CAB129-45 — Page 367

8

Future Proposals Page 367 of 587

5. The Southern Rhodesian Government are at present examining the subject of immigration with a view to a possible restriction of immigrants from the Union of South Africa and it is understood that they are inclined to favour the extension of the quota system. They do not feel that they could apply it to the Union alone of Commonwealth countries and it would therefore have to extend to all immigrants from Commonwealth countries except the United Kingdom; the intention is that there should not be any quota limitation on immigration from the United Kingdom. If criticised by the Union the quota system could be justified by the argument that the Union itself operates such a system and on the ground of the general desirability of creating stability among the European population within Southern and Central Africa.

6. The extension of a quota system of the kind now contemplated by the Southern Rhodesian Government to the other Central African territories appears to be the best way of dealing with this problem of Afrikaner immigration and also the most effective way of relating immigration to the absorptive capacity of the territories. There are two main reasons for this view. Other systems have been tried elsewhere and have not proved a success. Nyasaland, for example, has been working legislation on the East African model, under which a person can be refused entry not only if he is shown to fall within the strictly limited class of prohibited immigrants, but also if his entry can be shown to be prejudicial to the interests of the existing inhabitants of the territory. This is difficult to establish except in the case of individual immigrants or persons in particular professions and it could not be used effectively to keep out persons of any given race such as Afrikaners without attracting embarrassing attention. Similar legislation was introduced into the Northern Rhodesian Legislative Council over twelve months ago, but has never been passed owing to the opposition of some elected members. A second argument in favour of the quota system is that it enables a Government to operate an immi- gration policy to determine the composition of its population in the most positive manner which can be devised.

7. If a quota system is to be adopted for dealing with this matter in Central Africa, it will be much more effective if operated on a federal basis for the whole area than if each territorial Government has to operate it separately. First, a single quota structure is easier to operate than three separate systems. Secondly, it is useless for the Southern or Northern Rhodesian Government to limit Afrikaner immigration if the other Government is not taking the same action, since movement between the territories is not easy to control. Thirdly, since Union-born immigrants cannot be excluded altogether, the operation of a single Central African quota would make it easier to reduce the influx of Afrikaners into those parts of the territories where further settlement is not desired by counting against the full quota those Afrikaners at present essential to the economy of certain limited areas. For example, a certain number of Union-born immigrants are essential at present to the working of the Copperbelt; this necessary immigration counting against a limited quota should of itself do much to cut down the number of Union-born immigrants to be admitted to other parts of Central Africa. Fourthly, it would be easier politically for a Central African Federal Government to impose and operate a quota system than for Colonial Governments in respect of which His Majesty's Govern- ment in the United Kingdom still exercise full responsibility. Finally, Northern Rhodesia alone would have great difficulty in operating a quota system against Afrikaners in view of their increasing influence in that territory.

8. For these reasons it has been recommended in the Conference Report that immigration should be a federal responsibility. In making this recommendation public it would be important to emphasise, as the Report does, that immigration policy and regulation is quite distinct from land settlement policy, which under the recommendations in the Report would remain a territorial responsibility. The alienation of land would be controlled by the authority responsible for land settle- ment (i.e., the territorial Government) and not by the authority responsible for immigration.

Page 367

Page 367

CONFIDENTIAL