A Cool and Wary Reception

The final U.S. act in the Viet Nam drama threatened to divide Americans deeply. For the most part, they applauded their Government's efforts to save refugees' lives. But they reacted warily and skeptically, blending legitimate economic concerns with ugly racist and xenophobic fears, to news that thousands of refugees would be brought to the U.S. Of 1,491 adults questioned recently by the Gallup poll, only 36% thought that the refugees should be permitted to live in the U.S.; 54% said that they should be kept out.

The public hostility stemmed in part from confusion over how many refugees there were (estimate at week's end: about 120,000) and what would happen to them. The situation was further complicated by a vitriolic fight between Congress and the White House over a bill to aid the refugees. President Gerald Ford urged the House to rush through a $327 million aid package that had cleared the Senate a week earlier. The bill had originally been intended to authorize the use of U.S. troops in removing Americans and some endangered Vietnamese from South Viet Nam, as well as pay for the evacuation and provide aid for the refugees. The troop provision, of course, had been outdated by events, and Ford assured Congress that it would never be used.

A largely Democratic majority of House members, however, was reluctant to set an unnecessary precedent that might extend presidential warmaking powers; the bill was defeated by a vote of 246 to 162. Ford was outraged and declared that the vote reflected "fear and misunderstanding, rather than charity and compassion." He demanded that Congress act quickly on a new aid bill, arguing that "to do otherwise would be a repudiation of the finest principles and traditions of America."

There was little doubt that Congress would eventually appropriate money for the refugees, possibly even the $500 million that State Department officials estimate will be needed over the next year. But the fight between Ford and Congress helped fuel a growing controversy across the nation over how far the U.S. obligation to the Vietnamese refugees extended. As the first planeloads of refugees reached resettlement centers in the U.S. (see box next page), TIME correspondents found that most Americans were torn between a natural desire to help the war victims and fears, often greatly exaggerated, that they would add to U.S. economic and social problems. The dilemma of Mark Romagnoli of

Manchester, N.H., a researcher for the state legislature, was typical. Said he: "I can't make up my mind. There are so many people here at home who need aid, and we've given so much away to outsiders. But then I also feel that we're responsible for what happened to the refugees, so we ought to help them."

Racial Prejudice. In letters and telephone calls to public officials, many people urged that little or no help be given to the refugees. Some opposition was clearly based on racial prejudice. Republican Representative Burt Talcott of California reported some feeling among his constituents "that, damn it, we have too many Orientals." Declared John Follmer, a St. Louis house painter: "They couldn't fight their own war, so the hell with them. Let them stay in their own country." Said David Collins, a veteran of the war who now teaches political science at Georgia State University: "Viet Nam seems a long way away to me now and I don't think we want to be reminded of it."

Much of the opposition was based on fears that the U.S. would have difficulty in absorbing all of the Vietnamese. The State Department tried to persuade other countries to accept some of the refugees but met with little success. To calm American apprehension, officials argued that about a quarter of the Vietnamese would be joining relatives already in the U.S., and that only about a third would eventually want jobs, adding infinitesimally to the country's present army of unemployed.

Immigration officials could not even estimate how many of the refugees spoke English, had marketable job skills and could be readily assimilated. As a result, many Americans were still convinced that the refugees might become a costly and unjustifiable burden on U.S. social services. Declared Ralph Siverson, a druggist in Hendricks, Minn.: "If they can pay their way, it's great. But we don't owe them an unemployment check." Asked Judith Chan, an accountant in Marin County, Calif: "What are these people going to do to our taxes and welfare rolls?"

Some opposition to the resettlement program came from liberals who might have been expected to back an open-door policy. Margery Swann, an employee of the American Friends Service Committee, felt U.S. aid might be better spent in Viet Nam. Said she: "What we hope is that the refugees here, when they see things calm down over there, will go home to rebuild their lives."

A few former opponents of the war worried about the political alignment of the refugees. Philip Weber, a member of Boston's Indochina Peace Campaign, feared that many refugees would become active in right-wing politics and that some would serve as "the next generation of CIA agents in Asia, just as the Cubans were in Latin America."

Softened Attitude. It seemed probable, however, that opposition would dwindle as Americans learned more about the refugees. That seemed to be happening in the communities near the refugee resettlement centers: Camp Pendleton, Calif.; Fort Chaffee, Ark.; and Eglin Air Force Base, Fla. All three areas have high unemployment rates (14% in Florida), and residents feared at first that the bulk of the refugees would be settled permanently in their communities.

Apprehensions eased after the State Department promised that the Vietnamese would be dispersed throughout the country. At week's end, residents' attitudes had softened and many were contributing blankets and clothing for refugees. Moreover, many people near the camps look forward to temporary economic benefits from the refugees. Aides to Arkansas Senator Dale Bumpers reported that the resettlement program would pump about $10 per refugee per day into the Fort Chaffee area economy.

In the end, most Americans seemed likely to agree that for moral reasons the U.S. had no choice but to help the refugees. Said Political Scientist Wesley Fishel of Michigan State University: "Whether we bring them here to this country or find places for them to settle elsewhere, that's irrelevant. If we lose our compassionate touch with helping mankind, we'll lose a part of our tradition." There were also more practical arguments in favor of helping the refugees make new lives for themselves in the U.S. Said Democratic Representative Thomas E. Morgan, chairman of the House International Relations Committee: "What are we going to do? Throw them back into the water? Now that they are here we have to take care of them."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.