1277 



reflects this attitude of indifference. In 1973, Secretary of HEW Wein- 

 berger told Congress, "I don't think in and of itself" that utilizing 

 FMGs to meet American medical manpower demands '^is necessarily a 

 bad thing." Weinberger, who did not know the number of FMGs in 

 the United States, saw nothing "morally reprehensible" in this prac- 

 tice, even though he was reminded by Dr. Koy, a practicing physician 

 and Member of Congress, that "we are stealing these physicians from 

 other nations around the world who need them desperately." ''^^ 



On both the popular and official level there appears to be little in- 

 terest in reducing the "pull" factors that on this side have helped to 

 prevent a solution to brain drain from the LDCs. 



Dilemma in Restricting Immigration. — What adds to the difficulty 

 of diminishing the "pull" factors is the dilemma inherent to restrict- 

 ing immigration, namely, the U.S. commitment to the principle of 

 free immigration. Remedying brain drain would require selective re- 

 strictions that are incompatible with this principle.'^^^ 



By political philosophy the United States is committed to the prin- 

 ciple of free movement of people, an idea which, as Frankel said, 

 lias an "ancient pedigree in the history of free civilization." ^^^ This 

 principle was reinforced by the Immigration Law of 1965 that did 

 away with the discriminatory quota system. The United States does 

 exercise the right to regulate the inflow of immigrants and thus as- 

 signs quotas for various areas of the world. But this is not discrimina- 

 tory in the same sense as was the pre-1965 law. Given present medical 

 manpower conditions, were the United States to attempt through legis- 

 lation or regulation to close off selectively the flow of physicians and 

 surgeons from India and the Philippines, for example, the major 

 sources of medical brain drain, it would invite a renewed charge of 

 discrimination against Asians and more important it would violate 

 its professed democratic principle of the right of free movement of 

 peoples."^" 



'1^ HearinRP, House, Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, Oversight 0/ HEW 

 Health Programs, 1973, pp. 53 and .55. 



'1* Brain drain specialists generally are opposed to stringent immigration regulations as 

 a remedy. Dr. Adams declared that wealthy nations were "under no ol)ligation to stop train- 

 ing foreign students." The world should not be denied, he said, "potential slsllls just because 

 their bearers happen to have been born in the wrong place at the wrong time." Such people, 

 Adams declared, should be permitted "to compete for rewards and opportunities on the 

 0!)en marl<et." To him, freedom of movement was "essential to the expression of talent, and 

 its curtailment to any significant degree would be a global tragedy." (Adams, "Talent That 

 Won't Stay Put," p. 84.) 



The CIMT study stated that it was "most difficult" for advanced countries to decide the 

 effects of migration on the LDCs and "to fit general immigration poliry to the presumed 

 needs" of the LDCs. The authors of this study believed that if the LDCs perceived that 

 migration was harming them and that this injury should be reduced by controlling the 

 movement of people, then "it is their primary obligation to design, install, and operate the 

 appropriate m.easures." The study concluded that the imposition of stringent controls by 

 the developed countries was not a'proper policy. (CIMT study, p. 718.) 



Dr. Frankel indicated his belief that remedies through the immigration mechanism which 

 imposed "restraints on the free movement of people should be approaf'hed with the greatest 

 caution. Not only has this Idea an ancient pedigree in the history of free civilization, but 

 there is something to be said on the practical side as well for the social utility of interna- 

 tional competition for talent." Statutory changes or administrative restrictions that would 

 hamper the free movement of people were in Frankel's view "mistaken." The problem 

 deserved "our best efforts," Frankel said, but he cautioned that "it is too complex and many- 

 sided to be handled by broad ccfdes or rules." He observed that in some aspects "no showing 

 has been made that it is a problem at all," and he concluded that "we have too much to 

 gain" overall — so do "our fellows in other countries" — from the process of "mutual educa- 

 tion and exchange that goes with the free movement of people." (Hearings, Senate 

 Judiciary Committee, International Migration of Talent and Skills, 19(58, pp. 18 and 21.) 



"» Ibid. 



720 Secretary Weinberger posed the dilemma Inherent In preventing FJIG Inflows through 

 restrictive Immigration regulations. When pressed by Rep. Symington to deny that, "We 

 often take these people against the wishes of their home government and certainly against 

 the needs of their people," he responded : "Well, Is the suggestion. Congressman, to say we 

 will turn them back and sav. 'We will not permit yon to practice in this country desnlte your 

 own wishes?'" (Hearings," House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, Oversight 

 of HEW Health Programs, 1973, p. 57.) 



