that new immigration legislation was politically attractive because 

it fulfilled Eisenhower’s electoral promises of revising the McCarran-Walter Act, in order to better deal 

with recent changes in the geopolitical landscape. It also aligned with the president’s will to review 

Truman’s containment policies in a more active way, emphasizing deterrence and rolling back the Iron 

Curtain. Still, it did not represent a radical break with the past, given that the new proposal would 

assume an extraordinary and temporary character and not be presented as a comprehensive immigration 

reform. As Rorty (1955) explains, “Both Mr. Eisenhower and his Democratic opponents had repeatedly 

denounced the disastrous inequities, injustices, and obstructions embodied in our basic immigration law. 

But neither party was politically willing or able to legislate a statesmanlike immigration policy, or even, 

as it turned out, to pass an effective emergency palliative” (pp. 301-309). 

Working in the Eisenhower Administration, William Draper, then Air Force Aide to the President, was 

first to suggest the use of increased immigration quotas into the United States to influence election 

results in countries with communist leanings. A memorandum by Harold Linder (1986) and James C.H. 

Bonbright, sent to Secretary of State John Foster Dulles and dated February 25, 1953, brought to the 

President’s attention the need to accelerate the approval by Congress of specific legislation that would 

allow about 240,000 immigrants to enter the United States within the following two years, including 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018 

109 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

75,000 Italians (p. 1605).  

The specific reasoning on the Italian case better exemplifies the goals of the Eisenhower 

Administration. As Bon Tempo (2008) observes, “In Italy, American experts worried that population 

pressures—from both refugees and ‘overpopulation’—might lead to political discontent, which would 

facilitate the rise to power of the Italian communist party. The upcoming Italian elections in May 1953 

sharpened State Department apprehensions” (p. 35). Admittedly, the Eisenhower administration viewed 

immigration law as one of the keys to keep the Italian Communist Party (PCI) under control. Through 

new legislation, the United States could support and strengthen then Prime Minister Alcide De 

Gasperi’s party, the Christian Democracy, viewed as the most moderate and balanced player in the 

political arena. At the same time, it would erode support for the PCI, and simultaneously show to the 

people on both sides of the Atlantic that America cared about Italy’s fate, and was prepared to welcome 

its citizens who were in difficulty and wanted to leave. This would provide an additional source of 

income to the families most in need, expand democratic consensus, and therefore, by extension, the 

power of the DC in future government coalitions. 

Following the aforementioned memorandum by Linder and Bonbright, Secretary of State Dulles wrote 

a document on March 26 addressed to President Eisenhower, in which he recommended Congress to 

authorize the entry of 240,000 non-quota immigrants. Dulles also noted that Representatives Emmanuel 

Celler and Ruth Thompson, as well as Senators William Langer and Robert C. Hendrickson, would 

support the project (Dulles, 1983a). For his part, Celler had reminded the President in a personal 

meeting that such an initiative would be consistent with his recent State of the Union address, insisting 

on the bipartisan character that the proposal ought to assume (Rep. Celler, 1953). It was also 

fundamental that this type of legislation would not be purported as a revision of the McCarran-Walter 

Act. Indeed, many in the Administration feared that McCarran would resort to filibustering: he had 

already proposed an all-refugee amendment, which in practice would reduce the quotas, leading to 

negative political and diplomatic repercussions among America’s allies (Dulles, 1983b; Zolberg, 2009, 

p. 322). 

On May 31, 1953, Republican Senator Arthur Watkins, who chaired the Senate Judiciary 

Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest, presented to the Senate the project known as 

the Emergency Migration Act. The rationale in support of the document was that of national security, 

in line with Cold War policies, adding emphasis on the economic benefits which would be reaped from 

a major influx of workers into the country. At the same time, a National Security Council memorandum 

recommended the passing of the law, “to encourage defection of all USSR nations and ‘key personnel 

from the satellite countries’ in order to ‘inflict a psychological blow on communism’” (Zolberg, 1995, 

pp. 123-124). Still, despite the cautious optimism shown by the president’s special assistant in his 

communication to Ambassador to Italy Clare Booth Luce on July 6 (Jackson, 1953), many senators 

remained vehemently opposed to the project (Dulles, 1983b). 

Nevertheless, in the conference with the Legislative Leaders on July 20, the president renewed his 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018 

110 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

support for the document in its latest form, even recommending increasing the number of permits for 

special categories (Eisenhower, 1983, p. 1631). Resolution HR 6481 was approved in the House 

221-185 on July 28, 1953, lowering the threshold of immigrants to be admitted from 240,000 to 

217,000. 132 Republicans, 88 Democrats and one independent declared themselves in favor, and 74 

Republicans and 111 Democrats opposed. The day after, the Senate agreed to a revised version by a 

63-39 roll-call vote, with the support of 38 Republicans and 24 Democrats, again lowering the total 

number of immigrants allowed to enter to 214,000. All the senators from the South, besides two, 

expressed a negative opinion, showing the presence of a more visceral and traditionalist conservatism 

in the Southern part of the nation (Cisek, 2006, p. 67; Rorty, 1995, p. 302). However, such opposition 

did not have a lasting impact, as on July 31, 1953, the House accepted the report, and the Senate 

granted its final approval on the next day. 

On August 7, 1953, President Eisenhower signed the Bill and the proposal outlined for the Emergency 

Migration Act finally became the Refugee Relief Act. The fixed annual immigration quotas (154,657 

visas) had already been established by the Immigration and Nationality (McCarran-Walter) Act of 1952. 

Additionally, the Refugee Relief Act of 1953 authorized the permanent entry of 214,000 refugees, 

orphans, expellees, relatives of US citizens or aliens temporarily in the United States, on special 

non-quota visas. It remained in place for three years, until December 31, 1956 (Refugee Relief, 1956, 

pp. 312-315). 

It was a significant event for several reasons. First, with the Refugee Relief Act America officially 

committed to abandoning immigration quotas based on the country of origin, paving the way for a 

possible revision of the Walter-McCarran Act. More specifically, the Refugee Relief Act laid the 

theoretical basis for subsequent legislation, like the Refugee-Escapee Act (REA) of 1957, and the 

Refugee Fair Share Act of 1960 (Martin, 2011, p. 179). However, in the following years, conservative 

Democrats from the South in powerful congressional positions prevented racial egalitarians in their 

own party from enacting more profound and lasting immigration reforms. Therefore, the 

national-origins system was not erased from legislation entirely until the introduction of the 

Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (the Hart-Celler Act), which openly relied on a preference 

system focused on immigrants’ family relationships with U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents, or 

their skills (Fitzgerald, 2014, pp. 119-120).  

The Eisenhower Administration was pivotal in liberalizing immigration laws. After 1953, the 

Republican Party developed a more flexible concept of national security, up to then limited by 

unrealistic and overly oppressive rules towards asylum seekers. Additionally, the Refugee Relief Act 

introduced for the first time in American legislation the term “escapees”, which brought together the 

idea of refugee and expellees within a broader notion of “fugitives”. The term “asylum seeker” was 

under all aspects considered applicable to individuals “unable to return to a communist country, or 

dominated by the Communists” (Henson, 2013, pp. 1816-1817), an idea that would later be resumed 

and expanded in the United States Escapee Program (USEP), which officially began in 1954 (Curti, 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018 

111 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

1963, pp. 538-539; Carruthers, 2005). This meant that national security could be protected precisely by 

welcoming those oppressed, persecuted, and politically moderate elements who came from countries 

“at risk”—and not keeping them out because of their provenience. 

The Refugee Relief Act also legitimized the use of the concept of “parole”, previously 

introduced—albeit in a restrictive manner—by Walter and McCarran in the Immigration and 

Nationality Act of 1952. After the Hungarian Revolution in 1956, Eisenhower authorized the entry of 

38,000 fugitives into the U.S. through the Hungarian Parole Program. The President took advantage of 

a provision in the McCarran-Walter Act that allowed special access to the United States through the 

mechanism of paroling, for medical reasons, family reunification or other humanitarian reasons, at the 

discretion of the Attorney General. The recipients of this extraordinary act were allowed entry in the 

country not as permanent residents, but as asylum seekers instead. With a remarkable decision, 

Eisenhower then assigned those visas that lay unused as part of the Refugee Relief Act, in order to 

rectify the Hungarian escapees’ precarious situation. Such action directly connected the possibility of 

paroling with the term “refugee”, making the two concepts interchangeable, and drawing a continuum 

in US legislation for the use of immigration to oppose communism (Buff, 2008, p. 32; Bon Tempo, 

2008, pp. 70-71). 

Despite the difficulties and the controversies related to the implementation of the Refugee Relief Act, 

as it appears from the profuse literature on the Corsi affair (Immigration, 1955; Corsi, 1955; U.S. 

Congress Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 1955), changes in immigration policies were met with 

high approval ratings among U.S. citizens. Americans responded positively to a liberalizing turn in 

immigration law, as popular support for the admission of refugees rose to 47% in 1953, double the 

percentage of 1947 (Fetzer, 2000, p. 40). Although the Republican Party was not able to create 

unequivocal internal support for the proposal, the Refugee Relief Act became a valuable tool for 

foreign policy in the GOP during the Cold War (Zucker, N. L., & Zucker, N. F., 1992). In this sense, 

the progressive abandonment of isolationism and a more resolute anti-communism in the Republican 

Party exemplified the conservatives’ attempt to differentiate themselves from liberal intellectuals after 

World War II, as the latter were perceived as consistently ready to ignore, and sometimes excuse, the 

great evils of communism in the world. 

Furthermore, the approval of the Refugee Relief Act marked the moment when the Eisenhower 

Administration realized the immense potential that laid in soft power. The U.S.’s open support for 

refugees and escapees, broadcast by “Radio Free Europe”, “Voice of America”, and “Radio Liberation”, 

echoed strong behind the Iron Curtain. The use of these media to purport the U.S. as a safe haven for 

refugees supported the image of a powerful country, which nonetheless cared about the oppressed and 

politically persecuted, and was ready to offer shelter (Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, 2009; 

Puddington, 2000).  

Finally, this legislation completed Truman’s work, who had already tried to tie refugee policies to 

national security interests (Rudolph, 2006, pp. 47-49). Refugees were no longer considered a high 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018 

112 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

security risk, but were instead becoming “potentially valuable instruments of a foreign policy and 

moral purpose aimed at supporting and encouraging disaffection with the tyranny of the Communist 

satellites” (Rorty, 1955, p. 305). 

 

3. Donald Trump and the Return to Restrictionism 

Until the 1990s, the immigration debate in the United States centered upon economic issues, such as 

the number and type of immigrants who would benefit the American economy, or legal strategies to 

deter people from entering the country illicitly (Alden, 2016). With 9/11, both the domestic and the 

international security scenario changed, and the immigration debate changed with them. Increased 

security threats gradually pushed the discussion on migration towards issues of national security, 

mainly in the form of augmented entry restrictions (Bier, 2018). Consequently, the last fifteen years 

have witnessed a progressive increase in checks and control mechanisms, such as biometric screenings, 

identity tracking, and information gathering, in order to make it more difficult for potential terrorists to 

operate within American borders. The political priority today, in the words of the U.S. President, is 

firmly settled on “protecting American lives from foreign nationals who intend to commit terrorist 

attacks” (Trump, 2017b).  

Donald Trump’s approach to immigration maintains the tone of urgency introduced with 9/11. Since the 

appearance of his immigration plan on his presidential campaign website, Trump has progressively 

worked to bring together the concepts of national interest, national security, and economic benefit, in a 

tenacious argument to restrict migration (Trump, 2016b). The President has also called for a 

comprehensive review of all existing immigration policies “to determine what legislative reforms are 

essential for America’s economic and national security” (Trump, 2017d). The claim, clearly stated in a 

presidential letter to all House and Senate Leaders, upholds that illegal, unqualified, and chain migration, 

have to be drastically curbed, as they irreparably damage the U.S. 

The idea that immigration creates serious economic distress, as well as a threat to public safety in the 

United States, is not new to Donald Trump’s political discourse. In his presidential announcement 

speech, Trump (2015a) notoriously accused Mexico of sending to America “people that have lots of 

problems”, who inevitably bring such problems with them. Mexicans, he claimed, are taking jobs away 

from the American people. “They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists”, Trump 

declared, as he identified a grave danger not just with immigrants in general, but with their country of 

provenience.  

Immediately after its inauguration, the Republican Administration set out to translate the President’s 

thoughts into applicable legislation by means of Executive Orders. This also contributed to the sense of 

an incumbent threat that required immediate action. Just one week after the swearing-in ceremony of 

January 20, 2017, Donald Trump signed Executive Order 13769 Protecting the Nation from Foreign 

Terrorist Entry into the United States (Trump, 2017b). The EO, “delayed for litigations”, was amended 

and eventually superseded by Executive Order 13780 (Trump, 2017c). Large influxes of foreigners, the 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018 

113 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

document asserts, are a source of concern for the country’s national interest and national security. 

Following the signing of the aforementioned Executive Orders, an increase in immigration restrictions, 

procedural delays, fewer refugees accepted in the United States, augmented deportations, and more 

visible hostility against asylum seekers have followed (Pierce & Selee, 2017; Harvard Immigration and 

Refugee Clinical Program, 2017). 

Although during his presidential campaign Trump advocated for “a total and complete shutdown of 

Muslims entering the United States” (Trump, 2015b), the legislation on immigration drafted by the 

current Administration has progressively shifted from a religious-based exclusivist principle to a 

geographical one. In fact, what is colloquially known as the “Muslim Ban” centers upon country of 

provenience instead. As the President confirmed, “the Muslim Ban has morphed into an extreme 

vetting from certain areas of the world” (Trump, 2016c). The shift became necessary when Trump 

realized that a religious qualifier was too controversial. “People were so upset when I used the word 

Muslim”, the President noticed. “You can’t use the word Muslim. Remember this. And I’m okay with 

that, because I’m talking territory instead of Muslim” (Trump, 2016d).  

Even though Executive Order 13769 and 13780 were introduced as temporary measures, they were 

pivotal in translating the Administration’s theoretical thinking on immigration into formal legislation, 

paving the way for the indefinite suspension of travel from certain countries through the notion of 

“extreme vetting” (Panduranga, Patel, & Price, 2017). The idea of additional scrutiny for certain groups 

in U.S. entry mechanisms is neither new to the American tradition, nor illegitimate. For this reason, 

screenings for obtaining a permanent visa or refugee status have always been rigorous in America, even 

more so after 9/11, focusing on suspicious activities and personal history—mostly criminal and medical 

records. However, Donald Trump affirms that the country needs much tougher entry standards, as 

foreign nationals might slip through the visa process, posing a serious terrorism risk in the U.S. (Trump, 

2017c). As religious vetting has proven politically indefensible, the Republican Party is working to 

elaborate a renewed proposal of “extreme vetting” centered upon national security threats presented by 

foreign nationals. In the words of the 45th President of the United States, such vetting would be based on 

a rather discretionary procedure, screening people for “who they are, where they are from, what their 

feeling about our country is” (Trump, 2016c). For the current Administration, restrictions based upon 

the country of provenience may even take precedence over already approved visas. As the Hameed 

Khalid Darweesh case shows, where a person comes from might even temporarily override that 

person’s rightful claim to enter the U.S. (American Civil Liberties Union, 2017; Brownley, 2017).  

The threats to national security and national interest posed by immigration, as identified by the current 

Administration, are a rise in the number of undocumented migrants; higher rate of criminal behavior 

among immigrants, compared to U.S. born citizens; an increase in terrorist activities; resistance to 

cultural assimilation and to English language learning processes; and economic burden/damage for the 

host country (Woods & Arthur, 2017, pp. 1-26). However, no conclusive evidence has actually been 

presented in support of these arguments. The economic benefits of more open migration policies have 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018 

114 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

been noted elsewhere (Clemens, 2011; Cortes, 2008; Ottaviano & Peri, 2012). Additionally, the hazards 

posed by foreign terrorism are not large enough to warrant extreme action, as immigration checks 

already in place already provide a solid amount of screening, and vetting failures are rare and pose a 

minimal risk to the United States (Bier, 2018). There are appropriate procedures in place, and no 

findings show them to be inadequate, or suggest that the lack of more extreme vetting procedures will 

harm national interests (Panduranga et al., 2017). Additional studies confirmed that foreign-born 

terrorists have killed roughly only one American per year since 9/11 (Nowrasteh, 2016). Conversely, 

identifying risks in a foreign nation, rather than in its citizens, potentially constitutes a danger: Woods 

and Arthur (2017) claim that coupling the idea of the threat of terrorism and violent crime with that of 

immigration is a dramatization that is not useful in advancing national security, nor promoting national 

interest, nor projecting force (pp. 140-141). 

The insistence on coupling immigration policies with security threats and economic recession has 

developed alongside a return of the traditional debate on nativism. Nativism is not new to the American 

tradition, although it clearly struggles to find an acceptable place alongside its historical heritage as a 

nation of immigrants. Prior to World War I, U.S. laws did not explicitly restrict the selection or 

composition of immigrants based on race or nationality, with the exception of Asian immigrants. In 

general, legislation attempted to exclude people based on income level, education, and moral, 

biological, and physical qualities (Young, 2017, p. 223). However, after the turn of the century, the 

provisions in the Immigration Act grew increasingly strict. The rationale for this crackdown was a 

40-volume report published by the Dillingham Commission, which was formed in 1909 by Congress in 

order to assess the effects of Asian and southern and eastern European immigration. The commission 

“began its work convinced that the pseudoscientific racist theories of superior and inferior peoples were 

correct and that the more recent immigrants from southern and eastern Europe were not capable of 

becoming successful Americans” (Fuchs & Forbes, 2003, p. 55). 

Throughout the years, nativists have been portraying new immigrants as unfit to become American 

citizens: “they were too infected by Catholicism, monarchism, anarchism, Islam, criminal tendencies, 

defective genes, mongrel bloodlines, or some other alien virus to become free men and women in a 

democratic society” (Schrag, 2010, p. 4). This idea is recurrent in Trump’s reasoning, where 

immigrants are portrayed as less able to identify with, and contribute to, national interest, becoming an 

unwanted burden on dutiful citizens who should instead, “come first” on the government’s priority list 

(Trump, 2017a).  

Kibria, Bowman, and O’Leary note how “reconciliation of nativism with the ideology of America as an 

immigrant nation has occurred in part through the differential assessment of immigrant groups” (2014, p. 

9). This logic aptly fits the President’s remarks on “good” and “bad” Mexicans, previously quoted in his 

campaign speech (Trump, 2015a). By combining the ideas of nativism (Americans first) with 

restrictionism (less immigration), Donald Trump has reinforced the good immigrant/bad immigrant 

dichotomy. The current Administration’s perspective is that not only is it capable of identifying “good” 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018 

115 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

migrants—lawful citizens who subscribe to American values and are ready to uncompromisingly 

assimilate into the social fabric embodying the “real” America—it is also able to uncover “bad” 

migrants, who are a threat to national security and would be an economic burden on American society, 

by means of tougher vetting procedures. In the President’s words, “in addition to screening out all 

members or sympathizers of terrorist groups, we must also screen out any who have hostile attitudes 

towards our country or its principles” (Trump, 2016a). Therefore, Trump advocates restrictions against 

“bad migrants” who are not able to pass increasingly tight security restrictions centered upon their 

country of provenience, as well as other rather arbitrary considerations about their moral character. 

The idea that terrorism—and more generally national security threats—can be tackled by vetting 

immigrants from specific geographical areas, Trump argues, was commonplace during the Cold War and 

resembles the “ideological screening test” administered in those years to identify communist and 

anarchic sympathizers and prevent their admission into the U.S. (Trump, 2016a). What the President is 

claiming is that there is continuity in vetting procedures against ideologically treacherous beliefs 

spreading on U.S. soil. Trump proudly considers himself to be leading such a return to tradition. The 

President possibly deduces the existence of said tradition from the persistence of State Department 

DS-260 form, which prospective immigrants still have to fill in to enter the country today, and enquires 

into possible communist leanings of the person requesting admittance (Said-Moorhouse & Browne, 

2016).  

However, the theoretical debate on the Refugee Relief Act in 1953 in the previous section of this essay 

clearly shows that the Republican strategy on immigration at the time switched to welcoming 

individuals who came from communist countries as refugees, escapees, and survivors, rather than 

classifying them as potentially dangerous because of their provenience. A restrictive approach to 

immigration based on the country of origin became politically indefensible after the Eisenhower 

presidency, and slowly faded away. The supposed parallel claimed by the President with Barack 

Obama’s policy for temporary extra screenings of 2011, placed on visas for Iraqi citizens̕ resettlement 

program, does not seem to constitute a valid precedent (Kessler, 2017).  

Further research also highlights that providing a safe haven to persons fleeing persecution and violence 

mirrors core values in U.S. history, the American tradition, and its commitments to liberty, freedom 

and dignity (Kerwin & Warren, 2017). For this reason, Donald Trump likening his own immigration 

policies to an uncompromising, staunchly anti-communist political tradition, reminiscent of Robert Taft, 

is factually incorrect, and seems more functional than principled. The President’s return to pre-1953 

policymaking, perhaps to score domestic political points by appealing to foreign policy issues, rather 

makes Joseph McCarthy a much more apt term of comparison (Thompson, 2016). 

 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018 

116 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

4. Conclusion 

The current Republican Administration claims that individuals arriving from certain countries into the 

U.S. create economic burdens and higher security risks. Immigrants, the President argues, pose threats to 

law-abiding citizens, and damage the U.S. economy. It is not surprising that such a bleak portrait of 

immigration has led the Republican Administration to embrace both a restrictionist and a nativist stance, 

returning de facto to pre-1953 policies. However, evidence suggests that more open immigration 

strategies benefit U.S. economy and do not present increased security threats. Stringent screenings and 

vetting procedures are already in place, and they are highly effective.  

America must remember the debate that led to the approval of the Refugee Relief Act in 1953, and 

subsequent changes in Cold War immigration policies. While still acknowledging the domestic and 

international security risks posed by subversive individuals, the Eisenhower Administration welcomed 

those who fled from communist countries with the precise aim to fight communism itself. This 

projected an image of America that was strong, confident, and ready to work with foreign nationals to 

win the battle against its enemy in the Cold War. The Eisenhower Administration’s position on entry 

policies specifically suggests that terrorism could be defeated today by welcoming to the U.S. those 

who escape it, in order to fight alongside America against obscurantism and oppression in the name of 

liberal values. By receiving refugees from countries at risk, the U.S. could revamp its Cold War tradition, 

strengthen its internal unity and better confront foreign threats. 

Kerwin (2017) argues that the US immigration system ought to reflect liberal democratic values and an 

inclusive vision of national identity (p. 545). The driving principle behind the Eisenhower 

Administration policy debate that produced the Refugee Relief Act of 1953 seemed to do just that. It 

advocated for a more open America, a country that was stronger because it is able to project outwards its 

founding values, by embracing all those who came to share them. It found allies, not enemies, in those 

who escaped oppressive, illiberal political regimes and economic hardships to live out a fuller, better life 

in America.  

The debate on immigration entry policies and the related drafting of Executive Orders during Donald 

Trump’s presidency have taken America very far away from its Cold War tradition. The doctrine of 

American exceptionalism, which has traditionally belonged to conservatism and to the Republican Party 

since World War II, is contaminated by a return to restrictionism and nativism. However, Eisenhower’s 

work on the Refugee Relief Act shows that it is possible to reconcile the Republican ideal of a great 

America with a liberal, more open standing on immigration—an inclusive, rather than an exclusivist one.  

 

 

 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018 

117 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

References 

Alden, E. (2016). National Security and U.S. Immigration Policy. Journal of International and 

Comparative Law, 1(1), 19-30. 

American Civil Liberties Union. (31 August 2017). Darweesh v. Trump. Retrieved from 

https://www.aclu.org/cases/darweesh-v-trump 

Bier, D. (2018). Extreme Vetting of Immigrants: Estimating Terrorism Vetting Failures. In Policy 

Analysis 838. Washington, D.C.: Cato Institute. Retrieved from 

https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/extreme-vetting-immigrants-estimating-terroris

m-vetting-failures 

Bon Tempo, C. J. (2008). Americans at the Gate: The United States and Refugees during the Cold War. 

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.  

Brownley, J. (2017, February 2). Trump Immigration Executive Order. Congressional Record-House, 

H883. Retrieved from 

https://www.congress.gov/crec/2017/02/02/CREC-2017-02-02-pt1-PgH883.pdf 

Buff, R. I. (2008). Immigrant Rights in the Shadows of Citizenship. New York & London: New York 

University Press. 

Bush, J., McLarty, T. F., & Alden, E. H. (2009). U.S. Immigration Policy. In Independent Task Force 

Report, 63. New York: Council on Foreign Relations. 

Campi, A. J. (2004). The McCarran-Walter Act: A Contradictory Legacy on Race, Quotas, and 

Ideology. In Immigration Policy Briefs. Washington D.C.: Immigration Policy Center, American 

Immigration Law Foundation.  

Carruthers, S. L. (2005). Between Camps: Eastern Bloc “Escapees” and Cold War Borderland. 

American Quarterly, 57(3), 911-942. https://doi.org/10.1353/aq.2005.0043 

Cisek, J. (2006). Polish Refugees and the Polish American Immigration and Relief Committee. 

Jefferson, NC: McFarland. 

Clemens, M. (2011). Economics and emigration: Trillion-dollar bills on the sidewalk? Journal of 

Economic Perspectives, 25(3), 83-106. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.25.3.83 

Corsi, E. (1955, May 5). My Ninety Days in Washington. In Edward Corsi Papers (Box 29, pp. 10-17). 

Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University.  

Cortes, P. (2008). The Effect of Low-Skilled Immigration on U.S. Prices: Evidence from CPI Data. 

Journal of Political Economy, 116(3), 381-422. https://doi.org/10.1086/589756 

Curti, M. (1963). American Philanthropy Abroad. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. 

DeLaet, D. L. (2000). U.S. Immigration Policy in an Age of Rights. Westport, CT: Praeger. 

Dulles, J. F. (1983a). Memorandum by the Secretary of State to the President, 26 March 26, 1953. In W. 

Z. Slany (Ed.), Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952-1954, General: Economic and 

Political Matters (Vol. 1, No. 2, doc. 250, pp. 1624-1625). Washington, DC: United States 

Government Printing Office. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018 

118 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Dulles, J. F. (1983b). Memorandum by the Secretary of State to the President, July 17, 1953. In W. Z. 

Slany (Ed.), Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952-1954, General: Economic and Political 

Matters (Vol. 1, No. 2, doc. 253, p. 1630). Washington, DC: United States Government Printing 

Office.  

Eisenhower, D. D. (1983). Memorandum by the President to the Secretary of State, 20 July 1953. In W. 

Z. Slany (Ed.), Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952-1954, General: Economic and 

Political Matters (Vol. 1, No. 2, doc. 254). Washington, DC: United States Government Printing 

Office. 

Fetzer, J. S. (2000). Public Attitudes towards Immigration in the United States, France and Germany. 

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 

Fitzgerald, D. S. (2014). Culling the Masses. The Democratic Origins of Racist Immigration Policy in 

the Americas. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 

https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674369665 

Gerstle, G., & Mollenkopf, J. (2001). E Pluribus Unum? Contemporary and Historical Perspectives on 

Immigrant Political Incorporation. New York: Russell Sage.  

Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program. (2017, February). The Impact of President 

Trump’s Executive Orders on Asylum Seekers. Retrieved from 

https://today.law.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Report-Impact-of-Trump-Executive-Or

ders-on-Asylum-Seekers.pdf 

Henson, G. R. (2013). Refugee Relief Act (1953). In C. E. Cortés (Ed.), Multicultural America: A 

Multimedia Encyclopedia (pp. 1816-1817). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 

https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452276274.n734 

Immigration. The Real Issue is an Evil Law. (1955, April). Life, XXXVIII, 17. 

Jackson, C. D. (1953). The Special Assistant to the President (Jackson) to the Ambassador in Italy 

(Luce), 6 July 1953. In W. Z. Slany (Ed.), Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952-1954, 

Western Europe and Canada (Vol. 6, No. 2, doc. 749). Washington, DC: United States 

Government Printing Office. 

Kerwin, D. (2017). Moving Beyond Comprehensive Immigration Reform and Trump: Principles, 

Interests, and Policies to Guide Long-Term Reform of the US Immigration System. Journal for 

Migration Studies, 5(3), 541-576. https://doi.org/10.14240/jmhs.v5i3.98 

Kerwin, D., & Warren, R. (2017). National Interests and Common Ground in the US Immigration 

Debate: How to Legalize the US Immigration System and Permanently Reduce Its Undocumented 

Population. Journal on Migration and Human Security, 5(2), 297-330. 

https://doi.org/10.14240/jmhs.v5i2.86 

Kessler, G. (2017, January 29). Fact check: Trump’s claim that his refugee policy is similar to 

Obama’s in 2011. Chicago Tribune. Retrieved from 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/factcheck/ct-trump-refugee-policy-fact-



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018 

119 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

check-2011-20170129-story.html 

Kibria, N., Bowman, C., & O’Leary, M. (2014). Race and Immigration. London, UK: Polity. 

Linder, H. F. (1986). 1236-Refugees & DPs. Italian Desk Files, 56 (D 289). Notes on the Secretary’s 

Staff Meeting, 10 February 1953, 9:30 a.m.. In W. Z. Slany (Ed.), Foreign Relations of the United 

States, 1952-1954, Western Europe and Canada, (Vol. 6, No. 2, doc. 739). Washington, DC: 

United States Government Printing Office. 

Loescher, G., & Scanlan, J. A. (1986). Calculated Kindness: Refugees and America’s Half Open Door, 

1945-Present. New York, NY: The Free Press. 

Martin, S. F. (2011). A Nation of Immigrants. New York & Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University 

Press. 

Nowrasteh, A. (2016). Terrorism and Immigration: A Risk Analysis. In Policy Analysis 798. 

Washington, D.C.: Cato Institute. Retrieved from 

https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa798_1_1.pdf 

Ottaviano, G. I. P., & Peri, G. (2012). Rethinking the Effect of Immigration on Wages. Journal of the 

European Economic Association, 10(1), 152-197. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1542-4774.2011.01052.x 

Panduranga, H., Patel, F., & Price, M. W. (2017). Extreme Vetting and the Muslim Ban. Brennan 

Center for Justice, New York. Retrieved from 

https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/publications/extreme_vetting_full_10.2_0.pdf 

Pierce, S., & Selee, A. (2017). Immigration under Trump. A Review of Policy Shifts in the Year Since 

the Election. Migration Policy Institute, Policy Brief. Retrieved from 

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/publications/TrumpatOne-final.pdf 

Puddington, A. (2000). Broadcasting Freedom. The Cold War Triumph of Radio Free Europe and 

Radio Liberty. Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky. 

Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and Voice of America: Soft Power and the Free Flow of Information. 

(2009, July 23). Hearing before the Subcommittee on Europe of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, 

House of Representatives, One Hundred Eleventh Congress, first session. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Government Publishing Office. 

Refugee Relief. (1956). CQ Almanac 1955 (11th ed.). Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly 

Press. 

Rep. Celler Discusses New Immigration Bill with Eisenhower. (1953, March 25). Jewish Telegraph 

Archive. Retrieved from 

https://www.jta.org/1953/03/25/archive/rep-celler-discusses-new-immigration-bill-with-eisenhow

er 

Robbins, R. (1956). The Refugee Status: Challenge and Response. Law and Contemporary Problems, 

21(2), 311-333. https://doi.org/10.2307/1190506 

Rorty, J. (1955, October). Our Broken Promise to the Refugees: Unsmiling Goddess of Liberty. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018 

120 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Commentary, 20, 301-309. 

Rudolph, C. (2006). National Security and Immigration: Policy Development in the United States and 

Western Europe Since 1945. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 

Said-Moorhouse, L., & Browne, R. (2016, August 16). Donald Trump wants “extreme vetting” of 

immigrants. What is the US doing now? CNN Politics. Retrieved from 

https://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/16/politics/how-us-vets-immigrants-donald-trump-extreme-vetting/index.ht

ml 

Schrag, P. (2010). Not Fit for Our Society: Immigration and Nativism in America. Berkeley: University 

of California.  

Shanks, C. L. (2001). Whom to Exclude: The McCarran-Walter Act. In C. L. Shanks (Ed.), 

Immigration and the Politics of American Sovereignty, 1890-1990 (pp. 96-143). Ann Arbor: The 

University of Michigan Press. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.17363 

Thompson, J. (2016). Donald Trump’s Foreign Policy: McCarthyism as a Cautionary Tale. Center for 

Security Studies, ETH Zurich, Policy Perspectives.  

Trump, D. J. (2015a). Presidential Announcement Speech Transcript, 16 June 2015. In Time. Retreived 

from http://time.com/3923128/donald-trump-announcement-speech/ 

Trump, D. J. (2015b). Donald Trump Calls For “Complete Shutdown” of Muslim Entry to U.S., 

December 7, 2015. In Time. Retrieved from 

http://time.com/4139476/donald-trump-shutdown-muslim-immigration/ 

Trump, D. J. (2016a). National Security and Immigration Terrorism Speech Transcript, 15 August 2016. 

In Time. Retrieved from 

http://time.com/4453110/donald-trump-national-security-immigration-terrorism-speech/ 

Trump, D. J. (2016b). Immigration. Donald J Trump for President (Campaign website). Retrieved from 

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/immigration/ 

Trump, D. J. (2016c). Transcript of the Second Presidential Debate, October 10, 2016. In Time. 

Retrieved from http://time.com/4523325/read-the-transcript-of-the-second-presidential-debate/ 

Trump, D. J. (2016d). Meet the Press, July 24, 2016 (Video file). In NBC News. Retrieved from 

https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meet-press-july-24-2016-n615706 

Trump, D. J. (2017a). Remarks of President Donald J. Trump—As prepared for delivery. Inaugural 

Address, Friday, January 20, 2017. Washington, DC. Retrieved from 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/the-inaugural-address/ 

Trump, D. J. (2017b). Executive Order 13769 Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the 

United States of January 27, 2017. Federal Register, 82(20), 8977-8982. Retrieved from 

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2017-02-01/pdf/2017-02281.pdf 

Trump, D. J. (2017c). Executive Order 13780 Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the 

United States of March 6, 2017. Federal Register, 82(45), 13209-13219. Retrieved from 

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2017-03-09/pdf/2017-04837.pdf 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elp                   Economics, Law and Policy                        Vol. 1, No. 1, 2018 

121 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Trump, D. J. (2017d, October 8). President Donald J. Trump’s Letter to House and Senate Leaders & 

Immigration Principles and Policies. Retrieved from 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trumps-letter-house-senate-le

aders-immigration-principles-policies/ 

U.S. Congress Senate Committee on the Judiciary. (1955). Investigation into the Administration of the 

Refugee Relief Act. In Hearings, 84th Congress. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing 

Office. 

Woods, J., & Arthur, C. D. (2017). Debating Immigration in the Age of Terrorism, Polarization, and 

Trump. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. 

Woolley, J. T., & Peters, G. (2009). Harry S. Truman, Statement on Report “Whom We Shall 

Welcome”. Commission on Immigration and Naturalization. 5 January 1953. In The American 

Presidency Project. University of California, Santa Barbara. Retreived from 

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=14377 

Young, J. G. (2017). Making America 1920 Again? Nativism and US Immigration, Past and Present. 

Journal for Migration Studies, 5(1), 217-235. https://doi.org/10.14240/jmhs.v5i1.81 

Zolberg, A. R. (1995). From Invitation to Interdiction: US Foreign Policy and Immigration since 1945. 

In M. S. Teitelbaum, & M. Weiner (Eds.), Threatened Peoples, Threaten Borders: World 

Migration and U.S. Policy (pp. 117-159). New York: W. W. Norton. 

Zolberg, A. R. (2009). A Nation by Design: Immigration Policy in the Fashioning of America. 

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 

Zucker, N. L., & Zucker, N. F. (1992). From Immigration to Refugee Redefinition: A History of 

Refugee and Asylum Policy in the United States. Journal of Policy History, 4(1), 54-70. 

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0898030600006503 

  

 


